Amrut Fusion

For an experienced and normally brilliant reviewer to give the Fusion a "94" is patently absurd. I feel let down by that review especially.

I can understand your frustration, rigmorole, I was not blown away by it either when I tasted it about a year ago (84 points in my book). So I, too, find it to be quite overrated. But... what about putting up some real tasting notes? What was the nose like, how would you rate the palate?

I will put up tasting notes tomorrow. Frankly, I've written about 80 tasting notes in the past year and I'm burned out on writing tasting notes. But I will do it. You're right about my half assed "tasting notes" for this whisky. Tru dat.

Please keep it going. I always like reading your notes.

Batch variation here. Three batches I've tried were like 3 different whiskies. The best was otherworldly good, the worst was not something I'd ever want to buy or own. I've been scared to buy a bottle of Amrut Fusion ever since that first bad sample from @dbk's bottle. For me it's hard to lay my money down when I am not at all sure what's going to be in the bottle. It is even worse when you've had something ungodly good with that name on it once, and THIS THING YOU HAVE NOW BOUGHT is not it.

I am glad you posted this, because I was very close to a purchase-- but I will not be taking the risk, now.

I'd like to make that point more strongly (out into cyberspace...): THIS IS WHY REPRODUCIBILITY MATTERS FOR BRAND. A vocal segment of reviewers on this website often implies that buyers should not expect consistency in fine whisky products, extolling the virtues of single cask bottlings. This mentality makes sense for consumers who see only the upside (or are risk-prone). The downside must also exist, logically, and is exactly the reason for this review. As @Victor referenced, his own stated ratings for this one label have a standard deviation of almost 11. That is too poor for the products to have the same branding/label.

I'm all in support of that Utopia involving educated consumers and wonderful variations of different casks. But then the different bottlings need different labels, and the price-levels should be proportional to batch quality.

@vanPelt, the bad bottle is quite a quandary for the whisky aficionado. There is no easy way for any of us who buy a bottle here and there to have any real knowledge as to how common the "off" bottle or batch is within a given brand. For us, a bad bottle is a 100% failure which leaves a deep mark. It may be that those bad bottles may be relatively rare or they may be common...we just do not know. But, as an individual for whom each experience is highly valued 'once burned, twice shy'.

So yes, absolutely, good predictiblity of quality, if not identical flavours, is quite important for the reputation of any commercial spirits product...and one of the main reasons we read and write whisky reviews.

And, @rigmorole, that 94 rated review may have been quite true to that reviewer's experience...I've had Fusion I would have rated a point or two higher even than 94...but the totality of the experiences of many reviewers paints a picture which is broader than the review of any one sample. This is why I like the Connosr Top 50 rated whisky statistics. If a whisky makes it to an average 89+ rating, including all of the outlier experiences and sentiments, not only are crank reviewers factored in, but bad bottles are included as well. To hold up for all of those ratings and reviews testifies strongly to consistency of quality.

I'm sorry you did't like your Fusion. I've only tasted it from one or two bottles and always enjoyed it. The Portonova is very different. I would expect that there have been fewer batches of it (is it even still being produced?) so less likely to find a bad one, given all the great reviews. But if you don't want to take the risk, I'm sure you can find a dozen or hundred people willing to relieve you of your burden..

Rigamarole, even if you don't do full notes, please give a snapshot of what you expected v. what you found.

Okay I was too busy today. Will do before Christmas. I will post it as a separate review if I go to the trouble of tasting and comparing Fusion with other reviews that prompted me to buy the bottle. I will not name the names of reviewers, however. Merely their feedback that I disagree with. And this said, it's not a terrible scotch at all. It's just not a strong scotch worthy of the price tag, IMO. Now, if as Victor says, the bottle vary, that would go far to explain my disappointment and also the other higher reviews. If I had paid $65-70 for the scotch, I would not be complaining. Also, if it was up to the standards some folks have mentioned, I would not be complaining.

Correction: I know the Amrut is not technically a "scotch." Typo. It's late at night here in my corner of the world. I'm tuckered out, ready for some shut eye

Too bad Rigmorole spent $85 because here in Florida I picked it up for $47 and am quite pleased with it. At 50% ABV, it opens up nicely with a tsp or 2 of water. I detect notes of wood, oats and vanilla. I would score it in the high 80s.

That price is a steal. Well done, Newkophile. I applaud your good fortune