Glenlivet Founder's Reserve

I've now come across 2 people who like this.

@Nozinan Am I one of the 2? I don't know if I'd say I like this, but I don't hate it. I'd probably rate it 75-77 points. Passable. I'd drink it if it were offered, but would not spend my own money on it.

I gotta say, it looks pretty tasty on ice there.

Ha ha, thanks for liking the picture, MadSingleMalt. I gotta say I don't understand all the loath this scotch gets: is it perfect? No it isn't, but it isn't terrible either. In the review it's stated that the nose is quite mild and the end rather boozy, which are obvious flaws, but also that grain aromas and tannins from the first fill casks are noticeable, which fall on the good side. So not the best but, certainly not the worst.

So, this one is better than Springbank 10 100 proof?

RikS, they're more or less the same rating, but each one is a different style. The big problem (to me) with the Springbank 100 proof is the kick it gives you and how boozy it is: it's unbalanced. On the other side, this one is mild, so they're actually opposites and not so comparable. If it makes you happier, I'll take one point away from this one so they're exactly the same rating.

@huineman Thank you. And I hope - god forbid - that you didn't take my question as a criticism or questioning your rating, certainly not intended as such. On the contrary, I find the reviews on here very helpful to both steer towards or away from certain expressions, and having a 'comparable' understanding of peoples' reviews and taste help me in this respect. So, someone who likes, say, Kilkerran better than Farclas 15 probably generally appreciates the 'salty tang' in a whisky more than I do - and that helps me find my way better too.

@RikS Ratings are inherently subjective. And it takes some time to “get to know” any particular reviewer’s scale. For example, @markjedi rates lower (in general) than I do. No big deal. He’s got a much wider “tasting experience” than I do....By reading his assessments and adding 3-4 points, I often get something close to what I would score that whisky.....if our tastes converge on that particular expression. Which it doesn’t always. Clear as mud, right? I also know that I can rely on @Victor ‘s assessments of bourbon to match my own pretty closely about 80% of the time. If he likes or loves a bourbon, I’d probably buy it blind.

@OdysseusUnbound

3?

I was thinking of the person who tweeted a picture of it in response to the prospect of a three hour OMA session on renewal...

You probably have a good idea of the style of whisky I like. As a non-supertaster I can rarely find subtlety in a 40% whisky. This one is NAS, coloured, filtered, and served so weak... what I CAN taste is not in my wheelhouse at all. I would sooner drink a glass of water.

There is only a certain amount of alcohol that we can consume without risk of brain damage, liver damage, heart damage or risk of addiction. I would like to think that as a rule we (Connosr members and enthusiasts) do our best to stay within that limit.

For some, tolerance is higher. For others, like me, tolerance is lower.

So for people like me, when we ingest alcohol, it has to be worth it, and we have to make every dram count. So unless it's to broaden my experience (ie a one-off), I won't reach for something like this.

Give me A'Bunadh or give me... (insert appropriate word here)

@Nozinan Lambertus????

The Master Distillers Reserve was doo-doo. I thought this was an even lower tier than that.

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen anyone rate this as an 86 point whisky. The standard 12 is better and it would be lucky to make 80. For me this one would be lucky to score 76. That said, a chaque un son gout(sp) @huineman, and you know what you like.