Chivas Regal 12 Year

Upon inheriting an old Chivas 12, discovered it was mostly full despite being over a decade past its bottling date. This suggests a profile closer to a Chivas 25, though not officially. The aroma presents a sharp, alcoholic, waxy quality with faint caramel malt notes. A pleasant waxy layer is present, but other elements are scarce, with the alcohol being quite pronounced on the nose. In contrast, the palate is unexpectedly intricate and well-balanced, featuring sweet, rich malty toffee, countered by smoke, black pepper, ginger, cinnamon, clove, bold vanilla, and subtle woody undertones. It's complex and smooth, with a surprising fullness. This complexity likely stems from extended air exposure in the bottle, enhancing flavors beyond what one might expect from a 12-year-old scotch. A hint of charred wood is noticeable but not overpowering, and there's a complete absence of sulfur. The finish is clean, retaining malty caramel notes, mild woody undertones with spices, and vanilla. A thin layer of clean, mineral water follows. Overall, the finish is perfectly acceptable but rather unexciting. This spirit is exceptionally approachable and easy to drink, quite good in fact. It significantly surpasses The Sexton (9/23). While McIvor 17 (16/23) offers a more mature, decadent character, this bottling is more complex and equally balanced. Between the two, this one is preferred, with a more pronounced malt presence. The McIvor has a touch more heat, while this exhibits a bit more ethanol flavor; they are very close. It seems unlikely to score above a 17, but initial expectations were much lower, perhaps a 12. Bladnoch 17 California Red Wine Cask Finish (17/23) provides a more adventurous and unique experience but lacks the balance and complexity of this Chivas. Though the two are comparable, this one is considered superior. Initially thought to be a 17, it might even reach an 18 or 19. Glen Grant 18 (17/23) is brighter, with more pronounced floral, woody, vanilla, and bourbon notes that feel more vibrant. This expression offers a richer, oilier decadence, albeit somewhat subdued compared to the Glen Grant. These two are remarkably similar, making a definitive choice difficult. It's possible to argue for this one being slightly better, potentially an 18, but currently, it stands at a 17. This is an exceptional score for a Chivas 12, likely due to the significant positive impact of prolonged air exposure, defying expectations of bitterness or dilution over time.

My internet connection failed today, which is quite frustrating for someone who works in tech. No fishing due to unusual weather. What else is there to do? Naturally, a Scotch whisky tasting! Today, I'm focusing on three interesting and affordably priced 12-year-old blends. Let's examine each one. The aroma of Old Parr is earthy, with notes of rich wildflower honey, soil, ripe apples and pears, and an overlay of oxidized sherry. Buchanan's is lighter, with distinct notes of butterscotch candy, apple skins, strawberries, and a hint of lemon. Chivas is the most delicate of the three. It features notes of Granny Smith apple, dry autumn fields, fresh berries, and dry grain. On the palate, these are strong contenders. I haven't had Chivas since perhaps the last century. Let's consider this a new experience for me. Light apple skins, honey, and barley grain create a subtle sip. Sherry fruits appear in the mid-palate. The finish is brief. It's quite approachable. Buchanan's is a regular in my selection. It sits between Dewar's 12 (a close companion) and Johnnie Walker Black, both of which are also frequently in my rotation. These are my reliable 'Rob Roy' choices. Dependable and satisfying. Buchanan's has a richer mouthfeel than Chivas, with slightly more intense flavor. They seem quite similar, and it would be difficult to distinguish them if tasted separately. Old Parr is even richer. A creamier mouthfeel is accompanied by a hint of smoke, raw honey, and echoes of Spanish sherry. Absolutely delightful. What's the conclusion? These are all more than acceptable whiskies and are competitively priced. I can't imagine anyone tasting these three and disliking any of them. They are all quite good! If I had to choose, my favorite today would be Old Parr. That's simply where my palate is leading me at the moment. Tomorrow, it could easily be one of the others. I'm pleased to have them all in my collection. Cheers!

While at the Perth airport's first class lounge, preparing for a six-week journey, I hoped for more whisky choices for pre-flight sampling. The options were Jameson and Chivas 12. Oh well, it's time to review this classic staple. Nose: Surprisingly soft and delicate. Vanilla and creamy toffee form the main profile, accented by light touches of gentle oak, banana, and malt, with a faint herbal note of aniseed and spice. Palate: A bit thin with a slightly noticeable spirit. It's very banana-forward, yet complemented by a substantial barley presence. A mildly oaky-spiced caramel emerges with a weak nutty-oily texture. Overall, quite unremarkable. Finish: Medium length. A peppery heat, with coconut-banana flavored barley sugar. Considering it's essentially a bottom-shelf spirit, there are no unwelcome surprises. The palate and finish reflect the price point, offering a faint and generic hit of mass-produced malt with simple barrel influence. The nose, however, is pleasantly surprising with a touch of subtlety and depth beyond its low cost. [No rock in this picture. A friend tells me airport security wouldn't appreciate a “travel rock” in my carry-on].

Lille - December 2024 - Casino - Blackjack table Appearance: Pale golden Nose: Honey and alcohol, like a bad game of whisky. First taste: Industrial honey with no distinct flavors. Second taste: Alcoholic. Third taste: Slightly peppery. This is a very average whiskey, lacking primary aromas and flavors to excite my palate, which is looking to be refreshed after yesterday's Cognac bottle and nocturnal frenzy... A mediocre, uninteresting whiskey. A bad hangover... It's been many years since I played blackjack; may the ancient gods be with me and bless my cards... After two hours of play, I doubled my bet and encountered some completely reckless young players who made me laugh a lot. Like an old monkey watching young marmosets jump frantically from branch to branch instead of climbing calmly with the agility of a winter monkey, I watched the fervor of youth burn its wings on the cold reality of statistics. Lots of laughter, chips, and money... Life is sweet, too bad this whiskey is of poor quality.

Review #22 - Whisk(e)y #14 Nose: sweet, honey, vanilla, grain, malt, oak, a hint of spice... and perhaps some underlying orchard fruit like red apples. Palate: More grain than malt, dominant spice, some underlying sweetness, honey, vanilla, woody, and oaked. The second sip seemed to have more malt. Finish: short to medium, dry and oaky (perhaps also suggesting a touch of smoke), some fresh green notes, with a bitter note at the end. Compared to Chivas Regal 18, this one is less balanced, with the spice being too prominent overall and definitely not as rich or heavy, with less malt influence and fewer distinct notes on the palate. Chivas 18 is clearly a significant improvement. Rating System: 5.0 - Perfect 4.5 - Exceptional 4.0 - Very Good 3.5 - Good 3.0 - Decent 2.5 - Average 2.0 - Below Average 1.5 - Barely Drinkable 1.0 - Undrinkable 0.5 - JB

Chivas Regal 12-year-old whisky presents a rich and appealing aroma, with hints of caramel, milk chocolate, and honeycomb. While the initial taste is smooth and pleasant, it lacks the complexity and depth that some whisky aficionados seek. The finish is short, offering a mild sweetness of caramel and milk chocolate. It's best enjoyed neat, allowing the flavors to fully develop without dilution from mixers or cocktails. If you're considering this whisky, I recommend waiting for a sale or a price reduction to around $20. Alternatively, you might explore Johnnie Walker Black, Haig Dimple 15-year-old, or Naked Grouse, all excellent choices offering better value at a similar price point.