Glenmorangie X

Given my tendency for lengthy reviews, I often feel compelled to begin with a statement like, "This will be my shortest review ever." I have the urge to do the same here, but we'll see. Glenmorangie X. Several thoughts arise. It reminds me of a Friday the 13th film set in space, an attempt to innovate due to a lack of fresh ideas. It should have been bad, and it's somewhat disappointing, yet it's also strangely enjoyable. It's superior to what many tenth installments in a franchise ought to be. But then again, how many series reach the tenth entry? Perhaps this was an attempt at a trendy rebranding of the Glenmorangie 10. Glenmorangie X! Is that why they flipped the order and placed X Glenmorangie on the label? To avoid potential lawsuits if they called it Glenmorangie X? Despite this, the distillery's listing still presents it that way, though the bottle itself reads, X by Glenmorangie. "Made for Mixing." It even includes a booklet of basic cocktail recipes attached with a rubber band. Things like Scotch and tonic? Did we really need a recipe for that? So, it appears this review won't be brief after all. Go ahead, sue me! Upon reading other assessments, I see I'm not alone in questioning the value proposition: why purchase this for $36 when the 10-year is $40? Of course, the 10-year now retails for $45, but it frequently goes on sale for $40, so one simply waits for the previous retail price. However, this is intended for mixing and positioned as an introductory spirit for those unfamiliar with Scotch? Alright, but why not Monkey Shoulder? It's been some time since I last sampled Monkey Shoulder, but their profiles share similarities, leaning towards citrus and cream. So, while I appreciate the effort, the only way I'd acquire this bottle was through a clearance sale at 50% off, bringing the price down to $18.50. At that price, it's a fantastic deal. If Glenmorangie could offer this for $20, it would sell out instantly! The reason? It's straightforward yet flavorful. The aroma presents oranges blended with marshmallows. The taste is like an alcoholic creamsicle. The finish offers a slightly dry but ultimately brief graham cracker sweetness. At 80 proof, it lacks body and a substantial mouthfeel, but at $20, that wouldn't be a major drawback. At $36, I can't help but feel there are superior uses for your money. At $20, this would truly perform well for its cost. I haven't tried it in a mixed drink yet; like many, I evaluate the spirit on its own merits. Are we missing the point? When mixing single malt with the concept of mixing, the signals get crossed. This was always a risky endeavor. Did it pay off? I don't believe so at the suggested retail price. This is a clearance whisky, through and through.

A single malt designed for cocktails? Glenmorangie appears to have a persistent fascination with experimentation, exploring various cask finishes, roasted barleys, unconventional maturation environments, and even NFTs. One of their more surprising ventures is this Glenmorangie "X," intended for global cocktail consumption. It's not excessively expensive and is suited for serving with ample ice in a bar setting. I felt compelled to review it, naturally sampling it neat, as dictated by whisky tradition. It's bottled at 40% ABV and possesses an amber hue. The nose offers notes of peachy syrup, cotton candy, and pineapple, followed by corn flakes, bananas, and a fruit salad aroma, with hints of milk chocolate. Not unpleasant. The palate, however, isn't its strongest suit, presenting pineapple, peaches, and sweetened milk. The characteristic tropical orange notes of Glenmorangie are present, along with a touch of hay. The finish is where it falters, exhibiting spicy pepper, saltiness, a very dry character, and a brief duration. Overall, I understand how this could excel in a cocktail, and I also grasp why they aren't marketing this single malt for neat consumption. It's a below-average whisky, not bad, and superior to most spirits used in mixed drinks. It's an inexpensive and easily drinkable option; my rating is 76 out of 100.

Appearance: A pale golden color, similar to a medium IPA. Nose: Citrus! Orange peel dominated my senses once I noticed it; fresh clementine, caramel candy, and sweet orange candy were also present. Palate: Light and subtle at first, but the mid-palate opens up with sweet orange candy and ripe stone fruit, along with caramel hard candies as it approaches the back. There might also be some toastier wood and sweet oak notes underneath. Finish: A slight warmth goes down, but a vague medicinal taste takes over, followed by more caramel candy, and then something resembling tobacco. Overall: I'm not a Scotch whisky expert, far from it, but this is tasty enough on its own. I can see it adding all the right flavors to any drink requiring a single malt. It's very mixable, though perhaps just a bit light in body and proof to hold its own in a complex drink. High marks from me for its clear intended use. Surprisingly pleasant to sip. 3.5 (Experimenting with a more concise format for spirits outside my usual area.)

I've criticized this before due to its price being so close to the 10-year version, making it questionable why one would buy it. Coincidentally, I found this on sale for $24, so I decided to give it a try. I've encountered many reviews stating "can't drink this straight/terrible neat/only for mixing." I can assure you that if you prefer your scotch neat, this is perfectly drinkable. Is it exceptional?...no, but it's certainly better than numerous poor-quality grain blends. The nose is mild with malty orange, subtle barrel influence, and a hint of baking spice. This profile carries through to the palate with sweet malty orange and toasted oak. It lacks depth or richness, and the finish is quite flat and brief. I understand the idea of mixing this, but again, its regular price is close to the 10-year, which is superior in every way, so what's the point? It's not a terrible malt as some suggest, just somewhat insignificant.........76/100........drinkable, but the 10-year, Monkey, Naked, and others are better.

I love Glenmorangie. And I'm very pleased they are heavily marketing this as “made for mixing.” Otherwise, I would consider this a failure compared to the excellent products they usually release. To be clear, this is not a good single malt for sipping neat, but with a little water, it transforms from cloyingly sweet and thick like a flytrap into drinkable budget scotch. Glenmorangie, you remain my top choice, and I understand this product wasn't intended for me. I'll stick with my Lasanta, my yearly special releases, and my Signet. I feel rather bad rating a Glenmorangie so low, but I hope Dr. Lumsden knows I would still gladly listen to him lecture on the chemistry of whiskey for hours.

As others have noted, this is definitely not intended for neat consumption. I took a small sip on its own and won't repeat that mistake. I'm now trying it in ginger ale as a highball, and it's still not particularly appealing. It has a peculiar, unidentifiable aftertaste that is quite off-putting. I acquired this bottle, along with a Sagamore Cask Strength, Sagamore Moscatel finish, and a bottle of Schwartzhog, for $85 from a closing liquor store. I believe I paid $15 for the Glenmorangie, so at least I don't feel like I wasted my money, as I'll use it as intended for mixing. 4/20/22