Haig Gold Label

I received a sample of this blended Scotch from the 1940s as an extra from the SDT group. I was quite eager to try something from such a distant past. The bottle actually used the older imperial proofing system, specifically 70 degrees proof, which corresponds to 40% ABV. I'm unsure if coloring was added or if it underwent chill filtering (was that common practice then?). It possesses a deep amber hue that appears quite natural. The aroma is somewhat unusual. It differs significantly from contemporary styles, though not necessarily in a negative way. It presents rich, dark, roasted characteristics. Burnt caramel and roasted Brazil nuts are evident, alongside vanilla and crème brûlée, coffee, and a subtle hint of wood smoke. Dark sherry and dates are also present. There's a faint, but pleasant, tar/rubber/creosote scent. Caramel apples and a touch of sulfur, which is surprisingly agreeable. Subtle oak notes emerge towards the end, along with a hint of citrus. The palate is rich and echoes the nose. Dark caramel, crème brûlée, vanilla, and dark sherry dominate. There's a peaty quality that reminds me of Laphroaig or perhaps Bowmore. It's not what I anticipated, but I find it appealing. Some molasses adds a rounding element. The body is light to medium, with a smooth, albeit watery, mouthfeel. Regrettably, the finish is brief, primarily featuring sherry with a trace of peat smoke. This blend is markedly different from current offerings. It's challenging to draw comparisons to anything I've previously tasted. I can confidently say I enjoy it. If this represents a typical Scotch from three generations ago, it was a fine era to be alive... aside from WWII. It's a skillfully crafted blend, and I'm curious about its components. I've seen these bottles listed on The Whisky Exchange for over £400 (approximately $475, I believe), and while I wouldn't spend that much, I would still appreciate the opportunity to sample more. I considered rating it 3.75, but its unique appeal pushed it to 4. Thanks for the sample, Pranay. Cheers

This is the fifth bottle from the collection of 12 blends I'm evaluating. Nose: Sherry and oak, slightly scorched brown sugar, dried citrus peel, raisins, sultanas, leather, unlit pipe tobacco. A bit woody and earthy but very clean. There's a hard-to-define funky note, but it's a very subtle aroma. Palate: Smooth entry, sweet but not thick or syrupy. Quite light, actually. Some malt and grain notes - toasted grains and a hint of coconut, barley sugar, and sweet, juicy lemon. Finish: The developed palate transitions into a sweet, soft finish where all the preceding elements gracefully fade. No bitterness, no tartness. The faintest hint of smoke is present. This is a very subtle, old-fashioned style of blend that aims for smoothness and is easy to drink neat or with a little soda water. Modern palates might find it unusual, as current blends, whether inexpensive or premium, have bolder, more distinct profiles. In comparison, this seems indistinct, weak, and poorly constructed. The texture is lean, and it's not a very distinctive blend. This whisky is meant for slow, steady sipping throughout the afternoon while listening to the radio. It's not intended to command your attention or be challenging – quite the opposite. It's the whisky equivalent of a beloved old sweater that you keep wearing despite its wear and tear and outdated style. It falls into the same price range as Dewar's 12 year and more affordable malts like Glen Moray, and many would understandably favor those options. It's definitely worth 2 stars, but I have a certain affection for it, so I'm bumping it up slightly to 2.5. "Average": 77/100 (2.5 stars)

After a 10-day vacation in Oregon with only Pinot Noirs, I was eager to return to whisky. I opened this tonight: a 1940 Haig blended malt gifted to me (or rather, left behind unknowingly) by my in-laws. My father-in-law enjoyed this greatly in the 1950s while at Cambridge. I'm unsure of its age or region. It's fascinating to try something this old, offering insight into past preferences. This was quite popular then and showcases a taste profile from 80 years ago. It needs to sit out in the glass for a while, as it's been stagnant for too long and requires some oxidation to open up. The nose is faint, almost like varnish. The taste is overly sweet for my preference, akin to candy corn dipped in corn syrup, with coffee and blanched almonds, and some unpleasant notes suggesting it's been stale for far too long. There is no finish. It's definitely not my style, but I'm very appreciative of having tried something so old and rare; I don't believe the George V version is still available. I don't feel it's appropriate to assign a rating to something like this, but rather to simply appreciate a piece of history and our current times. I could have kept it as a collector's item, but why not live life to the fullest?

What a delight! Getting to try a scotch from around World War II is a real treat, possible only among fellow whisky lovers. The aroma is confectionary sweet, with butterscotch, candy corn, vanilla, and honey. Floral and fruity notes are present in the sweetness, like heather, apples, and raisins. Malt and milk chocolate (resembling Whoppers) and cereal grains eventually become noticeable with time. It's a light and pleasant aroma. The first sip is slightly peppery and sweet. As the palate adjusts, the whisky becomes noticeably sweet. The body is thin and light. Butterscotch, vanilla, and honey are present. The sweetness is agreeable but brief, giving way to a white pepper and fresh ginger spicy zing that leads into the finish. The finish is short, slightly oaky and dry, with some charcoal, and a touch of vanilla and honey sweetness. I wasn't sure what to expect; perhaps whisky palates were different over 60 years ago? It's like stepping back in time, offering a comparison to whisky styles from two generations ago. In my opinion, it's an easy, sweet, inoffensive drink made for enjoyment without complex sophistication; a social sipper. Thank you to a friend for this rare experience and a look into a long-gone whisky world. [87/100][Tasted: 4/21/18]

I had the opportunity to try a small amount of this thanks to a friend, as an addition to our Scottish distillery trading group. This bottle is from the 1940 King George V series. It's a blend bottled at the standard 40% ABV. It has a lovely copper hue and smells excessively sweet with just a gentle swirl. The aroma is strongly reminiscent of candied corn and raspberries. It's predominantly sweet, with all oak notes seemingly absent. A subtle musty scent underlies the sweetness, which isn't unpleasant but rather a bit unusual and peculiar. On the palate, there's an immediate floral note, heavy vanilla, and corn. It produces a stronger burning sensation than I anticipated from a blended whisky, especially one of this age. This clearly shows how much blending techniques have advanced since the WWII era, haha. The finish is quite short and has an oily texture. The fuller mouthfeel provides warmth but doesn't linger. It's a solid experience considering its considerable age. It appears to have held up quite well. I doubt I'll ever have the chance to try another whisky this old on my own. My gratitude again to my friend for the opportunity to experience something of this vintage. 3.75 stars. Cheers, everyone.

Reviewing the Haig Gold Label, Late George V, bottled in 1940. Wow, what a find. To be honest, hearing about the current Haig marketing push and how the present product was underwhelming, I doubted this 1940 bottling would be as good as I hoped. Glad to say I was wrong. It just goes to show, you can't assume all bottles from a distillery will be great or terrible, especially after a long time. Amazing vanilla wafers, dark nuts, and a whisper of smoke. Is that sulfur? I enjoy it! For me, this is like a milder Jedi version of the Bowmore 15 Darkest. The Obi-Wan to Darth Vader. Anyway, enough digressions. Though the finish was brief to moderate, there's a pleasing richness of caramelized syrup with cherries. This proves you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. 4.0. This classic deserves "Symphony #9" by Beethoven. It's a classic.