John Walker & Sons Celebratory Blend

Nose: Initially presents apple, pear, and malt, possibly with a hint of orange zest. The characteristic leathery Darjeeling tea and floral sherry-seasoned oak found in all expressions from this distillery are present. Notes of ginger, treacle, and yeasty wash are detected, along with an ashy quality—less like peat smoke, more like soot. A complex and intriguing aroma for a blended scotch. Palate: The initial taste is of sweet, grainy cereal, malt extract, orchard fruits, diluted honey, and red berries. This sweetness evolves, gradually introducing spicier and more bitter elements. Sweet and hot cinnamon, pepper, a drying sensation akin to unsweetened cocoa, and tannic oak emerge, accompanied by the ashen note from the nose. The texture is superb, with silky and creamy undertones from the grain whisky component. Finish: Medium length. The fruity and malt flavors dissipate rapidly, leaving a bright, crisp grainy character that persists. A subtle bitter, tannic edge remains throughout, with a touch of white pepper and brine in the lingering taste. There's an unmistakable quality common to all blends from this distillery, and this one possesses it distinctly. It resembles a souped-up version of their Red, Black, and Gold labels. I can immediately identify notes from one distillery, and I suspect another is present, but those are the only ones I can confidently discern. The combination of spicy and bitter notes, along with the 51% ABV, might present a challenge for inexperienced drinkers, but those with some experience should find it quite engaging. It doesn't inherently taste "hot," but the alcohol concentration intensifies the spice and tannin flavors. Anyone who enjoys this brand's offerings should certainly sample a dram. Addressing the main question: could this truly replicate the taste of 1860s blended whisky? It's impossible to confirm definitively, as no original samples exist for analysis. While blending records and recipes are available in archives, the fundamental issue is that the malt and grain whiskies produced today differ significantly from those made 150 years ago. The best a distiller can achieve is an honest tribute, approximating what we imagine it might have been like. In that regard, it's interesting how closely this resembles another blend from the same parent company, which features a very traditional recipe. I believe this answers the question. Regardless of whether it accurately reflects 1860s production, it is undeniably an "old-school" style of blended whisky, and that is sufficient for me. Realistically, I suspect this is more akin to blends from the 1960s than the 1860s. Positioned within the brand's range, it falls somewhere between the Double Black and the 18-year-old. It's more compelling than the lower-tier Red, Black, and special finish blends I've previously rated below 3 stars, but not quite on par with the Blue Label or the older Platinum 18, which I rate at 4 stars or higher. I concur with the official rating of 89, but the accompanying commentary leaves me puzzled; I question if the official taster sampled the same whisky. At its typical price point in Australia ($100), its value is debatable. However, purchased on sale for $75, I acquired two bottles and am pleased to have one for future enjoyment. "Good, not far short of Very Good": 84/100 (3.75 stars)

This special bottling is one of three limited releases from a globally recognized Scotch producer commemorating its 200th anniversary. The blend was crafted by the Master Blender, whose name fittingly suggests his profession. This expression draws inspiration from the brand's historical launch of a key whisky in the 1860s, incorporating spirits from distilleries operational at that time. That earlier whisky was initially made for export and established the company's signature bottle shape and label. Its success helped the brand achieve international recognition across the British Empire and beyond. The founder began blending whiskies in his basement in 1820; an interesting detail is that he abstained from alcohol himself. The packaging for this anniversary blend echoes the original bottling, including a box with a depiction of the founder's original shop. It is also bottled at a strength mirroring that of whiskies sold in the late 19th century. A high-proof expression from this producer, featuring original distilleries from the 1800s? I'm eager to try it. The blend is inspired by flavor profiles found in historical store records, aiming to recreate the aromas and tastes of the shop from the 1860s. Nose: baking spices, cinnamon, green apple, pear, dried fruit. Palate: Initially sweet, with a substantial, coating mouthfeel. Followed by spice and a faint hint of smoke. Vanilla and dried fruits are also present. Finish: Lingering, with wood spice, peppery notes, and a subtle smoke. This is an excellent high-proof blend made with modern spirits from historic distilleries, presented in a distinctive package. It's a winner. Adding water enhances the fruit notes, though it's not necessary. It stands apart from other expressions I've sampled. It's akin to a supercharged version of an older expression. My initial perception of this brand was dismissive, but I've come to appreciate well-crafted grain and blended whiskies. Despite common criticism of its parent company regarding marketing, they own some of my favorite distilleries, and I enjoy their blended Scotch offerings. This might be the best value and highest quality blend I've tasted, comparable to what a craft blender might achieve with access to the entire parent company's stock. Well done. Cheers.

Rating: 14/23 I've heard this is a surprisingly strong release from this brand. I'm eager to sample it. Nose: Intense, young alcohol character with white pepper, oil, a light coating of baking spices, some orange juice, hints of malt, and the faintest sulfur and grain notes. There's also a bit of a grain whisky sharpness. This nose is highly disappointing. It smells only a few years old and lacks interesting or rich qualities. After several minutes in the glass, the intense alcohol and sulfur mostly fade, leaving just a trace of the alcoholic character. Palate: Ah, this is significantly better! There's a definite strong alcohol bite, but at 51% ABV, I can overlook that. There are none of the strong alcohol or sulfur flavors. Perhaps just the faintest hint. It starts with a rich, sweet nectar flavor, bringing out the depth of the malt and the purity of the grain, alongside subtle vanilla and notes reminiscent of orange (not orange juice). There's a peppery heat that has a mild black pepper taste, preventing it from being just pure burn. It's not overly complex, but it's rich and smooth. My main wish is that it didn't have so much heat. However, it's not harsh, which is a significant positive. Finish: The malt's richness and restrained bitterness become more apparent as the sweetness subsides. The peppery heat lingers, with just that mild touch of black pepper flavor. There's a thin layer of orange present – fruit, pith, rind, and skin. It has a bit more burn than I prefer, but it's a pleasant finish. - Conclusion - Another specific whisky (14/23) has more going on, but its lighter flavor allows the clean alcohol to be more prominent. The two are quite comparable. A different specific whisky (15/23) is richer and more intriguing than this, although it requires a precise amount of water to achieve that. My overall assessment is that this is very close to the first specific whisky and definitely not as good as the second, so I'm assigning it a 14. This isn't a bad score, but I expected to give it at least a 15 based on prior information. I could even argue that the first specific whisky is superior, though a tiny bit of water improves this one (not to the level of the second), so I lean towards both being rated 14s. The heat in this is actually comparable to that of the second specific whisky, which is quite intense. They are both high proof, but the second one is a whopping 5.4% ABV higher at 56.4%. Side by side, it's clear this one isn't as good. It's either a 13 or a 14. As a final check, another specific whisky (16/23) is decidedly better than this. It doesn't seem more than two points better, which supports this being a 14. It's on the lower end, though. I believe the first specific whisky is slightly better because it doesn't burn. In a final comparison, the alcohol in the first specific whisky stands out more, so I am giving this one a 14. Thanks to a friend for the pour.

Nose: Berries, peaches, cereal grain. Quite strong alcohol presence. Opens up after a few minutes with dried berries and red fruit, chalk, and perhaps a hint of sea air and brine. Peach notes evolve towards a pleasant barbecued peach brushed with melted brown sugar. The cereal grains reappear with a candied sweetness bordering on children's cereal, but it never quite crosses that line and maintains a mature profile. Much later, I detect some rye notes - mint, menthol, green rye. Palate: Rich, chalky, mineral cereal grains. Dried red fruit, prunes, and raisins. Abundant baking spice and peppery heat. Texture and mouthfeel are nearly chewy. Some vanilla and light almond extract in the mid-palate with a cookie flour foundation. Finish features more baking spice, wafer cookie, and considerable chili pepper and alcoholic heat. I've always desired a higher proof version of that particular brand and now it's here. However, this is also the least characteristic version of that brand I've encountered. It seems to have a higher grain content than most of its offerings. Overall, I enjoyed this as a unique experience, but I won't miss it when it's gone. I would love to see or try a standard release of Blue at cask strength. That brand/company is missing out on revenue by not offering that. _______ Please join a vibrant new spirits discussion happening live among many regular reviewers: https://discord.gg/crpksjtkMu.

Opened 5 weeks ago. The nose immediately presents orange spiced chai tea, with undertones of cinnamon apples, honeysuckle nectar, butterscotch, breakfast cereal, and a distinct ethanol presence. The palate, surprisingly light after the nose, offers canned apples and pears, floral honey, golden raisins, shortbread, black pepper, and a hint of citrus rind. A medium-long finish begins with bitter wood and ethanol, then transitions to delicate apple and honey notes as it fades. I sought a special New Year's Eve selection my companion would also enjoy, and this seemed fitting, at least by reputation. Though significantly pricier than most Johnnie Walkers or highland malts, it offers considerable complexity at a much higher proof. This is the finest JW I've experienced, though my opinion might shift having not yet tried Green or Gold. For fans of highland malt, this is a must-buy and the kind of special offering I hope to see more of from JW. Its pricing is frankly astonishing.

Nose: vibrant ripe fruits, apple, pear, honey, sherry, cherry, citrusy grilled orange slices, baking spices. After 10-15 minutes of airing, dried fruits begin to emerge, brown sugar syrup, granola cereal notes, subtle floral notes of rose and carnation, old leathery notes, peat is difficult to detect initially but it's present. Palate: delightful orchard fruits, brown sugar, malted cereal, a swift burst of citrus and baking spices that transitions into a light brine and is immediately followed by a smoked peppery char that intensifies as if the volume was gradually increased, finish is medium to long dominated by the smoked peppery char and fades to the briny sea air, a touch of sweetness returns as well. The 51% ABV certainly aids in maintaining its edge. It unmistakably carries the signature of that brand, with all its characteristics present, yet it is remarkably well-balanced. This is an outstanding offering from the brand that I would acquire again if I could find it.