The Botanist Gin

Initial thoughts were not great, but my appreciation for Bruichladdich and evolving palate have changed my mind. Running low on London dry gin prompted this purchase as a suitable alternative. Nose: Typical juniper and papery London dry notes. A hint of mustiness, some lemon tartness, and sweetness are present. Side note: The "dryness" of London dry gin is puzzling given its sweetness. This nose fits that description. Modern gins are also confusing; while some are distinct, many resemble London dry. Back to this gin: Numerous herbal nuances are present but difficult to isolate. It's somewhat rich, with a faint meatiness that isn't overpowering, and a subtle rich vanilla. It's reminiscent of less fishy Sipsmith mixed with the smoothness of Plymouth and the herbaceousness of Ford's. It's competent but not remarkable. A touch of fruit and floral notes are there, but not dominant. Palate: Sweet, musty, herbal, papery vanilla leads, followed by a spicy kick and a junipery bitter finish. Lemon is evident, mingling with fruit and floral notes that transition into vanilla. Faint minerality is present but doesn't interfere. Many flavors are present, yet hard to discern individually. There's a noticeable but acceptable warmth. This is a well-balanced, complex gin, though it strongly evokes various London dry gins. It's sweeter and more floral, with the floral aspect, characterized by notes like orange blossoms and lemon blossoms, being more pronounced than the fruity side. Now, the fresh, green botanical character emerges, accompanied by pepper. The faint meatiness from the nose reappears, similar to unseasoned, dry chicken breast. It has a passing resemblance to Sipsmith, but thankfully lacks its fishiness. That specific note is well-controlled here. Finish: The papery, meaty, vanilla mustiness persists. A spicy warmth is present. The muddled herbal flavors lean vegetal, with floral fruitiness intertwined with the vanilla. Conclusion: Ford's (15/23) offers sharper, more defined flavors and a more pronounced bite. This gin's mellower profile makes it a better sipper, perhaps less so as a mixer. Ford's is pepperier and has more burn. This gin is fruitier and more floral, striking me as more refined and enjoyable, thus ranking it higher than Ford's. The difference isn't huge, and not considering mixing capabilities, Ford's remains a strong option, especially given its lower price. Hendrick's Lunar (17/23) is sweeter with a more engaging character. I enjoy Hendrick's as a sipper, but it's more niche. This gin is more versatile, though it might be a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none due to its balanced characteristics. Comparing the two, I lean towards Hendrick's, though it's an unusual comparison. I estimate this gin at 16. It's enjoyable and reasonably priced, but not exceptional. I'd happily keep it stocked. Frankly, it might be closer to a 15, but I'm unsure. Hendrick's is more refined and elegant, yet sweeter and stranger. It also burns less, possibly due to proof. Considering its unique character, it feels closer to Hendrick's than Ford's, but it's a close call.

To all the dedicated Gin enthusiasts, I'm going to take a different approach with this review and my tasting notes. I should also mention that I primarily enjoy bourbon and whiskey, and I'm trying to broaden my palate. A few spirits on my shelf don't exhibit the "classic" characteristics of their category. My preferred tequilas and gins are chief among those selections. That being said, I've never been particularly fond of Gin. But, with an open mind and palate, I explored the category and discovered some truly outstanding examples. However, my initial encounter with The Botanist was at a social gathering, sipped neat from a Glencairn with friends, and I distinctly recall not being impressed. But now, on a quiet, chilly Friday evening at home, I'm going to give it a thorough examination. The aroma of this Gin is as classic as it gets. Juniper and lemon are complemented by a hint of peppercorn that slightly tingles the nose. There's also an herbal, earthy scent, almost like mint leaf. Juniper and citrus introduce a floral beginning to the taste, followed by peppercorn that creates a slight prickle from the center of the tongue outwards. The latter half of the taste is quite dry and herbaceous, with notes of black tea and mint leaf. The finish features citrus, black peppercorn, and mint leaf. It remains quite dry and slightly spicy. I now understand why it doesn't appeal to me. As I review this Gin, it's clear that the dominant flavors are floral, dry, and herbal. None of these are prominent in Bourbon. So, naturally, I won't be an immediate fan, but it's certainly not the worst liquor I've tasted recently. Perhaps it's a Gin for Gin drinkers?

Bourbon Enthusiast Tries Gin: Part 7 Previous installment: Monkey 47 Dry Gin Next installment, January 8, 2025: Roku Gin >>>~~~~~~~~~~<<< My experience with gins is limited. It's been years since I last tried one. I'm not very familiar with the terminology or the flavor profiles commonly used to describe gin. "Something witty." This is a bourbon devotee attempting to comprehend gin. Many thanks to a fellow enthusiast for the sample! >>>~~~~~~~~~~<<< Aroma is lemon, pine, cucumber. Fresh rosemary. Body has spiced cake, mild orange. A hint of peaches. The pine note is present. Finish presents cinnamon, sugar, orange peel. This is surprisingly excellent. When I initially detected lemon and pine, I thought, "Here we go again." However, the body and finish are not entirely dissimilar to many whiskeys I appreciate. There's no thick, soapy mouthfeel that I've come to avoid in gins. It's spicy, full of flavor, and delicious. The aroma is my least favorite aspect, but that's more a reflection of previous gins than a fair critique of this one. If I can set aside the unpleasant memories of the past, I can enjoy those notes too. This is my new favorite gin to date.

Lemon notes leap from the nose of this gin. It's the first thing you notice, even before you're close to the glass as it's being poured. But after the citrus, as you spend more time with the aroma, various floral and herbal notes begin to emerge. There's a hint of mint, but a combination of juniper and chamomile is more prominent. That, along with fresh lime zest. There's even a very subtle hint of thyme present. On the palate, those herbal notes become slightly more pronounced, but lemon remains the primary flavor. It's accompanied by a touch of mint and apple, some subtle berry notes, and a very floral quality. It's a very fresh and vibrant drink. One sniff draws you in immediately. It's excellent drunk straight, offering a lot to contemplate. It also works beautifully in simple cocktails like a dry martini. Ultimately, this gin provides a vibrant, citrus-forward experience that warrants a few more tastings.

I generally prefer whiskey, but I enjoy a gin and tonic. When I discovered Bruichladdich, known for their masterful creations, had produced an Islay botanical gin, I bought it right away. I've only made a gin and tonic with this spirit once. It was a good drink, but truthfully, I find The Botanist so excellent that I'd rather consume it straight. Bruichladdich demonstrates that Islay offers more than just heavily peated spirits, although they admittedly excel at that. The Botanist shows that Islay can craft some of the world's finest liquors without any barrel aging. It's likely my top gin, and I feel bad even mixing it.

Perhaps I bear some responsibility for my excessively high expectations based on The Botanist's reputation, but I found its nose to be delicately balanced with juniper, freshness, wildflowers, herbs, and an Atlantic character, and it only deteriorated from there. The neat impression was more muddled and also unusually stingy. When mixed with tonic, it retains some character but also introduces excessive bitterness. Typically, this could easily be attributed to the tonic, but when I sample every gin with the same ratio of the same tonic and enjoy or even love many of them, I am compelled to conclude the gin itself is at fault here.