Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Canadian Club Barley Batch Limited Edition

Barely Batch

6 2171

@talexanderReview by @talexander

1st Mar 2019

0

  • Nose
    18
  • Taste
    16
  • Finish
    19
  • Balance
    18
  • Overall
    71

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

Canadian Club Barley Batch Limited Edition celebrates their 160th anniversary with a blend of barley-based whisky with regular Canadian Club. The bottle has been open roughly four months.

The colour is a medium-to-light amber. Slightly astringent on the nose, with young malt, violets, butterscotch and vanilla pods. Plums. Caramel popcorn. Mint and sage. A drop of water adds some honey, and makes it even maltier. A bit too floral, which overwhelms the fruit and bourbon-y notes.

On the palate it still comes across as very young, with light butterscotch and vanilla notes. Pretty thin mouthfeel. Cinnamon. Furniture polish. A bit soapy. Very young tasting. Thinner with water. A letdown.

The finish is toasted oak, humidor and light spice. Side-by-side, this tastes nothing like standard Canadian Club: it's much lighter in colour and tastes much younger. In fact, this comes across like a young single malt from a Canadian micro-distiller, perhaps Kinsip or Shelter Point. Just not to my taste.

Related Canadian Club reviews

21 comments

@Victor
Victor commented

@talexander, thank you for your review. Sounds like it is a good thing that this Edition is limited. Soapy?....oooohhh, the kiss of death. Thin too, and 'young'.

20 days ago 1Who liked this?

Astroke commented

I actually considered this months ago but not many positive reviews. After my recent purchases of mediocre Whisky, I am not sure I could handle another. Now I can safely cross this off my list. Thanks for the review.

19 days ago 1Who liked this?

@OdysseusUnbound
OdysseusUnbound commented

But was it smoooooooth?

19 days ago 1Who liked this?

@paddockjudge
paddockjudge commented

@Nozinan, free booze and a pay cheque, I'll give that a 90...every time

18 days ago 3Who liked this?

@Nozinan
Nozinan commented

@paddockjudge Would you?

To be fair, Beppi has never given a 90 to Lambertus.

I know you are probably the only person to have 2 pours of it in one sitting and live to tell the tale, but I trust your integrity and I’m sure that you wouldn’t give it a 90 under any circumstances (except maybe at gun point).

18 days ago 2Who liked this?

@talexander
talexander commented

@OdysseusUnbound No - the youthful astringency worked against the smooooth. Pam didn't like it either, her notes were pretty much the same.

18 days ago 1Who liked this?

@talexander
talexander commented

@Nozinan @paddockjudge I've noticed this a lot in the whisky world (especially when people talk about Jim Murray), that when someone disagrees with them on a whisky, they jump to a conclusion that there is a lack of integrity in the writer ("Oh, Diageo must have paid Murray a lot for him to give Norther Harvest Rye Whisky of the Year" - I've heard that a million times). There's no evidence to suggest Beppi doesn't think this deserves a 90; I'm not going to assume he just made it up for no reason. But I agree with @Nozinan that he doesn't seem to have much of a palate for whisky. Not because of his scores (it's all subjective), but his notes seem to be simplistic. One thing I do like about his column is that he at least highlights new releases so people know what's coming out (it's not as if the LCBO has a "New This Week" bulletin).

18 days ago 2Who liked this?

@Nozinan
Nozinan commented

@talexander Agreed. I found his reviews very helpful when I followed wine about 10 years ago. I didn't always like what he did, but based on his descriptions I had a good idea if I would like something and who in my family would enjoy a particular bottle. With whiskies I think I was lucky that the ones I went for (PEAT, The Laddie Classic, Springbank 12 CS and Claret wood) were good. He also brought my attention first to Octomore. I didn't get it in Ontario but when I saw it in Calgary... the rest is history.

18 days ago 1Who liked this?

@paddockjudge
paddockjudge commented

@talexander, I agree in part with what you say about integrity. We as consumers do not have access to the same sample used by a critic or reviewer; therefore, our reviews may differ regardless of preferences and abilities. I don't see many published reviews with scores below 80 and only a few with scores below 85. Some reviewers escape this awkward high wire balancing act by using a five-star or five-barrel system of grading, and as a result, we see two-and-a-half barrels or three stars occasionally....after all, who wants to by a whisky rated 76...and which producer will send samples to reviewers who award scores of 76/100?

18 days ago 1Who liked this?

@paddockjudge
paddockjudge commented

@Nozinan, I doubt that Bepi has tried Lambertus, let alone reviewed it. Did @Jason Hambrey have a second helping? He has stopped giving numerical values to his reviews and instead is using a recommendation system as part of his evaluation. This forces the inquiring mind to actually read the review and not simply scan for a score...brilliant!

18 days ago 1Who liked this?

@OdysseusUnbound
OdysseusUnbound commented

@paddockjudge After my own lukewarm review of Signal Hill, I doubt I’ll be on the receiving end of any more free samples. Oh well....That said, I’m not in the “Jim Murray is a bought shill!” camp. We all have different palates, so it’s not surprising that we rate whiskies differently. I like reading @ScotchNoob’s reviews, but I rarely agree with his ratings, and even his notes are often noticeably different than mine.

18 days ago 2Who liked this?

Astroke commented

@paddockjudge Yup, I am not a fan of the Scotchnoob for the very same reasons. I have taken him on in the past for generalizing Canadian Whisky based on a bottom shelf sample.

18 days ago 3Who liked this?

@talexander
talexander commented

@paddockjudge Well, producers should send samples to reviewers no matter what score they tend to give that producer. In the film industry, reviewers are invited to press screenings and receive screeners no matter how good (or bad) they've given that studio reviews. Why shouldn't it be same in the drinks industry? In addition, reviewers would start to give good reviews to producers just so they can keep getting samples (even if they don't actually like the samples, they might gift them, mix or use them in cocktails, etc). If producers continued sending reviewers samples no matter what reviews they were getting, the more honest and transparent reviewers would tend to be.

18 days ago 3Who liked this?

@paddockjudge
paddockjudge commented

@talexander, An AMEN from the choir! Honesty and transparency in whisky reviews would definitely be welcomed by me.

18 days ago 0

@Nozinan
Nozinan commented

@talexander Are the producers more interested in positive reviews or honest reviews?

18 days ago 0

@RianC
RianC commented

@talexander - I don't know about the film bit . . . ask Brie Larson laughing

@paddockjudge @Nozinan - It would be great if all reviews were honest and independent but it seems that this is the way of the world at the moment: I'm seeing it in the press, film reviews (as above), gaming (which apparently is terrible for it) and so on and so on. Money talks, as they say, and everyone seems to have an agenda to push.

Whisky is possibly one of the lesser offenders for 'bent' reviews and I think it's fairly easy to spot the worst from the genuine. I know Ralfy has his detractors but his integrity as a reviewer is highly commendable.

I've asked myself the question - if i were sent samples from a distillery would it influence my rating? I'm pretty sure it would - that's why I think the only 'safe' way round this is to flat out refuse and only review what one buys. Easier said than done though I'd imagine . . .

17 days ago 0

@talexander
talexander commented

@RianC @paddockjudge @Nozinan No, film reviews don't tend to be influenced by studios (the Brie Larson example doesn't fit as those are just misogynist internet trolls)

17 days ago 2Who liked this?

@Nozinan
Nozinan commented

@RianC I wouldn't go quite so far - I agree that reviewing samples from industry does raise the issue of bias, and given "freedom of speech" I would simply ask people who review such samples to disclose.

Any samples provided by friends are fair game as far as I'm concerned, and I have no concerns about bias.

17 days ago 0

@MadSingleMalt
MadSingleMalt commented

I'm with @RianC. In my experience, it takes some deliberate effort to state an honest negative opinion of something that's been given to you. I've never gotten "industry samples," but I've traded samples with friends, and before I share my opinions, I've always had a flash moment of reminding myself that we're all big boys, and that so-and-so won't be offended if I hate his Dalmore Cigar Malt or whatever. Humans being human, I don't trust reviewers to always overcome that hurdle.

Unfortunately, my friends never give me samples of Canadian whisky. If they did, it would save so much time—I could just shit on them without even tasting them. 'Cause that's how I rigma-roll, obviously.

17 days ago 1Who liked this?

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in