Writer's Tears is a blend of pot still and malt whisky from the emerald isle. It's available world wide, as far as I can tell, and is priced fairly competitively here in the UK (around £30). This is my second bottle of Writer's Tears and had I been reviewing the last bottle I had the following would have a markedly different tone. Let's find out why . . .
This bottle has been open two months or so, almost half gone and has been decanted twice. Pour here is neat but sat around 15 minutes.
Nose: Lovely. Unmistakable pot still character of dusty copper notes, creamy vanilla and green apple, with a hint of cardamom and a little cinnamon. A little fudgy toffee as well (it's taken some time to get to here though it must be said)
Taste: Wait a minute. No, wait. Wait . . . no, it's just not there! Seriously, even now after over two months air exposure and decanting all I'm getting is a little alcohol (less than there was initially), some tart apple and a wee hint of the pot still base. Thin mouthfeel.
Finish: Some slight cinnamon and tannins. Vanilla? Short.
As you can probably tell, this whiskey hasn't impressed. I've been super patient and even handed with it - even willing and encouraging it to blossom but, alas, this one is simply a bit below par. I will say it has got better with time and air, but not hugely; however, given the price it's not that big of a gut punch. I think what hurts the most is that the last bottle was really good and I'd have recommended it to anyone. This one will now serve as my 'whistle whetter' in the place of a standard blend (or get blended itself). Shame, could just be a bad bottle, who knows?
@RianC, thank you for your review. Bad bottle, bad batch, who knows? Your experience parallels my own with Writers Tears. My first taste was, "Is that all there is?" before a second taste from a different batch 2 years later which was quite good.
There is a lot more variation in whisk(e)y than people would like. People like to think "I tasted that. I know what it tastes like. I have reached an understanding of the essence of that whisk(e)y. It will taste the same in the future." That is only sometimes true. People like to think that they have accomplished a great and long-lasting work in reviewing a sample or multiple samples from a bottle. The ego-deflating truth is that their observations only apply to that one bottle at the time that they are reviewing it...and that their taste in whisk(e)y applies primarily to themselves.
@Victor - My pleasure, as ever!
You make some very good points and I'd agree 100%. This isn't terrible by any means but just underwhelming. I think you nail it for me when you say one of your experiences was "Is that all there is?". I reckon I'd have give the other bottle 87-88.
I've just spat out a fly from my last sip as I typed that so someone, at least, likes it . . . a lot