thirdorbital

Distiller: Art of the Spirits

Product: Final Run

Bottle: Madeira Cask Finish

Category: Whiskey

Aged: 6 years American oak finished in madeira sherry

Nose: That distinctive tangerine body, this time laden with a rich floral honey mixed with dulce de leche.

Body: The rich caramel continues over a sweet cookie base. I’m reminded quite strongly of traditional alfajores. There’s something else as well, a barnyard hay or alfalfa quality with just enough of a sour grape note to remind you of the wine finishing.

Finish: Faint honey drizzled pastries fade altogether too quickly.

Activation: Becomes a bit more traditional, bringing out the green grape and apple flavors I would have initially expected. It’s not bad, but I prefer the uniqueness of the original.

Notes: Near as I can tell, this is the exact same base spirit as the port finished Final Run, just finished in madeira sherry instead. Generally on such things I prefer the richer, deeper flavors from a port cask but don’t count this one out yet. The sweet dulce de leche is so evocative and so unique that I struggle to think of anything else while I taste this. From originality alone, this one wins a place of honor on my shelf. For those counting, that is 2 for 2 for the upstart little distillery from Colorado Springs.

Distiller: Art of the Spirits

Product: Final Run

Bottle: Ruby Port Finish

Category: Whiskey

Aged: 6 years American oak finished in ruby port

Nose: Vanilla and tangerines with a hint of fresh spearmint.

Body: A sweet corn base is layered with rich wine tannins. Ripe plums and virgin olive oil over a chewy leather foundation.

Finish: Fresh oak, a dry Mexican style vanilla and a faint mint leaf conclusion leave you wanting more.

Activation: Accentuates some of the fruit flavors: more plums, cherries, and even some dark grapes. Personally this makes things a bit too sweet for my taste and I prefer the neat expression.

Notes: And so the Art of the Spirits rundown begins with a bang, Bonnie and Clyde style. The ruby port variant of the Final Run is rich, decadent, and expressive. At a shade over 107 proof, this whiskey is bold and unapologetic but not coarse or harsh. Sweet fruits lend a dessert-like quality while adroitly avoiding the syrupy or medicinal connotations all too common in wine-finished whiskey. The price point is aggressive, but remember that this is a limited edition cask strength bottling and therefore was never in the running to be the next daily sipper. All in all, a strong opening salvo from Art of the Spirits and I’m excited to try the rest of the range.

Two failed sneaks in a row the opening drive gave me a sinking feeling... coaches had no confidence in the team to execute from the first drive and it showed. One of the worst games I've had the displeasure of watching.

Meanwhile Watson is out and Doubs is questionable for the Packers.

Bagent outplayed Walker handily in everything I saw in the preseason and heard from training camp. I'm glad this regime is willing to pivot instead of getting caught in sunk-cost fallacy, definitely feels like the Pace/Nagy era would try far too long to hold onto their plan with "their guys".

Seriously, what a ridiculous tagline to mask actually useful information.

No surprise there - the main questions I have are "how long" and how many guys are held out for injury reasons. I think I counted 21 players on the injured list a couple of days ago.

If you don't regularly listen to the Hoge and Jahns show, I can't recommend it enough. Routinely some of the highest quality Chicago Bears content from guys who have been present in the press room for a long time.

Some key insights from Josh Lucas from the Ryan Pace regime:

• The Bears shouldn't let Bagent walk because a QB is with potential is worth so much more than your 5th safety or 7th wide reciever. That said,
• Most teams probably have not seen enough from Bagent to put in a waiver claim. Still, all it takes is one.
• Praised Eberflus for being willing to change his system, said not all coaches are willing to do that (shots fired at Nagy)
• Praised Fields for having mental toughness to handle Chicago media circus, says he's seen it break some people (shots fired at Trubisky)
• If he were still running the show, Mooney would already be extended but he is concerned about Jaylon Johnson's durability (not a take I've heard before but maybe there's a reason we haven't heard extension rumors yet?)

Hey now the Dane Sanzenbacher Preseason Hero award usually goes to a white WR or an undersized RB. I don't remember the last time a QB actually looked good in camp!

He's not going to beat out P.J. Walker to be Fields' primary backup, but he could push for Nathan Peterman's role as the QB3.

The hilarious thing about a hype article written on what was at the time QB4 is that it actually wasn't hype enough - based on that last preseason game Bagent is absolutely pushing for QB2.

I don't know why these guys keep trying to give Lucas Patrick a shot. He's been constantly injured and has looked flat out bad the few heathly reps he's gotten. I would rather have Ja'Tyre Carter fill in for Jenkins for a couple of weeks and keep Whitehair and Davis where they have been.

Defining a useful review is an interesting question that I can see from both sides - how do you determine which review is useful to you, and how do you write your reviews to be more useful for others?

If you have a buddy you share drinks with, you find out pretty quickly whether you are on the same page and have similar tastes. Therefore, his review will have more (or less) value to you than most others, simply through time and experience. For a random guy on the internet, it is much harder to build that rapport. You could follow a specific blogger or a celebrity distiller (for instance, I'm fairly confident I will enjoy any project Jim Rutledge is involved with, his stuff is always right up my alley). More likely though this is where quantity of reviews matters more. If one guy says something, it's hearsay. If ten guys say it, they might be on to something. (If the distiller says it, he's probably trying to sell you something.) Finally, I know myself and certain words will pique my interest no matter where there come from. Mint, citrus, and pine nuts are all words that point towards a crisp, clean flavor I will likely enjoy regardless of whether I actually taste those things. Metallic words frequently indicate that there isn't sufficient wood or resin flavors for my taste and the whiskey might need to go back to bed for a while. Words like bananas or syrupy are red flags that I will find this too sweet and not enjoy it.

Making your reviews more relevant to others is a different animal. If I'm honest, I write my notes for myself and most don't get shared with anyone. However, some things that I like in a review are when there are comparison points to help ground things - in your example, I am familiar with Port Charlotte. So when you say you feel it is aggressively peat-forward, that gives a lot of context to your comparison of how the Octomore's peat is more in the background. I also look for honesty and specificity in the language. "Copper and band-aids" isn't exactly a rousing endorsement of Lagavulin but it shows originality and that you put thought into this rather than just reading the press release. The only other thing I can think of right now is transparency in how you drink it - I tend to assume everything is neat, and occasionally get thrown for a loop until I realize the person in question was reviewing after adding several drops of water or pouring it over ice. My closing notes also tend to include bizarre impressions like if I feel like this would be better with dinner, or as a nightcap, or on a lazy Sunday afternoon. That sort of thing helps me capture the feeling of the whiskey instead of just the flavors. Other people probably just think I'm nuts though. If anyone reading this has better suggestions on objectivity I would to hear them!

Regarding the flavor wheel, there are hundreds of variants and I don't completely love any of them, which is probably evidence of the subjectivity of all this. In the example linked I can actually see how a pencil eraser could be a sort of synthetic spiced or savory note, but chardonnay being a spice confuses me. I would have put it either next to butter in oils or maybe over on the fresh/floral side. Oh well. I mostly find it useful to help isolate whether I really do mean sugar, or if honey or molasses or treacle or something else might not have been more appropriate.