Comments on: Gateway Series #11: Crown Royal

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:05:58 +0000

Honestly, I may be a little biased from past experiences with CR and I’ve owned up to that in past postings. I generally find most entry level traditional Canadian whiskies to be either have way too much oak or be very bland. I’ve had some of CR’s other bottlings and I like them a good bit more. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have nearly the attunement to some of these characteristics that you guys do, or even Matt for that matter. I’m more the everyman taster but I’m not getting the fruit or floral notes on the palate either. Typically I just don’t like these whiskies straight. That said, some of the best cocktails I’ve had in recent years were made with Canadian whisky. To your point John, it may be a personal preference thing. There is no other category of whisk(e)y that I’ve had as much trouble with as Canadian.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:47:31 +0000

I have yet to find a traditional Canadian whisky that I really enjoy. Canadian Mist Blended whisky is not terrible, but it is a little bland. To be fair, we tried minis of the Crown Royal. I’m not sure that has much to do with it.

The “subtle fruits, and delicate floral notes” are lost on me. Vanilla, I get. Mostly, what I get is oak though. I’ll give another try sometime. It wouldn’t be the first time a whisky didn’t work for me on the first try.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:37:00 +0000

Hi Guys. Hey, I appreciate that you connect with my reviews (okay, well most of them…). Thanks!

I wonder: are there any “traditional” Canadian whiskies that you like? (Forty Creek doesn’t count here, because it’s not made in the traditional way for Canadian whisky.) My fellow whisky writer, who I respect, Jim Murray scored it similar to me (he gave it an 87). I wonder what attributes we’re finding that you aren’t?

Keep doing what you’re doing, my friends!