Whisky Advocate

Review: Michael Collins 10 Year Old

May 22nd, 2011

Michael Collins 10 Year Old, 40%, $40

Don’t remember ever reading that Michael Collins suffered from schizophrenia… This is a bewildering whiskey suffering from an identity crisis; its fruity apple Irish heart wrapped in wood, some peat, and conversely, some sherbet and sugar-coated almonds. It’s not unpleasant — far from it — but the journey from sweet apple to sharp spice is a challenge. Stay with it and ultimately the complexities of the malt win through. –Dominic Roskrow

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 84

photo courtesy of Sidney Frank Importing Company, Inc.

11 Responses to “Review: Michael Collins 10 Year Old”

  1. Greg Adams says:

    I like Irish Whiskey a lot and the wife’s tipple of choice is Tullamore Dew. I think I will pass on this one.

  2. Red_Arremer says:

    Excellent notes Dominic– Especially the sugar-coated almonds. I think that gets at an unmistakeable aspect of most of Cooley’s single malt Whiskeys and one that I’ve had trouble concisely articulating.

    In addition to your remarks, I found floral smoke on the nose and subtle brinieness on the palate. It tastes like some nice oddball scotch indie bottling from the islands (Jura, Scapa, Highland Park).

    Characterful stuff and a great value. Tasted Bushmills 10 the other night– brutally straightforward and clean cut compared to this Collins and nowhere near as good in my opinion. But then again I’m a scotch guy and maybe straightforward and clean cut is what most Irish drinkers want…

  3. Tadas A says:

    It seems that everyone is trying to come out with some new release of their whiskey every year. Even if it is really no better than a bottom shelf stuff… Kind of disappointing. But that’s why I like these reviews so I do waste money on good stuff not bad stuff ;)

  4. JC Skinner says:

    Peat in the Michael Collins? It’s possible, I suppose. You’ve made me curious now.

  5. maltlover says:

    I love Michael Collins new 10 year old. Couldn’t find this review farther from the truth.

    • John Hansell says:

      Usually when a first-time commentor to WDJK makes a generically glowing statement like this, it’s from someone affiliated with the brand who is “pumping up” the product. I certainly hope this isn’t the case here, but I feel compelled to point it out because we have zero tolerance for this here.

      • K D Kearney says:

        John, you might be a bit unfair to Maltlover. While I am a rare poster one of the first things I posted was in support of the Michael Collins malt and I have no connection whatsoever to the brand or the distiller other than a love of Irish whiskey. I was moved to try the Collins SM after reading Charlews Maclean’s review in World Whiskey and found it to be just as he described. It is a great transition whiskey from bourbon and blends into Irish and single malts and is truly a value at US $ 40 a bottle or so. I also was confused by Dominic Roskrow’s review – the rating and the commentary did not truly match up. The review scored this at an 84. In the words of your website that makes it a whiskey that is : “Plenty of character and no identifiable flaws. Worth seeking out. ” What did Maltlover say that distinguished it from the explanation of the numeric rating? If he/she truly liked it, why not say so without a veiled spanking that the poster might be a fraud? Perhaps they just thought the product a great tasting whiskey. Thanks for listening.

        • John Hansell says:

          First let me say that I like this whiskey, which was a comment I made in an earlier post.

          I’m not accusing maltlover, all I am saying that the comment fits a pattern which I have seen all too many times here on WDJK. Perhaps if Maltlover might have exlplained his/her viewpoint and wasn’t so extreme (“couldn’t find this review farther from the truth”), it would have come across as more credible to me (and wouldn’t have raised a red flag).

    • Red_Arremer says:

      Maltlover, there’s nothing wrong with feeling a review doesn’t resonate with you. Personally, I like this whiskey and this review, but I’m also interested in your perspective.

      Could you give some details on your view of the MC 10?

  6. Rob says:

    I just tried MC 10 single malt and it tasted and smelt like scotch. I have had
    Jameson and Bushmills never tasted like that. Can someone explain the reason.

  7. JC Skinner says:

    Hi Rob, only saw this now, and you’ve probably long forgotten this. But in the off-chance you revisit the thread, I’d guess that perhaps that would be due to Cooley double rather than triple distilling. There’s also the fact that Jameson is a potstill based blend, whereas the Michael Collins and Bushmills are malts. And if, as alleged above, there’s a touch of peat in there (and Cooley have been known to add a touch of peat to the occasional blend) then that would produce a 10 year old double distilled dram with a touch of smoke – very like a scotch profile.

© Copyright 2014. Whisky Advocate. All rights reserved.