Bell’s Blended Scotch Whisky 750mL

We have a theory. To preface there is an exception in the Johnnie Walker name, but otherwise it hold’s true. If a scotch is named after a person and not a place, it’s a worse scotch. We see this with things like Grant’s, Justerini & Brook’s, and now Bell’s. We attribute this to what we call ‘the just because an old man got people to buy something doesn’t make it good.’ The world is full of con men, and sometimes they make spirits.

Not to go into too much considering they have a fricken 10-point tasting notes, but this theory of ours that scotch with a name is something we need to explore more and see if this observation has any true correlation at all. We could even go further and see why this is true.


What they Say: “

  • Distillery : Bell’s
  • Region :UK
  • House Style : Smoothness, richness.
  • Body : Rounded
  • Colour : Dark amber
  • Tasting Note :
  • Nose: Quite soft and gentle. Malted barley and hints of cut herbs and a fresh floral note. Cereal and grist with a little honey.
  • Palate: Quite smooth, medium body. Barley and cereals with nut oils, hints of wood and spice.
  • Finish: Short with notes of fruitcake and smoke. ”


Taste: 3.0 – It’s sort of sweet and bitter. As for what the overwhelming take away is? Where is the scotch? This tastes more like a not-as-sweet Drambuie. Which is awful.

Aftertaste: 4.0 – And the lingering taste is much the same with a bit of what is most likely a sherry cask kick.

Burn/Smooth: 4.5 – Doesn’t really burn, gives a little warmth, but it’s not entirely smooth. Subpar.

Aroma: 4.5 – That smells like a sherry casked whiskey. Which is to say, not exactly great, because that’s not what scotch smells like.

Honesty: 4.0 – They went with a safe tasting notes, which is worse since none of that nonsense is true. The image on the bottle is the old man in a suit who presumably (if the recipe really hasn’t changed) swindled good people out of their money for decades – which is gangsta enough to keep the points here above water, but not by much.

Mixability: 3.0

W/ Rocks: 3.0 – That did not make anything better. Worse? Yeah, it’s worse.

Value: 3.5 – Wow that is the same price as the one last scotch review, and oh boy is there a difference. While that was actually a good price, possibly within shouting distance of a decanter fodder, this is plague-riddled terribleness. That being said it is still cheap.

Google Shop Average: $16



Reviewer Scores:

BuffaloJern: 3.0

Want to compare this spirit against our archives? Visit our statistics page.

Metric Score: 26.5/70 |+| Metric Average: 3.79 |+| Reviewer Average: 3.0

New to Honest Booze Reviews, or just wondering how we score? See our FAQ/Review Policy.


Final Thoughts: I debated giving this lower than a 3 overall score because while I can forgive a supbar whisky, a subpar whisky that’s also worse on ice is really terrible. No matter what the other scores say if you can’t enjoy a whiskey neat or on the rocks – then what is it for?


I am the Buffalo editor and curator of Honest Booze Reviews

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *