Highland Park 13yo 2005/2018 “Yesnaby” (58.9%, OB, The Keystone Series: Part Four, First Fill Sherry Seasoned American Oak Casks, 1.200 bottles)

After some disappointment in the past due to batch variation in Highland Park standard bottlings (especially the 18yo, since that happened to me twice), I put Highland Park on the back-burner. Quite the decision, since Highland Park always was and still is one of my favourite distilleries. So after laying low for a while, this Highland Park Yesnaby came with a heartfelt recommendation, so I got one or maybe even two. I remember hearing something about this being reminiscent to the legendary wide neck 18yo. So it fits in my character to say; “why get only one if you can get two for twice the price”. Two of these is still considerably cheaper than getting the aforementioned wide neck at auction, or at least it used to be, since 1.200 is not a lot of bottles, prices for this one are rather going up recently.

Fast forward quite a bit. The guy initially recommending Yesnaby to me, recently (so after the initial recommendation), did a quick and small blind tasting of the “Yesnaby”, the 18yo “Viking Pride – Travel Edition” and the old wide neck 12yo, and low and behold (I always wanted to say this somewhere in a review), low and behold, the Yesnaby didn’t come out on top! Even better, it was on par with the wide neck 12yo quality wise. We all know the wide neck 18yo is much better than the wide neck 12yo. The 18yo Viking Pride – Travel Edition actually won it, although some in our outfit preferred one of the two others. All three are still good Whiskies and by now we all know, what my thoughts were about the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition (from the previous review). I don’t have a 12yo wide neck at hand so that one is out for now. Also there is some variation between the batches of that one too. But at least I had the chance of reviewing, in my tightly controlled environment, the two others from that impromptu blind tasting.

Color: Copper Gold, I guess caramel coloured.

Nose: Creamy and fruity. Vanilla pods. Fresh and slightly sharp. Sometimes Sherry, (Oloroso I guess), can have this slightly funky and farmy, bad breath kind of aroma to it. This has it, but don’t you worry, it sounds worse than it actually is. The aroma is somewhat akin to that of cooked vegetables. Hints of slightly burnt caramel, those of you that ever used a torch on Creme Brûlée will know. Diluted red fruit lemonade and slightly nutty as well. Soft wood, fresh oak (both distinct aromas and differ from each other) and a little bit of wet cardboard for good measure. Rainwater, somewhat dirty, because it has this organic, funky element to it which has me baffled a bit. Vanilla pods, but very restrained or masked. In the nose it is clear this is a a rather fresh yet also with this deeper and more brooding element to it. Slightly hot, high ABV Whisky. Less accessible than the aforementioned 18yo. Reasonably complex. This is more a Whisky for more experienced people, wouldn’t recommend this to you if you’re new to Whisky, since the taster has to “work” this one a bit, never a good sign, but can definitely bring in some results if you have the experience. It also smells hot what a beginner would call “sharp”, and nobody likes “sharp”. Finally it doesn’t let the layers out very well initially, but a few drops of water and some extensive breathing in my glass did wonders. Its thus a bit closed, but opens up after some “work”. Finally a nice mineral aroma you get from very good (mineral) White Wines, like Pouilly Fume and to a lesser extent Riesling. Even more organic rainwater now, very interesting Highland Park.

Taste: Sweet and dry at the same time. Lovely entry. Sweet nutty toffee and some sweet peat as well. Right upfront quite alcoholic as well, which doesn’t seem to integrate all that well initially. More sugary sweet than honey at first, (honey comes later on in the mix). Liquorice. Although heather does seem to be present, the dryness of oak and pencil shavings. seem to overpower it a bit. Oak is a main constituent of this flavour profile. Can’t imagine this being very old wood though. No use really to compare this to the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition, both are quite different and the difference in ABV is also too great. Very, very modern Highland Park. Strong as well. I’m often not the fist one to add some water to a Whisky, but this time I’m going to try that later. Without water still, but with some extensive breathing, the taste reaches a balance, which is very nice, but still not accessible and making it definitely not beginner-friendly. I hope travellers chose other bottling from the keystone series that have a much lower ABV than this particular one. This one anaesthetizes the roof of my mouth. I tasted this over the course of some days and where at first the dryness and woodiness did seem to overpower, the next time around (earlier in the day and with some tiny drops of water), the sweetness did stand its ground, making for a more pleasuring experience. So even though this is a Sherry bottling, which often don’t take water very well, this one actually gets beter. Just don’t overdo it. I have to say, this one definitely grew on me. Needs some water and not one for very late at night.

In the end this one stands further away from the wide neck 18yo than the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition. Yesnaby is probably closer to many of the many Single Cask releases of roughly the same age Highland Park is putting out to different outlets, airports and countries. So I guess I maybe misheard the claim and should have gone for the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition in stead, oh well… What is actually funny, looking at the previous review, is that I mentioned that a lot of travel retail bottlings come in at 40% ABV. It is actually Highland Park that is releasing lots and lots and lots of single casks all over the world, that are also very high in ABV, something in between 58% ABV up to 66% ABV, in a way I stand corrected. I plan to open one of those as soon as I finish this bottle of Yesnaby… (I’m happy to report the bottle has been emptied whilst I’m dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of this review (its the day after). A replacement has also already been found today: 14 yo (2004/2019) from the Single Cask Series bottled for Norway at 59.7% ABV (Refill Butt #6450). Final note, no clue what a Yesnaby is, sounds like a Yes tribute band. OK, I looked it up, Yesnaby are the dramatic, scenic sandstone cliffs on the west coast of Orkney’s Mainland. There also is a Yesnaby Castle.

Points: 87

The Highland Park “Keystone Series” consists of five limited-edition bottlings released to celebrate the distillery’s five traditional production pillars (1.200 bottles for each of the five expressions):

  • Hobbister, hand-turned floor malting, mix of 6yo heavily peated Whisky mixed with the Whisky intended for the regular 12yo general release, 51.4% ABV (Hobbister Moor is Highland Park’s peat source).
  • Shiel, locally sourced aromatic peat, 100% hand-turned floor malted barley, 48.1% ABV (Shiel is a wooden shovel to turn barley on the malting floor).
  • Quercus, Sherry-seasoned oak casks, First-Fill European Oak Oloroso Sherry Casks, 48.3% ABV (Quercus is latin for oak).
  • Yesnaby, cool maturation, First Fill Sherry Seasoned American Oak Casks, 58.9% ABV (Aged in Highland Parks most northerly and coolest warehouse).
  • Hillhead, Cask harmonization, Mix of Whiskies from: an European oak Sherry cask, an American oak Sherry cask and a Bourbon American Oak cask, 46% ABV (Cask harmonization is marrying Whiskies from a number of casks in a marrying vat).

Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride” (Travel Edition) (46%, OB, L0387A L04 25:07, 2018)

This Highland Park was actually selected to be the follow up review after Springbank 15yo from a few weeks ago, but after looking at the label of the sample, there seemed to be some information missing. This Travel Edition was bottled multiple times annually since 2018 (at least until 2023) and as could be read on these pages earlier, Highland Park can differ a bit from batch to batch. Batches of Highland Park are supposed to be as similar as possible to each other, not to scare the public, and in the pursuit of getting close to the same flavour, not every batch is as good as some others were. Similar in taste yes, but some batches were just better than others. I found this out the hard way, actually with two of the standard expressions of the 18yo (twice!). The first occasion was before Master Quill even happened, but the second time around, both got reviewed on these pages. One batch from 2012 and the other one from 2014. Back to this 18yo from 2018. Luckily, in this case the provider of the sample is again Nico (just like the Springer 15), and Nico is in a way the high priest of Whisky (I have a picture of him fully dressed up as the high priest of Whisky, but I don’t think I would get permission to put it in here). If I ask him a year later after receiving the sample from which particular batch this sample was, he can still unearth the very bottle this Whisky was sampled from and sends pictures of it. Now that we know from which particular batch this is we can continue reviewing it.

Oh goody, goody, a travel edition! Often not a good sign, since big companies (and Highland Park is owned by such a big company) usually use the travel retail outlets to offer, lets say, not their best drop, for more money than necessary. Some of these bottling have even lower ABV than a bottle from their general release. Just have a look at an airport or on a ferry and look for a travel retail bottling, quite a few are bottled at 40% ABV or if you are in luck 43% ABV. Back in the day, lets say the 60’s, the 70’s and the 80’s, 40% ABV was nothing to scoff at. Lots of Gordon & MacPhail’s Connoisseur Choice bottlings were 40% ABV and almost all of them easily held their own. Just have a look at St. Magdalene from this series. I know it is a scarcity now, since these bottlings come from a distillery that was closed in 1983 (a travesty!), but those of my age will now. Over time (Single Malt) Whisky became ever more popular so owners of distilleries sought ways to be more efficient and the search for types of Barley which would yield the most per acre began. The tastiest of barley’s have a lower yield per acre than the ones mostly used today and sometimes the older varieties are even harder to process. One example is bere barley, low yield, hard to manage, but very, very tasty, just take your time with a Springbank Local Barley made with bere barley. For instance, the 2017 11yo is a favourite of mine (and Nico) or a Bruichladdich made with bere barley, a fine dram as well, young (around 6yo) but fine nevertheless. I digress again. On general release there is a Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride”, which is widely available, bottled in a clear glass bottle and reduced to 43% ABV, where this Viking Pride Travel Edition is in black glass and bottled at 46% ABV. So all signs say this one should be better than the normal one, so lets find out… (we won’t, because I have never tried the 43% version, but at least we will find out if this one is any good).

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: Sherry, very clean. Immediately very appealing. Highland Park heather and some sweet honey as well. Creamy sweet, with the cream masking the fruitiness this unmistakably has. Breath of fresh air whiffs by right from the start. Clean oak, fragrant wood. Orkney is rugged, but this smells summery (present day), maybe because is was bottled in summer? Altogether a very pleasant smelling Highland Park. Creamy custard, caramel and toffee, but also herbal, as well as spicy, not only from the wood, there is more to it. Chocolate chip cookies. Hot chocolate (with Rum). Warming the glass in my hand, helps even more aroma’s out. A warming chocolatey and smoky note come out to play as well as a tiny hint of bacon aroma emerging from the sizzling pan. Yes, dark chocolate as well, but not its bitterness. If the taste matches this very tasty nose, then we’re most definitely in for a treat.

Taste: Oooh yes. Sweet on entry but there is so much more. A smoky and slightly bitter edge to it. Bitter wood, bitter smoke, nothing overpowering though. The heather and the honey from the nose are present here as well, like a carbon copy. It actually tastes exactly like it smells. Modern Sherry notes, slightly tarry. Dark chocolate. Just the right amount of creamy sweetness. The oak delivers vanilla, so this must have been Sherry cask made from American oak. Toasted oak as well. Nice sweetness again. When tasted on another day, the sweetness was less, so dependent on the taster. The whole is very tasty, yet it is what it is, its not a super complex beast, but in this case it’s alright. A smooth, easy and elegant expression. The Springbank 15yo was more a in-your-face type of Whisky. 46% ABV seems to be just about right for this Highland Park, where it seemed to be too low for the Springbank 15yo. Not sure if 43% ABV for the standard edition will be enough. Who in their right mind would like to reduce a 18yo Whisky to 43% ABV? Because the consumer wants it, or because it makes you more money? All blah-blah-blah, but hey what do I know, lets revisit this review if I ever get the chance to compare it to the 43% ABV standard version or try it on its own. Final thoughts: Definitely a very good 18yo again from Highland Park, also quite modern, the wide neck 18yo from yesteryear is most definitely a step up from this one. However today, the price of the wide neck is also a step up from this proud viking.

Points: 88

Again, thanks go out to Nico for providing this sample.

Here we have some room to decipher the code: L0387A L04 25:07 (and a time code):

  • L0387 is the rotation number.
  • A is 2018, B is 2019, C is 2020, D is 2021, E is 2022, and F is 2023. As far as I know no bottlings of this expression were done since 2024.
  • 25:07 is the 25th of July.
  • L04 is probably a number depicting a particular bottling line, I didn’t check this on other Highland Park bottlings yet.
  • Now we also know the Whisky at hand was from the very first release.

A quick search on the ol’ interweb resulted in the following batches, and again, this list might not be complete:

L0387A L04 25:07 (2018)
L0520A L04 04:10 (2018)
L0216B L04 09/05 (2019)
L0449B L04 04/09 (2019)
L0165B L04 03/04 (2019)
L0117C L04 23/03 (2020)
L0117C L04 24/03 (2020)
L0003D L04 13/01 (2021)
L0081D L04 06/04 (2021)
L0355D L04 09/11 (2021)
L0135E L04 27/04 (2022)
L0038F L04 09/02 (2023)
L0124F L04 19/04 (2023)
L0209F L04 20/06 (2023)

Hazelburn “CV” (46%, OB, 11/441)

Even after the Springbank and the Longrow, I still didn’t plan to do a Hazelburn next. Actually, even the Longrow wasn’t planned as the follow-up of the Springbank 15yo. (but more on that later, probably the next review, when additional data comes in). However, I didn’t even get to rummaging through the box yet, the box I mentioned in the previous two reviews, to look for a sample for this review, when I opened a closet in my study, my eye fell on a low-level bottle of Hazelburn. The Hazelburn was put there to review it before it would be gone. Sometimes a Whisky is so easy that you tend to reach for it quite often, so it had to be saved from my lectern, before finishing it un-reviewed.

Right at the moment I saw it, only then it hit me like all planets suddenly aligned. The third review had to be Hazelburn of course! Funny enough, I even checked if maybe I already did write this one up, but to my amazement, I haven’t even reviewed a Hazelburn on these pages before. I did actually, but non of those have been published yet. I tasted lots and lots of Hazelburns over the years and I find Hazelburn to be a hidden gem and seriously underrated. Springbank has lots of fans, hence Hazelburn is therefore often a bit overlooked. I get it, nothing better than the original ‘eh? For instance, you can see that at auctions, Prices for Hazelburn and also Longrow are lower compered to a similar Springbank. In the end I somehow got a sign that this should be the next one, and since this is the last of the brands produced at Springbank Distillery, the next review will be of something entirely different, so If you expect the next review to be of Kilkerran, I’m sorry, nope, although it has the same owners and is partially made by the same people, it is from another distillery (Glengyle). The “brand” Glengyle has another owner, so they couldn’t name the Whisky that, so the Whisky from the Glengyle distillery is called Kilkerran. To finish off, Hazelburn is triple distilled, and unpeated, although peat doesn’t seem to be totally absent from many Hazelburns…

Color: Straw gold.

Nose: Clean, sweet and malty. Oily. Fruity and very aromatic, very fragrant. This leaps out of my glass and smells more potent than 46% ABV. Sharp fresh air, and only a tiny hint of wood. Smelling it more, keeps giving me these sweet ripe yellow fruit aromas. Sweet yellow fruit yoghurt, you tend to have after breakfast (at least, I do). Mind you, this is a powerhouse and I’m literally reviewing drops of the last 7 cl of the bottle. Springbank distillates are known to take air very well, almost every time oxidation is a friend, well this is most definitely no exception. Maybe the last few pours from this bottle simply are the best? Dried apricots and sugar cubes. Cold mineral machine oil (you use on a sewing machine), the cleanest you can get. Cold not warm, warm oil is different. Hints of coal and steam. Next some smoke, surely they can’t clean the pipes and the rest of the distilling equipment that well, that this doesn’t come from peat from previous distillations? I do get smoke, like from the bonfire kind. Peat? Not really no. First of all this is a NAS (No Age Statement) bottling so, this can have some young Whisky in it (CV is said to have malts from 6yo up to 12yo old), and still this has a fantastic balance to it, maybe even more so due to extensive oxidation. The Hazelburn distillate must be a magical Spirit. The people at Springbank that thought of distilling three times without peat and thus creating Hazelburn are geniuses. Right from the start, I have been a big fan of Hazelburn in the portfolio of Springbank, it still is sort of a well kept secret. Final remark on the nose: The fruitiness dumbs down a bit after tasting because of the wood slightly dominating (what?) the palate, which then takes over in your oral cavity, pushing the friendly sweet fruit notes away. How rude!

Taste: Malty and creamy. Sweet and nutty (and dare I say, ever so slightly peaty? A tiny bit? Please? Oh come on!). Sugared almonds and some wax. Less of a powerhouse than the nose promised, but not by much. Cereal and barley. Barley sugar. Quite buttery come to think of it (also in the nose). Very tasty! Where wood wasn’t all that prominent in the nose, here in the taste it has a larger role to play. There is some vegetal oak and sometimes even some hay-like notes (which then reminds me a bit of a Grappa), as well as some toasted cask notes, and when you get those, they are here to stay, later on accompanied with some woody bitterness. the bitterness is kept in check, but is definitely present. Yes, greener and less fruity than the nose. Less fruity, because the wood takes over. Less complex, and not as much development as I might have hoped for, but the balance makes up for that. I guess the lesser complexity is because of the younger elements of this Whisky. Mind you, this was intended as an introduction to Hazelburn of sorts. It doesn’t have an age statement and thus allowed for some freedom in the composition of it, (the ages of the Whiskies that went into this bottling), so it could be released for a fair price. If only this had slightly less wood and slightly more of that wonderful sweet yellow fruit…

Hazelburn CV (Curriculum Vitae), which stands for course of live and is mainly used for someone’s resume in which you sum up your live and achievements. Sometimes CV has also been explained to mean Chairman’s Vat. Together with Hazelburn also a Springbank CV and Longrow CV existed, all now discontinued by the way, the three were said to be blended from whiskies from 6yo to 12 yo, and the three would show the consumer the differences between the three. Again, Springbank being 2.5 times distilled and (lightly) peated. (2.5 times, because half the Spirit in Springbank is 2 times distilled and the other half 3 times). Longrow is 2 times distilled and (heavily) peated and Hazelburn, as mentioned already above, is 3 times distilled and unpeated.

Points: 86

For those of you, like me, that are more anoraky (a Whisky nerd of sorts): here are the rotation numbers for Hazelburn CV (the list might not be complete):

20cl bottles: 09/468, 10/422, 11/109 and 12/63 (so end of 2009 to early 2012), I believe all were in a CV-set of the three whiskies, not sure if they were sold separately. There are also bottles without a rotation number, maybe from 2013?

70cl bottles: 10/351, 10/356, 10/429, 10/506, 11/441, 12/251, 13/185 and 13/188 (so end of 2010 through early 2013, no sign (yet) of a 70cl bottle from 2009)

Assumptions, assumptions: Maybe the 09/468 set was intended for Christmas, which would make sense since there doesn’t seem to be a 2009 70cl in existence? Maybe the decision to bottle the 70cl CV was made after the release of the set, since is was bottled almost a year after the first set? Since the 2013 70 cl bottle was bottled in early 2013, it likely no set was made in 2013, also the last set was bottled very early in 2012.

Longrow 11yo 1993/2005 (56.8%, Cadenhead, Authentic Collection, Bourbon Hogshead, 270 bottles)

At this point in time, the review of Springbank 15yo (the previous post) was written yesterday, so there is a big chance comparisons will be made between this Longrow and said Springbank. Yesterday’s review was written in one go. Happens often, yet is not a standard practice. Some Whiskies need a lot of time to show all they got and thus whiskies need to be revisited several times to truly “get” them and write up a proper review. These are often the more closed ones or the most complex ones. Yesterday’s Springbank wasn’t really all that complex to be honest. Sure, a lot is to be had from that Springbank, it’s very good, yet it offers it all up at the same time, not a lot of layering or development over time, so it lent itself perfectly for a one-go review. Also, some reviews write themselves and some, well, some just don’t. Sometimes it is actually very hard work, especially if a Whisky is closed and refuses to properly open up, not with warmth and not with water. Sometimes, and this luckily rarely happens, the mind just draws a blank, slowing the creative process. There are also a few reviews on these pages that were finished one or maybe two years after they were started, abandoned due to the mind drawing a blank, and rightfully so, because the subsequent review would have been sub-standard. But I digress.

After rummaging some more in the box mentioned in the previous review, I found another sample of interest, but since some data seems to be missing, that one had to be postponed, whilst I wait for some additional data to come in. After some more rummaging in said box, I found another sample from the Springbank distillery, this time around, not a true Springbank, but a Longrow. Same distillery, just more peat and only distilled twice as compared to a true Springbank which is distilled 2.5 times (as shown to the right). When you follow the flow in the chart, half of the Spirit flows through two low wines stills (#1 and #2), and the other half only through one low wines still (#2). In essence it is a 50/50 mixture of two times distilled Spirit and three times distilled Spirit. Fun fact, this Longrow was bottled by an independent bottler called Cadenhead, which has the same owner as the Springbank distillery. Nevertheless, Cadenhead bottles a lot more than Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn alone and have been doing that for a very, very long time.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Initially sweet and fruity. Nice vegetal peat, ever so slightly floral. Almonds and wax, typical Longrow of this age I would say. Sweet black tea (no milk used over here). Hints of coffee flavoured hard candy. Smells tasty, can’t hardly wait to take a sip. Just like the Springbank 15yo this also has a similar breath of fresh air, yet less so. Hints of cold gravy, this Longrow has a meaty quality to it, that definitely does not come from a Sherry cask, since this matured in a Bourbon hogshead. The meaty bits are right upfront. Leave the glass breathing and the meaty bits dissipate rather quickly. Since this is an ex-Bourbon refill cask, it is able to show more subtleties from within the spirit, where a Sherry cask can easily overpower the Spirit. You never know, but didn’t the colour on the Springbank 15yo give it away a bit? Tread carefully because often a lot of assumptions are made pertaining the colour of a dram. More funky vegetal notes emerge. See? It’s only 11yo and matured in a Bourbon cask, and this shows more complexity than the 15yo Springbank, and don’t get me wrong the Springbank 15yo is still a good Whisky, don’t get me wrong. Hints of white ashes and sweet woody liquorice, both well integrated with the peat. It is a young bottling at 11yo, but still it doesn’t smell heavily peaty, it smells like a peaty whisky that has matured for longer than it actually did. Peat gets softer and more mellow when the Whisky ages. Just compare a 10yo Longrow to an 18yo or a 21yo Longrow. Good Spirit, good cask. This Cadenhead offering is not really an elegant Longrow, and young Longrow’s rarely are, but it is most definitely a very accessible Longrow, it smells well balanced and well integrated, nothing really overpowers and everything adds to the whole. Definitely some development in the nose. The peat is more earthy now, with dry black tea leaves thrown in for good measure. Hints of distant fireworks, organic farmy notes and diluted red fruits, how’s that for complexity? No noticeable sulphur. Develops nicely with only some breathing, oxidizes very nicely, can take a lot of air.

Taste: Almonds, nutty, with a sweetish start. Sweet black tea. The first sip has a bitter tea-like finish to it, a note this Longrow could do without maybe? Second sip is more of the same actually, still nutty and still with a bitter edge to it, which is all right now, no worries. The taste actually matches the nose very well, both match quite good. In the taste, here it also has this vegetal feel to it. Waxy and velvety with a tiny burnt note, not entirely sure this is from toasted oak though. After the Springbank @46% ABV, I welcome this Longrow @56.8% ABV, it has more power, transports the aroma’s better and is more warming, which is nice with a peated Whisky. Next some Menthos, especially when you keep it in your mouth for a while without chewing on it. Very tasty stuff indeed this Longrow, apart from the ABV maybe, this one has a daily drinker quality to it. A fairly easy Longrow, one you will just want to keep pouring.

This is an accessible Longrow, easy going and very well balanced. Definitely not hot, and sure doesn’t taste like an 56.8% ABV Whisky to me. No need to add water. I did try though, sure it changes a bit (it becomes somewhat fresher, slightly less sweet), but it didn’t get any better, stays more or less on par with having it neat. In other words, you could surely add some water, in which case, you would end up with more tasty Whisky, because water also didn’t make it worse!

Points: 87

This time thanks go out to Andre Z. for the sample!

Springbank 15yo (46%, OB, 21/156)

Hello all, long time no see. Just in case you’re wondering, nope not dead yet! Just some busy and some trying times have passed, where reviewing took a bit of a back seat. All good now, so already busy filling this blank page with black words. For this review (Post #901 already), I looked through one of the many boxes I have standing around, filled with samples of mainly Whisky and some Rums. Whilst rummaging my eye fell on this particular sample, of which I thought, well that should be good, so after this long while, here we are with the third official Springbank 15yo on these pages. In 2015 I wrote up a review of a Springbank 15yo from round about 2003 (86 points) and in 2019 one from 2018 (86 points again). This time around, 2026 already, here we go with yet another Springbank 15yo, this time one that was bottled October 5th, 2021, will this one also get 86 points?. Here we go, let’s find out…

Color: Orange brown gold. Quite dark!

Nose: Holy Moly (Mo-99 in my case, nudge nudge Auke). Heavy sherry, black coal, liquorice, tarry, modern and “classic” at the same time. Almost that tarry salty rope you get from Islay Whiskies complete with this breath of fresh air (sea wind). “Classic” yet not old bottle though, but it does remind me a bit of good Whisky I tasted when I started out at the turn of 1999/2000. A nose that also reminds me of the better peated Whisky matured in Oloroso Sherry casks, yet still not old bottle though. Slightly funky, maybe from a tiny amount of Sulphur, but nothing to worry about. A thick jam-like fruitiness in this one and a whiff of sandalwood, unlit cigarette, cardboard and the smell of a sugar cube (yes, a sugar cube has a smell). Toasted oak and a nice vegetal greenness to it. Cold gravy and cold motor oil, as well as a little bit of hot cable (plastic). Tarry raisins. Very nice and interesting nose. You just gotta love Springbank. Don’t expect a lot of elegance in this particular expression though. This is the nose of a big and bold Springbank, yet not the most complex smelling expression. I wonder now of this will taste (somewhat) sweet…

Taste: Nope, not sweet and I also expected it to be thicker to be honest, but it seems quite thin. Well balanced though. Peat and tar again and a more accessible red/black fruitiness than the nose led on. Ever so slightly farmy. Hints of burned newspaper as well as the toasted oak from the nose. Toffee and slightly waxy. No sulphur, and slightly minty. Tasty stuff it is again. Still the thin aura sticks with me a bit. This might have been better at around 50 to 52% ABV to carry the weight a bit better, obviously a higher ABV won’t fix thinness. This is definitely not a sipper, I learned a long time ago (from Olivier, when tasting a 50’s Richebourg), that some Wines just taste the best in big gulps, big meaning not sipping before you call me crazy, although a big gulp sounds about right to me, so call me crazy then! I found this to be true, not only for Wines. This Springbank is thus not a sipper. With a bigger… ehhh, sip, more sweetness and more tar and liquorice emerge, making it even better balanced. Final note, almost every time around Springbank can handle a lot of air/oxygen, it oxidizes well, and gets better over time. This 15yo handles handles air/oxygen quite good, but not as much as other Springbanks. A fresh pour is definitely better than a glass that has been airing for half an hour. In the end this is a medium sized big boy, in your face yet also lacking a bit of complexity that would make it even better. Good Springbank for sure, I like it, could buy it, but it is not as good as some people say it is. It gets a lot of raving reviews, is this because of the colour I wonder?

One of Springbank’s biggest strengths has always been batch variation making Springbank a rather adventurous Whisky. Yet it also needs a word of caution if you don’t really fit the aficionado bill, and expect more of the same goodness you had before. Some batches are good and some batches are just better. If you come across a very good batch and you go out and buy a batch from that same (or another) year, you might be in for a small surprise, because going back from a very good batch to a good one, might result in a minor disappointment. Just look at the Springbank at hand, this one has rotation number 21/156 (bottled October 5th), and its the third time Spingbank bottled the 15yo in that year. There are two more bottle runs for te 15yo in 2015 that I know of: 21/01 (bottled January 4th) and 21/110 (bottled June 14th). Since its highly likely that the other two are different batches (too far apart?), there might be a difference in the composition, different casks used, although this time, word is, all three batches are fully Sherry, but I can’t be sure. Oh, and this one was released without a box.

Points: 86 (yes again, for me, this is what it deserved)

Thanks go out to Nico, the source of this generous sample, and Auke for asking for a new review.

 

Worthy Park 7yo (61.2%, Rum Nation, Limited Edition, Cask Strength, Pot Still, 3.000 bottles, 2018, L18-134, Jamaica)

This is the slightly younger, yet taller brother of Rum Nation’s 8yo Oloroso finished Worthy Park bottled at 50% ABV in 2015. Taller because it’s higher in ABV. A brother from another mother was reviewed on these pages earlier, being the Rum Nation Limited Edition Cask Strength offering from Réunion, which was very good in my book. There is also a version from Guyana. Although the name of the Distillery isn’t anywhere on the label nobody seems to be wondering if this is anything other than Worthy Park.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: laid back leather, nice fresh oak notes and distant Jamaican funk. It is definitely not as funky as one might expect from a Jamaican Rum. Even though it’s not on the label, it is easily recognisable as a Worthy Park. Quite similar to their own bottlings like the ones reviewed earlier; the Single Estate Reserve, the Oloroso and the Quatre Vins. So wood is a main aroma, supposedly all American oak barrels, but its not big on vanilla one might expect from American oak. So wood, dust, dry earthen floor it is. Not a lot of fruit aroma’s. Sometimes a whiff of mint or peppermint passes through. Slightly meaty. Very well made and overall a classic nose. Close your eyes when smelling this and you’re transported to another place (a warehouse) in another time. As said earlier, not very funky, so don’t look for overripe bananas in this one. There is a whiff of Sinaspril going one, remember that? (Headache medicine for children, with a artificial orange aroma). The whole is simple and maybe not complex, nor funky, yet this still is a very nice nose to smell, or smell to nose. Tiny hints of wax and almonds with hints of acidic and slightly sweet red fruits coming in late into the fold. After sipping, these red fruits turn into hard raspberry candy and soft black licorice candy as well. Remember keeping either of them in your mouth for as long as you could? Maybe simple, (is it?), yet quite amazing.

Taste: On entry, slightly sweeter than expected, although here as well the wood is quite dominant. Slightly prickly wood, as if it was carbonated. The sweet onset is quickly swept under the mat by dry oak. Somewhat floral, vegetal and fragrant. When was the last time you had a taste of a perfume ‘eh? And if so, I hope this is what it tasted like. Initially also fruitier than the nose, but also…yes you guessed it, swept under the mat by oak. Warming going down. No surprise there at this ABV. An acidic oaky edge has the most staying power and dominates the taste. After a while the wax and almonds from the nose present themselves well into the realm where normally the funky Jamaican style would be. Also a slightly burnt as well as a slightly plastic-y note pops up. Next an unexpected farmy note and some unlit tobacco and soft licorice. Taste wise there seems to be enough happening right now. We already know I guess, but this dominance of this nice wood, could only come forth with full term tropical ageing. If I would have tasted this “blind” and on a “bad” day I probably wouldn’t have said this is Jamaican. On a “good” day, it does show a lot of Worthy Park traits and when you get to the point of understanding this has been fully matured in the tropics than yes, Jamaican it is. Cardboard in the aftertaste, wow, and a tiny hint of the burnt plastic-y note. Not really a problem though.

Jamaicans like overproof Rum, and this should be no exception, although I wonder how a Jamaican would perceive this lack of funk. Still I like this one very much. It is well balanced and shows a lot of well integrated nice aromas, both on the nose as well as in the taste. Definitely recommended.

Points: 86

Benromach Contrasts: Cara Gold Malt 11yo 2010/2022 (46%, OB, First Fill Bourbon Barrels, 20/01/22)

I almost forgot to write this review, because I though I’d already done it. Here we have the first Benromach on these pages after they revamped the look in to this slightly bulkier glass bottle, more straightforward cardboard box (easier to store) and last but not least the usage of the colour red. I was a bit hesitant at first because I really liked the copper they used in the previous package, but the red stands out, looks fresh, smart and traditional. So I do like the new look a lot now, and love having them around. If this one’s empty, I’ll probably replace it with another (red) Benromach. Most likely another one from the contrasts series, since it offers interesting takes on Malt. Here it is because of the usage of Cara Gold barley.

Most Benromachs that are on the market now are fairly young, sure there are some older bottlings like the 15yo and the 21yo, which are different yet not necessarily better. The Whisky at hand is 11yo and a nice choice for starting a flight of Whiskies or as a casual sipper. Not expensive and an honest pour. Benromach produces a heavier more meaty spirit, often slightly peated and sits well with knowledgeable anoraky aficionados, you know who you are, and since you are reading this, you’re probably one of them. This particular offering is partly made with Whisky made from Cara Gold barley as well as the normal Benromach lightly peated malt, both matured in first fill Bourbon barrels.

Color: Straw.

Nose: Sweet barley first, very appealing and very aromatic. Clean, fresh, fruity and malty with malt sugars and a nice layer of dust and paper-like aroma’s adding to the whole. Nice fresh wood tones, but nothing overpowering or off. Straightforward without any frills. Candied wood and candied yellow fruit, with hints of sweet smelling smoke, as well as some licorice. Clean and modern, although some yesteryear comes through as well. More wood (perfumed, highly aromatic) and wax with ripe yellow fruits. The label claims tropical notes, and sure enough… My perception of the fruit depends on the moment I’m smelling this. The first time around I wasn’t all too sure about the fruitiness, but the second time around, yes, here it is. I recently recovered from a nasty variant of the flu, and now that the nose is working again, I certainly pick up more on the fruit now! I’m very pleased with this Benromach. It smells very nice, accessible, balanced and its very aromatic and appealing. Well made, wonderful stuff and very affordable as well. After smelling this on many occasions over time, the fruity bit does wear off if you keep this for a while in your glass, focussing on the dusty and woody notes. Still soft and friendly though.

Taste: On entry, sweet smoke and sweet licorice. More subdued fruits. Candied Barley. You could smell it already, but it is most welcome tasting it. 46% ABV is a very nice drinking strength, definitely better, for modern Malts, than 40% or 43% ABV. Back in the day 40% ABV worked well, think of very old Gordon & MacPhail bottlings, like early Connoisseurs Choice bottlings (brown label, map label etc.) Yet Malts from this century definitely need a higher strength, higher than 43% if you ask me. Sweet, woody, spicy, somewhat bitter and slightly fruity (less so than in the nose). Tropical, well maybe. The wood has more to say here than it did on the nose. So more wood, slightly harsh even and showing some bitterness. The smoke is here as well and in the triangle between the wood, the smoke and the bitterness, it does take away a bit from the balance of the palate. A new sip with a fruity start masks the bitter bit for a moment. The finish is not very long and not a lot of it carries over into the aftertaste. But almost all you get is good (it turns out the bitterness has the longest staying power). No off notes. A very pleasant, fairly simple (it doesn’t develop a lot) and affordable dram. There is some diluted vanilla present, proving the maturation on (first fill) American oak. By the way, due to the bitter note this has, it isn’t entirely a casual sipper. Good, but I preferred the nose over the palate.

By itself a (partial) Cara Gold offering isn’t saying very much, it would be really interesting to have several Benromach bottlings, like this one, made with different barley varieties, open at the same time, to be able to compare them to each other. I checked my stash, but there isn’t another one at hand. A bere barley version would be nice, come to think of it, because bottlings like this remind me of the rebooted Springbank Local Barley series, where the Bere Barley version bottled in 2017 is my favourite. Yes I often prefer it over the 16yo and the dark 10yo. Sure the 16yo and the dark 10yo are great and definitely stellar as well, but the 11yo from 2017 is so good! Don’t be fooled by higher numbers or the colour of Whisky! Final remark, this particular Benromach worked best for me in a small tulip glass, a narrow, long stemmed Riedel for instance as opposed to a bigger glass, like the Holmegaard Perfection Spirit Glass. Both are very good, yet different. Good glassware always shows you more sides of the Whisky you’re drinking, so I do recommend to invest in good and several different pieces of glassware. It makes exploring your dram a lot more fun!

Points: 85

Paul John (57.67%, OB, Single Cask #1615, for Germany, 216 bottles, 2016)

As said in the previous review, I tend to have a pair of open bottles of Paul John on my lectern. At the moment cask #4914 (peated) as well as this unpeated #1615 are on there. Both bottled for the German market. After the peated expression, lets mow turn our attention to the unpeated expression. In the previous review I have remarked that the peated expressions seem to be better and thus score higher. Unpeated cask #1051 scored relatively low with 84 points and low and behold, now the peated cask #4914 from the previous review scores mid eighties as well. 85 points is lower than its predecessors. This is how the universe tends to work. I’m now betting on this cask #1615 getting a score, very high in the eighties, to bring balance in said universe. Not much more to add to the intro at this point, all has been said, so why not cut this intro short for once and dive right into this unpeated Paul John.

Color: Slightly orange gold.

Nose: Fruity and very appetizing. Right out of the gate a fruity, nutty and friendly dram. Malts, sweet malt actually. Lots of unexpected fruit notes, still have to wrap my head around all these fruits. All yellow fruits. Now I get hints of grapes and Alsatian über aromatic Gewurztraminer. Wow, how’s that for yet another take on a single cask Paul John. Ripe yellow fruits, bananas from Jamaican Rum. Cask #1615 turns out to be quite the funky puppy. Wet cardboard and dust. Quite a change is happening now to the body of this Malt. Dry wood with more fruit and vanilla. Fruity ice-cream. Instant gratification, not a lot of layering or complexity. This one puts all its wonderful smelling cards on the table right away.

Taste: Very tasty right out of the gate. Fruity like the nose with nice, slightly prickly oak. Nutty, somewhat vegetal and with a slightly sweet deepness. Warming. Very well balanced. Amazing actually how all these Paul John single casks can differ so much, and remember all are coming from first fill Bourbon casks. Unpeated yes, but there is something about this one. Maybe toasted oak, maybe the oak had lots of residual sugars, like a hint of smoky, sugary oak. Although the fruit dominates this Malt, the wood definitely plays a wonderful role as well. Paul John always claim to be tropical, well if you want a tropical Paul John, this is it. It’s the most tropical I’ve had to date. Very fruity but with a paper or cardboard edge to it, turning into a more bitter wood note, as well as some pencil shavings in the finish. Quite dry. This would have benefited if some of the fruity sweetness would have made it into the finish more, as well as into the aftertaste. In no way is this young smelling or unfinished. Maybe if this had aged some more, it might have gained somewhat more complexity, but it might also have picked up some more wood and bitterness and it also has more than enough of this, so maybe it is at its best as it is.

Points: 88

As a casual sipper I definitely preferred this unpeated cask #1615 to the peated cask #4914. With other sets of open Paul Johns I had in the past, it is often the other way around. Also I’d like to mention that casual sipping is much different from analyzing, because in the case of the latter, the Whisky is getting much much more attention. When analyzing, the Whisky is the focal point whereas with casual sipping the center of attention might be a film, a book or an interesting conversation, to name but a few distractions. This shift in attention also changes your perception of the Whisky at hand more than you might think.

Since this turns out to be yet another high scoring Paul John, and since I still have a wee dram of peated cask #745 left, lets compare these two for a moment. Wow, smelling cask #745 (again, the darker of the two) after cask #1615 makes it truly amazing. Holy moly what a winner cask #745 truly is on the nose. And what a nice pair to smell. The peated one has the Paul John plastic note, and this unpeated one does not. cask #745 has peat, clay, rubber and plastic, all traits cask #1615 does not have (obviously). cask #745 is a way more fuller and aromatic Whisky, more industrial and much bigger (and it has horseradish in the aftertaste). It unhinges slightly in the finish though, and that is probably why cask #777 scored a point more than cask #745. Both cask #1615 and cask #745 taste entirely different. So again, 89 points for cask #745 still stands (again) and the way cask #1615 finishes and all things considered, 88 points is correct amount of points for this one as well. Mind you, all this scoring stuff is highly personal, so I urge you all to make up your own mind if you get the chance to taste the Whiskies you read about, and don’t follow what anybody says blindly. Over and out for now!

Paul John (59.2%, OB, Single Cask #4914, for Germany, Peated, 138 bottles, 2017)

For a long time now I have been opening two Paul John bottles at once. One peated and one unpeated, once a mix of both. Very often single cask offerings, simply because they interest me the most and beauty lies in the details. As far as know, all the single cask offerings I came across are ex-Bourbon casks, so no Sherry or Port stuff here. As many aficionados or anoraks know, Paul John appeared on my radar because of the wonderful tornado that is Shilton Alameida, currently of Tel Aviv outfit Milk & Honey. If you ever visit a good Whisky Festival go over and visit Shilton! Paul John does not seem to bottle a lot of single casks anymore, so most of the reviews that will appear on these pages in the future are bottles from my stash. These older single cask offerings will disappear more and more from retail shelves although they still do appear in auctions with decent hammer prices. Decent from the buyers perspective that is.

I’ve had plenty of Paul Johns open, and thus Paul John is no scarcity on these pages, with even several independent offerings from Malts of Scotland and Cadenheads. However the focus now lies on Officially released Single Casks and as has been the case earlier, I will review one peated and one unpeated expression. Until now, three unpeated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier (scores between brackets): cask #1444 (89), cask #1906 (87) and cask #1051 (84). Two peated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier: cask #745 (89) and cask #777 (90). As can be seen the peated expressions right now seem to be “better” than the unpeated ones. So lets see how the next pair will turn out. Let’s start with the peated expression: cask #4914.

Color: light, middle gold.

Nose: Initially quite malty, with fatty, smoky vegetal notes of peat. Clean and smoky, bonfire style. Light (and deep), yet also very balanced, fragrant and laid back. Ever so slightly meaty, more gravy-like actually. Slightly fruity with hints of warm plastic and distant vanilla. Soft wood and fresh almonds. Pencil shavings later on in the mix, and I might add, these are the shavings of a very old pencil. Its warming, fresh and clean at the same time. The nose has a pudding-like quality to it and is actually very nice, not raw or harsh in any way, nor is the smoke sharp. If the taste is anything like the nose is we’ll have yet another peated winner from Paul John. Its almost like a breath of fresh air. Seaside, a strong and windy day kind-a fresh air, mixed in with some minty notes and horse radish, that’s how fresh this smells. This smells different from all other Paul Johns I had before. Much cleaner, and this time around, when sniffed “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have guessed this is Indian Whisky. I struggle to find the six-row barley in this one, its there, but less apparent than in most other ones. Still an amazing Whisky considering it still must be a young spirit, although we know by now how ageing works in the Goan climate.

Taste: Quite an unexpected start after smelling this one for a while. It starts sweet and nothing in the nose prepared me for that. Sweet and fruity and the almonds from the nose are present as well. First sip is very warming going down. Sweet with vanilla and slightly bitter wood. Very tasty, yet also a bit thin and a lot less complex than the nose was. The balance seems slightly off towards the finish, since not everything you taste seems to fit together perfectly. The wood becomes more paper-like, as well as slightly acidic, but not in a fruity way at all. It’s the acid you get from oak. You can almost smell this acidity in freshly cut oak. So the start and most of the body are more than OK, it’s the finish and especially the aftertaste where things start to go slightly wrong. It is layered, but in this case the layers won’t stick to each other. A sort of unpleasant tension is happening between the layers. I have plastic in the finish, and if I smell it right after that, the nose shows this plastic edge as well. Plastic is not uncommon for Paul John, but it usually isn’t a problem. It is actually a bit of a shame the palate can’t keep up with the nose, especially since the nose promised so much, and this is not even a heavy hitter, so go figure. Hey don’t get me wrong, this is still a tasty Whisky, but it certainly does have its flaws. The wood is slightly too bitter, and it goes downhill in the finish and the aftertaste. It loses its sweetness and fruitiness, to be replaced by acidic wood. Easy to pick up on when one’s somewhat experienced with Paul John.

As luck would have it, I still had a sample lying around from cask #745, the liquid of which is quite a bit darker, way more creamy and pleasant and way more balanced. Yeah, cask #745 is really good stuff. Based an a quick comparison on the nose, cask #745 is the clear winner. It has a lot more going on for it. It’s quite a big difference as well for two bottles you would expect to be similar. To sum things up, not all single casks are created equal. If you come across one, you might want to pass up on unpeated cask #1051 and thus this peated cask #4914, both are sub-par compared to the rest, yet still not bad. On the palate, cask #745 is also much better, bigger and way more balanced. The peat is different and more special as well. It also has some off-notes, but these work well with in stead of working against the Whisky, and only adds to the experience.

Do I regret getting #4914? No, not at all. After a few of those single casks, one might think all are quite similar and also might get a bit boring. However cask #4914 is still a good one, and trying it is still a great experience because of the different feel it has, and it also shows me how good #745 really is. By the way, cask #745 also has the same plastic note as cask #4914, and is much better. See, off-notes aren’t necessarily bad, they can work. This review has again been quite educational, and when these two bottles are gone, I will more than happily replace them with two other single casks, one peated and one unpeated. I guess the 89 points for cask #745 still stand, although 90 points would feel good as well.

Points: 85

Bimber “France Edition” 2021 (58.9%, OB, Port Cask #30, for La Maison Du Whisky, 290 bottles)

This is the fifth review of Bimber on these pages, After cask #194 (Rye cask), cask #224 (Bourbon cask), cask #94 (virgin oak cask) and cask #41 (Pedro Ximénez cask), we now turn our attention to cask #30, which was a cask that previously held Port. This is another chance to see yet another side of Bimber. Until now the scores ranged between 86 and 88, which is quite a narrow range of scores, well see if this Port expression will broaden this narrow range somewhat, although I suspect it might not, and is so, not by a lot anyway, since the quality has been there all the time. A score lower than 86 is probably unlikely, especially since, for the time being, the Spirit seems to work well in any cask, and on the other hand, the Whisky might be just too young to propel the score way past 88 Points, but hey, you never know and if the Whisky turns out stellar, it will definitely score higher than 88, and if the Whisky is (badly) flawed it will definitely score lower than 86.

Color: Orange Brown, no red hue.

Nose: Warming, elegant. Spicy, one of the markers that many Bimbers have is cinnamon. It’s a signature aroma. Vanillin, raisins, licorice, leather, dust and old mahogany. Lots happening right from the beginning. The wood especially smells really good, very classy. Hints of Rhum Agricole and an old hardened out floral bar of soap. I said: hints, so this nose is not particularly soapy. No, cinnamon, licorice and wood are the main markers, other than that, this smells quite fresh and lively. It has some fruity acidity to it, as well as a breath of fresh air. Apple pie and cookie dough. This one ticks a lot of nice boxes. Toffee. Not very red-fruity though. In the Whisky business Port is Port, they really don’t seem to care a lot that there are a lot of different kinds of Port in existence. So I wonder what kind of Port was in the cask before the Bimber spirit, assuming it is a first fill. Again a very pleasant nose. The Bourbon, Rye, Virgin, Pedro Ximénez and now this Port are all very good on the nose, yet this one especially. This Port version smells really really good, it might not be the most complex of the ones I have smelled and tasted until now, but very good nevertheless. The aged spirit already smells nice, but the Port definitely adds another layer.

Taste: Definitely leather first this time. Hints of black coal and old style red fruits, initially like a Whisky from the seventies in a good Sherry cask. This old-style effect only shows itself now that the Whisky had some time to breathe in the bottle as well as in my glass. The freshly opened bottle didn’t have this. Some toffee and sweet fruity Wine notes at first. Cinnamon propels it forward. Again a very elegant taste. Wood, cinnamon and leather. Slightly burnt sugar and hits of tarry licorice. A tad of woody bitterness as well now. Sweetish with again the hints of red fruit we know from Old Bowmores and good old Redbreasts. Sweet and fruity not unlike strawberry jam. Next some vanilla powder seems to be mixed into the cinnamon. More typical fresh oak, with a neat little bitter edge, giving it some more backbone. Pencil shavings adds another wood-note. This is also the moment, the initial sweetness wears off. On the palate it even has more traits of Rhum Agricole than the nose had. I even pick up on some cola now. Tasty. This is a very balanced Bimber. Initially I thought Bimber works best with Bourbon, Rye and Virgin oak casks, and I might have mentioned that earlier, in hindsight, I guess it will work in almost everything, since the Pedro Ximénez turned out better than I thought and this Port also works very, very well for me. With 86 Points, the Pedro Ximénez version is the lowest scoring Bimber, and my least favorite of the lot. But come on, 86 points, that’s quite impressive for the worst Bimber on these pages. Taste-wise this Port version might not be the most complex of the lot, yet comes close though. It does have a better drinkability than the Pedro Ximénez version I just reviewed, still not one for casual sipping though, but if you do, you’ll be alright nevertheless. I totally get why La Maison Du Whisky (LMDW) picked this particular cask, excellent choice!

This one has a lot to offer. After all the Bimbers I’ve tasted, not all have been reviewed though, I’m sure the beauty lies in the details and therefore Bimber still needs to have my full attention. This one is not a casual sipper. If you give it the time it rightfully deserves, you’ll definitely will get rewarded big time. Personally, Bimber is maybe my favorite of all the new distilleries. High quality and very mature for the age of the liquid.

Points: 89

The window of scores did become a little bit wider now with 89 Points. Very good Bimber once again. If the Sweetness would have more staying power towards the finish and into the aftertaste, this would have scored 90 points.