Willett Pot Still Reserve (47%, Kentucky Bourbon Distillers, Barrel #4802, 272 bottles)

After all these Scottish peated giants, and since May descended upon us, maybe a good time to change the tune a bit, an intermezzo of sorts. Over we go to the ol’ U.S. of A. Way back in 2015 I already reviewed another single barrel #82028, mentioning I was looking forward to trying another barrel of the same. That one came from a sample I got, and since I liked it, it must have been the reason I bought me one. Well fast forward for more than ten years, and here we are!

First of all, because you see it first, this rather unusual still type bottle, especially when its full, it is quite the spectacle, because let’s be honest, the darker colour of Bourbon in clear glass makes for a killer look. The bottle itself is very nice looking as well, but also highly unpractical, and since the cork is narrow, it tends to dry out more quickly than other corks. Personally I don’t have all that much room on my lectern, nor in other places I might keep some open bottles. This bottle has thus quite the footprint, so I guess when this one is empty, I can replace it with at least two, and maybe even three “normal” bottles, so much space this one takes up. Thinking like that, I will be happy when this one is gone, because of its size.

Willett distillery was founded by Thompson Willett in 1936. Located in Bardstown, Nelson County, Kentucky. The first spirit was put into a barrel only a year later. Not sure when the distillery actually became dormant, but after renovations the distillery was working again by 2012, however the Willett Pot Still Reserve was introduced in 2008 as a single barrel expression, with distillates of one or several other Kentucky distilleries which, as far as I know, are still undisclosed. The Whisky from those barrels was said to be 8 to 10 years old, but again, this has not been confirmed. The Whisky itself is therefore a bit shrouded in mystery, we all love that transparency. In 2015 Willett Pot Still Reserve was turned into a small batch release, which can be seen on the vertical label across the long neck of the bottle. Since Willett is a small outfit, I guess the small batch is also a really small batch, maybe 10 to 15 barrels? Again, shrouded in mystery, move on nothing to see here. Only in 2016 the first bottle of Whisky distilled on Willetts own still was released (Willett Family Estate Bourbon) in a tall more regular looking bottle, similar to those of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection. Not sure when, and if, Spirit of the Willett finds its way into the Willett Pot Still Reserve (Small Batch).

Color: Orange Brown. Lively.

Nose: Oak, toasted oak and green sappy vegetal oak. Lots of honey. The wood is beautiful in this one. Amazing. Smells tasty and chewy. Old dried out orange skins and crystallized honey. The toasted oak almost smells smoky. Quite waxy and also fruity, dusty and dry with hints of fresh almonds. Creamy with dusty vanilla powder. Old books and fallen dry garden leaves (from trees, not shrubs) in autumn. Sweet liquorice, dust and more virgin oak notes. Small hints of paint and thinner (I don’t get this on every occasion though). Crystallized honey again with toffee/caramels. A very appetizing and classy nose, almost melancholic. Well balanced, I like it a lot. This also works well with fresh air. Sometimes I do get some whiffs that remind me a bit of Rhum Agricole. A nose based on wonderful wood, yet never overpowered by it. Very well balanced.

Taste: Starts a bit thin, with spicy and waxy wood notes and thus quite some oak (and sawdust). Somewhat sweet with an liquorice edge. A bit soapy as well (rye?). Slightly sweet, a sweetness of the more chewy kind, helped along by the spicy and woody backbone, yes with some bitterness as well. Sappy wood style. The Rhum Agricole notes are apparent here right from the start as well. As said, thin, so maybe this suffered a bit of too much dilution with water. After sipping it, the nose shows some more floral notes, (again rye), than before. The taste shows some diluted sweetness in the realm of vanilla, caramel and honey. Yup a sweet and healthy dose of honey. The amount of wood I get, depends on myself and the moment I sip this, especially late in the evening I found more wood, than in the morning, when ones palate is rested and pick up more on other things.

Bourbon prices are soaring these days due to large demand, not in the least by Americans finally proud of their own product and appreciating aged Bourbons some more. Even though this has been reduced to 94 proof, this is a true gem, and very affordable to boot. I understand this might not be for everyone, since it is not an entry level or easy going Bourbon, because it’s quite spicy and woody as well, and the soapy bit in the taste might put some people off. Still this is so good. When I finally found out how good it was, it may have been a bit wonky when freshly openend, this went very fast and again I had to hurry writing this review before it was gone. Recommended, but a little bit less reduction probably would have been a good thing. I guess this has been targeted at a specific target audience, hence the ABV.

Points: 85

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Smoketrails Manzanilla Edition (46%, OB, Batch No. SP/MZL: 2022/01-ST, 1000 ml)

Lets close off this Ardbeg April and the entire month of April without recycling earlier material, simply because the Ardbeg at hand is not part of the NAS special releases. This 1000 ml bottle is part of a travel retail series called Smoketrails, of which, at the time of writing, there have been three releases. First this Manzanilla Edition in 2022 (Manzanilla Sherry, a pale and dry Fortified Wine from Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Spain), a Côte Rôtie Edition in 2023 (French Red Wine from the Northern Rhône, mostly Syrah and some Viognier) and finally a Napa Valley Edition in 2024 (Red Wine from California USA, Cabernet Sauvignon). Nothing was released (yet) after these three. Maybe the short series got discontinued or maybe sales were slow, and they are waiting to release a new one, only after the old stock sells (out) some more. I really don’t know. Where the special releases are often not very much liked (not all of them anyway), these travel retail litre bottles get even less love from the “discerning” public. Because of this I was a little bit weary diving into this one expecting a bit of a weak Ardbeg.

Manzanilla is a fortified wine similar to a Fino Sherry. It is made in the same way. It ages under flor, which is a cap made of indigenous yeast. This cap protects the ageing Wine from oxidation. Due to the local microclimate (low temperatures and high humidity) Manzanilla ages under a thicker flor, than a Fino Sherry, which results in a fresher and more crisp Sherry. Manzanilla stands for chamomile infusion because it is one of the aroma’s of this Wine. Apart from this, Manzanilla has a savoury and salty flavour. The grapes that can be used for a Manzanilla are Palomino, Pedro Ximénez, Moscatel de Grano Menudo and Moscatel de Alejandría, and these grow on chalky soil, probably the origin of the salty flavour.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: First whiff is youth, these young Malts often have this milky smell. Ardcore had the same and luckily in both occasions it dissipates quickly, unless you start rolling the Whisky your glass, than it happens all over again, but only for a short while. In this respect Ardcore and Smoketrail share a common marker. After the initial note(s), smoke comes next, as the name already promised us, and as is often the case with Islay Whiskies, smoke is never far away. Notes of burnt (news)paper. Now it also shows a more spicy (and soapy) feel to it. The “soap” adds to the whole. It’s not a problem. Also the wood starts to play its role, and I do like the wood in this one. Slightly mineral and quite pleasant overall. Definitely not very complex. However, I do like what I smell. So far so good. All in all, this has a very likeable, friendly and well balanced nose.

Taste: What can I say, youth is here as well, like in the nose. Milky again (initially), with smoke and a lot of the now easily recognizable liquorice notes, most, if not all, Ardbeg April whiskies seem to have. Nice sweetness, which fits this profile. The liquorice also develops a sort of peppery edge to it, again, very nice. This has more to offer than people led me on to believe beforehand. Definitely young, and maybe even simple and again slightly soapy, but also very, very drinkable, it tastes like a 43% ABV Whisky, kind of soft so that’s nice. Sweetish, with sometimes a rather artificial winegum kind of note to it. But the sweetness in the taste is well balanced between it and the wood and the liquorice. I guess the occasional wine gum note, as well as a particular part of the spiciness comes from the Manzanilla, otherwise this is definitely not an Ardbeg that is dominated by the Sherry, not at all. The Manzanilla is used with taste, or not a lot is used at all.

Based on comments from my surroundings, this was supposed not to be all that good, but actually, it might be simple, but there is also nothing wrong with it. No off notes whatsoever, and apart from that it has some nice aroma’s to give. This is very affordable and for that you get a Whisky that is young, but also not un-finished. It never feels like something that has been bottled too early, and its a litre bottle to boot. I say go for it! A valid option if you find all those NAS-ers too overpriced.

Points: 85

Batch No. SP/MZL: 2022/01-ST:

  • SP = Spain
  • MZL = Manzanilla
  • 2022 = Year of release
  • 01-ST = First edition of Smoketrails

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Ardcore (46%, OB, Black Malt, 2022)

I do have to admit, I really am a sucker for the Ardbeg visuals, and yes, the marketing does play its part in that. Even I am susceptible to that, there is no escaping from it! I just love the classic Ardbeg bottle, its shape, the green glass, and all those many different labels it now comes with. So having a few of those side by side on my lectern makes for a nice look, somewhat akin to me really liking the look of the wall of books in my living room. Also a stunning visual. People are collectors by nature, so gettin g a few of these is quite normal, also I do like the explore the different takes on Ardbeg, however I’m not a completist, I do not necessarily need to have them all, although more is definitely more. If I pass on one or the other it is mostly based on price.

For this fourth instalment in Ardbeg April, lets do even some more recycling shall we: A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones I previously reviewed use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximénez (Spain), Marsala (Sicily, Italy) or Port (Portugal) kind. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks, casks with toasted virgin oak lids (funny business with casks) or using a high density mash (funny business during production). For Ardcore, Ardbeg did a hardcore roasting, ending up with black malt. A process more common in the world of Beer. Just think of Beers like Porters and Stouts. A stage before black malt is called chocolate malt (slightly less roasted). A malt that is used by Dr. Bill for Glenmorangie Signet.

Color: Light straw.

Nose: Initially malty, milky, young. Not particularly the nicest of smells. Barley, barley sugar. Soon after the first sniff a more balanced, less young and more spicy profile emerges. Spicy wood and maybe some a-typical woodsmoke. Roling the Whisky around in my glass brings out this youth again for only (and luckily) a brief moment. Sweet yellow fruits, not ripe per se. Nice fruity notes, like peach and apricots. Fruit balanced with paper and something a bit soapy. Interesting, but not a problem though. So heavy mash was supposed to add more tropical fruit notes to “Smokiverse”, but didn’t, and now barley that has been roasted to (almost) a crisp, does. Amazing. I guess these experiments show us some different results to what we might have expected, (all this obviously based on nose alone). So these experiments supply us with some essential data, another reason why it is pointless to be so highly critical to these bottlings (apart from their pricing maybe). If the price was lower, more people could learn a thing or two from these experiments. Now this NAS-series might be somewhat elitist because of their price and how many there are. That’s why quite a few of these reviews were from bottle shares, mostly done with Nico. Between Smokiverse, Spectacular and Ardcore, and absolutely smelling past the youthy bit mentioned above, I like the nose of Ardcore best. Forget about the first whiff though…

Taste: Sweet entry, initially a bit simple. Smoky and nutty, but it quickly gains momentum and opens op nicely. A very nice effect. The typical Ardbeg liquorice is present again, yet in this one it doesn’t overpower the rest of what you can taste as it did in some others reviewed before. In the others it was maybe a bit mono, here is it quadraphonic, making for a bigger stage (well, at least stereo, let’s settle on that). Ashes, charcoal, soft peat and soft smoke, but with an added bitter/burnt edge to it. Dark chocolate, pencil lead and ear-wax. Not over the top, so it is a nice addition, giving the fruit a bit of a backbone. These notes (not the fruity ones) are amplified if you have this one after dinner or late in the evening when your palate is saturated or tired. Clay (of the artificial kind that children play with). Again, very nice. Very fruity, with all these strict edges. Wonderful combination. Great balance between the more astringent notes, the sweetness and the fruit. Nice balance as well with the nose in  mind. Also worth another mention is this wonderful development. Classy. For those who wonder based on the previous reviews, nope, this one is actually not a big gulper, this one can be sipped just fine. For me it worked best as an aperitif and not an after dinner dram. Combined with the initial whiff, this is a Whisky that needs a bit of an user manual, so its not an easy one. Slightly bitter in its aftertaste (especially with a tired palate), that’s the black malt, dark chocolate bit of this Ardbeg

Well, Ardcore suits me just fine, this is right up my alley, its fruity and offers a lot more. Develops like crazy, development also quick right out of the gate. I can’t wait to get me one of those Committee bottlings, bottled at 50.1%, which can be an ideal drinking strength, like all those Old Malt Casks from the previous two decades, especially since I feel 46% might be slightly too low for this profile. Yes this Ardbeg makes me very enthusiastic! Dr. Bill please consider this experiment a success. What about an addition (also in ABV please) to Uigeadail and Corryvreckan in the core range based on the Ardcore experiment, only slightly longer aged, to get rid of the first whiff? Oh, that would be so nice! Please? This one really seems to work best as an aperitif rather than as a digestif, it loses quite a bit of its magic after dinner. This one is meant for a fresh palate and not a tired one.

Points: 87

By now, and for now, we can identify the following three main groups for the special NAS-sers I have reviewed up until now:

1. (Part) Maturation in non-bourbon casks, easy peasy, not unusual, lots of options here,
2. Experiments with casks, experiments, nice, experiments are definitely a learning experience,
3. Experiments in production, even more experiments, how very nice, excellent!

2022 Ardbeg Ardcore: (Extremely) roasted black malt (3)
2014 Ardbeg Auriverdes: Toasted virgin oak lids (2)
2023 Ardbeg BizarreBQ: Double charred casks, Pedro Ximénez casks & BBQ Casks (1) & (2)
2012 Ardbeg Galileo: Bourbon + Marsala (1)
2015 Ardbeg Perpetuum: Bourbon + Sherry (1)
2025 Ardbeg Smokiverse: High gravity mashing (3)
2023 Ardbeg Spectacular: Bourbon + Port (1)

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Spectacular (46%, OB, Port Wine Casks & Bourbon Barrels, 2023)

For this third instalment of Ardbeg April, we can go green and totally sustainable, because in the previous review there is a sentence that I can recycle and expand upon with every review of an Ardbeg NAS special release, so here is the updated sentence: “A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones (I previously reviewed) use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximénez (Spain) or Marsala (Sicily) kind, probably anything other than Whisky matured in ex-Bourbon casks. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks, casks with toasted virgin oak lids (funny business with casks) or using a high density mash (funny business during production)”. Obviously there are more expressions, and the real list is much longer. All of the above are experiments from the mad professor Dr. B. Lumsden. Ardbeg Spectacular falls into the first category, since it is a blend of Whisky matured in Bourbon barrels as well as Whisky matured in Port casks. Port is a fortified Wine, from, you guessed it, Portugal. Bottled on November 14th 2023 and November 15th & 16th 2023, (for Feis Ile 2024). The back label of the bottling runs on the 15th and 16th have Shorty in the top right corner, whereas those bottled on the 14th have not. Shortie is Ardbeg’s Jack Russel Terrier pictured above, here on his official portrait.

Color: Light gold, without even the slightest pink hue.

Nose: Smoky, dusty and only mere hints of anything Wine like (apart from a hardly noticeable funky sulphur going on, matches). Smoky sharpness with soft and warming bonfire notes along with some minty notes. The sharpness you smell in the streets walking in the snow, and people burning wood in the fireplace. Mocha and milk chocolate. The whole much softer than Smokiverse. It seems to me these recent (modern?) Ardbegs are more based on smoke than peat. Sure the peat is never far away, but it seems to be a bit turned down in the mix. (Remember Lars Ulrich turning down Jason Newsted in the mix. “Turn him down until you can barely hear him, and then turn him down some more”). So, toned down peat, not very earthy and hints of burning newspaper. Still not a lot of Port like candy, yet there is some (I guess). Not a lot of red fruits in general. Funny enough, towards the finish I do pick up on some well dried orange skin. Well dried, so without the acidic bit. Also some fresh oak, slightly more peat and iodine. Should I again mention the marketing department? Why not, so here we go again (briefly). It seems to me they read somewhere that Port casks were used and came up with the “Spectacular” narrative. Based on the nose alone, let’s say, to cut the story short, not a lot of Port-like aromas can be found. But hey, I still have to taste it. I do have some humongous déjà vu right now, there seem to be some similarities in the construction and marketing between Spectacular and Smokiverse. So I now wonder, will this be the another big gulper? I should trademark this, oh great it already is, bummer.

Taste: On entry quite thin with the same liquorice notes Smokiverse has, just somewhat less of it. Barley with a more milky spirit, which makes me believe this is overall a younger Whisky than Smokiverse. Looking at the two initially it’s like both are very similar with the only difference being that spectacular saw one or two Port pipes. If there were more, I’m sure they are refills, and the heavy mash might be a difference, which also didn’t dominate in Smokiverse. The Port didn’t impair a lot of sweetness. The sweetness this has is more of the toffee kind, than it is fruity. However, after some extensive breathing, they start to differ more. Spectacular gains more wood, with a slightly bitter edge, some tar and a more powdery feel and finally some more (thin) red fruity notes, complete with some red fruit acidity. Although hardly noticeable, I’m now pretty sure the Port used must have been of the Vintage kind (red), since the back of my tongue picks up on some tannin’s. Also the smoke in the nose becomes more “tasty” with an added dimension from what seems to be cigarette smoke). A very interesting development. Dare I say it? Can I, can I? Yes, this is yet another big gulper, with bigger gulps this gains in complexity and overall body, remember the thin entry? This has been remedied by the bigger gulp.

Based on the colour (which is a very dangerous assumption), but also on experience (am I experienced?), it seems to me not a lot of Port casks found their way into the final product. A very understandable decision, since Port can easily overpower, giving the Whisky a sweet candy like taste.

I might seem highly critical of these NAS Ardbegs, but again, the nose of this is very good, but the taste stays behind a bit, also it seems to me to be somewhat less balanced. I did like Smokiverse and most of the others more, but the drinkability of Spectacular is a redeeming factor. These NAS-ers are nice additions across the board, but for what they are, maybe somewhat overpriced. The  higher proof standard bottlings Uigeadail an Corryvreckan are very reasonably priced, and maybe therefore the special NAS releases are getting some slack when they are compared to those. And to finish things off, no mention whatsoever about the kind of Port these casks held before. Based on the colour of the Whisky I would say White Port since it totally lacks the pink hue Red Port impairs. Still Red Port seems to be more likely, why would there otherwise be so much red used on the packaging? Confusing.

Points: 85

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Smokiverse (48.3%, OB, High Gravity Mashing, 2025)

Last week we started off Ardbeg April with the “new” Ardbeg 17yo. This time around we are going to have a look at one of the many Ardbeg NAS bottlings.  This bottling was released to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Ardbeg Committee. A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones I previously reviewed use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like several fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximenez or Marsala kind. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks or casks with toasted virgin oak lids.

This Smokiverse is one of these out of the box ones. No funny business with casks this time, but funny business with mashing. This time we are talking about high gravity mashing, which means that the wort is highly concentrated or more dense and subsequently contains more (acetate) esters, giving flavour, or better, which áre the flavour. Less water, more grain, and to cut a long story short, this would result in a more (tropical) fruity and maybe sweeter Ardbeg. Also no mention at all about the casks used on the box or the label, so lets assume (refill) Bourbon casks before starting off, careful with that assumption, Eugene…

Color: Straw.

Nose: Some smoke, with citrussy yellow fruits, so definitely fruity. Recognizable Ardbeg peat, earthy and funky. Also a little bit of funky organics going on within the peat smell. Fans of Ardbeg will recognize it immediately. Hints of burnt plastic, like melting cables. Luckily a mere hint, because if this would have been a more dominating smell, we would be in for a problematic journey. Hints of sulphur in the smell. Tea and moss. Is it overly fruity? No, I wouldn’t say so. Based on the marketing I expected slightly more fruit. The fruit, by the way, is all citrus, I have a hard time finding any kind of tropical fruit in it, and most definitely no ripe tropical fruit. All in all, the nose is quite restrained and also a bit simple. It doesn’t attack my nose when it nears the glass. It helps to warm the glass inside in your hand for a while, to get more out of it. Warming mocha pastry type of smell, maybe even mocha cake made with cream. For me a well behaved Ardbeg. The focus here lies on the dense mash, and with that the fruit, yet the name focuses on smoke. I have to admit that the smoke has a larger role in this one than even the peat does. For me these two definitely do no define this Ardbeg, both don’t dominate the nose of this Ardbeg, something else almost does. Please read on. I guess the marketing department read a story about it, in stead of tasting it. Personally, I would have used images of alone drinker in an armchair and a fireplace instead of a galaxy. I guess the galaxy came in when someone read the word “gravity”, not bothering to ask someone with a nose how this actually smells. But hey, I might be way ahead of myself here, I’m rambling, ranting almost, without even tasting it, so let’s do that now, shall we?

Taste: Well, “nutty” was the first wordt that sprang to mind when tasting this for the first time. Smoke and liquorice next, liquorice is a main marker, it pops up everywhere, and is especially present in the finish and aftertaste, aided again by some smoke. Slightly sweet, but not in a fruity way, yet more like a sweetness coming from the liquorice. The taste is a bit thin again, so again, I feel this is an Ardbeg that needs a bigger gulp, like the 17yo from the previous review did. By the way, this review is written on a entirely different day than that of the 17 yo’s, in case you might wonder. The next sip was indeed a bigger gulp, and yes that’s it, this brings it out way better! I immediately poured some more in my glass. Proper gulping needs more volume. If you have one open, and you are reading this, please join me. The bigger gulp offers us much more depth, more sweetness and yes more liquorice. The whole comes together way better, also achieving a better balance. Chewy sweetness and yes finally, with more ripe fruits as well, with this tiny smoky backbone holding it al together. Interesting development.

48.3% ABV is slightly higher than most of these NAS bottlings which are bottled at 46% ABV I believe. I also understand why. This well behaved Ardbeg needed a bit of a boost, only, 48.3% ABV is still not enough, it’s still too quiet and maybe too well behaved, or it is what it is and we need to accept that this is its nice character. Letting it stand for a while, more of the Islay traits emerge, smoke, peat and tar. The Ardbeg smoke we all know, but not more or different from other Ardbegs, so to especially use the word “smoke”in the name is in my opinion slightly misplaced. Let it go, it’s not important really.

This almost turned out to be a review of a marketing idea instead of the Whisky. I’m sorry for that. Don’t worry, this is only a minor distraction. This is again most definitely not a bad Ardbeg, like many of the other special NAS releases, that somehow get a lot of negative reviews. Granted, Uigeadail and Corryvreckan are very, very good, high in ABV and cost (much) less. And the Ten is not bad either. Still I like Smokiverse. It’s a contemplative Malt, not one for a (big) group of people to have together, but one for you by yourself in your armchair before a cosy fire. To finish things off, haters will be haters, but for me this “yet another NAS” has more than enough interesting things that I like.

Points: 86

 

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg 17yo (40%, OB, Committee Exclusive, 2023)

The first of April is no joke this time. It is the start of Ardbeg April, one month which will be solely dedicated to some more recent bottlings of Ardbeg. Since there are already quite a few Ardbeg’s reviewed on these pages, the history of Ardbeg has already mostly been covered. For this review we first have to go back to 1996 when Ardbeg was put on sale and was bought by Glenmorangie Plc. for £7 million just a year later. Ardbeg distillery was in a bit of a state, so quite some renovations were necessary for which money was dearly needed. Also because of this, the most recent fase of Ardbeg’s modern history starts in 1997. Not only did Glenmorangie buy the distillery in that year (February 27th), with Dr. Bill Lumsden entering the Ardbeg scene, but also production was restarted (June 25th) and to bring in some money Ardbeg 17yo was released quickly thereafter.

Bottled at a mere 40% ABV (for the domestic market?), yet luckily there also was a 43% ABV version (for other markets or travel retail?). I tried several of both, and the extra 3% most definitely made a difference. Other landmarks were the releases of the 10yo (TEN) in 2000, Uigeadail in 2003 and Corryvreckan in 2008. These three form the true current backbone of the range. There are obviously a lot more releases since 1997, but in the day, these three together with the 17yo were “Ardbeg”. Alas the 17yo was discontinued in 2004, most likely, since Ardbeg was distilling intermittently, not a lot of stock for a 17yo was available anymore, hence the move to two NAS bottlings for the core range, though both boasted a higher strength than deemed normal for a core range. But hey, fans of Ardbeg are not normal folk. Then came 2023, the rebirth of the 17yo, return of a legend, bottled again at 40% ABV and commanding a hefty price. Both parameters made me pass up on a bottle of my own, but I did participate in a bottle-share with Nico and also Andy was so kind to provide me with a sample.

On the back of the box it is mentioned that for this release Dr. Bill Lumsden meticulously crafted this new 17yo to mirror the original, that is quite the statement, because the original 17yo has quite a reputation and proved to be highly popular and the available Whiskies at Ardbeg to create the original are very different from the Whiskies available today. I guess the original 17yo is a hard act to follow. For Ardbeg 17yo, Whiskies were used that matured in Bourbon and Sherry casks.

Color: Straw

Nose: Lightly peated, lively and very fruity. Light overall, so I guess the reduction to 40% ABV did its trick here as well, but I maybe getting ahead of myself here. Pour it and keep it under a lid for a moment, and then smell, works wonders. Comparing the old 10yo to the old 17yo. the 10yo was always more raw, peaty, just more of a beast. The old 17yo, was a way more refined and elegant Ardbeg. The smell of this new one is definitely soft, fruity and elegant, ther is a lot coming up from my glass. Pretty pleased with this one so far. Is it the same as the old 17yo? Hard to say without a head to head. Its been a really long time ago I had one full sized bottle open on my lectern. Does it smell like an older bottling? Sure, yes I believe so. So based on the nose alone I would say well done, getting this profile from more modern stock. Very soft and sweet smoke, combined with an almost sweet and citrussy fruitiness. After some breathing Iodine becomes noticeable. Very distant and very soft wood note (slightly salty smelling, yes salt has a smell as well). It is even more dusty than it is woody. Again, still very lively and fresh. The reduction is also noticeable that even after extensive breathing not a lot is happening anymore. No oozing of layers. Well balanced it is though. Extensive breathing also brings out more of a modern feel. Very nice nose. Well done.

Taste: First sip is almost like drinking water, I was prepared for some reduction, but not as much as this. OK, reset my expectations and palate and try again (just in case this is a big gulper, I splashed a little more in my glass for the second sip). Update: it is a big gulper, definitely! (This means, don’t drink this in small sips, this doesn’t work). The nose was quite “big” so this greeting was kind of unexpected. Second sip/gulp, still very thin. Slightly sweet, old peat, crushed beetle, slightly smoky and fruity again, exactly the same as the nose. Hints of cold black tea with yellow marmelade. Also hints of latex paint (minus the solvents) and a nice herbal note. Hot butter on toast. Again well balanced, but so thin. Funny enough the taste is more complex than the nose, especially when you let it sit for a while. Liquorice enters the finish, or better the aftertaste, it becomes apparent right after swallowing. Not a hard one to review.

Releasing this as a committee exclusive makes sense. This is for fans of Ardbeg (count me in). I’m a defender of all the NAS special releases, and believe me, I’ve got a lot of defending to do, even in my own Whisky-club. And just to annoy these people, then next review will be just one of those. The public in general probably haven’t tasted the old version, nor would pay the price. Aficionado’s have and will, and even better we even forgive them the reduction for historical reasons. I really like the experiment and seeing a 17yo again, and am happy I could try this. Will I buy it? Probably not, I guess the bottle-share suffices. No modern stock just doesn’t work at 40% ABV like older stock can, Great to get and older profile on the nose, but taste-wise I probably would have decided against 40% ABV even when the old 17yo was bottled at that strength, and please don’t tell me that is what the public wanted… This commands quite a hefty price, I wonder what an old 17yo bottled at 43% would cost at auction? Also, this new 17yo is a big gulper, as mentioned above, so be prepared you will finish your expensive bottle pretty quickly.

Points: 86 (It might be better than this, but it’s so thin!)

Thanks Andy: this was from your sample! I needed the lot in one sitting, also because I accidentally poured a little bit of it on my keyboard, sorry!

Talisker 8yo 2009/2018 (59.4%, OB, Limited Release, Deep Charred First Fill Bourbon Hogsheads, L8071CM001, 4.680 bottles, )

In the previous review I mentioned that the Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength had some Talisker moments (white pepper), so after looking on my lectern my eye fell on another Diageo Natural Cask Strength release of this 8yo Talisker that needs to be reviewed, for by now, obvious reasons. The Caol Ila is a NAS bottling (No Age Statement) and this Talisker has been stated, proudly I might add, as an 8yo, make for an excellent comparison. Mind you, in 2018 low numbers were more or less scoffed at. The public preferred funny named Whiskies over something with an age statement with a low number. Funny because a funny name allowed for even younger Whiskies to be used. Not a lot is known about the Whiskies that went into the different batches of the Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength, but we can be pretty confident (after tasting) it is made with Whiskies between 5 and 10yo, probably more 8yo to 10yo than 5yo to 7yo or is it?. Back in 2018 this release was quite popular, because even at this young age the Talisker was deemed excellent and it gained momentum. Many friends I have that dabble a bit in Whisky, purchased multiple bottles of this, as did I.

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Funky and deep. Very different from the Islay Whiskies reviewed before. Definitely a breath of fresh island air. A much wider stage. Deep, big and bold. Not quite sure how to describe this deepness, what is it and where is it coming from? Is it the deep char? If it is, it doesn’t smell burnt at all, an aroma one might expect. Lets start out with and old piece of dried out toffee, but don’t think about its sweetness, it’s everything you smell from such an old piece apart from the sweet bit. Old dried out swampy wood. Deep overripe fruit, but again of the dried out kind. No fresh smelling notes apart from the sea air. More wood now, apart from the swamp wood, indeed a charred note now. This smells very mature and in now way I would have guessed this is from an 8yo Whisky. Amazing. Sometimes a whiff of a more farmy note whiffs in and whiffs out again. Definitely not an easy of entry level Whisky. Definitely a special release. Part of the deepness seems to come from an acidic (not ripe) red fruit note. Quite complex 8yo if you ask me. After some breathing, slightly more balance, only slightly since it already started out very well balanced. More dusty now. Some of the yellow fruity notes I called over-ripe, are really borderline ripe, right before its going bad actually (now not dried). So some unique funky organics going on in this one. Throw all these strange aroma’s together and you get something really amazing. The wood emerged late, yet even later comes this earthy and funky peat note, mixed in with the funky fruit. With this also a smoky note which is unique as well to this Whisky since it als smells slightly soapy (not perfumy).

Taste: Aiaiai, this tastes so good right out of the gate. This has Taliskers trademark white pepper, it has also a very nice sweetness going on, and the smoke is upfront, where in the nose it was almost coming in as an afterthought, probably pushed back by the plethora of funky aromatics going on there. Talking about funky aromatics, these yellow very overripe fruits come next, complete with the acidic bits attributed to red fruit above and a more nutty and clay like note. It is almost 60% ABV, but in no way does it show that, where the Caol Ila was pretty alcohol upfront, this most definitely isn’t. I guess the Caol Ila might be younger than this 8yo. This is quite the Whisky. See, “8” is only a number, don’t make assumptions based on that (nor on the colour of Whiskies, as people often tend to do). The fruit in general beautifully rise to the occasion towards, and in, the aftertaste. After comparing this one to the Caol Ila, the nuttiness of this Talisker is amplified, interesting. With extensive breathing this only becomes better and better. Still, not an easy Whisky to “decipher”. It still has some elements in its depth I have a hard time to put my finger on.

I guess since this one turned out so well (also as in becoming popular and selling well), it did carve out a niche for Whiskies with a low age statement as well as convincing Diageo they could issue more Talisker 8yo’s in the annual Special Releases, as they promptly did in 2020, one that has some issues), 2021 and 2024. (2019 was a 15yo, 2022 was an 11yo, 2023 was a NAS and 2025 was a 14yo). Nobody in these modern times of ours was afraid anymore of a 8yo. For me both young Diageo offerings are hits in my book. Compared both head-to-head, Tha Caol Ila is so wonderfully Islay, and very different. Tasting them side by side their difference brings the best out of both of them. Good to have them open at the same time. The Talisker is definitely the more mature and more complex of the two, it very much shows the youth of the Caol Ila, so I guess the Caol Ila maybe does fall into the 5yo to 7yo bracket. I wonder why it got discontinued so quickly, maybe sales weren’t all that good? The Caol Ila emphasized the American oak vanilla of the Talisker. Comparing is always fun and cab show you things you might have missed earlier.

Points: 89

Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength (59.6%, OB, L7262CM000, 2007)

After two powerhouses of the love it or hate it Malt, a.k.a. Laphroaig, I felt it might be a good idea to have a go at yet another cask strength peated Malt from Islay, just not a Laphroaig. There seems to be Ardbeg time, but today its Caol Ila time. Caol Ila, by now the not so hidden Malt, because a lot of it is made and a lot of bottles get released as a Single Malt, especially by independent bottlers. I already reviewed a lot of Caol Ila’s and until now, all of them were from independent bottlers. This time around we are going to have a look at an official bottling. Diageo released this NAS Caol Ila named Natural Cask Strength for the first time in 2002. After that a similar looking “Cask Strength” saw the light of day in 2004. Maybe that one was not so natural, since the word itself is missing from the label, but we’ll count it in, because it looks like part of the series. From 2005 until 2009 it was released annually, with even two bottlings in 2007. Also, in 2005, 2006 and 2007 a 20cl version was released in a gift box with the 12yo and the 18yo, all three Natural Cask Strength versions with different ABV’s than their consecutive bigger 70cl brothers. Very interesting! So all in all, Natural Cask Strength was only a short series. I’ll put up a list below. The moniker Natural Cask Strength was used more often by Caol Ila especially for distillery only bottlings.

This review is again from my own bottle, (not from a sample), and once again one that has to be reviewed before it will be gone.

Color: Straw, light White Wine.

Nose: Malty and sweet. Medium peat and quite some nice smelling smoke. Charcoal. Right out of the gate some hidden fruitiness. You just know something is there. Very clean overall, no off notes or funky organics at all. In somewhat dirty Caol Ila’s I often get some coffee on the nose, but not here, so definitely a clean expression. Actually a nice one after both Laphroaigs from the previous two reviews. Different. An islander that behaves. After a while, some nice organics emerge. Smells of cooked food. The smoke sometimes gives way to a more fruity nose, only this time the fruits are of the citrus kind. Almost like the smoke is being turned on and off, like an annoying child playing with the light switch. Nicely balanced Islay Whisky. Nice oak smell as well, slightly acidic (citrus again). The wood smells like it’s freshly cut (adding to the clean overal feel, by the way). Vegetal. Green foliage. Also hints of Aromat, a salty powdery concoction used on cooked vegetables. The smoke and the peat seem to take more of a back seat when this gets time to breathe. It is somewhat moving into the direction of some of the unpeated Caol Ila’s (but not much). The nose gains even more balance after breathing, very likeable indeed, also it shows some layering. Nice development with lots of fresh air throughout, but not coastal in any way. The smoke is slightly herbal. I like this a lot, the nose on this is really wonderful, especially if you give it time to breathe. I now wonder how this would compare to other batches of this short series.

Taste: Sweet, toffee, caramel. Wood liquorice and some crushed beetle and cold dishwater (ever so slightly soapy and citrussy). Both not as bad as it sounds, so don’t worry. Alcohol forward. Wodka drinkers will recognize this bit. Vanilla pods and some custard. Warming and in the taste more smoky than on the nose. Edible smoke. The chewy smoke, gets some added complexity by a little bit of white pepper. If the smoke and the peat were slightly less upfront, I may have considered this, (when tasted blind), as a Talisker. Burnt and toasted wood. All from a bonfire and not so much charred cask aromas. I feel like sitting outside in the woods preparing myself to roast some marshmallows or sausages. Coffee candy, here’s finally the coffee. The thing I have with coffee and Caol Ila is most likely personal, I haven’t heard anybody else mentioning it. What I perceive to be a coffee note, might be different for you. Next some warm light peat and somewhat stingy smoke. Bonfire smoke, and it seems to be a little bit salty as well. Although I don’t pick up upon the salt every time around. Still a clean yet very tasty Islay Whisky, a great pour after the Laphroaigs. Hardly any bitterness. After a while big and aromatic, a fine pour for sure.

Very interesting offering, maybe I should try to get some (more) different batches of the Natural Cask Strength, purely for comparison or science or somebody has to do it. I’ll add it to the archive so I can revisit it when reviewing another bottle. Recommended.

Points: 87

70cl:

J15R02770848 (2002) 55.0% *
L4304CM000 (2004) 55.0% (Cask Strength, without Natural)
L5333CM000 (2005) 59.3%
L6180CM000 (2006) 58.6%
L7033CM000 (2007) 59.2%
L7262CM000 (2007) 59.6% *
L8288CM000 (2008) 61.6% *
L9237CM000 (2009) 61.3%

20cl:

L5 (2005) 60.1%
L6 (2006) 58%
L7 (2007) 59.3%

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 009 (58.1%, OB, 2017)

After batch #008, which was reviewed from my own bottle, just like batches #006 and #007, comes batch #009. Batch #009 which will be reviewed from a sample, just like in the future, batch #010. Having two samples provided to me for these two batches, I could skip those, so I opened a bottle of batch #011, for a batch #010/batch #011 review and comparison. Since these Laphroaig Cask Strength reviews are written in pairs, both will be obviously compared to each other. Batch #006 and #007 was quite fun to compare, and I guess batch #008 and #009 will be at least the same amount of fun.

One might think that all these batches would be very much alike, and sure, there are a lot of similarities going on, but quickly comparing batch #008 to a small drop of batch #006, showed quite a difference if you have them head to head. Especially if you are something of an anorak I suppose. Batch #006 was quite elegant as compared to batch #008, But from my notes, batch #007 was even more elegant, so far so good, with batch #008 being the most “raw” of the three. Obviously there are more (subtle) differences, but let’s not get into that here, especially since I can’t compare every batch to every other batch that Laphroaig has released, and there are a lot of them. For now, we are now going to focus on batch #009 and we will be loosely comparing it to batch #008. After that no more batch #008, since that bottle will be empty when we are done comparing batch #009 to it.

Color: Light orange gold.

Nose: Fresh air comes first together with some fresh oak and some fruit. Old bar of soap, and more fruits, yellow fruits initially and red fruit candy later on. Right out of the gate this has a very different character than batch #008. Like a winter storm (#008) and a summer breeze (#009). Smoke from a wood fire emerging from a chimney as smelled on a street on a cold evening, during a healthy stroll. Clay and glowing embers, warm charcoal. Next the fresh air again as well as some sea spray iodine. Warm cloth, yet almost overpowered by this cold fresh air note. It’s not minty or menthol like, just fresh air with a lot of oxygen in it. Warm smoke, the smoke in this one is excellent. This is, for a Laphroaig, a very accessible and also a very well balanced nose. Come to think of it, the smoke is wonderful, and its smoke alright, the earthy peat is very soft and subdued and almost pushed to the background. Hints of caraway seeds and cloves. I like this one very much, makes me a bit melancholic even. When I was little my parents often went to friends, and I came along. I had to sleep there when it was my bed time, only to be woken up again deep in the night (at that age, late in the evening feels like deep in the night), to go home. When driving home (it was strange to get out of a warm bed en be put into a cold car), i really liked the smell of fresh air at night. Also this batch #009 has some layering going on, because the nose changes over time (without adding water or warming it up in my hands). The nose gets deeper, slightly more peat now and maybe even a more nutty note emerges. The balance is great, of the four for me this one has the best nose, with better details than batch #006. Wow.

Taste: Sweet and smoky. Sweet and peat, sweet and ashes. Very nice fruity sweetness. An orchard Laphroaig. Quite a surprise for me. Warming, and ever so slightly bitter (peat, not wood). Seems slightly thin at first, and also the finish seems not to be the longest of the different batches, but not by a lot though. Tiny hint of a minty candy (one that is mainly sugar with a weak minty flavour). Only after tasting it, the nose shows me a meaty aroma, that of a thin slice of cold meatloaf (right out of the fridge). Soft and wet liquorice wood. The bitterness mentioned earlier is like a sharp edge, that somehow distorts the fruit aroma, in a way that it isn’t able to show me its fullest potential. I really like the complexity of this batch, especially since batch #008 isn’t very complex at all, that one has 4 heavy hitting pillars. Batch #008 has a very strong fundament, like a bunker, with nothing built on top. Batch #009 is like this wooden shed, with, stories being added over time. This might be the best of the bunch, but to me it is also the most interesting one. Still the nose changes over time and just keeps giving.

Well, comparing both noses to each other, first shows us that both are Laphroaigs, and not even that dissimilar. Definitely siblings, but not twins. I can’t add a lot more about the differences in the nose, that I haven’t already mentioned above. The head to head comparisons confirms what is written above. Batch #009 is slightly better balanced and more soft spoken, batch #008 is more bold and louder. Batch #009 has more room to show its sweetness and also its fruity sweetness. Batch #009 is in both the nose and the taste more complex than batch #008, actually, batch #008 is the least complex and the least balanced of all the batches mentioned above. Still, all batches are clear winners, but for now, batch #009 is the clear winner of the bunch.

Points:  93

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 008 (59.2%, OB, 2016)

Back in 2023, matching up batches #006 and #007 was quite fun. Both Laphroaigs were stunning and scored the same. Lots of similarities and yet some noticeable differences as well, especially in the taste. As mentioned in the review of #007, I started looking (again) at cask strength Laphroaig 10yo’s at a time batches #001 through #005 were long sold out and fetching hefty prices at auctions, and now even more so. From batches #006 upwards, there was not really a problem finding those at reasonable prices, so I did just that.

I still haven’t got several of the earlier batches, so like star wars starting with episode 4, I’m going to use batch #006 as my starting point and work my way up and maybe I’ll get a chance to review the earlier ones as well some time in the future. If possible, I’ll try to compare one batch to another batch, (it worked for me to do pairings), but my stash is somewhat limited and the number of batches is rapidly growing, so it is impossible to compare each batch to each other batch. Although some people did do verticals of tastings of many different batches. For me: box ticked for comparing #007 to #006. Both batches were reviewed from bottles I had on my lectern. Now let’s do the next two. First off this batch #008 from my own bottle and the next review will be batch #009 from a sample provided by Nico, which comes in handy, so I can skip this one at home and open another batch. That would be batch #011 actually, since Auke already provided me with a sample of batch #010. 2023 is already a few years back so I won’t be comparing batches #008 and/or #009 with the two earlier reviewed batches, however I will compare batch #009 to #008. Lets start with batch #008.

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: I just poured it and it seems the whole room now smells of peat, the longer it stands the “thicker” the air. In my mind this glass stands on my lectern emitting aroma’s like a chimney emitting smoke, you just can’t see it, but you can most definitely smell it. Powerful, earthy peat, with lots of smoke. Meaty, fishy, tarry rope kind of stuff. Medicinal iodine laced peat, with some artificial lemon like aroma (ever did the dishes?) and even a hint of grandma’s old dried out floral bar of soap, both just a hint, so don’t be alarmed. Nice vegetal aroma. Very well balanced batch this one.  Fresh and at the same time very earthy and brooding. Liquorice and sweet liquorice wood sticks. Still also this pleasant smelling soapy edge. Soap on the nose is often good, if the floral bit fits the rest, not so much in the taste. Remember Bowmore’s FWP? (If not and you are proficient with google you might want to look up Serge’s review of Flowermore 38yo on Whiskyfun.com). More smoke and lost of ashes. Smells like a house that once was on fire and was abandoned for a few months. Glowing embers and bonfire notes, but also a sugary sweetness in the smell as well as some accidentally crushed beetle. Childhood memory, though terrible, it comes in handy when reviewing Whiskies. Still smoke is the main ingredient of this nose especially if you allow a glass like this peated candy to stand around for a while. The nose is excellent.

Taste: Initially sweet, with lots of liquorice, even sweeter than the nose promised, like keeping Liquorice Allsorts in your mouth for a long time. This one is like peated candy. Liquid peat and liquid ashes and therefore turns dry quite quickly. The sweetness takes a backseat to even let this slight bitter note some room. This smoky peat has a slightly bitter edge to it, which is slightly different from woody bitterness. Crushed beetle again. I never dit taste the beetle mishap described above, but how it smelled is recognizable in the taste as well. Both the taste and the smell of this batch are about peat, smoke, ashes and liquorice. The sweetness, though present, is overpowered by the aforementioned foursome. Its actually hard to find something more to it than this. Yes what you get is very good again, but I’m definitely not sure of this batch #008 is on par with both #006 and #007, without comparing it to one of those.

I do can recommend having an archive. I have bought a lot of standard 60ml sample bottles, with special inert lids, to keep things like they were, and occasionally it is very useful to be able to go back for some reason or another. Not to dent a particular sample from my archive too much, I poured a little bit of batch #006, not to really compare the nose of the taste, but to compare the scores. I do can say that #006 has more of a classic Laphroaig nose, more old style so to speak, it even has clay, that batch #008 clearly doesn’t have. Batch #008 has some kind of “fire” theme going on. Batch #006, since it is not overpowered, that much seems more elegant, both nose and taste. Not sure if elegance is something that springs to mind when reviewing a 10yo Laphroaig bottled at cask strength. Final remark: batch #008 is raw and in your face and therefore also simpler and also slightly less balanced. I preferred batch #006, but I’m also quite happy that there is quite some difference between the two.

Points: 90