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.

Bimber “Pedro Ximenez” 2020 (50.9%, OB, Pedro Ximénez Sherry Cask #41, 335 bottles)

So earlier I reviewed three Bimbers, all matured in American Oak casks, one that previously held Rye, one that previously held Bourbon and one that previously held nothing. In those reviews I already told you that I felt those three types of casks worked best for the Bimber spirit, mostly quite similar but also at the same time quite different. I also mentioned that it would become clear in another review why those type of casks work best. Well here it is, this is that other review. This example was fully matured in an Ex-Pedro Ximenez Sherry Cask. Pedro Ximénez is a (very) sweet fortified Wine made from very ripe grapes of the same name. The grapes dry in the sun to obtain a must with a high concentration of sugar. Pedro Ximénez-casks are also very well known in the Whisky-world. Usually not for full maturation, but more for a finish. People do still feel that an ex-Oloroso Sherry casks works better for Whisky than a Pedro Ximénez cask. I understand the feeling, but this is no always true.

I once brought three Bimbers to a meet of my Whisky club. The Virgin Oak cask I reviewed earlier was somehow accepted, bust this Pedro Ximénez not so much. So proceed with caution. I might think Bimber is great, but that might not be true for you.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Very spicy. I know now this is quite common for Bimber. Smells like a pre-war shop selling spices. Hints of Pedro Ximénez, yet not fruity. An old leather bag. The whole is more dark and brooding. Also a thin veneer of lactic acid, acetone and a wee hint of horseradish, distant smoke and petrol. All in minute quantities (I didn’t pick upon these yesterday). Somewhat sweet smelling. Chocolate chip cookie dough. After a while in my glass, the aforementioned shop becomes somewhat more of a candy shop. Cinnamon sticks (lots of it) as well as the pink, raspberry flavoured ones? Still not fruity. The nose is quite raw and dry, like drawing in a breath of ice-cold air, yet the whole seems to be more warming, as can be expected from cookie dough and cinnamon. More of the old shop and an old book show up now as well. To be honest this is an amazing nose, with a small lactic acid fault, but the whole is pretty amazing smelling, amazing and classical. Quite a feat for yet another NAS. How do they do it? Dust and licorice powder, still this aura of sweetness in the smell. Smells like Christmas. Good balance, I like it.

Taste: Sweetish, spicy and woody on entry. Something prickly. Lots of licorice in many guises. The powdered stuff as well as the black bit of Licorice Allsorts. Sweetish and slightly sticky. Sweet wood and some raisins. The dry and the sweet work together well, not exactly cancelling each other out, thus reaching a nice synergy. Every new sip starts with wood, sometimes somewhat harsh maybe, but next comes this ever growing fruity sour note. Although Pedro Ximénez is very sweet, the Wine works well because of the underlying sour notes. Just like Laphroaigh is heavily peated, but quite sweet underneath, that makes it work wonderfully. The acidic fruit note is authentic for a Whisky that was (fully) matured in Pedro Ximénez, yet some might find it off-putting, as I found out the hard way. There is slightly less balance on the palate than there was in the nose. By the way, especially after sipping, the nose becomes even more beautiful, even after the first sip. The taste does show a slightly burnt character. Still pleasing stuff nevertheless. This bottle, more than others, got a lot of slack from some people, but now properly analyzing it, I don’t concur. Sure these are some small issues with it, as there always are (have you ever encountered an perfect Whisky, and if so did you score it a 100 points?). The whole is very tasty, elegant and pleasing. Or is it just me with a liking or fondness of Bimber? So the only faults I could find, if I’m looking for them, are the lactic acid right at the start I mentioned above, and the aftertaste being rather sticky, with sawdust and a slightly burnt note as well. The body of this Whisky is very good.

A lot is happening behind the scenes with Bimber these days, and the stories I hear, one even more crazy than the other. Still I hope they can sort it out and for things to fall into place. It would be a shame to lose Bimber. It’s a young distillery, and a young, well looking brand, yet the whisky, still all NAS is nothing short of amazing. This Pedro Ximénez one is not a casual sipper, but one for an armchair, a good book and a nice warming fire in the fireplace. A winter warmer. I can forgive it the few flaws it has, because the rest is more than making up for it. For a long time I believed that clean American oak was the way to go for Bimber. Bourbon, Rye and virgin oak, but this Pedro Ximénez is working for me as well, even though of the four mentioned it does scores the lowest. Maybe Bimber has such a nice spirit it will work well in anything. No don’t you break out the herring of Tabasco casks just yet, people. We’ll see what the next reviews of Bimber will show, but up ’till now I’m quite happy with Bimber, and I’m looking forward to the next one.

Points: 86

Glenrothes 2007/2021 (64.3%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Sherry Butt #1120, for Kirsch Import Germany, 646 bottles)

Glenrothes, I always liked the look of those bulky cannon ball bottles. Many of the highly reduced vintage offerings weren’t really all that interesting. Earlier written reviews of Glenrothes prove this. Just have a look at these vintages: 1979 (85 points), 1987 (83 points), 1989 (84 points) and 1992 (79 points), not to mention this Select Reserve (81 points), a NAS, not even a vintage. Where is the world coming to? Nope, I still somehow believe in the distilled spirit of Glenrothes, so I sometimes buy one at auction. I do prefer Independent bottlings at cask strength (and officially released cask strength versions as well). Until now, all independent offerings on these pages scored higher than their official counterparts. Although I have to admit that I tasted quite a few older vintages in my beloved cannon ball bottlings that were actually quite good (even after reduction), maybe that’s why I still believe? This time around we’re going to have a look at a Glenrothes bottled by indie bottler Berry Brothers and Rudd.

Those of you with a talent for reading every letter on labels, front and back, especially those that have one of those official cannonball bottlings at home, will have noticed that Berry Brothers and Rudd are also mentioned on the front label in fine print. In 1999 the Edrington Group (mainly known today for The Macallan and Highland Park) acquired Glenrothes. I have to specifically mention right now, that I mean the distillery ánd the brand by this. Since the main Single Malt focus was on the two aforementioned distilleries (and brands), and times were different back then, Edrington sold the Glenrothes brand to Berry Brothers and Rudd in 2010, yet retaining the distillery and the cooperage. Edrington acquired Cutty Sark (The Blended Whisky) from Berry Brothers in return. In 2017 Edrington bought the brand back and thus acquired a well known Speyside brand they could give the Macallan and Highland Park ultra premium treatment to. Funny then (or sad), that their old business-partner couldn’t even use the Glenrothes name (or should I say, brand) on the label…

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Initially milky, very a-typical and definitely not what you would expect. Vegetal and big raisins next. Modern, slightly sharp oak. Tea and old, worn down vanilla powder. The initial “strangeness” wears off quite quickly, making room for a more herbal feel. By now I would have expected more red fruits, but still not the case. This is more dusty, tobacco like with old sawdust. More black tea notes emerge. I’m quite happy with this nose, because it develops a lot in the glass, and it shows traits you don’t smell all that often. The longer you have it in your glass, the drier it gets. Cold Cuban tobacco and standing on the edge of a forest in the mist. After a while a more creamy nose emerges and dissipates again. Well I’m sure you all now feel this is a complex piece of work. Old books, dust. Very distinguished. Hints of cocktail cherries in the distance, followed by a fantastic mix of cold tobacco and herbs. Sometimes a dry smell of orange whiffs by, almost artificial orange. Definitely not from the freshly peeled fruit. Like a dried out tangerine. The dust now moves into the territory of dry grass and hay, and some more elegant wood. A truly wonderful and layered nose. A warm indoor fire in the back of the room.

Taste: Hot, yes, who would have thought at almost 65% ABV, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Initially this reminds me a bit of Damoiseau Millesime 2009, and not only because of the ABV. Next comes the wood and I’m happy to report, it is again the lovely elegant wood from the nose. I’m already really liking this one, now that I have tasted it. Here some more red fruits. Combining quite nicely with the wood. Second sip very similar. Here it doesn’t have the complexity of the nose, nope, it’s simpler than that. However, this is still a Whisky with a high fun factor. Nothing off, and the taste in combination with the high ABV turns out to be a pleaser (for me), but not everybody copes well with Whiskies with a high ABV. The color gave it away, this is not a Sherry monster, but it did come from Sherry and it is a bit of a monster. A friendly giant. Warm (sea) sand, well I have never tasted that, but it does remind me of that. I lived near the beach once, so maybe I did taste sand, one’s subconscious works in mysterious ways. It surely reminds me of it. Next some fruity sweetness becomes noticeable. Great balance to this. Puts some color on your cheeks.

Yet another good example of a Whisky that is not an easy one. The ABV is high and you need some experience and patience to get all out of it. Come to think of it, I even never tried this one with water. Novices would be put off by the initial aromas from the nose. This is not for casual sipping, but you need to work it and give it a lot of time. I bought this at auction and probably forgot about it, because I got myself second one at auction again (both were quite affordable). Definitely not regretting it, but then again, I also hardly ever open a bottle for the second time, always more interested in the next thing than going back. But it does happen, and sometimes one gets into this melancholy mode many years later, and than it is nice to have the possibility to get back to this one.

Overall a great deal. The bottle and the label look nice. The nose is very special, the taste is very well balanced and the high ABV works well. I should get me another one, ah, yes, I already got one, nudging and winking again. On my lectern I have a Macduff of similar ABV. The Macduff is closed as I’ve never encountered before, and this Glenrothes definitely is not. Final remark. Work this one, casually sipping you will never get everything out of all that it has to offer. Final remark, a disclaimer of sorts, nowhere on the bottle of the packaging is it ever mentioned this is a Glenrothes. The label states: “A Secret Speyside Distillery”, I’ve been assured this is a Glenrothes, and it surely does taste like Glenrothes, however there is always this small chance it is not, which would surprise me a lot.

Points: 88