Author Archives: Master Quill

Port Ellen 31yo 1982/2013 (51.5%, Douglas Laing, Old Particular, Refill Hogshead, DL REF 9964, 286 bottles)

Next up, yet another Port Ellen, yes, Master Quill gets spoiled again! This time by Cara Laing ehhh Leggat (daughter of…) and Chris Leggat (now the son-in-law of…). Yes in the time between me receiving this Port Ellen, and reviewing it now, these two got married! Congratulations (again) guys! So let’s call this Port Ellen their wedding dram, shall we?

For those of you who didn’t know already, there have been some changes within Douglas Laing company. Brothers Fred (father of… & father in law of…) and Stewart Laing parted ways and divided the old Douglas Laing firm between themselves. Fred retained the ‘Douglas Laing’ name, ‘The Provenance’ series and ‘Big Peat’ and last but not least acquired the help of daughter Cara, who had to be bought back from Bowmore.

Stewart had to think up a new name: ‘Hunter Laing’ (also a family name) and has the highly succesful ranges of the ‘Old Malt Cask’ (OMC) and the ‘Old and Rare’ (O&R) series. Although OMC is probably the most impressive series the brothers had together, Fred created the new series of Old Particular, not wholly different from the OMC (and O&R lettering, if you ask me). So the loss of OMC and O&R are almost painlessly intercepted with The ‘Old Particular’ range and the ‘Directors’ Cask’ range. The future is looking great for the Laing’s and Leggats!

Color: Almost copper gold.

Nose: Lovely old and mellow peat, not very smoky, although there is some wood-smoke in here. Swamp-like plants (although this sounds horrible, it’s quite the opposite). The swamp also contained some lavas. Small hints of licorice and tar (worn down tarred rope). Under this all, some yellow sugared fruits want to emerge. Old dried apricots. (No I’m not mad). unusually mellow Port Ellen, but therefore absolutely lovely. Great balance too.

Taste: Sweeeeeeet, sweet and chewy at first. Fruity sweetness with ash and licorice again. Again old peat, very mellow. Small hints of mint (the mint stays in the back of my throat after the finish, it’s absolutely there), almonds and clove. A little bit of wood, but nowhere near the amount to be expected considering the age, also no bitterness. Quite a lively and full-bodied Port Ellen, but not a lot of legs in my glass. Medium finish but that fits the profile, it’s in no way an extreme Islay Whisky, but a more introvert and stylish Whisky. I love it!

Nothing to complain then? Not really, life is great, still having these Whiskies around, although more and more expensive. I was a bit surprised the finish wasn’t longer considering it’s a Port Ellen at 51.5% ABV, and comparing this to DL REF 4112, but really, who cares. The Whisky is great, the packaging looks great, Cara and Chris look great, and at the time of writing, the sun is shining, what more can we ask for. Ehhh, so more Port Ellen maybe…?

Points: 92

Thanks go out to Cara & Chris for providing the sample!

Glen Garioch Founder’s Reserve (48%, OB, Circa 2013)

Glen Garioch, pronounced Glen Geerie, used to be a powerhouse of a whisky and several legendary bottlings, like some “vintage” 1968’s or the Samaroli’s from the 70’s. It’s this tasters feeling, and I could be very wrong here, after that, Glen Garioch felt a little bit silent. Not production-wise of course. It just seems to have slipped into anonymity. I haven’t written a review of a Glen Garioch up untill now, since I don’t come across a lot of samples of Glen Garioch, nor do I buy a lot of more recent Glen Gariochs. A classic case of being biased? Thus the curtain rises and taking center stage is this bottle of Glen Garioch Founder’s Reserve.

Four years ago Glen Garioch revamped the looks of their bottles. Exit the standard scotch liquor bottle with the stag label, and enter this elegant ánd dumpy (metro man) bottle. In the new range of Glen Garioch are some NAS (No Age Statement) bottles, Like this ‘Founder’s Reserve’ and the ‘Virgin Oak’. There is also a 12yo and the rest is all ‘Vintage’, where the younger ones are all cask strength and the older ones are bottled at the new preferred strength of 48% ABV. After 40%, 43% and 46% ABV, now an even higher proof becomes standard.

Color: Full Gold.

Nose: Very young and malty, spicy wood and it smells almost like new make spirit (this wears off with lots of breathing, so a half full bottle will smell better than a full one). Funky. Very spicy. Oriental. Nosed blind I would have gone for an Indian Whisky. Hints of sulphur. It fits the fashion of issuing younger and younger whiskies. This probably is not older than five or six years old with maybe some partial ageing in virgin oak. Grassy, vegetal (hints of lavas) and latex paint. Indian spices mixed in with butter and vanilla. Not quite what I expected. It starts out young and anonymous, almost lacking character, but give it room to breathe and this becomes a different puppy altogether. The character it has on the nose comes form the oak, nice cask management.

Taste: Punchy (hot) oak carried by the higher than usual ABV. Bitter wood, Indian spices again and an edge of silky bitterness. Also, I’m guessing here, this does need the higher ABV. Half-sweet and light with the slightest hint of bitterness from virgin oak, fresh walnut skins, cardboard and some licorice (and tar). This is a young woody whisky. The wood pushes the fruity notes a bit to the background. Anonymous at first, but also nothing actually wrong. But after some breathing… Warming finish with quite some staying-power. For a short while a creamy aftertaste.

Tomatin Legacy is also a Whisky that is not older than 5 years old. But for me a better and cheaper choice if you compare it to a freshly opened Glen Garioch. However the Tomatin doesn’t change much over time, whereas this Glen Garioch evolves quicker than anything Charles Darwin encountered. Just smell it after a while. Wonderful. Consider my interest in Glen Garioch rekindled.

These new kinds of NAS Whiskies are definitely tailored for a new type of Whisky-drinker. I’d like to know how this new Whisky-drinker is described…

Points: 83

(When I tasted it right after opening I gave it 76 points, go figure)

Thanks go out to Laura!

Warre’s Warrior (Reserve)

And finally a Port emerges on these pages and since it took so long, it might come as a surprise that I really like Port. I normally do not like sweet drinks, but reading back on these pages it should become clear to you, that I do like (overly) sweet Sherries like the PX’s, but also Port. Due to some issues with shelve space I do not have a lot of Sherries and Port’s open, nor should I, since both Sherry and Port shouldn’t be kept open for too long, it’s not Whisky you know.

As with lot’s of Port “houses” it has a long, very long history. Even this Warrior has a long history. Warre themselves claim that: “[Warrior] is the oldest brand of Port in the world, having been shipped continuously since the 1750’s”. The company that became Warre’s was established in 1670, but the first Warre came to the firm in 1729.

Let’s start of with Warre’s Warrior. I’d like to start with Warre since a long time ago, Warre’s Otima 10 (or 20) was my first bottle of Port ever. Warre’s Warrior comes from Quinta da Cavadinha and Quinta do Retiro Antigo from the Pinhão and Rio Torto valleys, also the home of Warre’s Vintage Port.

Color: Deep red and thick.

Nose: Very sweet and raisiny. It definitely smells like a Port to be had as a dessert, or with a dessert. For me it smells like a warm summer, mellow and toned down. I can imagine drinking this in summer, slightly chilled. It smells nice, but lacks complexity, it isn’t very pretentious, but easily drinkable.

Taste: Ahhh, very fruity and aromatic, much more of a flavor explosion than the nose suggested. Various red fruits. Sweet raspberry mostly. The nose suggested an extremely sweet Port, heavy sweetness and raisins, but on the contrary. Even though it shows long legs and smells of raisins, it doesn’t taste like that. This Warrior is fruity! Half-sweet and has a very nice balance with its (sometimes sharp, but refreshing) acidity. A little bit of oil from orange skins. Tannins play a role too, they’re drying the tongue. Last but not least, the finish, it’s short. Slightly woody too. If the finish was longer and a little bit sweeter, this would really be perfect, but as it is, it still is a steal.

Thick Ruby Port that sticks to the glass. Even though it has a lot of balance, the nose and the taste seem to be two different wines in one (ain’t that a contradiction!). It’s a surprise, but treat it as a present, since we’re getting two types of Port for the price of one, and it’s dirt cheap to boot. Due to a lot of regulation and control from the Port Institute, only Ports with a decent quality are released. This Warrior is definitely worth looking into for an inexpensive daily drinker. ABV is 20%.

Points: 83

Bunnahabhain 40yo 1972/2012 (44.6%, The House of MacDuff, The Golden Cask, CM 184, 346 bottles)

Recently I reviewed an anonymous Bunnahabhain by David Stirk. That expression was heavy on Sherry. Here we have another Bunnahabhain, much older, and much lighter. As with all Golden Casks, this is again a cask that was picked by John McDougall. John has a big, big history in Whisky, so in the time when it is pretty hard for independent bottlers to find an exceptional cask, John still might be able to find one. Let’s see how this oldie he picked is holding up.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Waxy and old smelling (old bottle effect). Fatty wood, with hints of licorice and maybe even some lavas. The profile is also fruitier with pineapple, and dried apricots. It doesn’t have any apparent peat. I do detect, however, some smoke, some chalk and butter. Hints of latex wall paint and custard. Quite a list of funny aroma’s for this Bunnahabhain if you ask me. The most striking aroma of them all is the very special waxy oldness it oozes.

Taste: Interesting, at first a combination of white wine, wood and slightly bitter beer. Licorice again with toffee, but the whole is quite dry and light. The initial attack is there, but the body is already light and the finish is not very long. The more this Whisky gets a chance to breathe, for instance in the glass, the more bitter it gets. It’s still easy within limits, so not to worry. Lacks a bit of power though if you ask me. This cask strength Whisky was bottled at 44.6%, so the angels particularly liked it!

At first, it even shows some similarities to 1972 Caperdonichs, with this exceptionally waxyness, but soon it gets much simpler or should I say lighter. Especially the body of those 1972 Caperdonichs are quite full, whereas this Bunnahabhain has a more lighter style to it. A bit brittle or fragile, but this Bunnahabhain does have the old wax and wood, that Whisky these day just don’t have and with modern techniques, will never be made like this again. So treat this Bunna gently and see it as a time capsule of some sorts.

Points: 86

Dunedin “Double Wood” 10yo (40%, OB, 6y American Oak, 4y French Oak, ex-New Zealand Red Wine barrels, Blended Whisky)

Here at Master Quill, when writing about whisky, we foremost are keeping up busy with the Scottish version of the tipple. However in the early 19th century lots of Scots moved across the world and settled in New Zealand. Finding a lot of Scottish (Whisky) heritage in New Zealand is not all that unusual. Even today a lot of small or micro-distilleries do pop up in the country. (like Southern, Hokonui and Thomson, to name but a few).

This time we’ll concentrate on the biggest and best known of the New Zealand Whisky producers, al be it under a lot of different names, and also under quite some different management.

In December 1969 the Baker family started distillation in Dunedin (on the south Island, to the south of Oamaru). They named their distillery “Willowbank”. The Whisky was released under their Wilson’s brand name since 1974. By 1974 The distillery was named after it’s Whisky “Wilson Distillery”. In 1981 the giant Seagram’s bought the distillery. Seagrams made a “minor” contribution by replacing the copper necked stainless steel stills for more traditional whole copper stills. Seagram’s released their Whisky as Lammerlaw. Lammerlaw being a nearby mountain range, but also the source of water for Whisky production. The distillery was mothballed in 1995 and Seagram’s sold the distillery to Foster’s in 1997, who had it untill 2002. The two copper stills and the four column grain still were eventually sold to Fiji to distill rum, but the gin still remained in New Zealand. It is now located in pieces at the McCashin’s Brewery in Nelson, and may be used again in the future.

First Warren Preston bought the Distillery and some 600 ageing casks of amongst others Lammerlaw Malt Whisky and starting a firm called The New Zealand Malt Whisky Company (NZMWC). The Casks were laid down in Oamaru. Some 150 of those casks were bottled (under the Milfort brand name, but also Blended Whisky under the Preston’s brand name). Alas NZMWC went bankrupt and in 2010 the Forward looking entrepreneur Greg Ramsay (leading a consortium of investors) took over and renamed the firm The New Zealand Whisky Company (NZWC). Mr. Ramsay bought the last 450 casks of Whisky of which half were Lammerlaw Malt Whisky (18 to 24yo) and the other half Wilson’s Whisky (at least 12yo). By 2012 some 90 casks were bottled for the current range, so by now only 360 casks are left. In the grand scheme of things and the good promotion for the Whisky being carried out, I guess that the whole stock will be sold by the end of 2016. So be quick, because, this New Zealand whisky is rapidly becoming extinct!

Plans are to build a new distillery (or two). Obvious choices for new sites are Oamaru, but also Dunedin. Less obvious choices would be Auckland and Nelson, both Auckland and Nelson showed more interest than Oamaru and Dunedin in being the home of a new New Zealand Whisky distillery.

Color: Red copper.

Nose: Fresh and woody at first, and a little bit winey, well that’s a surprise! Spicy and a little bit of sweet, toffee-like wood. It does have a sweet side to it, but overall pretty dark, with already hints of grain whisky. Maybe some cask toast and influences (tannins) from the wine. Spicy Syrah? Next, the grain whisky starts to play its part. This is spicy and definitely smells like a volcanic red wine, so I got even some terroir in this (Syrah again). That’s not completely strange since the Red Wine finish was done for a whopping 4 years, whereas others finish their whiskies for mere months. (I understand that there also is, or was, a 15yo Double Wood that was finished for 10 whole years in Wine casks!) This one is dark and brooding after the initial freshness right out of the bottle. Very appetizing.

Taste: Less woody than one might think, half-sweet cookie dough and nicely fruity. Slightly acidic at first, but quickly taken over by the sweet red fruits. Not even a lot of Wine to this, so the 4 years in Wine barrels didn’t do the Whisky any harm. Maybe the grain balances the Whisky out? That said, it doesn’t mean the wine didn’t impair a lot of taste onto the Whisky, because it did (sweet fruits, red fruits, plums, Merlot?), especially after some breathing. The Whisky just doesn’t taste like Wine, although some markers are definitely there. Seems to me that the 70/30 ratio of malt and grain is pretty much spot on. Nice and half-long, warming and sweetish finish, with some hints of oak. Very well made, likeable and drinkable blend.

Yes, this is a blended Whisky, the NZWC itself calls it a Master Blended Whisky. With 70% Single Malt this really is a sort of super premium luxury blend. Stuff that the Scots these days put into expensive crystal decanters. Nice aroma’s and pretty different and bold. For the Whisky it is, this is bottled at the right ABV. Recommended!

Points: 84 Points

Thanks go out to Cyril and Greg for the Whiskies and the additional info!

Longmorn 17yo 1996/2013 (57.2%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #72319, 600 bottles)

I’m pretty amazed this Sherry Butt #72319 is still available. Here in the low countries there is a lot of discussion about these Sherry Butts released by Dutch indie bottlers The Ultimate (Van Wees). This Sherry Butt Sherry Butt #72319 is the third one in a row and earlier I already reviewed Sherry Butt #72315, which was the first one of the series. The second one was Sherry Butt #72318.

As I said, lots of discussion, since all casks are good, didn’t cost a lot and have some differences. So nice whisky to compare to each other. I still have some Sherry Butt #72315 left, so I can compare it to this Sherry Butt #72319. Word in the grapevine is that the first one (Sherry Butt #72315) is the “worst” of the three, all are very clear about that. Some consider Sherry Butt #72318 to be the best and some Sherry Butt #72319.

By the way I hosted a Cadenhead’s tasting recently and after the tasting, I passed a glass with Sherry Butt #72315 around, without telling people what it was, and it sure got a lot of thumbs up. So maybe some prejudice going around? Earlier I scored Sherry Butt #72315, 88 points, so let’s have a look at this “better one”…

Longmorn 17yo 1996/2013 (57.2%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #72319, 600 bottles)Color: Copper Brown (less red/orange in color than Sherry Butt #72315)

Nose: Sherry and polished wood, smallest hint of creamy acetone, soap and some mint. Definitely less raw and dirty than Sherry Butt #72315. Extremely balanced and “soft”. It does have its power, but it’s more laid back. Woody raisins are in here too, but here they show themselves quite late in the mix and more toned down and in balance with sour wood, (milk) chocolate and honey. Very thick.

Taste: Great! The first encounter in the mouth is very nice. Sherry with more than a hint of licorice and sweetness. After that the wood, albeit in a mild way, shows itself. Also some toasted cask and a wee bit of paint. These were some very good Sherry Butt’s. The finish itself seems to me to be a bit less balanced, it seems to be a bit disjointed. Probably the wood gives the finish an acidic (and ashy) touch that somehow doesn’t seem to be a perfect fit. A sourness and taste akin to oranges, (the flesh and the juice), not the oily bits out of the skin. On the plus for a lot of tasters: this one has no sulphur in the finish.

If I had to sum things up, I would say that Sherry Butt #72315 is more of a true Sherry nose, more raw and honest. Maybe also less complex. Sherry Butt #72319 is more elegant and more complex, wint small hints of all sorts of things. Both are worth the same amount of points, but are different, but is I had to pick only one I would say Sherry Butt #72315 would be my choice, since it compensates it slightly simpler profile and it’s rawness with a better finish. But I have the luxury of tasting these two head to head, which makes it a lot easier to pick up on small differences, without that possibility, both are an equally good choice (as if one still has a choice).

I don’t know Sherry Butt #72318, but the two I’ve been comparing here are definitely worth having both. They maybe examples of the same kind of Whisky (heavy Sherry), but both show enough difference to show you a bit more of the possibilities within this profile. Both demand a different mood of the taster, meaning you!  Well, now I’m very interested in Sherry Butt #72318. I hope Erik (a.k.a. Master Quills apprentice), opens his bottle soon 😉

Points: 88

Glenlossie 27yo 1984/2012 (57.9%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection for Waldhaus am See, Sherry Butt #2532, 504 bottles)

Recently my Whisky club went on a trip to Switzerland (again), and this time on our journeys we visited Waldhaus am See, almost running over some white rabbits who live in the parking lot these days. The plan was to stop only for half an hour or so, to have a look at the famous (and large) Whisky bar, because we had plans to visit another place too. We entered the hotel and left more than half a day later. Spending some time in the bar, having lunch and having a look at Claudio’s private collection and the Hotel Whisky shop. We left with quite some bottles. We also had a look at the world’s second largest wine-collection. Wow! Never a dull day.

Glenlossie 27yo 1984/2012 (57.9%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection for Waldhaus am See, Cask #2532, 504 bottles)Color: Copper

Nose: Very musty right off the bat, but quickly settling. After a while it gets more winey. and dusty. Some hints of fireworks (toasted cask), but also hints of cardboard, and morning breath. Creamy with hints of smoke (toasted cask?) and fresh wood. Cream, vanilla and wine are the main markers of this nose, but also some after eight. Mint with chocolate. When completely settled it get even perfumy. Absolutely interesting whisky. Lots happening in this one.

Taste: Again winey, with lots of toasted cask. Charcoal and prickly smoke (yes in the taste!). Very appetizing stuff. Sweet and charcoal with some hidden vanilla. Very tasty and although this has a pretty high ABV, for me this is easily drinkable. Orange skins, some acidity and slightly bitter, again from the toasted cask.

Waldhaus am See has a tradition of bottling a lot of Whisky for their hotel, and a lot of those bottling sell out very quickly, even big Butts like this one. Nice Glenlossie this is.

Points: 86

Thanks go out to Michael for taking care of us for so long. Excellent! Thanx also to The Genietschap for letting me have a sample of this bottle to be able to write this review. Thanx guys!

Bunnahabhain 20yo 1990/2011 “Isle of Islay” (52.8%, The Creative Whisky Company, The Exclusive Malts, Cask #251211, 298 bottles)

Here we go again. Another monstrously long title, again a Single Malt of which the distillery name is not on the label, but we know it’s a Bunnahabhain. So three in a row, this being the third Bastard Malt in a row, reviewed here on these pages. The Creative Whisky Co. Ltd. is non other than David Stirk. Fellow Rush lover and Whisky bottler par excellence, or should I say Exclusive Whisky bottler?

Bunnahabhain 20yo 1990/2011 "Isle of Islay" (52.8%, The Creative Whisky Company, The Exclusive Malts, Cask #251211, 298 bottles)This Bunna is pretty dark in color so my guess would be a Sherry cask. Since David didn’t specify what (kind of Sherry) the cask previously held, we can only speculate what this is. Maybe a Sherry Hogshead, or maybe a Butt that was shared with others, or only half the Butt was bottled? My guess would be the former (a Hoggie). It looks like a Oloroso or PX Sherry Hogshead to me, so we’ll have to try, to make another guess at it…

Color: Copper orange (the typical color of most Bourbons).

Nose: Fresh and Sherried but not heavy or cloying. Nice hints of spicy sweet and acidic wood. Definitely a lot of raisins and overall rather dry. Dusty with some fatty cardboard (nothing wrong with that). Ground coffee and hints of wet sugared cherries. Well balanced.

Taste: Heavy sherry with small hints of fat peat and a little bit of smoke and steam. Nice cloying black fruit. Tarry and a bit dirty. I like it. Yes it is a bit drying on the tongue, so maybe it should have been bottled a few years earlier. Still this is a great dram. It has a lot of character. Near the finish the wood starts to play a part with its spicy and slightly bitter finish and some black fruits come up. Dry black tea, so there are some tannins in here…

I brought this one with me when my Whisky club went to Switzerland two weeks ago and there the drying palate put some tasters off. I for sure noticed the drying qualities of this Whisky, but I didn’t have so much of a problem with it. Far worse for me is a heavily sherried malt, with lots of sulphur of bitterness in the finish, something this malt doesn’t have. By the way, for me this is a Oloroso Sherry Hogshead…

Points: 88

Glenfarclas 35yo 1971/2006 (51.4%, The Whisky Fair, Oloroso Sherry Butt, 534 bottles)

Well why not, why not try another Glenfarclas from a bottle without the distillery’s name on the label. This time a Glenfarclas again, but now from 1971, especially bottled for The Whisky Fair in Limburg Germany. For many the mother of all Whisky festivals on the planet. This Glenfarclas is definitely darker in colour than the previous one I reviewed. I’m guessing the 1965 should be from a Fino Sherry Butt, and we know this 1971 is from a new and fresh Oloroso Sherry Butt.

KnipselColor: Copper Brown.

Nose: Wow, perfect dry Sherry nose, with mint and a lot of elegant wood. Lacquered mahogany furniture. You always get this from old dark Sherry casks. Dried meat, bacon and chocolate, lovely. Extremely spicy, licorice and old shelved books. For the die-hards of old dry Sherry, a stunning nose. Exactly what I like. Menthol in the finish, including its cooling effect in the nose.

Taste: Again heavy Sherry. Fruity and the promise there once was more sweetness to this. Like cold tea, drying with a lot of wood influence. Still its so “firm” the woodiness doesn’t deter me. Whiskies like this should have this elegant wood. It’s a distinguished old gentleman. Coal and steam, not a lot of tar, maybe the smallest of hints of tar. The finish is dry, very dry and the wood shows it’s acidity here, but hey, it’s not bitter. Now it does show its lack of sweetness, or roundness if you like. This usually hides this woody acidity. So yes its fabulous but has it’s flaws. If this would have been perfect this would have been an 1971 Longmorn (Scott’s Selection).

Although Fino’s are quite different from Oloroso Sherries (and PX Sherries), both works very well as a cask to age Whisky in. Both have different characters and both will have a large following. In this case I wish I could have tasted this alongside a 1971 Scott’s Selection Longmorn (the dark ones), that should have been a blast. Not having that, I still wish I had a bottle of this Glenfarclas too.

Points: 92

Glenfarclas 40yo 1965/2006 “Blairfindy” (51.7%, Blackadder Raw Cask, Sherry Cask #1850, 194 bottles)

Well hello Blairfindy! Wait a minute, Blairfindy isn’t a real distillery is it? As far as I know, there isn’t a Blairfindy distillery, and there never was one too. No, Blairfindy turns out to be “another” name for Glenfarclas, used, when the bottlers weren’t allowed to use the real distillery name on their labels. Something like Tactical for Talisker, Leapfrog or Laudable for Laphroaig and so on. Blairfindy, amongst others, was the name of the farm, the Grant family (of Glenfarclas fame) originated from. Although the Glenfarclas name isn’t on the label, it most definitely is a Glenfarclas, and an old one to boot…

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: For me a typical perfumy Fino Sherry nose. Definitively a wine note up front, quickly chased by quite some wood. Toffee and caramel, with a hint of sweat (no typo). It gets more fresh after a while. Hints of car-wax and even later some black fruits. The smell of burning off dry leaves in the garden combined with a small hint of licorice. It all comes across a bit harsh, dry, dusty and powdery, but nice. I hope this doesn’t translate into the palate. Lets see…

Taste: Yes, not very sweet, but luckily not as woody and dry the nose suggested. Earwax and wood. Some drying tannins on the tongue, but hey, it was on a cask for forty years! The wood then becomes spicy. Although some people might consider this too dry, for me the wood isn’t that dominant. It is dry, but it definitely has a charm to it. Elegant stuff. No bitterness whatsoever. The finish is half long, and breaks down a bit into some sourness, toast and tar. The body is strong so it can take this sourness very well, and the light toast and tar add to the character of the Whisky.

Despite everything, this still is an easily drinkable Whisky. Great old Glenfarclas that fetch enormous amounts of money these days. Yes, the market is rapidly changing…

Points: 88