Category Archives: Gordon & MacPhail

Glencraig 1970/1996 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Map label, IF/CCC)

Ahhh, yes, Gordon & MacPhail never cease to amaze me! Next up is this Glencraig 1970/1996 (40%, G&M, Connoisseurs Choice, Map Label, IF/CCC), but now it turns out that the exact same bottle with the exact same code (IF/CCC) was also released with the Old Map label too. Why? Can we conclude from this that 1996 was the year the labels got changed?

Glencraig is the little sister of Glenburgie. Glencraig was the name of the whisky that was distilled from 1956 untill 1981 in a pair of Lomond Stills at the Glenburgie distillery. Another example of a true Lomond pair of stills existed at Miltonduff, where the subsequent whisky was named Mosstowie. Mosstowie was made between 1964 and 1981. A tad different was the case at Inverleven, where only the spirit still was of the Lomond type.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Grainy. Apples. Every component from apple. Compote and waxy apple skin. Smells a bit thin. Did they reduce this too much? Very elegant wood shines through. Dusty vanilla, almost like smelling airborne powdered vanilla. Slight hints of orange juice. Creamy and some hard candy.

Taste: Wood is the main marker, but not bad. Sweet and fruity with liquorice. Actually the spiciness from the wood carries it. The grainy element is here too. This could have been a very old blend. Hints of french cheese, a Camembert. Funky, I love this cheesy element in this Whisky! Slightly warming. Given some time to breathe the whole gets more sweet. Still the wood stays with its licquorice element. Finish isn’t even bad. It stays longer than expected.

Yes, reduced too much. It is in places weak and watery, and it seems to me, that some areas of the taste got subdued a bit, wich affected the balance. Just let it breathe for a while in your glass and you will be rewarded. This is actually better than we think. Give it some time.

Points: 86

Dallas Dhu 1971/1994 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Old Map label, ID/H)

Again a distillery that was founded in the Pattison crash year of 1898. Building was finished one year later and the first spirit that came off the still was on the 3rd of june 1899. It’s history is like many other distilleries. Closures during both world wars, and of course a big fire on the 9th of April 1939. The last day spirit came off the stills was the 16th of March 1983. 1983, a dark year when a lot of distilleries were closed. In 1986 the distillery was sold to Historic Scotland who run the place as a museum now.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Fruity and sweet. Lightly woody. Fresh and a bit rural. Distant farmyness. Wet grasslands. Wet trees. That sort of thing. Hard powdered candy with some liquorice. Woody vanilla ice cream. Smoked bacon with cardboard and almonds.

Taste: Sweet and sherried. Cardboard in here too. There also seems to be some smoke in here. Watery vanilla ice cream. Some sourness of the wood is in the finish and later on some bitterness too. Nothing to worry about.

It’s very easy drinkable. But for me this is an example of those G&M’s from the past where the whisky didn’t stand the reduction to 40%. Also I find that the caramel coloring changed the original whisky considerably. Fortunately G&M know their market and don’t reduce their whiskies that much. Don’t know about the coloring though…

In the past I hated these Map labeled Connoisseurs whiskies and in fact I believe I don’t own even one. For me they got reduced too much and some are that much colored, that the caramel coloring changes the character of the whisky. The industry made you believe that it doesn’t alter the whisky, but having done some tests, it certainly does. It brings some sort of roundness and balance you get from most blends and it makes all of those Connoisseurs Choice Whiskies a bit similar in taste and definitively similar in color. Still the old Dallas Dhu that’s in here shines through.

Points: 86

Again Muchos Grazias to Nico for this sample.

Gordon & MacPhail Codes

Lots of times I witnessed situations where an ‘old’ bottle from Gordon & MacPhail was opened and we all started guessing how old the whisky was, since only a distillation year was printed i.e. “1970”. I fondly remember the discussions when a particular bottle was bottled because the bottle had a ‘nipple’. Another situation could be when a particular bottle was distilled and/or bottled, because only the age of the whisky was printed i.e. “30yo”. Very annoying when you taste a Strathisla 25yo by Gordon & MacPhail that was made for several decades with the same label and different batches are very different. Lots of those ‘old’ bottles don’t have such information, or do they?

Luckily for us there are some hints to be found. I’ll tell you about two of them.

  1. Laser Code
  2. Code on the bottom of the bottle

Laser Code

In the case of Gordon & MacPhail, since 1988 a laser Code can be found somewhere on the bottle. Usually printed on the back of the front label, or on the back of the bottle, near the bottom, for newer releases. As can be seen on the picture to the left. Here an enlarged view through the back of the bottle, through the whisky. The code is IB/ABD.

Of interest are the first two letters. IB in this case. The code used is like this: A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=9 and J=0. IB therefore is 92. The bottle is very probably from 1992!  The second series of letters are probably a batch code. On the right is a picture of the same bottle from the front, and indeed it is bottled in 1992.

So continuing on from this code, here above is a complete list of codes that are used up untill now.

Like with any system there are of course a few exceptions.

  • There are cases known where the laser code states a particular year, but the bottling actually happened the following year (january or february). An example of this is a Longmorn 14yo that according to the label was distilled on the 30th of may 1975 and bottled on the 14th of february 1990. Code IJ would be expected, but the code on the bottle turned out to be HI/DCB, which is the code for 1989.
  • Sometimes the first part of the code comprises of three letters instead of two. This is very rare and when this happens two of the three letters match the table given here.
  • It seems 1991 was a year where Gordon & MacPhail were a bit inconsistent with the codes used. I’ve come across examples where the labels clearly state a year of bottling, but the laser code used on the back of the label is wrong. I’ll give three examples from the Connoisseurs Choice range:
  1. Convalmore 1969/1991 with the following code: HB/AJB. HB would have been 1982, but that was a year no laser codes were used. The correct code would have been IA.
  2. Coleburn 1972/1991 with code HG/ACD. HG would have been 1987, but that was also a year that laser codes were not used. In this case too there is a neck label with 1991.
  3. Tomatin 1964/1991 with code HI/AAF. HI is 1989, but here there is also a neck label with 1991.

Bottle Code

On the bottom of the bottle, in the glass are a lot of codes. I’ll take two of my older G&M bottles as an example.

  1. Strathisla 25yo: Liquor Bottle Scotland, 750ml, 79 08*, 66 mm, SC 999.
  2. Strathisla 15yo: 750ml, 66mm, 49, SD 133, also some signs I can’t reproduce here.

* 79 08 doesn’t seem to mean that the bottle was produced in (August) 1979. I’ve come across SC 999 bottles that had 90 08 or even 99 08 on the bottom.

The important stuffs are the ‘model numbers’ for the bottle. Here they are SC 999 and SD 133.

Doing some research in the invaluable archives of Whiskyauction, I comprised a list of codes and the years the bottle was used for bottling. All years stated here are confirmed by a year stated on the label of the bottle:

  • SC 96 (75cl): 1972, 1973, 1974 & 1975.
  • SC 803 (75cl): 1975, 1976 & 1977.
  • SC 99 (75cl): 1977.
  • SC 999 (75cl): 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988.
  • SC 247 (75cl): 1983, 1984 & 1985.
  • 4699 (75cl): 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991.
  • SD 522 (75cl): 1989.
  • 6436 (75cl): 1989.
  • SD 133 (75cl): 1990 & 1991.
  • SD 686 (70cl): 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 & 1996.

This information is far from complete and hopefully correct. Up to this point no contact was made with Gordon & MacPhail. There is probably a lot more information to be found, so if new things do pop up, I’ll add them to this article.

Bowmore 16yo 1989/2006 (45%, Gordon & MacPhail, Secret Stills 4.1, Sherry Hogsheads #7049 & 7050, 650 bottles)

To be honest, there is no Bowmore on the label, but it’s somewhat like the SMWS bottles with codes, everyone knows that in this case, distillery number four is Bowmore and this is the first Bowmore released in this series. Probably a way to market the Whisky or as usual, they weren’t allowed to use the distillery name. This year, the seventeenth Bowmore was released in this series.

Like with many Gordon & MacPhail bottlings, it is reduced, this time to 45% ABV. I am a fan of cask strength Whiskies, but I learned to appreciate these reduced Whiskies more. Is it age? I’m a bit held back only by the fact that not every Whisky likes to be reduced. Let’s hope it’s not the case with this one.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Nice peat. Spicy and rather perfumy. Malty and fresh. Almonds and clay, and for such a ‘young’ whisky, the peat smells rather old. Hints of smoke. There’s also some strange ‘smelly meaty sweetness’ happening here, I can’t quite put my finger on. Not bad actually.

Taste: Sweet with cardboard and some peat. No smoke? Tar, sweet licorice and some sour wood. Anis seeds and ash. Not in your face and even milder than the nose predicted. It’s quite sweet actually. It lacks a bit of complexity, that would have fitted the nose.

A decent sherried Islay Whisky, that probably suffered from reduction. Again one I would have loved to taste before reduction, because it is always interesting to try the combination of an Islay Whisky from Sherry casks. It’s also a bit too sweet

Points: 86

Bruichladdich 1989/2004 (57.9%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Cask #1957, 275 bottles)

On Monday, July 23 2012 it was announced that Bruichladdich of Islay was sold to Remy Cointreau for £58.000.000 to enrich their high-end portfolio of brands and to confirm their strategy in the luxury spirits segment. If I’m not mistaken it’s their first distillery, and maybe there is more to follow? We’ll see what happens next. In stead of picking one of their numerous official bottlings by the old owners, first a Sherried example from independent bottlers Gordon & MacPhail.

Color: Orange Brown.

Nose: Thick raisiny sherry, and fresh sea air (not salty). I guess some smoke, but peat? No, not yet. Mocha, coffee with tarry toffee. Strangely enough I detect some lime on this nose. Old ladies stationary. Yes, wood also. Altogether it doesn’t promise to be sweet.

Taste: Ok, half sweet. Tarry and thick. Toffee with some ash. Nice body and good balance. The nose and taste seem to match. It has the sourness of oak. There is some peat in the depth, but as with the nose, it has more smoke. Wycam’s cough drops! Very nice not over the top Sherry, but also not all to complex.

Pretty decent independent Bruichladdich. Although the Sherry isn’t too overpowering, the distillery character got lost here. Still it’s a very nice dram, with no obvious flaws but low complexity. Recommended

Points: 87

Rosebank 15yo 1990/2006 (61.1%, Gordon & MacPhail, Cask, Refill Sherry Butts #1605 & 1606)

Time for another Lowlander. Rosebank this time. I reviewed a Glenkinchie recently. The Distillery Diageo chose to be in their Classic Malts range. The obvious choice for the whisky drinker would have been Rosebank, but Rosebank didn’t make it, got closed and in part, turned into a restaurant. Just like with Brora, a lot of people keep hoping for a resurrection. Who knows. For the time being, lets see if this Rosebank is any better than the Glenkinchie reviewed earlier.

Color: Gold

Nose: Extremely fresh with lemons, lemongrass and apple skin in the summer. Leafy, powdery and woody with some caramel thrown into the mix. A sort of garden of Eden. Given some time a more meaty part starts to play a role. And is it the toast from the butts or dare I say that it has a slight hint of peat?

Taste: Sweet (clay) and leafy, woody and powdery. Fits the nose perfectly. Great balance here. Finish stays well constructed, because it doesn’t break down into sour wood, as with a lot of other whiskies like this. It does show some bitterness from the wood though, and vanilla, especially after some breathing.

It’s very good, and very typical for a Lowlander ánd Rosebank, a good Rosebank that is. Compared to the Glenkinchie, I think the jury is in favor of the Glenkinchie…just. Both bottles are good, just a tad different from one another and the Rosebank being the more typical Lowlander and the Glenkinchie having a more interesting composition.

Points: 88

Teaninich 1983/2003 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice)

Teaninich isn’t amongst those superstars of Single Malt Whiskies around, but it has a fanatical following with certain enthusiasts. Well I’m one of them. Almost every time I taste a Teaninich, blind or not, this always tickles my fancy. I connect with it. It suits my palate. Dare we say: “For reasons not even science can wholly explain…”

Teaninich was founded in 1817. In 1970, yes a small jump in time, a whole new six still ‘distillery’ was built alongside the current one, consisting of four stills. The new one was called the A-side (The old stuff was therefore called the B-Side). They worked together as one distillery. In 1984 the old distillery was mothballed, and 15 years later, demolished.

Not a lot of officials around. A 10yo Flora & Fauna bottling, three and a half Rare Malts editions, one 17yo Manager’s Dram, and one 1996 Manager’s Choice. That’s it. Luckily there are a lot more independents, which brings us to our whisky of the day: A Gordon & MacPhail Teaninich from 1983, which can be from The A or B-side.

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Fresh, citrussy, and toffee. Vegetal, woody spiciness. Perfumy and hints of smoke and licorice. Great balance. The nose has body. I’m bonding with my Teaninich again.

Taste: Sweet, fruity, cherries and apricots. Nice body, luckily not reduced to death. Fantastic, that in 2003 it’s already 46% ABV and not less. It has wood, but without the sourness. Lots of esters. Great!

A long time ago I gave this 88 points. Not being a fan of ‘modern’ Connoisseurs Choice bottlings, since they could be all the same, and having the same color, and so on, but this one is great and deserves at least 88 points.

Points: 88

P.S. the picture is for the 2004 version. I tasted the 2003 version, but both look the same.

Glen Grant 49yo 1956/2005 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail for La Maison du Whisky, Refill Sherry Butt, 459 bottles)

I just had to write another one about Glen Grant. Do I really have to revert to Gordon & MacPhail to find me a good Glen Grant? There are a lot of great Glen Grants around, but are they bottles of the past maybe? Here I have another Glen Grant that as it turns out ís from Gordon & MacPhail. Will it be good or do Gordon & MacPhail also have some mediocre casks? This one is bottled for La Maison du Whisky who usually pick good casks, so no need to worry, this probably will turn out all right. Besides, this is no 70’s Glen Grant, but a 1956. The year Alfred Hitchcock became American and made “The man who knew too much”.

Color: Copper Brown

Nose: Wow, this I like. This is the old sherry, with tar, licorice, clay and coal nose that I like so much! It’s farmy (which is not elegant) and has elegant wood. Spicy and winey-sweet. Dark fruits lemonade all over this. Raisins in the finish after leaving it to breathe a little. It’s a nose like this that make me live up to my blues-name: Fat Killer Jenkins, because I wouldn’t mind having a few cases of whisky that smell like this.

Taste: Very balanced because it’s the nose in diluted form. Sherry, tar and asphalt, Black fruits with a lot of wood and a hint of cardboard. Luckily the main character is so powerful, that it is capable of masking a lot of the wood. You just know it’s there on your tongue and you’ll notice it in the finish. But then again, it’s so old, that it should be there and it fits the profile. It has a lot of wood but it doesn’t make the finish overly bitter nor harsh. Not overly complex though, like a nice old cognac.

The not so sound statistical and scientific conclusion might be that you’ll have to get yourself a Gordon & MacPhail bottling of Glen Grant if you want a good one. Well as I said there are a lot of other good Glen Grants around. We’ll have to keep searchin’ to find us one, but for the time being we’ll have this Gordon & MacPhail 1956, and that’s no punishment! The nose is to die for, that alone is worth almost a 100 points. But the whole I will score…

Points: 91

There is also a second one for LMdW. Also a 1956/2005, only this one is from a First Fill Sherry Hogshead that yielded 105 bottles.

Many thanks also go to Christian Lauper of World of Whisky who sent me the picture of the back-label. As far as I know, this shop is the only one in Europe who still has this bottle on stock (CHF 509.00).

Strathisla 25yo (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Pinerolo Torino, 75 cl, Circa 1980)

And here’s already the second Strathisla by Gordon & MacPhail. This one has bottlecode SC999 and Gordon & MacPhail used these bottles roughly between 1981 and 1987. But if I would have a guess, this seems to be closer to 1981 than 1987. And thus this would be a late fifties distillate! (And the previous 15yo Strathisla, one from the mid seventies). That’s quite a difference and will probably be evident in the taste and smell. Also note that this 25yo is notably darker. Like the 15yo, this bottle was also bought for a ‘Genietschap’ Tasting. But this time for a tasting hosted in Switzerland.

Color: Copper, orange / brown.

Nose: Old Sherry. This is deep and spicy. It has some butter that fades quickly. Tarry, coal, old bottle effect and very, very appetizing. You just want to smell this as long as it stays liquid. Fabulous. No other word to describe this.

Taste: Sherry again, tarry and coal is in here too. Sometimes a whiff of sweetness passes across your palate. Laurel licorice and wood, which make it spicy. There are even some cherries in the finish. Again this is an old sherried whisky from the times they made this with steam or something, because for me again it has the traits of an old steam locomotive. It’s probably no coincidence that Jack Wiebers has a ‘Old Train Line’ series.

The Strathisla is warming, even when you think at the same time that the 40% isn’t enough. Imagine this at a higher strength or even cask strength for that matter. One thing is certain: they don’t make them like this anymore. Try to find it and dish out a lot of cash, because it’s worth it. Just have a go at this standard G&M, 25yo Strathisla, and find yourself a sweater made from those fabulous looking Strathisla sheep!

While the 15yo was initially considered a fake by the ‘Genietschap’. This 25yo definitively was not. It was considered the best of the evening.

Points: 94

P.S. If any of you turn out to be, Italian tax-band specialists, mine is Series EX, number 426944. Let me know if you know from which year this is.

Strathisla 15yo (70° Proof, Gordon & MacPhail, 26⅔ fl. ozs., Pinerolo Import Torino, Circa 1982)

I’m a big fan of old Strathisla’s. When I taste some from the 60’s or 70’s, I’m in heaven. With some old sherry cask bottles around, you can’t go wrong with Strathisla (and Longmorn, and Macallan, and…). Even 60’s bourbon casks are fantastic. So for this one, I certainly had high hopes and I paid some good money to get one. When I bought it at an auction, I thought it would be older than it turned out to be. Just look at that label with its 70° Proof and 26⅔ FL. OZS. The glass code on the bottom of the bottle (SD133) makes it from circa 1990.

I brought this with me on a ‘Genietschap’ Strathisla tasting. After I opened it, and we all tasted it, we initially thought is was a fake. We expected some old bottle effect but there was none, we may have been spoiled with our experiences with those old Strathisla’s but one thing was for sure, this was a disappointment then. Let’s try it again now and see what happens.

Color: Full Gold (Caramel?).

Nose: This smells to me like something that has been coloured with caramel. It smells very rounded out and smooth like toffee. A bit like a blend without the grain. Malty and musty. Dusty and elegant. Fresh, sweet, creamy and fruity and some fresh air from the sea. Candied apricots. Cream Sherry with a smoky and sweaty touch to it. Well it almost smells…old now, maybe even meaty for a brief moment.

Taste: Sweet with bitter wood. Fruit, apricots on vodka. Almonds. It’s a lemonade with some iron in the mix. The bitter component transfers from wood to something more waxy, earwax maybe. At times it tastes thin and easy and can be quite nice, but somehow the top of the taste doesn’t gel with the finish, hence its unbalanced, and that’s a shame for such an old bottle. Definitively some E150a in here.

The nose is balanced but alas the same cannot be said for the taste and the finish. It all breaks down in the mouth.Luckily it leaves you with a warm feeling, so I would say that it’s a whisky for a book at bedtime. Also I have to say that a big gulp tasted better than a sip. If you come across this, don’t but it at a premium price. There are also older bottles around. With a white cap and bottle code SC999. that should be a better bet than this one. Still it’s not bad at all. It’s very interesting and will reward you if you’d only want to work at it. Recommended for connoisseurs I guess. It’s an experience. Still, get one of the older versions!

Points: 84