Category Archives: 83 Points

Talisker “Storm” (45.8%, OB, 2013)

Time for another Talisker, and quite a controversial one. Talisker have a very competitive 10yo on offer. One that did change over time. Just compare recent ones to those of ten years ago or twenty, or thirty… Nevertheless, it’s always good and always affordable. Then the time arrived for the NAS expressions, and for Talisker, this Storm was one of the first, and certainly the first that got some big marketing behind it. I remember you could go to your local Port where you could get a dram of “Storm” for free and whilst you were trying it, they aimed their wind-machine at you and threw buckets of water in your face. Talisker is probably the biggest Single Malt brand Diageo own, so a lot seems to be riding on this.

When in 2013 “Storm” arrived, as did “Dark Storm” in travel retail and The Port finished “Port Ruighe”, fans of Talisker were fearing for their beloved 10yo. Surely it would be discontinued? But the faithful 10yo soldiered on. In 2015 Talisker “Skye” arrived, yet another NAS offering, again priced slightly above the 10yo. Are they now going to kill off the 10yo? Nope, it’s still around, although I do still fear for it a bit, and occasionally buy the odd 10yo that is even  on sale quite often. Quite strange, considering discontinuing it would be caused by scarcity. Nevermind.

Earlier I reviewed ‘Neist Point”, a travel retail expression that wasn’t very cheap in some markets. Out came a rant against NAS, but I finished the bottle rather quickly and I have to say I liked it a lot, although a bit overpriced.  “Storm” got a lot of heat from Whisky-drinkers for being more expensive than the 10yo and definitely worse overall. Some even called it the worst whisky they have tasted in a particular year. Today I’m going to have a look at the first batch of “Storm” bought just when it was released. Often first batches tend to be the best…

talisker-stormColor: Light gold.

Nose: Barley, whiffs of new make spirit. Only whiffs, so no cause for alarm. Not bad, but there is some youthfulness noticeable. Nice smoke mixed with some sweetness. Quite lovely. Soft, wet, green and vegetal peat. Not coastal or iodine driven peat. Not Islay. Nutty, a bit of cardboard and fresh. Sweetened black tea, with peach and fern, growing on the forest floor. Quite fruity underneath. Nope, not very complex at first, but it is appetizing and does evolve a lot with some breathing. It is less powerful than the 10yo, although that one also lost some oomph through the years. Nevertheless a quite appealing storm. I like it. It may be younger than the 10yo, but it is well made and balanced. However after giving this Talisker its bold name, the brutal images of heavy waves pounding on jagged rocks and a lion with a fish-tail made of lightning, I expected something of a heavy hitter with lots of heavy young peat, but actually it could be a Talisker, you buy a dram off, at the local ballet school bar. Still beautiful and nice, but Storm? No, a warm breeze at best. Which is excellent, only different. When you smell it proper, it does tick all the boxes. Smoke, peat, fruit, sweetness, well-balanced. Nice development with air, very nice. Excellent nose.

Taste: Barley and cardboard. Sweet and mouth coating. Very nutty, fruity, nutty again and slightly peaty, band from the start, already some balance, but not as much as the nose has. Behind this, quite a lot of sweet, ripe yellow fruits and some minor cardboard again. Not heavy, but the aroma’s are quite big and warming. Just like the nose, it definitely tastes like a Whisky with a good portion of young Whisky blended in. It has an edge tasting like new make. Where the nose reached complexity after breathing and was well-balanced, towards the end of the body the balance is getting a bit, ehhh, unbalanced. Luckily the sweet and fruity aroma’s are big enough to carry it, those are the ones with staying power and make for a nice finish, but the finish itself is not very long. Yes, there is a baby-pepper attack in the finish, typical for Talisker. Especially near the end of the body, and in the finish, the NAS-element shows it’s (ugly) head. I guess it’s this some people scoff at, but calling it their worst? Please dilate your mind!

The 10yo is on offer lots of times, making it even less expensive than all other NAS offerings put on the market by Diageo. So, should you even consider buying one of these NASses? I read a lot of posts on social media of people scoffing at the “Storm”. Well for me this isn’t about winter storms it more of a Whisky for the first colder nights on the end of summer. Sure different from the 10yo, but I’m not sure if it is worse. I actually believe this is a well made Whisky. Compare this to a youthful Springbank and it is maybe just as good. However Springbank as a family owned operation, do get a lot of love from the public. I love Springbank because of its history but also because them make one of the best Whiskies in this modern age. Talisker are owned by Diageo, which is a big, very big, huge money-making drinks giant, and because of that, they don’t get a lot of love. Just look at my reviews of “Neist Point” and this “Storm”, there is a lot of sepsis. When Talisker is viewed by itself, seen apart from the marketing, just looking at the history and the place it comes from, it also is a very good distillery making good Whisky and easily another of my favorites. Both distilleries mentioned use some peat and the profile fits me just right. So I’m not going to criticize this Talisker because there is no need to. It maybe NAS (and easily recognizable as a NAS, especially if you try it after a few other and older Whiskies). It maybe Diageo and it maybe heavily marketed, but the Whisky itself is definitely worth it, especially when you drink it by itself or if it is the one to start you off, but if I had to choose, and considering the price I would prefer…the other one.

Points: 83

Don José 12yo 2003/2015 (53.6%, Isla del Ron, IdR 012, 252 bottles, Panama)

Don José you might ask? “I know only of Panamanian Rums called Abuelo”. Well, Don José is the distillery owned by Varela Hermanos. Abuelo is a Panamanian Rum brand owned by…Varela Hermanos. You do the math. Earlier I reviewed a very nice Rhum from Guadeloupe bottled by Isla del Ron, The Rum outlet of Thomas Euers, Whisky people know better from his independently bottled Whiskies under his Malts of Scotland label. Both the Rums from Abuelo, and the Isla del Ron label, need no further introduction, so why waste any more words on this introduction when both need no introduction? In case you’re wondering, the introduction is now over.

Don José 12yo 2003/2015 (53.6%, Isla del Ron, IdR 012, 252 bottles, Panama)Color: Gold.

Nose: Thick and cloying. Extremely creamy. Cream, vanilla pudding. Vanilla ic-cream and butterscotch. Yes this is an Abuelo all right, but it’s also different. Next come some hints of old, dried out leather and even Whisky. Dust and a pronounced woody backbone, add some balance to the overly creamy nose. I also get an edge of paper, right next to the wood. Oak, paper and powdered aspirin. Had I nosed this blind, and after some breathing, I might not have guessed this was an Abuelo though, because it reminds me now even more of Foursquare. Doorly’s 12yo for example. (…so I pulled up the Doorly’s 12yo and had a sniff. Yep quite similar at first, although the Doorly’s has an additional winey note, and is less creamy. The similarities are becoming less obvious, when the Doorly’s gets some time to breathe and develops in the glass. It develops even more of the acidity mentioned earlier than the “Abuelo”, go figure).

Taste: Yeah now we’re talking. Always wanted to know how an Abuelo would taste at a higher strength, well, here is your chance. Definitely less creamy than the official outings. And guess what, and you might want to read my other reviews of Abuelo, this one doesn’t have the discrepant fruity acidity on top. Again notes of paper, cardboard and quite some wood and burned wood. Those notes add some bitterness to the whole. Almonds. By the way, it is slightly soapy as well, and has a slightly (bitter) Beer-like finish. Now you don’t get that in a regular Abuelo now, don’t you. The bitterness does however dominate the aftertaste. Surprising.

Again, like with many Abuelo’s, something seems to be not quite right, and I mean it suffers a bit in the “balance” department. Usually it is the fruity acidity that doesn’t reach the synergy needed, but this time it is a less fruity and a more waxy note that seems to be a bit off and unwilling to cooperate. Nevertheless this is a minor fault compared to the acidity-problem in other Abuelo’s. This particular expression is all about the wood. You can say it its wood driven and has this quite unusual bitterness. Is that bad? Well, it’s not overpowering, so it doesn’t ruin the Rum, it is quite upfront, so if you like your woods, you are going prefer this one over the regular Abuelo’s, that’s for sure. It has a higher ABV, and you do notice that, but not as much as expected. I don’t find it hot or too high in alcohol. Nope, it’s still quite easily drinkable.

Points: 83

De nuevo muchas gracias señor Rik!

Tomatin 12yo (43%, OB, Bourbon and Sherry Casks, 2016)

Not so long ago, I reviewed four twelve-year olds from Tomatin’s Cuatro Series. Whisky that started out in Bourbon casks but then were transferred for a finish into four different kinds of Sherry; Fino, Manzanilla, Oloroso and Pedro Ximénez. A longer while back, I also reviewed the entry-level 12yo, calling it the new look bottle, built around the color of the distillery. Black, white and the red of the doors. That design was introduced in 2009 and now, in 2016, The company is changing the design again. This is the even newer look from Tomatin. Newly shaped bottle and a new logo, depicting a hogshead. Nope, not the cask, the head of a hog. I love it when people have humor. With the change came also the change in ABV. The old expression I reviewed was 40%, although 43% versions did exist. This new one is bottled at 43% ABV. I’m not sure yet if I like this new design. Although the old bottle themselves look pretty standard. I did like the color scheme of them. This 12yo for instance, looks like it was made for lumberjacks with a green camouflage label. By the way, the gold lettering on the label is hardly readable so bring your reading glasses when visiting your place of choice for buying Whisky…

Tomatin 12yo (40%, OB, Bourbon and Sherry Casks)Color: Light gold.

Nose: Creamy, creamy wood, leafy and definitely similar stuff to the previous 12yo. Sweet vanilla underneath and quite some funky, slightly acidic Sherry on top. LActic acid, toffee and caramel with a hint of raisins. Waxy and quite some woody aromas complete with toasted oak. It also has a powdery quality to it and I even get the occasional whiff of Beer. Even though it doesn’t seem to be pleasantly fruity and accessible at first, it does have a lot going for it. The nose balances out when it gets the chance to breathe for a while. With time, even a floral note emerges and finally some of the typical Tomatin tropical fruits as well. I don’t have the old 12yo around anymore, but if memory serves me well, this new edition seems to be slightly better balanced and seems to be of higher quality as well.

Taste: Sherry comes first. Funky and musty, but less so than the nose promised. Quite sweet and fruity. Funky Sherry and a little bit of burnt oak. Candy sweetness, caramel sweetness with some cocktail cherries. Creamy again. However, the sweetness subsides under the influence of the woody backbone, which also gives it a slight bitter edge. Drying it out a bit. Next, some more creamy vanilla and cookie dough aroma’s, although the Sherry part has the upper hand. This is quite an interesting entry-level Malt. There is definitely quality here and you get a lot for what they ask you to pay for it. The taste may be simpler than the nose, but quite big and nice nevertheless.

If you are willing to give this Malt some time to breathe you’ll be rewarded with a pretty good Whisky at a more than fair price. Sure, the Legend is even less expensive, but for that, you get a much younger Malt with less depth. I would go for this one instead…

Points: 83

Same score actually as the “older expression”, but I do prefer this newer expression over the previous one.

Thanks for the Whisky Erik!

Dutch Jenever Week – Day 5: Zuidam Korenwijn 5yo 2008/2013 (38%, Single Hogshead #761, The Netherlands)

Jenever Week Logo

We’ll continue our journey with this Zuidam Korenwijn 5yo, the brother of the Zuidam Oude Genever 5yo. Korenwijn (grain wine) is a Jenever, very similar to the 18th century style Jenever, and is often matured for a few years in an oak cask. It is made from grain only and  contains a minimum of 51% Malt Wine and up to 20 g/l of sugar. Caramel can be added for coloring and added sweetness. Caramel that is, not E150 which is used in coloring Whisky and doesn’t add sweetness. If the Korenwijn is distilled from Malt Wine only, it can be called a Malt Wine Jenever (Moutwijnjenever).

In the case of Zuidam, The Zeer Oude Genever 5yo was distilled three times without spices, and this Korenwijn 5yo was distilled four times, before the fifth distillation with the added spices is carried out. According to Zuidam this raises the fruitiness and makes for a more delicate Jenever. The ingredients here are the same as in the Zeer Oude Genever, so rye, corn and malted barley. Spices are also the same, juniper berries, licorice root and anise seeds. According to the Zuidam website, newer bottlings of the Zeer Oude Genever and Korenwijn are matured solely in virgin oak barrels, which is obviously not the case with this older bottle from 2013 which contains Korenwijn matured in a (Whisky) Hogshead. The Zeer Oude Genever 5yo I reviewed by the way, was aged in a used Bourbon barrel.

Zuidam Korenwijn 5Color: Full gold, slightly orange.

Nose: Much, much more aromatics than its little brother. Loads of soft spices and some (dry) green notes. Mocha, vanilla and toffee. Wax and wood. Oak and cedar. The occasional whiff of an unlit Cuban Cigar. Nice. Thick and chewy. Almost like a candy store or grocers shop from a hundred years ago. (Indian) Spices, old sweets and cookie dough. Cinnamon, cloves and crushed beetle. If you’ve experienced that smell, you’ll know what I mean, if not, don’t go out hurting animals now. Old wet wood and burlap. Sweet mud and some fermenting clay. Animalesk. The fruitiness moves into the realm of sugared citrus skins, but also some warm apple pie. Orange zest (not lemon, since it lacks the freshness and the sharp acidity). For me this is definitely a step up from the 5yo Zeer Oude Genever. Much more happening, wonderful interaction with the wood, and way bigger. Maybe a tad too big for lovers of Jenevers? Wonderful.

Taste: Sweet on entry but also plenty of wood and wax again. Sawdust and freshly cut wood. Sugar-water and creamy latex paint. More green leaves and garden waste. Believe me it smells better than it might sound right now. Again, just like the nose, much more aromatics going on, compared to it little brother. Small hints of nuts and coffee, and also lots of fudge. Toffee and caramel happening again. Not of the added kind of course, mind you! This is definitely sweeter, bigger and more chewy compared to its twin from another egg. So not really delicate as Zuidam puts it. Light milk chocolate and to liven things up, a nice acidic note is present as well. The finish is reasonable for something that has a an ABV of only 38%, which is quite common in the Jenever business. It sure would be nice for once, to try a higher strength version of this, and I don’t mean 40%. What do you say Patrick? By the way, this is labeled as a “Single Barrel” (although note every cask found in this series yielded from a Barrel). This Korenwijn, for example, came from a Hogshead that previously held Whisky). Since different types of casks were used in this series, the outcome is different every time, so you’ll never get the same if you buy another bottle.

By now you know I prefer the Korenwijn version of Jenever over the Zeer Oude Jenever. Or do I? When I had the chance to talk with a lot of the Dutch Jenever drinking public, some told me they found the Korenwijn too sweet. Some even preferred the 3yo version over the 5yo version. The Zeer Oude Genever is lighter and a tad simpler and more towards vanilla than to the sweetness itself. Both can coexist very well next to each other. They are quite different. I’m not sure anymore if I prefer the Korenwijn over the Zeer Oude Genever. It is a welcome distraction when I try it right after the Korenwijn and does holds it own, even when lighter in style. It’s a breath of fresh air. There are enough moments I want the Zeer Oude Genever more. In a direct H2H, it is the bigger taste and the quality that makes me score the Korenwijn higher, but I really like the Zeer Oude Genever as well, no question about it. I’m more than happy to have both bottles open on my lectern.

Points: 83

Tomatin 12yo 2002/2014 “Oloroso Sherry” (46%, OB, Cuatro Series #3, 3 years Oloroso Sherry Finish, 1.500 bottles)

Number three is the Oloroso finished one. Hands down the most popular Sherry in the Whisky industry. Somehow casks that once held Oloroso Sherries produce the best Whiskies that (once) graced the face of the earth, even though the Sherry itself isn’t seen as the best there is in the (fortified) Wine world. Oloroso Sherry is produced by oxidative ageing, meaning, there is more contact with air than the previous two expressions that age under flor. The forming of flor is suppressed by adding alcohol from distilled Wine, thus prohibiting flor to form. This oxidative ageing produces a darker more nutty Sherry which is not sweet. Dark sweet Sherry will be the topic of the next Sherry finished Tomatin. Let’s see if our precious Oloroso finish also manages to fetch the best results in the cuatro series. Up untill now the “Fino” expression managed to get the highest score so, 85 is the score to beat.

Tomatin Cuatro OlorosoColor: Gold, but slightly darker than the previous two.

Nose: Funky and dusty. Slightly acidic. New wood and raisins. Yes its nutty. Quite complex and lovely. New wood and toasted wood, slightly tarry. Spicy wood and slightly herbal. Vanilla, creamy and fruity, although new, fresh oak is always right up front. Very aromatic. Loose, unlit cigarette tobacco mixed in with the new wood aroma and licorice. Actually this smells like coming from a red wine cask. It’s sharply defined, fresh and slightly acidic. Tannins and spicy. Slightly dusty and smoky. Very nice stuff if you give it time to develop in your glass. Mocha and tar (again). Nice.

Taste: Sweet and funky on entry. Nutty with a fruity acidity, and very aromatic. If you ask me, easily recognizable as a true Oloroso. Tasting the nuttiness brings out the nuttiness in the nose as well. Milk chocolate and a sharp spiciness. Wait a minute. Where is the Tomatin in this? Where are my tropical fruits? Quite the finish ‘eh? Yup, a bit overpowering. Heaps of fruity acidity now. Red wine (finish). The new (peppery) wood from the nose comes to the fore right before the finish. Luckily it doesn’t dominate it. Breaks down a bit in the finish, which is a shame really. A hot sensation stays behind, with wood and the acidity with the longest staying power. Big and raw, but also lacking a bit in complexity as well as in elegance both the Fino and the Manzanilla expressions showed.

This one is big, but not the best balanced one. This one has its moments, but also has its flaws. Its nice, but not the best one up ’till now. Maybe the Oloroso Sherries and/or the casks they were matured in aren’t what they used to be? On the other hand, what still is…

Points: 83

Foursquare 9yo Port Cask Finish (40%, R.L. Seale, Foursquare, Blend No. 162, Exceptional Cask Selection, 2014, Barbados

I had planned to open a bottle of Plantation St. Lucia Rum after I finished both the Plantation Jamaica and Guyana, but after the Doorly’s 12yo I reviewed last, I just had to open a bottle of the Port Cask Finish as well. I just couldn’t help myself, I was so curious, especially after all the rave reviews. The St. Lucia just will have to wait a little longer. Port cask finish? The Rum is 9 years old, of which the “finish” took a whopping 6 years. The start was carried out in a Bourbon cask.

But first we have to get back to 1926. Back then, Reginald Leon Seale started the R.L. Seale & Co. Ltd. A company that is of interest to us since it was trading Rums. Sir David and now his son Richard are the Seale’s that also started distilling their own Rums in 1996 after they bought a defunct sugar factory a year earlier. Simply because it is better to trade Rum you made yourself, than constantly sourcing other Rum’s.

Although Foursquare is a Bajan Rum distillery, molasses are mainly imported from Guyana and the yeast used for fermentation is South-African. Foursquare Rums are blended from a pot still and a two (or three?) column stills. The copper pot still even has a copper column fitted on top, which looks funny for one that is used to Pot Stills with lyne arms on them.

ColoFoursquare Port Cask Finishr: Orange gold. A tiny fraction darker than the Doorly’s 12yo. No red hue.

Nose: Toffee and caramel. Fresh wood, sappy and spicy. A breeze across a dry grass field on a hot and silent summer’s day. Distant fruit (more red this time) and a definite winey note, with slightly burned wine cask notes). On top of the medium sweetness lies a nice acidic red fruit aroma which is different from the 10% Madeira (a sweet fortified white wine) you can find in Doorly’s 12yo. The fruit is redder. The is also a nice nuttiness and dustiness surrounding this Rum, which mixes well with the medium sweetness and (red) fruity acidity. This Rum isn’t about finding lots of aroma’s and complexity. No, this one shines because of its balance. Well constructed, but is a bit middle of the road. It does its best to be liked by everyone. Although the label is pretty anorak, it really is a Rum for everybody, hence the reduction to 40% ABV. Luckily this Rum can handle the reduction, at least on the nose.

Taste: Ahhh here is the greatness. Spicy Indian feel, Cinnamon and exotic wood. This reminds me a bit of an Amrut I reviewed last. It’s still Rum by the way. Even though six of the nine years this was matured, was spent in Port casks, it hasn’t become Port of even Port dominated, but obviously the Port impaired some nice flavours to the Rum. I recognize the nuttiness and the hint of glue from the 12yo (the 12yo has more glue). Wow, amazing balance between the sweet and the dry. It is actually more dry than sweet, influence of the wood of both casks, again a bit virgin oaky, but the wood doesn’t dominate here as it does in the 12yo. Slightly longer finish than the 12yo, but still not very long. The Port starts to really assert itself way into the aftertaste, with the wood of the cask it came in. Nice fruity acidity. Very accessible and extremely drinkable.

This one is younger than the Doorly’s 12yo and therefore less heavy on the wood aroma’s. It seems perfect. Enough to give it character and a backbone, but never dominating the spirit like in the Doorly’s 12yo. Having this, it’s nice to have the woody 12yo open next to it. Personally I don’t have a problem with the wood in the 12yo. It fits the profile Richard went for blending the 12yo.

Highly drinkable, and well made. Not as complex as I expected, but good nevertheless. Again a bottle that will be gone soon I fear. 40%, yeah all right, it will do, but I would prefer a higher ABV. I understand the next Exceptional Cask Selection, The Zinfandel finish is 43% ABV and there will be a Vintage 2004 that will be much higher. I can’t wait. Good stuff especially considering the price. Daily sippers (at 40% ABV), both the Port finish as well as the Doorly’s 12yo, which is a bit more chewy, woody and somewhat sweeter and imho a bit bolder. I did several H2H’s with both and sometimes it’s hard to pick a favorite. Both are equally good. On some days I prefer the 12yo, and on others I like the Port better.

Points: 83

Doorly’s 12yo (40%, R.L. Seale, Foursquare, 2016, Barbados)

I am incredibly keen on reviewing this particular Rum. Why you might ask? It’s only a 12yo Rum from Barbados, nothing fancy, nothing super-ultra-premium and one that is very inexpensive to boot. How can that be? Wouldn’t you rather review an ancient Velier bottling then? Sure, but this one has a story to it. I write about Whiskies for quite some time now, and essentially kept my Rum-adventures to myself. I always liked Rum, but a few years back I really started to love the stuff, especially when I “got” Rhum Agricole and found out that the Rum spectrum is very wide and shows lots of variation.

A long time ago, when I got interested in Whisky I started to surf the interweb looking for information. Back then not a lot of it was around, and there were hardly any books as well. Whisky blogging was just about starting. More recently, when I started to look for information about Rum, I came across some very good Rum bloggers. There are more which I read on a near-daily basis, but for my story here, I have to mention two or three in particular. First I read this review by thefatrumpirate and this one on Inu A Kena.Although I have heard of Foursquare I wasn’t aware of the Port finish Rum. Both reviewers are very happy with the bottling, so my interest was “aroused”.

Next, I started looking for an official un-finished Foursquare bottling to compare it with, and came across this post and especially this post from Lance. “Weak, pussilanimous wuss of a rum. It’s so low key that its piano seems to lack keys altogether” So the Port finished product seems to be stellar and the un-finished XO seems a bit less than perfect. Nevertheless, my interest was now even aroused some more. Being warned, because a smart person learns from the experiences of others, I skipped the XO. Recently I found out there is this newly released 12yo as well. Back in business so to speak. I bought the Port finish as well as this new 12yo, so let’s see first if this 12yo is something Lance should buy.

Doorly's 12yoColor: Copper gold.

Nose: First of all, this smells great right from the start. Modern and tight. Woody, some clear glue and spicy. Typical Bajan Rum, with hints of orange and fresh fruits in the morning market. Definitely also the wooden crates fruit is shipped in. Fresh virgin wood, not necessarily oak at this point. An expected, deep caramel and medium sugar syrupy sweetness. Yes you can smell sweetness, or maybe I should say, smells associated with sweetness. The smell is fruity, but on top of the syrupy part is another fruity smell. It’s the red berry acidity I didn’t like that much in some Abuelo offerings, but that quickly dissipates. Warm sawdust, definitely oak now and a small hint of gunpowder and honey, which is great. The wood aroma is growing stronger with time, which does wonders for the nose. Hints of an unlit Havana Cigar, a combination of Bolívar (spice) and Hoyo de Monterrey (cream). It smells fresh and even slightly winey, which is no surprise since 10% of this Rum was matured in ex-Madeira casks, the other 90% in ex-Bourbon casks. I believe Foursquare uses a lot of casks from Jack Daniels, which would make it ex-Tennessee Whiskey casks rather than ex-Bourbon casks. Whichever cask were used, both are made with American oak, giving off a vanilla aroma.

Taste: On entry a bit thin, but the aroma’s take over quickly. Hints of glue (from the nose) and almonds. It starts out with the woody flavours from the nose. Good balance, it matches the nose perfectly. Tiny hint of soap now, but nothing to worry about. Toffee is next, although the wood is still the dominant factor. Not too sweet. The back-label states 12 years of maturation in American white oak. If not all, then at least part must have been virgin white oak. If not, it may have been ex-Bourbon casks, which must have been very active then. It has so much fresh oak flavour. Chewy toffee is next, even though the Rum is quite thin. The finish is medium at best (probably due to the reduction to 40%), but the aftertaste does have some staying power. Sure not the most complex Bajan Rum around, but I’m not disappointed. The 10% Madeira work wonders without taking center stage. I would say well blended, this one. It’s a friendly nice Rum I’ll probably finish more sooner than later. Good for every (sipping) occasion and that is what you want a nice little OB to do.

It has been ages since I opened a bottle with a screw cap. It only happens when I open an old bottle of Whisky from Gordon & MacPhail and such. It’s all cork now. Screw caps were once a sign of cheapness, for me it’s not. I like the screw cap. It’s retro. They work well, although screw caps on miniature bottles are a lot worse. Corks can dry out, crumble or have holes and other weak spots. So no beef with the screw cap, unless it rotates for ever. “Screw cap” is even nicer to pronounce than cork, and it looks better on T-shirts. Just say it several times at loud, just not if you’re reading this at work and want to keep the respect of your co-workers. “Je suis screw cap”

Lance, it is safe (from “Marathon Man”) and Richard, well done!

Points: 83

Glenrothes 1987/2002 (43%, OB)

Here is another vintage Glenrothes. After the 1992,  the 1989 and the 1979, this 1987 is the fourth of these vintage bottlings on Master Quill. All were nice, but never scoring very high. All were nice, with enough difference to warrant buying more than one, but also none of them blew me out of the water. Just look at both other Glenrothes I reviewed earlier. One bottled by Wilson & Morgan and one by Douglas Laing. Both managed to score higher than the official bottlings. By now I can say that I expect this one to be nice, but again I don’t think it will blow me out of the water.

Glenrothes 1987/2002 (43%, OB)Color: Gold.

Nose: Dusty, definitely Sherried. Spicy and tickles the nose. Also some burnt elements. Next some aroma’s you get from an old (dry) cellar or attic. Funky but not the funky damp notes you sometimes get from cellars. More like the odours of stored old stuff. Old paper, old cardboard and old wood. Old, worn out vanilla pods. Later a breath of rural fresh air, coming to you over water. Let it breathe some more, and it becomes more like a “normal” Whisky. Vanilla, wood, fruity Sherry notes and spicy oak and cask toast. Hints of butter and dry grass (not hay), and even some toffee.

Taste: Short attack of (fresh) oak and a more waxy note, quickly succeeded by cherries and sugared yellow fruits. Fruity sweet toffee, alas a bit diluted. Über-fruity sugar-water. Warming. Apart from the initial wood, this is quite a fruity expression of Glenrothes. Hints of soap and paper from the nose and a growing aroma of burnt wood. At best a medium finish with a note of Beer and burnt wood. Yes, a bit bitter, which adds to the character of the Whisky after the initial sweetness and fruitiness. The aftertaste matches the nose exactly.

Although the nose isn’t one of the most balanced expressions of Glenrothes, the taste is way better that way, helped along by the sweetness it has. It’s all right this one. It may be a bit simple, diluted and lacking complexity. It does some across as balanced and tastes nice. Maybe it’s time to up the strength a bit?

Points: 83

Glenugie 1966 (40%. Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Old Map Label, 75cl, 4699)

Up next a blast from our collective Whisky past. This is only the second Glenugie on these pages, and rightfully so. It’s closed and it’s today, bottlings like this moved into the realm of collectors (who don’t drink it) and anoraks (who do). So what do we have here? A few years ago an anorak posted an article about what clues can be found on a G&M bottling to date it. We see that this bottle doesn’t have a neck label to date it, so it’s not from the 1991 batch, but earlier. We do know it is an 75cl bottle and on the bottom the glass code 4699 can be found. This particular glass container was used in between 1982 and 1991, which isn’t really helping, but narrows it down a bit. I’ve seen this bottle with different cardboard boxes though, so that isn’t helpful either. The box in the picture isn’t necessarily the box the bottle was sold in. Second we do not know if only one bach was released, looking like this. There may be different batches with different boxes who look exactly the same filled in exactly the same coded bottles. I’m guessing the one I’m about to taste is more form the second half of the eighties than the first half, but that’s only speculation. Let’s try it then shall we?

Glenugie 1966Color: Slightly orange gold.

Nose: Very dusty and old smelling. Funky dry Sherry. Deep grassy, slightly waxy and old soft oak(y). Time capsule. Some faint red berry fruit in the background. Add to that a more creamy, vanilla note and some burnt wood. It’s a mere hint that burnt note though. Adds to the character fo the Whisky. If you let it breathe for a while, more and more of this red fruit comes to the fore, cloaked in the wood and creamy notes. Diluted warm caramel and slightly dusty as well. This is an old gem, and needs to be treated as such. It’s fragile at 40% ABV. Don’t be hasty too. With even some more air, hints of licorice and a floral note emerges. Floral but not soapy. Elegant and distinguished florality. Vegetal (with some wood), floral and fruity, that sums it up.

Taste: The wax, diluted caramel and the wood are up front here. Diluted sweetness. It’s slightly sweet at first, but that is quickly gone. It’s so obvious that I do feel that some caramel colouring has been done. Yep, toffee, hard candy coffee bon-bon. More wood, slightly sappy and bitter. It has some creamy nuttiness to it. Does warm hazel-nut milk make any sense? Disappears rather quickly, hence it has a short finish. The finish is made up of toffee and it’s actually almost the only thing that is noticeable in the aftertaste (as well as a hint of paper…).

Wonderful old malt, that has been diluted too much and might have seen some caramel colouring. You know it’s there, but it lost its battle trying to show it to us, since it has been hindered by too much water. Bummer. I have to report this to the Whisky police and hopefully the culprits will be brought to the Whisky-tribunal. Smells great though, that’s where the potential is still noticeable, or should I say that’s where you can still get a glimpse of what could (should) have been…

Points: 83

Angels Envy “Port Cask Finished” (43.3%, Batch #113)

The Story of Angel’s Envy is, in part, also the story of Lincoln Henderson, whose signature is conveniently placed upon the bottle. Mr. Henderson used to be Master Distiller at Brown-Forman and was in part responsible for creating Woodford Reserve (personally not one of my favorites), and Gentleman Jack, as well as Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel. Since I don’t really like Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7, I never was in a hurry to try the rest. I hope this Angel’s Envy will be more to my liking.

Lincoln HendersonIn 2004 Mr. Henderson retired from Brown-Forman and in 2006, joined his son Wes(ley) and grandson Kyle in their Louisville Distilling Corporation, experimenting with finishing Bourbons in casks that previously held other distillates. The Bourbon itself is said to be made by MPG in Indiana, which is very odd for a Kentucky Bourbon, as stated on the label. The Bourbon is around 4 to 6 years old, obviously first aged in American oak, as all Bourbons are, and finally finished for 3 to 6 months in 225 litre Ruby Port barrels made from french oak. It’s a small batch Whiskey each time made from 8 to 10 barrels only.

The first Angel’s Envy saw the light of day in 2012. Sadly, Mr. Henderson’s lights went out in September 2013, aged 75, becoming a spirit himself. Angel’s Envy itself, the legacy of Mr. Henderson,  was finally sold off to Bacardi in 2015.  It is said that Mr. Henderson, throughout his career, tasted some 430.000 barrels of Bourbon. Who said Bourbon is bad for you?

Angels Envy PortColor: Light copper gold.

Nose: Chewy sweet Bourbon smell with indeed an added winey note. The finish seems to be done with taste, since in no way does it dominate the profile. If tasted blind you’d still call this a “normal” Bourbon. The Bourbon part reminds me a bit of Four Roses actually, (the low rye mashbill). Nice, soft and creamy. Some worn saddle leather combined with the smell of a cold cob of corn, Give it some more time to breathe and the finish becomes more apparent as well as a different kind of oak. Honey and an appetizing fresh leafy note. I’m amazed at the wonderful balance achieved. Lovely stuff to nose.

Taste: Aiii, a bit to sweet and thin on entry. A short flash of fresh oak, with milk chocolate and honey, quickly followed by red fruit aroma. The oak returns for a moment delivering a nice balancing bitterness, Nice jammy note as well. Creamy vanilla. Again the Port finish has been done with taste and works extremely well. It is a Bourbon, but in part it has a “new” edge to it. The Finish is of medium length at best, but if you have a moment to spare you can wait for the aftertaste which leaves a nice creamy mixture of honey, and vanilla with again some hidden elements of the Port. As was the entry, the finish is a bit too sweet as well. Nevertheless, a job well done, even when reduced too much.

Probably made for a hip market, and not to scare to many people off, it has been reduced to 43.3% ABV, At this strength the Bourbon is also dangerously drinkable, which in my case would mean the bottle would be finished sooner than later. As I am based in Europe, prices here are much steeper than across the big pond. I understand the US pricing of this, but over here for such a drinkable Bourbon I find it too expensive. Pricing aside, this may look as a designer Bourbon, and it probably is, but it still carries a lot of quality and good taste from the makers. There is also a (Plantation) Rum finish, Rye with a Rum finish, as well as a cask strength edition, also finished in Port barrels. Depending on availability, these seem to be extremely expensive.

Points: 83