Bowmore 26yo 1982/2009 (53.4%, Master of Malt, Refill Sherry Hogshead, 195 bottles)

And here is another Master of Malt bottling. Earlier I reviewed a reduced Tomatin, that was a true disappointment. I didn’t even know it’s possible to ruin a Tomatin, since usually I like Tomatins. So with this one I do worry a bit. This also is a Bowmore of the eighties, which quite often turn out to be your better hand-soap (lavender and violets come to mind). I once tried a 1989 Berry Bros. & Rudd bottling that made me physically ill. That was a first for me, so I tried that one half a year later and it happened again.

Color: Gold

Nose: Powdery and sweet. Not very Islay to be frank, hardly any peat or smoke. Lots of flowers though, soap, also some clay and thick, so it seems to have body. When freshly poured it is very closed. After a while some smoke trickles trough. Hey, waiting even longer there is peat too. All in minute quantities. Again not very Islay-ish. Is this really a Bowmore? Wet paper and a small hint of licorice. It’s not bad, but not very balanced either. Now we have sour oak. It’s fresh, fruity and floral, luckily not over the top lavender-soap eighties Bowmore.

Taste: Sweet and syrup, with ash and some wood. It actually attacks you in the beginning. The sweetness disintegrates quickly into something acidic. It’s like a syrup that shows, when stripped from your throat, some lemon. The attack is nice, and the middle is also quite nice, but bold tastes fade and leave you with a fairly dull and anonymous finish. What can this be, a strange and unusual Bowmore distillate in a Fino Sherry cask? Well, let’s leave it at that.

In the end it’s not a FWP-Bowmore from the eighties, but it also isn’t recognizable as a Bowmore either. It’s ok on the nose and when it enters your mouth is shows some promise. Halfway through though and especially the finish are a bit weak, which is a surprise after the bold body. But the most remarkable achievement is making and finding a Bowmore that has nothing to do with…Bowmore!

Points: 84

Ardmore 18yo 1992/2011 (46%, Mo Ór, Bourbon Hogshead #5013, 286 bottles)

Three months ago, I reviewed two Ardmore’s, and was very pleasantly surprised, not to mention impressed. At a certain moment I even called it the present day’s Brora, or something of that nature. First a 1992 bottled by Domiek Bouckaert a.k.a. The Whiskyman, that scored a nice 89 points, and second a 1993 by the omnipresent Gordon & MacPhail. G&M’s version still got a very nice 87 points. Both malts were available for (much) less than 100 Euro’s, and that’s a steal in today’s feverish market. Today after a week’s absence, let’s have a go at this 1992 bottled by Mo Ór. Let’s hope it will do as well as the other 1992.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Nice, fresh acidic and aromatic lemon, but it has a lot more going for it. The wood comes across as pretty sweet with lot’s of vanilla. A storm of fresh air, as I said, very fresh and quite clean. Barley. I remember the other Ardmore’s as more dirty versions of Ardmore. I can hardly detect any peat in this and the smoke does need some time to manifest itself. Perfumy it is and slightly buttery (hot butter). Actually this is a lovely whisky on the nose. Not very complex, but it does have a well-balanced nose.

Taste: Hmm, licorice, clay and the (earthy) grains from the nose return. I expected a bit more of an attack, but it stays a bit back. Well don’t underestimate the smoke now! That’s here in abundance, but there isn’t a lot more coming from this. I guess this one was quite clean and lovable from the start, but I feel the reduction to 46% ABV didn’t benefit the Whisky this time. It has a late and mild fruitiness to it, pineapple and the fatty, sweetish smokiness is quite nice. Still as with the nose, the palate is undemanding and of average balance. The finish is of medium length.

This time around, the cask didn’t do much for the whisky, probably second or third refill considering the color and age. Still a well-earned…

Points: 84

Inverleven (Dumbarton) 15yo 1987/2003 (58.1%, Cadenhead, Bourbon Hogshead, 294 bottles)

I ended the last post about Gordon & MacPhail’s Inverleven with the hope that they wouldn’t reduce the next issue (so much). Frolicking around in my stash of samples I unearthed this unreduced Inverleven bottled by Cadenhead’s. It’s from another year, so this may have a different profile, but still worth checking out. Dumbarton was foremost a Grain Distillery. The distillery was built in 1938. In 2002 the distillery was closed and demolition commenced in 2005. I’ve added a picture here, because I have always liked the big red brick industrial complex on the river. By the way, after stopping the production of the Inverleven malt, the Stills went on to Islay to produce Port Charlotte at Bruichladdich.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Grassy and murky, like sitting next to a ditch in summer, not bad, but certainly not lovely as well. A lot of citrus fruits. Lemon, lime, tangerines, but over this a lot of dried grass and hot butter. A slightly meaty or gravy like component emerges from all this. Quite fresh and slightly estery. Hints of mint when nosed vigorously.

Taste: Sweet and fresh. Lively, leafy, slightly woody and again lemons. Some underlying caramel and this type of whisky at this strength makes this hot, but that’s not a bad thing. Caramels, vanilla and toffee, are the main markers here. Not very complex. After some breathing, the bite of the wood enters, but luckily not a lot of bitterness.

Compared to the 1991/2012 G&M, this has even less than half of the wood the G&M. So this is more grassy, lemony and much sweeter to boot. This one lacks complexity, and even though the G&M was on the brink of becoming a log of wood, that one was more complex and therefore more interesting. This Cadenheads is easier to drink (as long as you like cask strength whiskies), sweeter and fresher. Still I like this type of Lowlander profile. Sadly gone.

Points: 84

Rum Week – Day 3: Barbancourt 8yo (40%, Haiti)

Barbancourt was founded in 1862 by Dupré Barbancourt on the Island of Haiti. Haiti was struck by a massive earthquake that all but demolished the Island in 2010. If you want to help by donating funds please have a look here.

Dupré started to make Rums as one would make a Cognac. Barbancourt is made from cane juice that is distilled twice. First distillation happens in a column still and the second distillation is done in a Pot Still. Ageing happens in cask made of French Limousin oak.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Yeah, that’s more like it. This has body and a very interesting nose to boot. It already shows incredible depth. Not the usual sweetness, but a more ‘dry’ nose. It’s leafy and acidic, also toast that goes beyond toasted wood. It also has a petrochemical edge to it. And that’s great! But wait, there is some fruit in this too. Apricots. And what’s that, woody gravy? I’ll stop now, because this doesn’t seem to end here. This is a very nice and complex nose.

Old and new packaging

Taste: Wow, isn’t this a nice restrained sweetness. It’s sweet, but not in a way if you have a spoon full of syrup in your mouth, Here too shines the wood, but not in a toasted manner. Not very cloying and the whole is nicely balanced. Again an Industrial note of steam, coal and maybe a little tar or licorice.

Very nice rum, with an Industrial edge to it. In my mind it takes me back a 100 years plus. Also for the Single Malt Whisky drinker this is a fine rum. Very much recommended!

On the right you can see the old (left) and the new (right) looks for this rum.

Points: 84

Aberlour 1988 “Distillers Selection” (40%, OB, for Spain, Circa 2002)

A few days ago my whisky club had a tasting of Aberlours. Quite a unique one to boot since these were almost all exclusively official bottlings. We only had one independent Aberlour. It was from a Bourbon Cask and did show the distillery profile for a while, but that was quickly gone. We had a few out of the standard range and a few from the standard ranges from the past. A few bottles stood out. We liked one old 12yo double cask matured for its high dark Oloroso Sherry content (and costing next to nothing). An old 21yo from 2000 was very good and this odd one out. The 1988 Distillers Selection, that was released exclusively in Spain. After this one 1988 came only one other Distillers Selection, the 1989. Again for Spain only. For Aberlour this is quite special. It is said that instead of the usual Oloroso, for this bottling Fino and/or Manzanilla is used!

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Wood, caramel and spirity. Perfumed hay and a little bit of rot. Rotting leaves. It’s grassy and somewhat sherried. Malty with murky water. Very malty actually. Earwax and cream. Still the wood plays also a big part in the profile of the nose. Although the whole is pretty raw and dirty, there are some clean spots to it too. It’s a bit like the different markers come in and go out of the profile. Just like a blinking traffic light. Quite an experience. This definitely has to breathe for a while.

Taste: Thick and wood spice. Malty and sweet. Quite creamy at first, but it suffers a bit here of the low ABV of 40% (not much though). A whisky not to be taken moderately. Big sips are the way to go here. Some bread and mocha in the aftertaste, also a slightly bitter and sour woody note. The longer gone the more woody and bitter. When your palate is a bit tired (late in the day and evening), the wood isn’t such a big problem anymore, and the whole gets more toffee sweet.

As said above, we had this amongst a lot of other Aberlour official bottlings and it did stand out a bit. It’s not the usual Aberlour. It does seem to be more malty and does have some more wood. I’m very curious what’s the story behind this version. Still, I enjoyed it. And considering the Original price a very good bang for your buck, als with most official Aberlours actually.

The 10yo is an entry-level, hotel bar kind of Whisky. If you skip this and pick any other one from the range, like the 10yo Sherry version, you’ll have a good malt at almost no cost. Very interesting distillery with interesting bottles and marketing to match.

Points: 84

Thanks to Jose Juan for finding me this bottle. Thanks also go out to Heinrich and Ralf for the info!

By the way, here is Heinrich’s very nice site about Aberlour.

Fontanafredda Torremora Langhe Dolcetto 2006

Langhe is a hilly area to the south-east of the Tanaro river in the Cuneo province in Piedmont, northern Italy. The black grapes used for this wine is the Dolcetto grape that is widely used in this region, where wineries favour Nebbiolo or Barbera. These wines need a long time ripening. Dolcetto on the other hand is one that doesn’t require a long time ageing, two years will suffice.

Fontanafredda was founded in 1878. The total size of the domain 250 ha. which is spread over several areas located in the villages Serralunga d’Alba, Barolo and Diano d’Alba at a height of 200 to 400 metres. Not all wines are made with grapes from their own vineyards. Fontanafredda also buy grapes from other wine makers. For generations, it cooperates with some 500 smaller wine makers in Piedmont. The origin and the quality of these bought grapes is strictly monitored. The Torremora tasted here has an ABV of 13%.

Color: Dark ruby-red.

Nose: Meaty, mouldy, fresh plum and warm plum confiture. Boiling potatoes and wet earth. A hint of glue and something fishy. Bicycle inner tube tyre. This all may seem strange but I can assure you, it is very nice.

Taste: Fruity, but not super fruity and light in a sence that it doesn’t have a lot of tannins, enough for an easy wine. Cherries and prunes with a slight bitter edge. Just the right amount of acidity. It finishes a little bit bitter, nutty and dry. Almonds, or maybe better, the skins that you can find in walnuts.

Based on the nose and the color I expected a more heavy wine (in taste), but it’s not. It’s quite young too. I aged this a little longer than was advised (three years extra), but this didn’t do the wine no harm. On the other hand, it didn’t help the wine forward either. Still it has a great balance. The strange composition of the palate fortunately goes great together. Easy drinkable and very nice. It has a dry or woody edge to it and it has some tannins. Great with lots of typical (not to heavy) Italian foods. I wouldn’t match this up with meat though, for this it is too light. Obviously spaghetti and pizza will do quite nicely. Not overly complex and very agreeable. Nice.

Points: 84

Glen Scotia 18yo 1992/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, First Fill Sherry Butt #6, 1076 bottles, 500 ml)

Next up Glen Scotia, also a first on these pages. Glen Scotia hails from Campbeltown, once a big place for whisky with regional status (again). Try to imagine a place that has almost 30 distilleries working at one time in the 19th Century. Not so long ago this Glen Scotia was the ‘other one’ from Campbeltown after the well-known Springbank. Today Springbank makes also Longrow and Hazelburn. And from the same owners the recent ‘addition’ that is Glengyle Distillery (Kilkerran). Let’s say that Glen Scotia is the only Campbeltown distillery not owned by the people of Springbank. Owner today is Loch Lomond Distillery Co. and the place is fairly run down. When the distillery was mothballed in 1994, the staff of Springbank restarted intermittent production in 1999, not to lose the regional status of Campbeltown. A status lost eventually, but eventually reinstated.

The distillery was founded in 1832 by the Galbraith family. For one reason or another the label on the bottles state 1835. Lots of changes of ownership during the years and even some closures in 1928 and 1984. Since 2000 Loch Lomond has taken over Glen Scotia and runs the distillery with its own staff.

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Very musty and dirty. Fruity as in fresh sweet apples mixed with apple compote. A very nice hint of smoke and coal that reminds me of an old steam locomotive. It actually smells like something from the industrial revolution. Old Skool? Lets move on. Mint and still a lot of apple. Lit matchstick. Nice balance and easy. Not very complex. Underneath it all, a sort of sweet wood smell, very laid back.

Taste: Wood and toffee. Caramels and quite a bit of ash and toasted cask. A nice bite and definitely a firm body. Sulphury (of the egg kind) and quite some oaky and milky sourness. Actually I get some more egg notes, especially boiled egg (the white part). Closing in on the finish, it dries out a bit, and is not as big as expected. Here the wood plays a much greater role, than on the nose. Not as balanced as the nose.

Usually you’d expect more color after 18 years in a First Fill Sherry Butt, so this must be a Fino (again) and it kinda goes into that direction.

I was asked to keep an eye out for sulphur in this one. It’s there slightly on the nose (as a burning match). But it is more pronounced on the palate (the bite here comes not only from the wood, but also from the sulphur. Usually there is some sulphur in Sherried Glen Scotia’s. Lots of it in a 1991 Cadenheads offering if I remember correctly. It’s there on the palate and even more so in the finish (late). Is it ruining the balance or the palate? Does it disturb me? No, it’s some kind of good sulphur. it’s somewhat hidden. It’s there but not in the usual obvious way. That happens sometime, that’s why I called it good sulphur. Still, overall there isn’t a lot of sulphur in this one, so don’t worry. And hey, sulphur is good for the skin!

Points: 84

PX Sherry: Elite Selección Dorada

Here’s an appeal to all. Start drinking Sherry. NOW! Because it may be too late already. Let’s face it people. We love our whisky and we particularly love it when it’s from a good Sherry Cask. But as can be seen, prices are soaring when a nice sherry casked whisky is released these days. I’ll be reviewing some Pedro Ximenez (PX) Sherries the following days, but there is a lot more out there. You might want to try a nice Oloroso (maybe the best performing casks for whisky). Some of you might like a dry Fino. But there is a lot out there, and a lot of differences in quality too. One thing is sure, when trying out some nice Sherries you won’t break the bank.

The Sherry I’m about to try is made by Elite Vinos y Licores,  S.L. and this PX is part of their premium range. Just not super premium prices (yet).

Color: Mahogany Brown.

Nose:  At first, raisins, raisins, raisins and figs, but that quickly changes into fresh mushrooms, mushroom soup and wet earth. Hints of liquorice and old & dark tarred wood. I said hints. The mushroom cream soup is predominant. Dusty lavas. Very atypical and interesting nose for a PX.

Taste: For a PX Sherry it’s quite thin, and not syrupy as most other PX-Sherries that are around. At first a nanosecond of an acid attack but then the slow-moving sweetness comes in with a little bit of lingering woody sourness. Coffee in the aftertaste. Very easily accessible. Burned creamy sugar as in the top layer of Creme Brulée. The acidity is a very nice addition to the taste of this PX. It doesn’t seem to be as sweet as the competition, and it is certainly not as thick. The finish therefore, is not the longest in the business.

Very easy drinkable PX. It’s not overly sweet and syrupy. It has very nice construction of fine tastes. Nicely balanced and very restrained PX.

Points: 84

Glenrothes 1989/2000 (43%, OB)

When my interest into Single Malt Whiskies took some form, and all was looking fabulous, I hoped I would really like Balvenie and Glenrothes. I really like the way the bottles looked. Just have a look at these nice cannonballs! In the case of Balvenie, I didn’t quite get to that high status of being a favourite and alas the same is true, for me, for these Glenrothes. I tasted quite a few of these, but I never scored these cannonball bottles above 84 points. Blind and not blind. I still love the way these bottles look.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Very musty. Lots of sherry in here. Someones bad breath. Old raisins. Gravy. Very powdery, the fat make-up powder people wear on their face. Slightly tarry (from the Sherry cask). Creamy. Actually quite nice.

Taste: Sugary sweet, again lots of Sherry influences. Only hints of wood. Very drinkable, but also rather simple. The raisins return here, and they’re a little dirty and tarry.

One of the slightly better usual suspects from Glenrothes. Especially at this age, approximately 11yo. Still I can’t get over the fact that all these Whiskies are a lot alike.

Points: 84

Glenugie 30yo 1977/2007 (46.3%, Signatory Vintage, Hogshead #5507, 243 bottles)

Yes, it’s a Glenugie. long time overlooked and very popular the last few years. It’s a closed distillery (1983) and quite popular with whisky aficionado’s. Just as is the case with Banff today, connoisseurs discovered a closed distillery that has a special quality to it. I have to admit that all of the Glenugies I tasted scored at least 85 points and most well higher than that. Only one is lower than that. I scored the sister cask #5506, also by Signatory Vintage, only 81 points. So let’s have a look if all those 55xx casks are the same and if this one’s any better.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Estery and fresh. Green apple skin. Grainy and a slight hint of vanilla. You could have fooled me with the age of this one. Seems much younger and cleaner, than I would have expected, knowing what this is. There is also a hint of cask toast and wood. Sweet and fruity, peaches on syrup. Creamy toffee with a hint of coconut. I like the nose, it’s like candy. Great balance.

Taste: Sweet like sugar, icing. Vanilla, no wood whatsoever, not at first anyway. It has some spice from the wood. Apples, without the bitterness from the skin. Finish isn’t too long, and just a tad sour. The wood does show its face, late in the finish. Good drinking strength with enough oomph. Again, it seems much younger. The balance in the taste is also somewhat weaker than the very nice fruity nose.

It’s nice and likeable. Nice piece of history. Just not a lot happened in all those years. For me it’s better than it’s sister cask, but still no high flier. You’ll really have to be a buff to recognize the markers of an old Glenugie. But isn’t beauty in the details?

Points: 84

Thanks go out to Nico again for handing me this sample.