Category Archives: 85 Points

Benromach Contrasts: Cara Gold Malt 11yo 2010/2022 (46%, OB, First Fill Bourbon Barrels, 20/01/22)

I almost forgot to write this review, because I though I’d already done it. Here we have the first Benromach on these pages after they revamped the look in to this slightly bulkier glass bottle, more straightforward cardboard box (easier to store) and last but not least the usage of the colour red. I was a bit hesitant at first because I really liked the copper they used in the previous package, but the red stands out, looks fresh, smart and traditional. So I do like the new look a lot now, and love having them around. If this one’s empty, I’ll probably replace it with another (red) Benromach. Most likely another one from the contrasts series, since it offers interesting takes on Malt. Here it is because of the usage of Cara Gold barley.

Most Benromachs that are on the market now are fairly young, sure there are some older bottlings like the 15yo and the 21yo, which are different yet not necessarily better. The Whisky at hand is 11yo and a nice choice for starting a flight of Whiskies or as a casual sipper. Not expensive and an honest pour. Benromach produces a heavier more meaty spirit, often slightly peated and sits well with knowledgeable anoraky aficionados, you know who you are, and since you are reading this, you’re probably one of them. This particular offering is partly made with Whisky made from Cara Gold barley as well as the normal Benromach lightly peated malt, both matured in first fill Bourbon barrels.

Color: Straw.

Nose: Sweet barley first, very appealing and very aromatic. Clean, fresh, fruity and malty with malt sugars and a nice layer of dust and paper-like aroma’s adding to the whole. Nice fresh wood tones, but nothing overpowering or off. Straightforward without any frills. Candied wood and candied yellow fruit, with hints of sweet smelling smoke, as well as some licorice. Clean and modern, although some yesteryear comes through as well. More wood (perfumed, highly aromatic) and wax with ripe yellow fruits. The label claims tropical notes, and sure enough… My perception of the fruit depends on the moment I’m smelling this. The first time around I wasn’t all too sure about the fruitiness, but the second time around, yes, here it is. I recently recovered from a nasty variant of the flu, and now that the nose is working again, I certainly pick up more on the fruit now! I’m very pleased with this Benromach. It smells very nice, accessible, balanced and its very aromatic and appealing. Well made, wonderful stuff and very affordable as well. After smelling this on many occasions over time, the fruity bit does wear off if you keep this for a while in your glass, focussing on the dusty and woody notes. Still soft and friendly though.

Taste: On entry, sweet smoke and sweet licorice. More subdued fruits. Candied Barley. You could smell it already, but it is most welcome tasting it. 46% ABV is a very nice drinking strength, definitely better, for modern Malts, than 40% or 43% ABV. Back in the day 40% ABV worked well, think of very old Gordon & MacPhail bottlings, like early Connoisseurs Choice bottlings (brown label, map label etc.) Yet Malts from this century definitely need a higher strength, higher than 43% if you ask me. Sweet, woody, spicy, somewhat bitter and slightly fruity (less so than in the nose). Tropical, well maybe. The wood has more to say here than it did on the nose. So more wood, slightly harsh even and showing some bitterness. The smoke is here as well and in the triangle between the wood, the smoke and the bitterness, it does take away a bit from the balance of the palate. A new sip with a fruity start masks the bitter bit for a moment. The finish is not very long and not a lot of it carries over into the aftertaste. But almost all you get is good (it turns out the bitterness has the longest staying power). No off notes. A very pleasant, fairly simple (it doesn’t develop a lot) and affordable dram. There is some diluted vanilla present, proving the maturation on (first fill) American oak. By the way, due to the bitter note this has, it isn’t entirely a casual sipper. Good, but I preferred the nose over the palate.

By itself a (partial) Cara Gold offering isn’t saying very much, it would be really interesting to have several Benromach bottlings, like this one, made with different barley varieties, open at the same time, to be able to compare them to each other. I checked my stash, but there isn’t another one at hand. A bere barley version would be nice, come to think of it, because bottlings like this remind me of the rebooted Springbank Local Barley series, where the Bere Barley version bottled in 2017 is my favourite. Yes I often prefer it over the 16yo and the dark 10yo. Sure the 16yo and the dark 10yo are great and definitely stellar as well, but the 11yo from 2017 is so good! Don’t be fooled by higher numbers or the colour of Whisky! Final remark, this particular Benromach worked best for me in a small tulip glass, a narrow, long stemmed Riedel for instance as opposed to a bigger glass, like the Holmegaard Perfection Spirit Glass. Both are very good, yet different. Good glassware always shows you more sides of the Whisky you’re drinking, so I do recommend to invest in good and several different pieces of glassware. It makes exploring your dram a lot more fun!

Points: 85

Paul John (59.2%, OB, Single Cask #4914, for Germany, Peated, 138 bottles, 2017)

For a long time now I have been opening two Paul John bottles at once. One peated and one unpeated, once a mix of both. Very often single cask offerings, simply because they interest me the most and beauty lies in the details. As far as know, all the single cask offerings I came across are ex-Bourbon casks, so no Sherry or Port stuff here. As many aficionados or anoraks know, Paul John appeared on my radar because of the wonderful tornado that is Shilton Alameida, currently of Tel Aviv outfit Milk & Honey. If you ever visit a good Whisky Festival go over and visit Shilton! Paul John does not seem to bottle a lot of single casks anymore, so most of the reviews that will appear on these pages in the future are bottles from my stash. These older single cask offerings will disappear more and more from retail shelves although they still do appear in auctions with decent hammer prices. Decent from the buyers perspective that is.

I’ve had plenty of Paul Johns open, and thus Paul John is no scarcity on these pages, with even several independent offerings from Malts of Scotland and Cadenheads. However the focus now lies on Officially released Single Casks and as has been the case earlier, I will review one peated and one unpeated expression. Until now, three unpeated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier (scores between brackets): cask #1444 (89), cask #1906 (87) and cask #1051 (84). Two peated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier: cask #745 (89) and cask #777 (90). As can be seen the peated expressions right now seem to be “better” than the unpeated ones. So lets see how the next pair will turn out. Let’s start with the peated expression: cask #4914.

Color: light, middle gold.

Nose: Initially quite malty, with fatty, smoky vegetal notes of peat. Clean and smoky, bonfire style. Light (and deep), yet also very balanced, fragrant and laid back. Ever so slightly meaty, more gravy-like actually. Slightly fruity with hints of warm plastic and distant vanilla. Soft wood and fresh almonds. Pencil shavings later on in the mix, and I might add, these are the shavings of a very old pencil. Its warming, fresh and clean at the same time. The nose has a pudding-like quality to it and is actually very nice, not raw or harsh in any way, nor is the smoke sharp. If the taste is anything like the nose is we’ll have yet another peated winner from Paul John. Its almost like a breath of fresh air. Seaside, a strong and windy day kind-a fresh air, mixed in with some minty notes and horse radish, that’s how fresh this smells. This smells different from all other Paul Johns I had before. Much cleaner, and this time around, when sniffed “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have guessed this is Indian Whisky. I struggle to find the six-row barley in this one, its there, but less apparent than in most other ones. Still an amazing Whisky considering it still must be a young spirit, although we know by now how ageing works in the Goan climate.

Taste: Quite an unexpected start after smelling this one for a while. It starts sweet and nothing in the nose prepared me for that. Sweet and fruity and the almonds from the nose are present as well. First sip is very warming going down. Sweet with vanilla and slightly bitter wood. Very tasty, yet also a bit thin and a lot less complex than the nose was. The balance seems slightly off towards the finish, since not everything you taste seems to fit together perfectly. The wood becomes more paper-like, as well as slightly acidic, but not in a fruity way at all. It’s the acid you get from oak. You can almost smell this acidity in freshly cut oak. So the start and most of the body are more than OK, it’s the finish and especially the aftertaste where things start to go slightly wrong. It is layered, but in this case the layers won’t stick to each other. A sort of unpleasant tension is happening between the layers. I have plastic in the finish, and if I smell it right after that, the nose shows this plastic edge as well. Plastic is not uncommon for Paul John, but it usually isn’t a problem. It is actually a bit of a shame the palate can’t keep up with the nose, especially since the nose promised so much, and this is not even a heavy hitter, so go figure. Hey don’t get me wrong, this is still a tasty Whisky, but it certainly does have its flaws. The wood is slightly too bitter, and it goes downhill in the finish and the aftertaste. It loses its sweetness and fruitiness, to be replaced by acidic wood. Easy to pick up on when one’s somewhat experienced with Paul John.

As luck would have it, I still had a sample lying around from cask #745, the liquid of which is quite a bit darker, way more creamy and pleasant and way more balanced. Yeah, cask #745 is really good stuff. Based an a quick comparison on the nose, cask #745 is the clear winner. It has a lot more going on for it. It’s quite a big difference as well for two bottles you would expect to be similar. To sum things up, not all single casks are created equal. If you come across one, you might want to pass up on unpeated cask #1051 and thus this peated cask #4914, both are sub-par compared to the rest, yet still not bad. On the palate, cask #745 is also much better, bigger and way more balanced. The peat is different and more special as well. It also has some off-notes, but these work well with in stead of working against the Whisky, and only adds to the experience.

Do I regret getting #4914? No, not at all. After a few of those single casks, one might think all are quite similar and also might get a bit boring. However cask #4914 is still a good one, and trying it is still a great experience because of the different feel it has, and it also shows me how good #745 really is. By the way, cask #745 also has the same plastic note as cask #4914, and is much better. See, off-notes aren’t necessarily bad, they can work. This review has again been quite educational, and when these two bottles are gone, I will more than happily replace them with two other single casks, one peated and one unpeated. I guess the 89 points for cask #745 still stand, although 90 points would feel good as well.

Points: 85

Ailsa Bay Release 1.2 Sweet Smoke (48.9%, OB, 022 PPPM, 019 SPPM, 2018)

“No other Malt is made with this much science” as said by Stuart Watts, Distillery Manager. Well that’s a first. Single Malt Whisky used to surround itself with romanticism, traditionality and age statements, with people making the stuff, oozing with skills passed on from generation to generation to generation. In the old days it was all handy work and thus skill, so if a Whisky was good it was really excellent, yet also some absolute misses occurred. Today, all seems to be computer controlled and science driven. Good for overall quality, and obviously not forgetting about getting the highest yield from the barley as possible. It also seems that the highs of yesteryear aren’t really there anymore, and I haven’t really encountered any terrible misses as well. So, we now live in a different, flattened out, era, or so it seems.

Ailsa Bay opened with 8 stills in 2007 and is owned by William Grant & Sons, a company we better know as the owners of Glenfiddich and The Balvenie, as well as Kininvie and the Girvan grain distillery. Already in 2013 the distillery was expanded greatly with another 8 stills, all 16 stills similar to that of The Balvenie. The condensers of one pair of stills are made of stainless steel, to make it possible to have more sulfur in the spirit. Usually distillers want to avoid sulfur, that’s why copper is used. Just like Kininvie before it, Ailsa Bay was needed to provide Single Malt Whisky for the many Blends of William Grant & Sons, since the output of Glenfiddich and especially The Balvenie is more and more used for Single Malt alone. Hence commissioning stills in the style of The Balvenie. In 2016 the original Ailsa Bay was released as a Single Malt (021 PPPM and 011 SPPM) and the one we are about to review was the second release from 2018 and that’s more or less it, nothing more has been released as Ailsa Bay. Sure William Grant & Sons also released Ailsa Bay Whisky as Aerstone in 2018 (a land cask version and a sea cask version), dirt cheap and bottled at 40%. Not particularly in a hurry to buy those though, and there are also a few independents that have some Ailsa Bay, often tea-spooned, hence some fantasy names as Ardmillan, Dalrymple and Drumblade. Maybe not entirely fantasy, probably names of hill, water sources etc. etc.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Sweet, funky, perfumy, vegetal peat. Wood fire in winter. Cozy and appetizing peat combined with an acidic (almost fruity) note. Quite some smoke as well. Tiny hint of lemon dishwater liquid. This is a good and rather modern smelling peat smell due to the combination of peat with wood fire. Very clean and of medium sharpness, due to the smoky bit. For me peat is usually a more rounded out and earthy smell, and smoke is usually a bit sharper. Nice fresh oak and sandalwood smell come next, as well as a more fire-like a garden bonfire. More vegetal and on the nose definitely more about peat and smoke than it is sweet. If you smell this one carefully, there is also a floral bit (and in my mind also a salty bit), yet not like fresh flowers, more like flowers in peat, if this was possible obviously, without them rotting away to be a part of peat. This is the first Ailsa Bay I’ve had, but based on the nose alone, I’m impressed. It feels like A.I. managed to produce this Whisky, a feeling based on the “science” statement on the label. After a while the peat is still here, softer and more earthy, and the slight sharpness of the smoke dissipated to leave room for a more, sweeter apple compote-like smell as well as some dry, salty and smoked meat. Hints of plastic anyone? Yes even though peaty, this is an elegant and well made Whisky, at least the nose is great, lets have a taste to confirm my suspicion.

Taste: It starts sweet and chewy, but the sweetness, combined right out of the gate with peat, and definitely also with some smoke and acidic fruit. Not apples though as on the nose. Chewy at first (toffee and caramel, check), yet also turning a bit thin. Warming going down. Sappy woody bitterness, wood and smoke. However the perception of this bitterness depends on the moment, and the taster. The second time around, tasting this for this review, I wasn’t picking up as much bitterness as I did the first time. Alas we people are faulty, subjective. I expected the sweetness to be more fruit-like, but it resembled sugar diluted in warm water more. That one wasn’t all that complex as well, but it did show great balance. Hints of mint. Some diluted citrussy and pear-like aromas emerge, hindered a bit by these bitter notes on the side of my tongue. From the wood maybe, but more likely from the peat. F.i. Laphroaig is underneath the peat actually quite a sweet Whisky, but I don’t feel this Ailsa Bay is all that sweet underneath, so 019 SPPM is probably a low number for sweetness. 022 PPPM seems about right for peat, although the whole feel is more peaty than that 022. Peat is definitely what this Whisky is all about. Finally, the taste of this Ailsa Bay is somewhat simpler than the nose, yet I still had a lot of fun with this one. A welcome addition to my lectern. This one most definitely gets a recommendation from me.

So, altogether, this is a true peated Whisky, and a nice one at that to boot. I wonder how this will turn out with some more age to it, when the peat is more sophisticated, leaving more room for the 019-sweetness. Since nothing happened since 2018 I guess William Grant & Sons aren’t really into Ailsa Bay as a Single Malt anymore, probably focusing more on their main brands Glenfiddich and The Balvenie. A shame really, since this is a very nice peated Single Malt as well. I hope there will be a release 1.3 someday, with maybe even more SPPM and maybe slightly less PPPM. The 48.9% ABV works well for me.

Next day, the empty glass feels fatty and slippery (glycerol?), and smells even more peaty than the nose. Still clean and very appetizing though.

Points: 85

Amrut Naarangi (50%, OB, Batch No. 05, August 2018)

This is a very a-typical Amrut, no I’ll correct myself, this is a very a-typical Whisky! Amrut claims this is another first of its kind, (which are the others?), and yes sir indeed is this a first one of its kind, I’ll say. This is a Single Malt Whisky finished in an orange Sherry cask. No they didn’t paint the cask orange, they didn’t, didn’t they? No, Amrut got them some Oloroso Sherry (from Spain, nonetheless) and infused the Sherry with fresh orange peels for over two years. Two whole years of infusion! After this, the cask was filled with some great three year old Amrut Whisky and they let that mature further for another three years or so, resulting in multiple batches of Naarangi (orange in Hindi).

After the reviews of some experimental special releases of Ardbeg concocted by Mad Professor Bill Lumsden, I guess Bill finally met his match, because I guess even Bill didn’t come up with an experiment as bold as this! I’m not entirely sure if this is entirely legal by SWA standards though, so maybe Bill wasn’t allowed to do such a thing and passed the idea on to Amrut? Or more likely, Amrut have even madder professors (12 Monkeys-style, too crazy even to get hired by SPECTRE). I hope for the latter! Bring it on! The bottle I’m about to review is now half full and was opened quite a while back. I remember that it oozed with orange so much when freshly opened, even so much so, that I left it alone for quite a while. I wasn’t really fond of it.

Color: Copper gold, yes, let’s just say orange gold!

Nose: Hints of orange (in the deep, yet definitely present). Smells like orange flavoured dark chocolate. Creamy, spicy wood, and very nice smelling actually. Orange liqueur bonbon, with a vodka-like alcoholic aroma, all of this kept in check and well balanced. Big ‘n bold. Dusty, like a dusty old door mat. Sometimes even slightly meaty. Vanilla cream, more soft wood notes and the nose becomes quite vegetal by now. My imagination makes green vanilla out of this. I wonder how those pods smell before turning brown. Hints of a soft licorice tarry note and more dust and some pencil shavings (especially after sipping, so the oral cavity does its work amplifying certain notes). Next come some notes of Sinaspril (orange flavoured paracetamol for children). So there are real orange-oil notes as well as artificial orange notes in this, both coming from the natural source I guess. The orange bit in the nose dissipates first from my glass, letting other aroma’s come forward. Through all this, yes, the orange notes are more than present, although not (anymore) in an overpowering way. I’m quite amazed actually, that it became more toned down, considering my experiences with a freshly opened bottle.

Taste: Wood with a chewy sweetness. Spicy and a bit prickly. Bit of cayenne pepper and again some licorice. Ashes from toasted oak. Vanilla-orange-wood fusion. Slightly more acidic than expected from the nose alone, kept in check by some honey/sugar sweetness. Initially a thin texture, where I expected it to be more oily or fatty (but this sorts itself out later in the process). The thin feel is a bit of a let down, as if the Whisky isn’t fully up to transporting all the aromas. Definitely not cloying. Surprisingly well balanced though. The wood gives off a more bitter note now, but that’s not bad. It doesn’t say so on the label, but sometimes I do find some peat in this, although I’m sure this isn’t a peated Whisky. Slightly soapy mouthfeel now. In the taste all is more upfront and less complex than the nose is. The body, and the especially the aftertaste, becomes quite creamy and very friendly to drink, with obviously hints of orange-skin oil. Very drinkable now (half full bottle that was open for quite a bit). The nose and the taste have great balance to them (again, because of the half full bottle that was open for quite a bit), and I feel this is because of the way the orange and the wood behave themselves in this expression, they work well together.

After opening this for the first time, I disliked it, I thought the orange was over the top and overpowering. Just too much. I couldn’t get past the orange, but as a flawed human I am, and I hate to break it to you, so are you, (unless you have green skin and read this from another galaxy, then you are perfect and all that we humans ever wanted is peace!) I also expected something like this, the overpowering aroma’s of orange, and maybe therefore I already disliked it before opening? You wonder why I bought it then? Well, it is an Amrut after all, isn’t it? I have yet to taste a bad or mediocre Whisky from them. I tasted a lot of Amruts by now, and they were all good or better than good. But at first the Orangey-idea was a bit to bold, even for me, and I do like extremes in Whisky!

If any Whisky in the world, or the universe if you are green, needed breathing to get the most out of it, than this is the one, boy did this one improve over time. I have to say, this Naarangi was a bit of an experience. Disliked it at first, gave it a lot of time to gather itself, and when it did, it came up trumps. I really thought this would be a negative review, and surprised myself sitting down with it and analysing it. I like it (now). The down side is that this Whisky needs a lot of time to get there, to show its strengths, so not really recommended if your collection of open bottles is rather small, because it still is a niche Whisky.

Points: 85

This review is dedicated to Surrinder Kumar, a truly wonderful, passionate and patient man, who I may have slightly offended in London last year, with my initial thoughts about Naarangi, calling it borderline illegal. I’m sooooory (from Ted 2).

Glen Garioch 16yo 1995/2012 (55.3%, OB, Batch No. 10, 1st Fill Bourbon Barrels, L122205)

Onwards with another Glen Geerie. This is the fourth review of Glen Garioch on these pages. Until now, all are OB’s and all are modern OB’s presented in the bottle pictured. Earlier we had the “Founder’s Reserve” (yes a NAS), a “Virgin Oak” (yes, another NAS) and finally one with an age statement, the wonderful 15yo “Sherry Cask Matured”. This time around a 16yo “Vintage 1995” a.k.a. “Batch No. 10”. As the label states, this is from the very last production prior to the shut down of the distillery in October 1995. The label doesn’t say what happened next, but a quick dive in the Whisky history books reveals that the after the closure the Japanese owners (Suntory) tried to sell off the distillery. This failed and production was resumed again in June 1997. 1995-1997, could be worse, no mayor changes (apart from halting the use of the malting floor), so I guess after the restart the Whisky should have been more or less the same. See how marketing works? By the way, Suntory is still the owner (in the form of Beam Suntory now).

Color: Pale gold.

Nose: Malty and creamy. Lots of vanilla ice cream and some creamy pudding aroma’s. Initially, nice, friendly and appetizing. Mocha and soft vanilla-like oak. Wet biscuits, cereal-like and dust. Old books in a dry warm wind. Damp earthen warehouse floor. If you let this stand for a while, more spicy wood aroma’s prop up, helped along with some potent alcohol. Infused wood. Deeper down a more meaty bit, some cold gravy. Distant yellow fruits, ripe, aromatic yet not sweet smelling. Distant sweetness. Still this has a woody backbone to it all, with charcoal as well as a breath of fresh air. Sort of a combination of modern sharpness and some older style American oak aroma’s. Very fragrant. There is a lot coming out of my glass. After some more breathing, more of the fruits emerge, making for a very pleasant nose.

Taste: Big explosion of flavour with the first sip. Spicy, prickly, it almost seems carbonated. Hot going down, with already a vegetable bitter note, right upfront. Initially some fruity syrupy sweetness as well. It seems my wind pipe reveals some paper and bitter wood (this strengthens the gravy bit hidden deep down in the nose). Yes, dry, yet less dusty but more like vanilla powder. These must have been very active casks, because a lot of the mouthfeel is wood and there is a plethora of bitter notes in here as well, making this less of an any-occasion Whisky. Bitterness dominates the otherwise waxy finish and the aftertaste as well. Now we know what dominates this Whisky, it still is a fruity one as well.

Definitely a wood driven and somewhat bitter Glen Garioch. Lots of wood notes and lots of shades of bitterness, although non of them are really overpowering, yet it does makes me wonder if this wasn’t kept in the casks too long. It is here, yet it is also do-able. However do-able is not why we sip Whisky now do we? So again an anorak-y Whisky. Very good, but please read the manual, because again, this is not for everyone. I liked it quite a bit, with some reservation about the bitter notes. I’m not regretting buying it, but I wouldn’t buy another one anytime soon. The Tormore of the previous review is friendlier and definitely more approachable then this Geerie, even though I said that one wasn’t for everyone as well…

Points: 85

This review has been written from a nearly empty bottle. I feel like the many different bitter notes evolved a bit after extensive breathing. Initially it wasn’t as bitter as it was now.

Macallan “The Harmony Collection – Rich Cacao” (44%, OB, Sherry Seasoned European and American Oak, 2021)

When visiting the Whisky show last year (2022), my biggest disappointment came at the huge and wonderful looking Macallan stand. The Edrington group really knows how to market their stuff. I tried two different 12yo’s and the 2022 rare cask. All quite underwhelming for me. I might be spoiled, since I have tasted a lot of Macallans from the glorious days of “Science can’t wholly explain…” I can’t even remember when I bought my last Macallan, I only remember is was probably a Sherried Wilson and Morgan bottling (not the fantastic the 12yo though), yet still an independent bottling of “The Mac”. Good and affordable (for a Macallan). Now this modern “Rich Cacao” found its way onto my lectern… a free sample with a bottle of Cognac. I don’t expect much to be honest, after the aforementioned London experience, but I do hope this will be a good one. Probably sold out already, no surprise there, and I see it already costs a pretty penny in the secondary market, yet not as much as the Macallan from the glorious days, even the pretty standard ones.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Clean, fresh, woody Sherry, mocha with hints of latex paint, toast and some over-ripe almost rotting fruit (a good thing here). Better than expected actually, way better. I’m not smelling it blind, but I would say that it is recognizable as a (modern) Macallan Spirit. Nice dry and soft oak nose. Elegant, yet also somewhat robust even since this has been reduced to 44% ABV. Sweet caramel and toffee. Give it some time (but not much) to breathe and the aroma coming out of my glass is big. Dry cocoa powder, cookies and clean, dry, Oloroso Sherry. Dry vanilla powder and cold custard come next. Dark chocolate mousse, slightly sugared. Perfumy and complex. After all those weak Macallans I have tried recently, finally an interesting expression again. At least in the smell. Let’s try it now for real.

Taste: Sweet, waxy and Sherried, likeable and fun. Soft sweet (not acidic) red fruit compote (warm). Yes, a bit thin, tastes like a 40% ABV bottling. Tasty, but this has nothing to do with the Macallans from the glorious Sherry bomb days. Not the same quality and definitely not the same ooomphhh. This is soft, refined, elegant and designed and still manages to pack a small punch of the white pepper kind and some spicy dry oak. Cute. Some sweet licorice and Sherry notes come next. Dark yet sweet chocolate. Otherwise fruity and likeable, with a dry finish.

Well this was a nice surprise, a decent Macallan. Tasty and fun, yet also not all that special. Nice and highly drinkable, but not good enough to warrant the amount of hard-earned cash you have to shell out for this particular bottling (if you plan to drink it). If you are collector, then please do. Nevertheless, with a name so big as The Macallan, I expected a bit more. Good yet not a must try Malt for me. I’ll will continue to keep oogling the Macallan from a distance for the time being.

Points: 85

Springbank 10yo (46%, OB, 14.10.21, 21/159, 2021)

When I wrote the previous review of an older 18yo Springbank (one from 2011), Springbank was readily available in Europe in many guises. Enough to choose from, with decent prices. Today I can paint an entirely different picture. If I would go to several shops I would probably find nothing at all, and with some luck, maybe, and I stress this word, maybe I would be able to buy a 10yo like this, but that’s about it. If I want another Springbank, secondary market is the way to go these days, with secondary market prices as well. Accessibility is low, demand has risen dramatically. Springbank doesn’t have to bother advertising their product anymore, nor do they attend Whisky shows and packaging isn’t necessary as well. It all sells itself. Where does it all go? US, Asia? Well, since this was the only normal buy in recent times, let’s see how the 10yo is doing…

Color: Clear light gold.

Nose: Cardboard and fruity. Slightly creamy and nutty. Recognizable Campbeltown oily funk. A memory of peat, but it is most definitely not up front. Cleaner than I remember other Springbank 10yo’s to be, like for instance the 2003 and 10/342 (2010) editions, yet in the greater scheme of Whisky, clean this is not. Somewhat dusty and waxy. Peaches with a hint of banana, maybe some apricots and a wee backbone of something smoky. A lighter and fruitier take on the 10yo. Sweet fruit yoghurt with more dust and fresh almonds (without their skins). Sometimes I pick up on faint pine resin and/or camphor, or do I fool myself? Band-aids are another strange note that sometimes whiffs by. Very well balanced though. Springbank is just such a good distillery. Amazing smelling 10yo again. As often with Springbank, give it time to breathe. Oxidation is almost always Springbank’s friend. After sipping it for a while, a more green and leafy note emerges adding a little bit to the complexity of this Malt. This is very nice for an affordable 10yo, still one of the best you can get, but wait a minute, before you get carried away, how does it taste?

Taste: Nutty again. Because here there is more wood upfront, it seems less fruity. Very tasty but also a bit thin and rather simple (the nose shows more complexity), still, the balance is here, as well as it is in the taste. However, I expected something more oily or fatty, at least the feel of that, because the oily taste is present, yet the texture isn’t. This is also not very warming going down, so I guess this is more a summer type of Whisky. After swallowing you can pinpoint quite a sharp (woody) bitter note in your mouth, that doesn’t go away for a while. It actually tastes like less than 46% ABV (more like 40% ABV). So the rather thin texture doesn’t help the Whisky along. Nevertheless, this a highly drinkable Malt. Where in the start the wood was masking the fruit a bit, I’m happy to report this has a nice and fruity finish that carries well into the aftertaste (along with the creamy bits).

This isn’t one of the best batches of the 10yo around, yet if I would find myself stranded on a sunny deserted island with a case of this, it still is one of the best you could wish for in a situation like that. Other than that, this is a decent and pretty straightforward and as mentioned earlier, highly drinkable Malt. Just don’t decide for yourself how this one is right after opening the bottle, this really needs some time to properly open up, like most Springbanks do. Drink this too fast is not a good idea, just give it time, put it on your shelf for a day or two without a cork (mind the fruit flies) and you will be rewarded. As said this is definitely not the best batch of the 10yo, but there is still enough here to have fun with or grow a fondness for. I did.

Points: 85 (almost 86)

Ardmore 20yo 1996 (49.3%, OB, 1st Fill Bourbon and Ex-Islay casks, L817757B)

Sometimes Ardmore can be quite stellar. Once, I even wrote that it has the potential to be the new Brora. Back then, there weren’t any plans to reopen Brora, so today probably Brora itself has more potential to be the new Brora than Ardmore. However, the owners of Ardmore don’t do a lot with this Malt and most independent bottlers, bottle Ardmore at quite a young age. Why is that? In comes this official 20yo. I immediately bought two of those, guided by my own statement and hoping for, (expecting), the best. As I said, Ardmore can be great, and this one has some pretty decent age to it and a nice ABV to boot.

When I opened this bottle, it was very much closed and stayed like that for a long, long, and even longer, time. I even left the cork off for several days, and still it wouldn’t budge, bumming me out. Disappointing and annoying, and along the way it never really became a favourite of mine. I usually wait until the bottle is half full/half empty to write a review so that the Whisky had a chance to grow with air and over time. This bottle is now 1/3rd full, and still I’m not sure how it really is. I usually can remember Whiskies I tasted a decade ago, but every time I return to this Ardmore, I haven’t got a clue how it actually is. This is really a difficult one. So for some reason or another, I once tasted it in the morning et voilà, there is more to this in the morning, than in the evening with a tired palate. This is a delicate morning Whisky, with the emphasis on delicate, so I had to write some things down in a wee morning session! How unusual (and how nice actually).

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Quite fruity, with already a little hint of smoke and slightly rubbery peat. Very nice combination of old style, yellow half-dried fruits and wax. Whiffs of old style Malt yet sometimes also a whiff with a lack of balance, a strange or less well integrated fruity bit. Luckily this phenomenon doesn’t happen on every occasion. Quite light as well. Fruity sugared pineapple, shiny apple skins. Mocha with walnuts, hazelnuts in whipped cream. More of the nice waxy note comes forth and still it knows how to improve over time with more airing in the glass. This Malt really is dependent on air, it needs truckloads of it. This is therefore not an easy Malt. You really have to work at it a lot to get everything out, and don’t be fooled, this really has quite a lot more than meets the eye (?) initially. The waxy bit interacts quite well with a nice and soft woody note (American oak style), especially when the little bit of smoke somewhat stings the insides of your nose. The waxy bit finds a companion in some clay. After a while, good balance is reached as well at the end of the development. It just suddenly stops giving off new layers. Hardly any alcoholic notes in the nose, seems lower than the 49.3% ABV. With a lot of time and air, this nose does deliver. Quite wonderful.

Taste: Soft and creamy. Somewhat sweet vanilla and diluted whipped cream. Do I detect some faint notes of strawberry ice-cream? The sensation of cream with a little bit of water. Fruity yes and even the peat from part of the casks is noticeable. Prickly smoke on the sides of my tongue. Waxy and peaty. Almonds? After a while the oak starts to show more and more of itself, along with its bitterness, yet it never really overpowers. For twenty years, this has been in contact with wood alright. All of this, not in the greatest of balances to be honest. Also somewhat simpler than I would have expected from Whisky of this age. Lacking the complexity of a 20 year old malt, as well as the development. The finish is medium at best, actually quite short, whit a decent and warming aftertaste though. Very delicate stuff. Brittle, apart from the wax and the wood.

Technically, this must have been one of the most delicate Whiskies I have ever tried (when also analysing it). This one has managed to learn me something. You can sip your way through a bottle over a prolonged period of time in the evening and essentially having no clue what the Whisky really had to offer. Just this freak accident to have a sip in the morning, showed me that there is a lot more to this Ardmore. Treat this as a morning Whisky. Still, perfect it is not, not by a long shot. But hey, most of us usually sip our drams not-in-the-morning, so please take this into account. This is definitely not a casual sipper. Not bad at all, but should have been better than it actually is.

Points: 85

Talisker 8yo (57.9%, OB, Special Release, Carribean Rum Cask Finish, 2020)

Talisker is no stranger on these pages, and this 8yo is already the fifteenth Talisker reviewed, and why not, I ask you. Talisker has a lot going for it. It is an excellent distillate, has some peat, although not as much as some others on the market, and has a distinct and maybe unique feature, it is often considered to be peppery. A lot of wonderful aroma’s can converge in a Talisker. Works well in both Bourbon and Sherry, and the core range 10yo is already a very good Whisky. One other distillery manages to tick all these boxes save one. The distillery’s name is Springbank and the box not ticked is the box for pepper, I did say it was an unique feature, didn’t I?

In 2018 the first 8yo was released in Diageo’s annual special releases series. That “first” 8yo, was a very good one, and I remember back then, (and this is not that long ago), the talk of the town were the plethora of NAS releases (in general). At the time, there were many Talisker NAS bottles released as well. This 8yo was so good, a lower number like 8 suddenly became acceptable again, and the public always seem to prefer an age statement, so better a low number than none at all. I guess this took Diageo a bit by surprise, who knows, because there wasn’t an 8yo released in 2019. In 2020 this Caribbean Rum version saw the light of day (rushed maybe?) and earlier this year, another 8yo was released, from the smokiest stock they could find. Looks like the 8yo is here to stay. We’ll see what next year brings.

Color: White Wine.

Nose: Initially milky and young. Tasted blind, I would have guessed this was a Lagavulin, since it has some similarities with the 8yo and the 10yo, similarities, which, I didn’t like by the way. I really, really like Lagavulin, never came ‘cross one that was sub par. So when coming across the 8yo and the 10yo, it felt a bit like a sell-out by Diageo, and I was overly disappointed, damn, I didn’t think they would stoop so low as to mess with the ‘vulin. But I digress, back to the Talisker at hand. Sweet tea leaves (wet), rain water and dead dry leaves on the street in autumn. It shows more (quite nice) wood spices when the initial milky component wears off a bit. Spicy, with mild sulfury organics, sweet mint and orange powder. Smells of a distant wood fire whilst walking on a snowy street at night (by yourself). This bit is great. When drinking this Whisky casually, I have a hard time to find any notes of Rum, both in the nose and in the taste. I do now, but for me they are more similar to a Rhum Agricole than the Caribbean Rum that is stated on the label, and by the way, Caribbean Rum, that isn’t really narrowing it down now doesn’t it? So Rum yes, but there isn’t a lot of it though. I feel all the alien notes this Talisker shows us, maybe aren’t even coming from the Rum casks at all, but they probably are. Diluted smoky toffee notes and hints of Brazilian Rum (Epris 15yo). At times sharp. The wood turns towards, toffee, coffee, mocha and pencil shavings. This will improve a lot with air, so give it time, but if you pour yourself another dram, the whole experience starts anew, including the wait for the nose to improve. Recognizable as a Talisker though. Apart from the wonky start the nose is all-right.

Taste: Starts with coarse alcohol, like Wodka, right from the start, not balanced. Paper and cardboard and some residual (barley) sweetness. Not much later the wood and all the lovely aroma’s from American oak kick in, as well as a peppery attack, yes, there it is. The aroma’s are there but the balance still struggles, like its missing a component. The wood also impaired a healthy amount of bitterness onto this Whisky, but since this Whisky also has a bit of sweetness, the bitterness is kept in check. The bitter notes take residence right on the very back of your tongue. Smoky and thus a peppery attack as well, so it’s still a Talisker after all. Fresh almonds, wood and latex paint. Come to think of it, this one isn’t really all that complex. The body of the work is good, the ending a bit less, so the finish shows the unbalance again, and the aftertaste does so as well, and shows us again the bitter notes this has.

First piece of advice. Pour this dram and put it away, let the air do its job first, because the first aroma’s that escape from your glass are too close to new make spirit. And after a long wait the whole experience is much better. The nose improves a lot and therefore the taste is helped along. In the end it is an interesting Talisker, no regrets opening it and it wasn’t a nasty chore to finish it as well (not empty just yet, but it will be soon). I won’t be opening a second bottle anytime soon though. Buy the 2018 version in stead, and well see about the 2021 edition in the (near) future.

Points: 85

Tamnavulin 8yo 2009/2017 (59%, A.D. Rattray, Cask Collection, Bourbon Barrel #700628, Finished in a First Fill Bourbon Barrel for 16 months, 229 bottles)

This will be an interesting bottle. After the Dalmore I reviewed last, here is another example from a distillery from the portfolio of Whyte and Mackay, and yet another independent bottling. This is the first review of a Tamnavulin on these pages and to be honest, I never ran out of the house to fetch me a Tamnavulin. Tamnavulin just doesn’t have such a reputation. I did buy a nice, and very old, example from Duncan Taylor once, in the USA many years ago, but that’s about it. A few years back I visited the stand of A.D. Rattray at the Whisky Show in London, and tasted this Tamnavulin, I though it was rather nice and being a Tamnavulin, I bought it at the show shop. I couldn’t have been very expensive then.

Apart from the taste, I really liked the idea of maturing a Whisky in a Bourbon Barrel and then finishing it in another first fill Bourbon Barrel. This may imply the first cask it matured in wasn’t a first fill, but I might be wrong. The other thing that grabbed me was the mention of the number of the first cask it matured in (#700628), yet not the number of the cask it was finished in. But wait, there is even more. The label claims this was first matured for “over” 7 years and then received a finish of 16 months, so 100 months or more. Distilled on 10.05.2009 and bottled on 31.08.2017 equals less than 100 months. Being a Tamnavulin and all this wonky information on the label, and having tasted it, I just needed to have it, especially since Tamnavulin is rather a scarcity on my lectern.

Color: Medium gold (and seemingly not filtered to death).

Nose: Vanilla and soft oak. Malty and biscuity. Pleasant and fruity. Quite floral and perfumy. Classy. Underneath a more sweetish and fruity bit. Big and bold, with lots of aroma’s and an open character. Even though it is quite a young Whisky, there are no traces of new make and it smells quite mature. The oak gives off some spicy notes, but not much. Seems to me the initial cask wasn’t all that active and the second maturation wasn’t long enough for that cask to dominate the strong oaky notes. Interesting finish this is. Notes of yellow fruits are a bit overshadowed by this perfumy and soap-like aroma. The more I nose this, the more spices are noticeable, but all under this floral cloak. Smelling harder pulls out the yellow fruity bits, as well as some mint and a wee hint of horseradish and rainwater. The fruit turns slightly acidic. Maybe this makes the balance department suffer a bit, but it’s not a big problem though. After a while it turns a bit dusty and the mint vapor has some staying power in my nose. The sweetness picks up some licorice as well. This is an autumn Whisky (based on the nose alone at his point). Given more time, notes of cold dish water, bad breath and honey, these are adding to the complexity, but again making the balance suffer some more. Still this is still not a big issue though. I know “interesting” often has a negative ring to it, but without implying any negativity, this one just is interesting, due to the complexity and the oddness of the aroma’s this Whisky gives off.

Taste: Ahhh, nice. Spicy, slightly bitter and sweetish. Vanilla, nutty and some nice wood, that seemed not to be there in the nose. Warming and highly drinkable. Meaty as well. The vanilla bit grows slightly stronger when you hold this in your mouth. The first sip sort of repairs the nose, focusing it on the more lovely floral bit. Very appetizing and much better balanced than the nose was. Sweet and nutty, honeyed nuts. However the wood gave off plenty of spiciness to counterbalance the sweetness, which is definitely here, yet masked by the wood. Tasty example this is, and seems definitely more mature than the 8 years it (only) has. Apart from the sweetish yellow fruits on the palate, this Tamnavulin also has some zesty citrussy notes. Here it works well, in the nose the acidity isn’t helping the balance of it, however, on the palate this Tamnavulin is well balanced and the slightly bitter notes, this shows towards the finish, can put off some tasters, who don’t like bitterness altogether, but it does add to the balance. The dishwater and soapy bit in the nose, does play an unexpected role here in the aftertaste as well. Unexpected because it arrives late and I didn’t expect it at all to be honest. Along with this bitter note the nose shows us some licorice to go with it, changing the Whisky a bit. Nice complexity thus. Still an autumn Whisky I would say.

I like this Tamnavulin. The two casks worked quite well together. It’s mature and tastes great. The first cask must have been a refill cask, not giving off too much woody and bitter notes from the cask for the stated 7 years. The second cask, a more active one, did have enough time to impair its creamy and vanilla notes, but after 16 months, it didn’t have enough time to give off a lot of woody aroma’s, making for a reasonable well balanced young Whisky without the wood dominating the palate, nope the wood is just about right.

Points: 85