Category Archives: 86 Points

Hazelburn “CV” (46%, OB, 11/441)

Even after the Springbank and the Longrow, I still didn’t plan to do a Hazelburn next. Actually, even the Longrow wasn’t planned as the follow-up of the Springbank 15yo. (but more on that later, probably the next review, when additional data comes in). However, I didn’t even get to rummaging through the box yet, the box I mentioned in the previous two reviews, to look for a sample for this review, when I opened a closet in my study, my eye fell on a low-level bottle of Hazelburn. The Hazelburn was put there to review it before it would be gone. Sometimes a Whisky is so easy that you tend to reach for it quite often, so it had to be saved from my lectern, before finishing it un-reviewed.

Right at the moment I saw it, only then it hit me like all planets suddenly aligned. The third review had to be Hazelburn of course! Funny enough, I even checked if maybe I already did write this one up, but to my amazement, I haven’t even reviewed a Hazelburn on these pages before. I did actually, but non of those have been published yet. I tasted lots and lots of Hazelburns over the years and I find Hazelburn to be a hidden gem and seriously underrated. Springbank has lots of fans, hence Hazelburn is therefore often a bit overlooked. I get it, nothing better than the original ‘eh? For instance, you can see that at auctions, Prices for Hazelburn and also Longrow are lower compered to a similar Springbank. In the end I somehow got a sign that this should be the next one, and since this is the last of the brands produced at Springbank Distillery, the next review will be of something entirely different, so If you expect the next review to be of Kilkerran, I’m sorry, nope, although it has the same owners and is partially made by the same people, it is from another distillery (Glengyle). The “brand” Glengyle has another owner, so they couldn’t name the Whisky that, so the Whisky from the Glengyle distillery is called Kilkerran. To finish off, Hazelburn is triple distilled, and unpeated, although peat doesn’t seem to be totally absent from many Hazelburns…

Color: Straw gold.

Nose: Clean, sweet and malty. Oily. Fruity and very aromatic, very fragrant. This leaps out of my glass and smells more potent than 46% ABV. Sharp fresh air, and only a tiny hint of wood. Smelling it more, keeps giving me these sweet ripe yellow fruit aromas. Sweet yellow fruit yoghurt, you tend to have after breakfast (at least, I do). Mind you, this is a powerhouse and I’m literally reviewing drops of the last 7 cl of the bottle. Springbank distillates are known to take air very well, almost every time oxidation is a friend, well this is most definitely no exception. Maybe the last few pours from this bottle simply are the best? Dried apricots and sugar cubes. Cold mineral machine oil (you use on a sewing machine), the cleanest you can get. Cold not warm, warm oil is different. Hints of coal and steam. Next some smoke, surely they can’t clean the pipes and the rest of the distilling equipment that well, that this doesn’t come from peat from previous distillations? I do get smoke, like from the bonfire kind. Peat? Not really no. First of all this is a NAS (No Age Statement) bottling so, this can have some young Whisky in it (CV is said to have malts from 6yo up to 12yo old), and still this has a fantastic balance to it, maybe even more so due to extensive oxidation. The Hazelburn distillate must be a magical Spirit. The people at Springbank that thought of distilling three times without peat and thus creating Hazelburn are geniuses. Right from the start, I have been a big fan of Hazelburn in the portfolio of Springbank, it still is sort of a well kept secret. Final remark on the nose: The fruitiness dumbs down a bit after tasting because of the wood slightly dominating (what?) the palate, which then takes over in your oral cavity, pushing the friendly sweet fruit notes away. How rude!

Taste: Malty and creamy. Sweet and nutty (and dare I say, ever so slightly peaty? A tiny bit? Please? Oh come on!). Sugared almonds and some wax. Less of a powerhouse than the nose promised, but not by much. Cereal and barley. Barley sugar. Quite buttery come to think of it (also in the nose). Very tasty! Where wood wasn’t all that prominent in the nose, here in the taste it has a larger role to play. There is some vegetal oak and sometimes even some hay-like notes (which then reminds me a bit of a Grappa), as well as some toasted cask notes, and when you get those, they are here to stay, later on accompanied with some woody bitterness. the bitterness is kept in check, but is definitely present. Yes, greener and less fruity than the nose. Less fruity, because the wood takes over. Less complex, and not as much development as I might have hoped for, but the balance makes up for that. I guess the lesser complexity is because of the younger elements of this Whisky. Mind you, this was intended as an introduction to Hazelburn of sorts. It doesn’t have an age statement and thus allowed for some freedom in the composition of it, (the ages of the Whiskies that went into this bottling), so it could be released for a fair price. If only this had slightly less wood and slightly more of that wonderful sweet yellow fruit…

Hazelburn CV (Curriculum Vitae), which stands for course of live and is mainly used for someone’s resume in which you sum up your live and achievements. Sometimes CV has also been explained to mean Chairman’s Vat. Together with Hazelburn also a Springbank CV and Longrow CV existed, all now discontinued by the way, the three were said to be blended from whiskies from 6yo to 12 yo, and the three would show the consumer the differences between the three. Again, Springbank being 2.5 times distilled and (lightly) peated. (2.5 times, because half the Spirit in Springbank is 2 times distilled and the other half 3 times). Longrow is 2 times distilled and (heavily) peated and Hazelburn, as mentioned already above, is 3 times distilled and unpeated.

Points: 86

For those of you, like me, that are more anoraky (a Whisky nerd of sorts): here are the rotation numbers for Hazelburn CV (the list might not be complete):

20cl bottles: 09/468, 10/422, 11/109 and 12/63 (so end of 2009 to early 2012), I believe all were in a CV-set of the three whiskies, not sure if they were sold separately. There are also bottles without a rotation number, maybe from 2013?

70cl bottles: 10/351, 10/356, 10/429, 10/506, 11/441, 12/251, 13/185 and 13/188 (so end of 2010 through early 2013, no sign (yet) of a 70cl bottle from 2009)

Assumptions, assumptions: Maybe the 09/468 set was intended for Christmas, which would make sense since there doesn’t seem to be a 2009 70cl in existence? Maybe the decision to bottle the 70cl CV was made after the release of the set, since is was bottled almost a year after the first set? Since the 2013 70 cl bottle was bottled in early 2013, it likely no set was made in 2013, also the last set was bottled very early in 2012.

Springbank 15yo (46%, OB, 21/156)

Hello all, long time no see. Just in case you’re wondering, nope not dead yet! Just some busy and some trying times have passed, where reviewing took a bit of a back seat. All good now, so already busy filling this blank page with black words. For this review (Post #901 already), I looked through one of the many boxes I have standing around, filled with samples of mainly Whisky and some Rums. Whilst rummaging my eye fell on this particular sample, of which I thought, well that should be good, so after this long while, here we are with the third official Springbank 15yo on these pages. In 2015 I wrote up a review of a Springbank 15yo from round about 2003 (86 points) and in 2019 one from 2018 (86 points again). This time around, 2026 already, here we go with yet another Springbank 15yo, this time one that was bottled October 5th, 2021, will this one also get 86 points?. Here we go, let’s find out…

Color: Orange brown gold. Quite dark!

Nose: Holy Moly (Mo-99 in my case, nudge nudge Auke). Heavy sherry, black coal, liquorice, tarry, modern and “classic” at the same time. Almost that tarry salty rope you get from Islay Whiskies complete with this breath of fresh air (sea wind). “Classic” yet not old bottle though, but it does remind me a bit of good Whisky I tasted when I started out at the turn of 1999/2000. A nose that also reminds me of the better peated Whisky matured in Oloroso Sherry casks, yet still not old bottle though. Slightly funky, maybe from a tiny amount of Sulphur, but nothing to worry about. A thick jam-like fruitiness in this one and a whiff of sandalwood, unlit cigarette, cardboard and the smell of a sugar cube (yes, a sugar cube has a smell). Toasted oak and a nice vegetal greenness to it. Cold gravy and cold motor oil, as well as a little bit of hot cable (plastic). Tarry raisins. Very nice and interesting nose. You just gotta love Springbank. Don’t expect a lot of elegance in this particular expression though. This is the nose of a big and bold Springbank, yet not the most complex smelling expression. I wonder now of this will taste (somewhat) sweet…

Taste: Nope, not sweet and I also expected it to be thicker to be honest, but it seems quite thin. Well balanced though. Peat and tar again and a more accessible red/black fruitiness than the nose led on. Ever so slightly farmy. Hints of burned newspaper as well as the toasted oak from the nose. Toffee and slightly waxy. No sulphur, and slightly minty. Tasty stuff it is again. Still the thin aura sticks with me a bit. This might have been better at around 50 to 52% ABV to carry the weight a bit better, obviously a higher ABV won’t fix thinness. This is definitely not a sipper, I learned a long time ago (from Olivier, when tasting a 50’s Richebourg), that some Wines just taste the best in big gulps, big meaning not sipping before you call me crazy, although a big gulp sounds about right to me, so call me crazy then! I found this to be true, not only for Wines. This Springbank is thus not a sipper. With a bigger… ehhh, sip, more sweetness and more tar and liquorice emerge, making it even better balanced. Final note, almost every time around Springbank can handle a lot of air/oxygen, it oxidizes well, and gets better over time. This 15yo handles handles air/oxygen quite good, but not as much as other Springbanks. A fresh pour is definitely better than a glass that has been airing for half an hour. In the end this is a medium sized big boy, in your face yet also lacking a bit of complexity that would make it even better. Good Springbank for sure, I like it, could buy it, but it is not as good as some people say it is. It gets a lot of raving reviews, is this because of the colour I wonder?

One of Springbank’s biggest strengths has always been batch variation making Springbank a rather adventurous Whisky. Yet it also needs a word of caution if you don’t really fit the aficionado bill, and expect more of the same goodness you had before. Some batches are good and some batches are just better. If you come across a very good batch and you go out and buy a batch from that same (or another) year, you might be in for a small surprise, because going back from a very good batch to a good one, might result in a minor disappointment. Just look at the Springbank at hand, this one has rotation number 21/156 (bottled October 5th), and its the third time Spingbank bottled the 15yo in that year. There are two more bottle runs for te 15yo in 2015 that I know of: 21/01 (bottled January 4th) and 21/110 (bottled June 14th). Since its highly likely that the other two are different batches (too far apart?), there might be a difference in the composition, different casks used, although this time, word is, all three batches are fully Sherry, but I can’t be sure. Oh, and this one was released without a box.

Points: 86 (yes again, for me, this is what it deserved)

Thanks go out to Nico, the source of this generous sample, and Auke for asking for a new review.

 

Worthy Park 7yo (61.2%, Rum Nation, Limited Edition, Cask Strength, Pot Still, 3.000 bottles, 2018, L18-134, Jamaica)

This is the slightly younger, yet taller brother of Rum Nation’s 8yo Oloroso finished Worthy Park bottled at 50% ABV in 2015. Taller because it’s higher in ABV. A brother from another mother was reviewed on these pages earlier, being the Rum Nation Limited Edition Cask Strength offering from Réunion, which was very good in my book. There is also a version from Guyana. Although the name of the Distillery isn’t anywhere on the label nobody seems to be wondering if this is anything other than Worthy Park.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: laid back leather, nice fresh oak notes and distant Jamaican funk. It is definitely not as funky as one might expect from a Jamaican Rum. Even though it’s not on the label, it is easily recognisable as a Worthy Park. Quite similar to their own bottlings like the ones reviewed earlier; the Single Estate Reserve, the Oloroso and the Quatre Vins. So wood is a main aroma, supposedly all American oak barrels, but its not big on vanilla one might expect from American oak. So wood, dust, dry earthen floor it is. Not a lot of fruit aroma’s. Sometimes a whiff of mint or peppermint passes through. Slightly meaty. Very well made and overall a classic nose. Close your eyes when smelling this and you’re transported to another place (a warehouse) in another time. As said earlier, not very funky, so don’t look for overripe bananas in this one. There is a whiff of Sinaspril going one, remember that? (Headache medicine for children, with a artificial orange aroma). The whole is simple and maybe not complex, nor funky, yet this still is a very nice nose to smell, or smell to nose. Tiny hints of wax and almonds with hints of acidic and slightly sweet red fruits coming in late into the fold. After sipping, these red fruits turn into hard raspberry candy and soft black licorice candy as well. Remember keeping either of them in your mouth for as long as you could? Maybe simple, (is it?), yet quite amazing.

Taste: On entry, slightly sweeter than expected, although here as well the wood is quite dominant. Slightly prickly wood, as if it was carbonated. The sweet onset is quickly swept under the mat by dry oak. Somewhat floral, vegetal and fragrant. When was the last time you had a taste of a perfume ‘eh? And if so, I hope this is what it tasted like. Initially also fruitier than the nose, but also…yes you guessed it, swept under the mat by oak. Warming going down. No surprise there at this ABV. An acidic oaky edge has the most staying power and dominates the taste. After a while the wax and almonds from the nose present themselves well into the realm where normally the funky Jamaican style would be. Also a slightly burnt as well as a slightly plastic-y note pops up. Next an unexpected farmy note and some unlit tobacco and soft licorice. Taste wise there seems to be enough happening right now. We already know I guess, but this dominance of this nice wood, could only come forth with full term tropical ageing. If I would have tasted this “blind” and on a “bad” day I probably wouldn’t have said this is Jamaican. On a “good” day, it does show a lot of Worthy Park traits and when you get to the point of understanding this has been fully matured in the tropics than yes, Jamaican it is. Cardboard in the aftertaste, wow, and a tiny hint of the burnt plastic-y note. Not really a problem though.

Jamaicans like overproof Rum, and this should be no exception, although I wonder how a Jamaican would perceive this lack of funk. Still I like this one very much. It is well balanced and shows a lot of well integrated nice aromas, both on the nose as well as in the taste. Definitely recommended.

Points: 86

Bimber “Pedro Ximenez” 2020 (50.9%, OB, Pedro Ximénez Sherry Cask #41, 335 bottles)

So earlier I reviewed three Bimbers, all matured in American Oak casks, one that previously held Rye, one that previously held Bourbon and one that previously held nothing. In those reviews I already told you that I felt those three types of casks worked best for the Bimber spirit, mostly quite similar but also at the same time quite different. I also mentioned that it would become clear in another review why those type of casks work best. Well here it is, this is that other review. This example was fully matured in an Ex-Pedro Ximenez Sherry Cask. Pedro Ximénez is a (very) sweet fortified Wine made from very ripe grapes of the same name. The grapes dry in the sun to obtain a must with a high concentration of sugar. Pedro Ximénez-casks are also very well known in the Whisky-world. Usually not for full maturation, but more for a finish. People do still feel that an ex-Oloroso Sherry casks works better for Whisky than a Pedro Ximénez cask. I understand the feeling, but this is no always true.

I once brought three Bimbers to a meet of my Whisky club. The Virgin Oak cask I reviewed earlier was somehow accepted, bust this Pedro Ximénez not so much. So proceed with caution. I might think Bimber is great, but that might not be true for you.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Very spicy. I know now this is quite common for Bimber. Smells like a pre-war shop selling spices. Hints of Pedro Ximénez, yet not fruity. An old leather bag. The whole is more dark and brooding. Also a thin veneer of lactic acid, acetone and a wee hint of horseradish, distant smoke and petrol. All in minute quantities (I didn’t pick upon these yesterday). Somewhat sweet smelling. Chocolate chip cookie dough. After a while in my glass, the aforementioned shop becomes somewhat more of a candy shop. Cinnamon sticks (lots of it) as well as the pink, raspberry flavoured ones? Still not fruity. The nose is quite raw and dry, like drawing in a breath of ice-cold air, yet the whole seems to be more warming, as can be expected from cookie dough and cinnamon. More of the old shop and an old book show up now as well. To be honest this is an amazing nose, with a small lactic acid fault, but the whole is pretty amazing smelling, amazing and classical. Quite a feat for yet another NAS. How do they do it? Dust and licorice powder, still this aura of sweetness in the smell. Smells like Christmas. Good balance, I like it.

Taste: Sweetish, spicy and woody on entry. Something prickly. Lots of licorice in many guises. The powdered stuff as well as the black bit of Licorice Allsorts. Sweetish and slightly sticky. Sweet wood and some raisins. The dry and the sweet work together well, not exactly cancelling each other out, thus reaching a nice synergy. Every new sip starts with wood, sometimes somewhat harsh maybe, but next comes this ever growing fruity sour note. Although Pedro Ximénez is very sweet, the Wine works well because of the underlying sour notes. Just like Laphroaigh is heavily peated, but quite sweet underneath, that makes it work wonderfully. The acidic fruit note is authentic for a Whisky that was (fully) matured in Pedro Ximénez, yet some might find it off-putting, as I found out the hard way. There is slightly less balance on the palate than there was in the nose. By the way, especially after sipping, the nose becomes even more beautiful, even after the first sip. The taste does show a slightly burnt character. Still pleasing stuff nevertheless. This bottle, more than others, got a lot of slack from some people, but now properly analyzing it, I don’t concur. Sure these are some small issues with it, as there always are (have you ever encountered an perfect Whisky, and if so did you score it a 100 points?). The whole is very tasty, elegant and pleasing. Or is it just me with a liking or fondness of Bimber? So the only faults I could find, if I’m looking for them, are the lactic acid right at the start I mentioned above, and the aftertaste being rather sticky, with sawdust and a slightly burnt note as well. The body of this Whisky is very good.

A lot is happening behind the scenes with Bimber these days, and the stories I hear, one even more crazy than the other. Still I hope they can sort it out and for things to fall into place. It would be a shame to lose Bimber. It’s a young distillery, and a young, well looking brand, yet the whisky, still all NAS is nothing short of amazing. This Pedro Ximénez one is not a casual sipper, but one for an armchair, a good book and a nice warming fire in the fireplace. A winter warmer. I can forgive it the few flaws it has, because the rest is more than making up for it. For a long time I believed that clean American oak was the way to go for Bimber. Bourbon, Rye and virgin oak, but this Pedro Ximénez is working for me as well, even though of the four mentioned it does scores the lowest. Maybe Bimber has such a nice spirit it will work well in anything. No don’t you break out the herring of Tabasco casks just yet, people. We’ll see what the next reviews of Bimber will show, but up ’till now I’m quite happy with Bimber, and I’m looking forward to the next one.

Points: 86

Glen Elgin 11yo 2009/2021 (58.8%, Elixir Distillers, The Single Malts of Scotland, Hogshead #807777, 238 bottles)

Actually, Glen Elgin is one of my favourite lesser known Whiskies. Being somewhat partial to the stuff, mostly from independent bottlers, I’m actually amazed this is only the second review on these pages. The only other review of Glen Elgin I did, was in 2017, being a 19yo Signatory Vintage bottling, that wasn’t as special as I expected, especially for its age. Hmmmm, never mind, I still stand with what I just said. Building started in 1898 just months before the Pattison Crash and it was also the last Distillery designed by Charles Doig (the foremost distillery architect of the time).

After the Pattison Crash, Whisky found itself in a sort of 50 year long slump, that more or less ended in around 1949 when William Delme Evans built the first distillery after Glen Elgin: Tullibardine. Fast forward a bit and cutting this history lesson short; Glen Elgin is now owned by Diageo and mainly used for its White Horse blend and currently is investing heavily in it by rejuvenating it. Back to the Whisky at hand, since this time around we have a bottling from Sukhinder’s outfit Elixir Distillers. Being a independent bottler foremost, I wonder what they actually distil. Elixir distillers is mostly known for their Single Malts of Scotland range of independent bottlings but also for their Port Askaig bottlings of undisclosed Islay bottlings (often Caol Ila).

Color: Pale White Wine.

Nose: Barley and biscuity. Cereal, crackers and bread. Dusty with hints of cardboard. Starts big and in your face. Good and honest Whisky, no frills, no funny business. The next wave is more fruity (dry citrus skins), with the tiniest hint of cask toast and pencil shavings. Warm wind in summer, slightly grassy and vegetal. Hints of rainwater. The third wave adds a more perfumy note as well as grandma’s old soap note, never losing sight of the fruits though. Quite fresh overall due to a slight minty and green nose. Well balanced and straightforward. A very effective and highly drinkable Glen Elgin. It may be somewhat simple, but don’t be fooled by this, since there is quite a lot happening in this one, and as said earlier, its also quite big. It’s layered, so it might be even more complex than I initially thought. I always liked Glen Elgin and this is definitely an example why. The fruity note becomes sweeter, not only ripe fruit sweetness yet also a more honey-like aroma. I know sweetness is something for the palate to discern, but I hope you know what I mean here. In the end this is quite a nice (not modern) nose. I like it a lot.

Taste: On entry half-sweet but easily overpowered by a spicy and woody note. Prickly oak, only ever so slightly bitter and soapy. Maybe an odd red chilli pepper found its way into the cask? Nah. Warming going down. After the first sip, the soapy note on the nose becomes more like cold dishwater. Second sip shows a more complex sweetness, fruity and honeyed. (The nose is now more old-skool and melancholic). Less syrupy than expected. Some peach emerges as well, retaining the relative hotness from the first sip. Lots of paper and cardboard comes next which does get in the way a bit of the fruity notes. Where this is a miss on the palate, the nose, even now, keeps developing further still. Hold on now, after a while it does become slightly more bitter and slightly acidic as well, which in the case of the paper and cardboard do less for the palate than it sometimes can do. It also shows some new make spirit notes now (that fit the colour of this Whisky well if I might say so). Next some sun-tan lotion, you didn’t see that one coming now didn’t you? Although not a biggy, this part of the palate is not the best. By the way, I get some cheese on the nose now, how is that? This turns out to be quite a surprising Glen Elgin. Definitely not boring this one. Still, this one has much nice things going for it, so the score is warranted. Peach yoghurt in the finish as well as a peppery note, some might call hot. The finish as a whole is of medium length and especially the minty bit seems to have some staying power here. It’s alright, it’s good, but the nose was better.

Yes the Mortlach I reviewed just before scores slightly higher, but in comparison this Glen Elgin is slightly more drinkable. Even though this one has a very diverse, unusual and layered nose it is even more accessible than the Mortlach. Mortlach has always been a more anorak-y kind of Whisky anyway. Still, I wouldn’t recommend this one either if you are a novice, just like the 19yo Glen Elgin I reviewed in 2017.

Points: 86

Amrut Double Cask 5yo 2012/2017 (46%, OB, Bourbon Cask #3189, Port Pipe #2716, Scottish Peated Barley, 1050 bottles)

Amrut Double Cask. In this case, Amrut just married two different casks together and reduced them to 46% ABV. In 2010 the first Double cask was released, marrying two Bourbon casks together, ehhhh, where is the fun in that? Later in 2016 and 2017 two more batches (both in two expressions) were released that seem to be a lot more exciting: batch 2, marrying Bourbon with PX (using unpeated Indian barley) and batch 3, marrying Bourbon with Port (using peated Scottish barley, most likely of the Aberdeen kind.), so I expect both later batches to differ quite a bit. I’m quite sad actually, because Double Cask seems to be a concept with many possible permutations, and I thought there would be a lot more batches than only these three. For completists here are the three batches/five expressions of Amrut Double Cask:

  • Batch 1 (2010-02-27): 2002-07-25 (Bourbon #2273) / 2003-02-27 (Bourbon #2874),
    The original Double Cask (7yo), 306 bottles
  • Batch 2 (2016, August): 2009, June (Bourbon #3451) / 2010, May (PX #3802),
    Unpeated Indian Barley (6yo), ??? bottles
  • Batch 2 (2016, August): 2009, June (Bourbon #3452) / 2010, May (PX #3803),
    Unpeated Indian Barley (6yo), 800 bottles
  • Batch 3 (2017, June): 2012, May (Bourbon #3189) / 2012, March (Port Pipe #2716),
    Scottish Peated Barley (5yo), 1050 bottles
  • Batch 3 (2017, June): 2012, May (Bourbon #3190) / 2012, March (Port Pipe #2717),
    Scottish Peated Barley (5yo), 900 bottles

Color: Dark orange brown.

Nose: Starts with peat and iodine. Very big and definitely bold. Animalesk, the acidic note of crushed beetle (don’t ask) and miscellaneous organics. Cola. Maybe too early to say, but I don’t think reduction to 46% ABV hurt this Whisky at all. Clean and tight. Port yes, but very much playing second fiddle behind the peat, adding a dimension and not really upfront or overpowering. Otherwise, as said, very fresh and tight. Definitely a winter type of affair. Because of the lack of Indian Six-row barley, this Amrut really misses its exoticness. If this was done with Indian barley, it would be highly unlikely this Whisky would come across as a winter-Whisky. So in that respect quite an unusual affair (for an Indian Whisky). I guess the other version, the 2016 one, that has been done with PX and unpeated Indian barley will be entirely different, probably back into the exotic realm. Next up some fatty clay and smoke. Scottish autumn at the bank of a river (with clay). Chocolate powder (Droste or Dutch Windmill) and warm plastic. Mocha and the tiniest hint of vanilla. Yeah, but all in all, this is yet another great smelling Amrut. As often with Whiskies that came into contact with Port casks, the nose is somewhat less complex. After the peat subsides a bit over time in my glass, the Port is able to show the fruitiness it is able to give to this Whisky. Good stuff. After a day or two, the empty glass smells of a lot of peat and a wee bit of polyester. I have smelled that before, but not in an Indian Whisky.

Taste: Starts thin. Where the nose was thick, bold and big, this thin texture comes a bit as a surprise, making me wonder how the unreduced Whisky would have been. Starts with berry like fruits, ripe red fruit and a lot of almonds. Nice. Its like eating unsalted roasted almonds with sweet dried cranberries. The almonds also have a lot of staying-power, and linger for a long time in my mouth. With the fruit comes also a nice sweetness. Just like the nose, not very complex. Cola here again. The cola, the fruits and the almonds put together, remind me of Cherry Coke. Needless to say this tastes highly drinkable. Haagsche Hopjes, a Dutch hard coffee candy. Well isn’t this turning into a treat? Very nice. With a taste like this, who needs complexity? In the end, this one is on the palate still a wee bit too thin. Could have done with slightly more points on the ABV-scale, 50% seems about right, but this is just a minor gripe. I haven’t tasted this at 50%, so I really don’t know if it would have been better. The finish and the aftertaste retain quite a lot of fruity sweetness. To be hones it could have done with slightly less of it. Highly drinkable every time, but not one keep pouring one after the other. If your glass is empty refill it with another Amrut. I’ll finish this like I started, really sad there aren’t any more Amrut Double-casks around. Please Amrut do some more, surprise us. I’ll even forgive you if you keep them at 46% ABV, for continuity purposes.

Well, well, well, Scottish Peated Barley. For me the strength of an Indian Whisky lies in the specialness, the “exoticness” of Indian six row barley, setting it apart from other Whiskies and carving more than only a niche for itself. A type of Whisky I really do like myself, if I may say so. There are already a lot of Amruts and Paul Johns on these pages, and also Indri is knocking at the Indian Whisky door with quite the drum-roll. Up ’till now I tried three expressions of Indri, and all are winners in my book. With this Amrut Double Cask however, don’t expect an Indian Whisky because the whole comes closer to a Scottish peated Whisky than any Indian Whisky. So in fact, what we have here is a Whisky with a bit of an identity crisis, and from now on, don’t underestimate the power and the character of Indian six-row barley.

Points: 86

Ardbeg BizarreBQ (50.9%, OB, Double Charred Casks, Pedro Ximenez Casks & BBQ Casks, 15/2/2023)

The previous post, which was quite long to be honest, was about a somewhat experimental special release Ardbeg called Auriverdes. Auriverdes was released way back in 2014. More recently though, in 2023, Ardbeg released this BizarreBQ, and I thought, hey, why not do another, preferably shorter, review of a special Ardbeg. I’ll even post a minimalist picture of the bottle without the box, (because there isn’t any). The previous post is about Auriverdes alone and this one will be about BizarreBQ obviously, but also a bit of it in comparison to Auriverdes, since both Whiskies have quite some charring going on. I also thought, when selecting all Ardbeg’s on these pages, what a visually appealing look it is, to have all those beautiful green Ardbeg bottles lined up one after the other. This 2023 Ardbeg is most definitely experimental, because BBQ casks, really? What is that? Pssssst. Yes? These casks underwent yet another super-secret char, making the inside of the cask even more akin to the charcoal you’d use for BBQ-ing. Ahhh, OK. Amazing.

Color: Pale orange gold, with an ever so slight pink hue.

Nose: Thick fat peat with lots of smoke and iodine. More upfront and smells way younger than Auriverdes did. We’re definitely in NAS territory all-right, since a lot of the nose smells like a very young Whisky. Earthy, wet and dry tea-leaves, vegetal and even more iodine now (80’s Laphroaig style). Quite spicy and herbal. Warming and very well balanced. I like this nose a lot already, apart from the initial overtly youthful bit. Smoke from burning newspapers, burnt match sticks, mixed with the smell of a crushed beetle. Somewhat sweet smelling, but couldn’t say if this is the PX speaking, since Auriverdes was on the sweeter side as well. If smelled “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have mentioned PX-casks at all. I guess all the charring that was going on defines this nose, and the “sweetness” might be the newly released vanillin from the oak, especially if it’s American oak. After the bold bits wear off, (it is initially quite fresh and sharp), the nose becomes more friendly, Gin-like, with hints of Rye Whisky and yet it still is quite a balanced endeavour altogether. Slightly more wood now with black coal and licorice coming to the forefront, as you get in modern day Ardbeg. The smell reminds me of old steam trains, more than an actual BBQ, with or without meat on it. Based on the nose alone, a very nice Ardbeg indeed, makes me feel a bit melancholic again, yet less so than Auriverdes managed to do, which in comparison has a more classic nose.

Taste: Sweetness, accessible, likeable. Bigger than Auriverdes. Fattier and even sweeter. Like Auriverdes, again somewhat simpler than the nose, but very drinkable indeed, without losing the freshness and sharpness which is present in the nose. I would say, great balance again. Not really a PX sweetness here too, yet more so than the nose showed. This Sweetness, the feel of it might be somewhat closer to a Whisky from a PX-cask, but still not all that much. All good so far. Some sweet licorice, a whiff of polyester and horseradish. After sipping it now, I get the horseradish on the nose as well, as well as the hint of polyester. If you do your own boat-repairs, you know what I mean. By the way, the polyester bit is not as bad as it might sound. Chewy wet wood. After the big bold entry this Whisky has, it also falls short in the finish a bit and not a lot actually remains for the aftertaste. Maybe herein it shows its youth. Lots of upfront stuff because of the charring, but lacking some depth due to age of the Whisky. Alas this has quite a short finish and only some lonely, left behind, licorice in the aftertaste.

I feel the whole of this Whisky is (much) younger than is the case with Auriverdes. But hey, still not a bad Ardbeg again, fetching a decent score. Yet again it is a special release that scores lower than the batches of Corryvreckan and Uigeadail I reviewed. But it does offer another perspective on the Ardbeg theme. Of course there might be some batch variation with Corryvreckan and Uigeadail, since they are released regularly as opposed to the one-offs that are these specials. If you want to spend your money wisely and don’t mind staying with those two expressions alone, you will be fine. If you are more adventurous and are willing to spend a bit more on a variation of the Ardbeg theme, and mostly with a lower ABV as well, than those special releases are for you. Only if you believe, that since you spent a fair bit more money, you are getting a better Whisky, than those mentioned from the core range, you are likely to get disappointed and get a bit salty. That being said, there are obviously also special releases which are definitely better than the core range. Some of which will be reviewed on these pages in the future and by now are or have become quite pricey.

Points: 86

Ledaig 9yo 2005/2015 (56.8%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, 1st Fill Sherry Butt #900146, 664 bottles)

After Caol Ila and two cask strength Laphroaig’s, lets stay with peat for a while (winter is coming) and check out this peated offering from Ledaig. Yes I know, Ledaig isn’t from Islay. Why should it? You can distil with peat anywhere on the planet, or in this case, Scotland. There is already a lot happening on Islay, lots of distilleries, and isn’t Mull more unique? Not a lot of distilleries on Mull. Ledaig as we all know by now, is the peated Whisky made at Tobermory Distillery. You did read all my previous reviews on Ledaig, in preparation to this one, now did you? So you should know by now, yes? Tobermory distillery also releases unpeated Whisky, calling it…well…Tobermory, how did they come up with that! You could fool me sometimes with this statement though. Seems to me some Tobermory’s are peated as well, maybe less so than Ledaig, yet peated. Maybe they’re just not as good at line clearance as they are in making Whisky? Who knows, and who cares if the output can be this good. By the way, not even that long ago Tobermory did have some sort of a wonky reputation concerning the quality of their Whisky.

Earlier I reviewed a fantastic 11yo Cadenheads offering distilled in 2005 which has matured in a Sherry Butt. This time around I went for this 9yo 2005 Signatory Vintage offering, that also matured in a Sherry Butt, expecting and hoping for more of the same and wanting that all 2005’s are somewhat created equal. I just wonder why Cadenheads only managed to draw 450 bottles at cask strength from a Butt and Signatory 664 bottles. That’s quite a considerable difference. By the way, Cadenheads bottled two other casks from 2005, yielding 510 and 516 bottles. Still no 664 bottles though. Different oak with more evaporation or different warehousing conditions? Who knows.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Fatty, fragrant and delicious peat. Slightly Sherry sweetness. Full on sweet smoke with some toffee. A little dirty yet sexy. Licorice smoke. Salty and smoked licorice candy. Prickly smoke, with a minty side to it. Smoked menthos. Nom, nom, nom. I have to say, a peated spirit like this, aged in a Sherry butt, what a combination. The start was peat which morphs slowly into smoke. Hints of anise seeds and cumin. In the background dried beef, gravy and salty smoked fish. This has also an underlying fruity side to it, but again, just as in the Caol Ila I just reviewed, this is masked by the usual suspects of peat and smoke. What a wonderful smelling Ledaig again. Utterly amazing smelling Malt and it’s only 9 years old. Glowing embers, warm glowing charred wood. Hot barbecue before anything is put on it, burning off the last spots of fat left behind from the previous session, right before putting something on it again. Or imagine sipping this near the fireplace high up in the mountains. This nose never stops giving. Warm oil emanating from a steam locomotive (a fresh experience from two months ago in Quedlinburg, Germany).

Taste: Starts sweet and peaty, yet also somewhat unbalanced. The peat and the smoke have a bitter edge here right from the start, but also something fresh like a cola has. Nutty and some burnt fat from the barbecue. This note smells better than it tastes, by the way. Very warming and hot going down. Now I do notice quite some dry wood underneath, tucked away neatly between the peat and the smoke. So it might be a bit hidden, but the cask is quite active as well. More towards burning plastic now and again the minty note. The peat note is more bitter and together with the smoke, also less dominant. The Sherry comes trough some more. Dried salty fish. This one needs some time to breathe, but not too much. When standing around in my glass for a long time, the taste deteriorates a bit (the bottle is also nearly empty by the way, so I notice the air did play its part). This will be of no concern with a freshly opened bottle, because then, this Malt still does need a lot of air. Crushed beetle in the finish, and overall still warming. Also some caramel comes forth.

Are all Sherry Butt matured Ledaig’s from 2005 created equal? Nope they aren’t. The Cadenheads rose to the occasion much more than this Signatory initially, but, oh boy, when this got enough time to breathe in an open bottle, yeah man! The nose is up to par with the Cadenheads, alas on the palate, the Signatory falls apart a bit and the Cadenhead is the clear winner. Sure it’s different from the Cadenheads offering as well. That one was tasty from the first poured dram until the last, and this Signatory one did need some time to find its place, which luckily it did, although it never reached those highs of the Cadenheads, and deteriorated a bit when nearly empty. Nevertheless two big peated hits in a row from Tobermory. I’m suspecting an album of greatest hits now, so for the time being, I will be replacing every emptied Ledaig with another one. Can’t wait to open up the next one now. I have to look in my stash for one matured in a Bourbon cask after these two Sherried ones.

Points: 86

Glenallachie 1999/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill Bourbon Barrels, AE/JJCG, 23/01/2015)

So in earlier reviews I found out that Glenallachie probably isn’t one of my lesser known distilleries that really click with me. Some bottlings I tried were good, some a bit mediocre and some quite forgettable. Up ’till now nothing really stood out. I have a feeling though the newer Whiskies might prove to be better than ever, so Glenallachie might be on the way up again (for me). Nevertheless, Glenallachie is making quite a name for itself the last few years. Lots of official bottlings but also a lot of independent bottlings are coming to the marketplace, with quite a few people who like the output very much, so who am I to argue.

I have already reviewed some independently bottled Glenallachies: Dewar Rattray, Kintra, Beinn a’Cheo, Mo Òr and Cadenhead. Missing from this list is “the biggest and the baddest” of them all: Gordon & MacPhail. Here we have a 1999 distillate reduced to 46% ABV. Alas the only Cask Strength 1999 Gordon & MacPhail ever bottled was sent to Binny’s in the U.S. of A. Not really my neck of the woods. It was bottled way back in 2011. Hard to come across one of those now, since it doesn’t have a lot of collector value, so I can imagine the good people of the U.S. of A. drank most of them, an d rightly so! So without further ado, lets just dig into this reduced one from 2015, shall we?

Color: White Wine

Nose: Wow, very malty and sweet. Cookies, dusty oats and breakfast cereals. Dry grass and hay like. A brekkie Whisky. Sweet smelling cookie dough, with a green note, a fruity note and a cold dishwater note and thus quite appetizing and pleasant. Marzipan and ever so slightly nutty. After a while a tiny hint of licorice. This nuttiness is the closest it gets to wood, because the wood itself is hardly noticeable. It has quite an interesting and appealing perfume to it as well, which emerges somewhat later from my glass. This is real and honest stuff and maybe a bit back to basics, although it isn’t really basic nor simple for that matter. Just a very nice smelling Whisky. Excellent example what a spirit in some “basic and simple” Bourbon barrels can achieve, also proving that the Glenallachie spirit is a good one. Based on the nose alone this could be a very good Whisky, and based on the nose alone I would definitely buy it. Let’s move on.

Taste: Hmmm, quite different here on the palate. Starts fruity, with a surprising and definite bitter note. How strong this bitterness is perceived by the taster depends upon the taster. The first time around, I found this to be more better than the second time around. Runny, thin toffee, wood and thus its bitterness, yet also spicy with some black pepper. Dark chocolate, wood and an alcoholic note you get with those bonbons that contain alcohol. Based on the nose I didn’t expect this bitter note. I expected fruity caramel to be honest. Let’s take another sip. After a while I guess my palate just got used to the bitterness and it isn’t so dominant anymore. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but just like the nose, this palate has something really appealing and interesting which intrigues me. In this case the 46% ABV seems very soft. I may be used to, and prefer cask strength Whiskies to be honest, but this example seems very do-able in the alcohol department. Its neither harsh nor hot.

This will do very well as a daily drinker, or as an aperitif. However, do not make the mistake believing this is merely a simple, entry level Whisky. It is quirky, it is able to surprise you and I definitely like this one (especially after leaving it in my glass for a while to settle some more). Still, this has some bitter notes here and there, so buyer beware. Definitely noticeable is the reduction to 46%, sure quite a high ABV, but it is definitely different from a cask strength offering.

To me this smells and tastes like a classic ex-Bourbon casked Whisky, not modern at all. Would never have thought this was from 1999, which feels like yesterday to me. Maybe today it is a classic Whisky though. Personally I’m shifting my interest in Glenallachie. Where Mr. Walker puts out a lot of different casks, I will be, for the time being, sticking to ex-Bourbon Glenallachie. Again personally: I like this stuff way more than the heavily Sherried 15yo. Yeah, this is a nice surprise, have to find me one now somewhere.

Points: 86

Tormore “Batch 2” (51.4%, That Boutique-y Whisky Company, 103 bottles, 50 cl)

Third Boutique-y bottling on these pages, yet the first one that is not an Arran. Earlier I reviewed Arran batch #3 and Arran batch #4. When writing about batch #3, I completely forgot I earlier had done a review of Batch #4, so when that one popped up whilst scrolling through my own pages, it gave me quite a scare, because both labels are the same. As I mentioned before, I neglected Arran for a long time and especially after tasting batch #3, it brought Arran back for me. This time around however a Boutique-y Tormore. Tormore is a beautiful distillery with a very typical output. The word “metallic” often pops up when people taste Tormore. One of my first encounters with Tormore was a 13yo Cadenheads bottling from 1997 (distilled 1984). It was industrial all right, maybe even metallic, but I also became an immediate fan. It’s quirky and expressive, unique and definitely not for everyone, but I really liked its stand-offish character, so I always look at Tormore with great interest and a smile. In comes this Boutique-y expression I got from an auction site. Love the looks, and 50 cl is a nice volume (unless you really, really like it). The bottle looks cute in my hand. Love the humour and the label, not a fan of the lack of information though.

Colour: White Wine, pale gold.

Nose: Very funky, malty, grassy and fatty American oak. Waxy and also quite sweet smelling, fruity yet at the same time also quite floral. One reads a lot about banana on the nose, which I often don’t get actually, but in this one, there is certainly banana here all right. Very fruity overall, overripe fruit. A lot of peach, but only after the first sip. All the wood influence is quite soft and definitely present. Very waxy now, gravy, very fragrant, it leaps out of my glass. Big one and quite unique alright, that’s Tormore for you! Not aggressive at all though, no, this is actually a friendly and well-balanced Tormore. Excellent American oak, quite active indeed. Vanilla, with dark chocolate, dusty and it smells somewhat organic, almost human, which is quite a surprise after all those “metallic” Tormores. This one smells rather “classic”. Good and unique spirit matured in a good American oak cask. Smells fantastic.

Taste: Same here, very fruity initially and the wax is even slightly more prominent. Some bitterness to the back bone and quite hot going down. Waxy, sweet wood. Green yes, but the mix of herbs are not your favourite most liked herbs and dare I say that some of the overripe fruit may have passed the overripe stage altogether. All of this framed by some bitter wood with quite some staying power. Unique? Yes! Quite nutty with added licorice to the back bone. The licorice-note comes from the wood. Greenish, fresh almonds, yet also some hints of paper and cardboard. Here a more industrial feel pops up which is normal for Tormore, but it doesn’t match the nose entirely. This one strips the throat cavity of any fat, so it is somewhat harsh going down. Not your fatty vanilla, creamy feel when swallowing, so you’d better be prepared for that. The nose is definitely the more likeable of the two. Yet metallic it is not. The bitterness is more prominent in the finish and even more so in the aftertaste.

After the very promising nose, on the palate this is a somewhat more difficult puppy. Definitely not one for casual drinking. Tormore in general is not an easy one. I guess this is one for anoraks as well. But oh boy, is this an unique profile, and if you manage to “click” with it, you’re definitely in for a kick.

Points: 86

Since this is quite an unique offering, I’m sure this is not for everyone. For some of you this might seem to be a high score. For me this is a great trip though. Yet it suits the 50 cl format though.