Category Archives: 86 Points

Ladyburn ‘Rare Ayrshire’ 36yo 1974/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, Bourbon Barrel #2608, 261 bottles, 500 ml)

As said before this distillery was briefly opened between 1966 and 1975. As far as vintages go not a lot were released. Officially a lot of 1973’s were released. This vintage was also released by Blackadder and Duncan Taylor. Signatory Vintage released a lot of 1975’s (and one 1974). Two of these 1975’s I have reviewed on these pages earlier. Last but not least in this case, Cadenheads had some releases from the opening year 1966, but that was a long time ago in 1979 and 1980. Besides these few ‘players” not a lot of Ladyburns are to be found. Now here pops up a 1974. As far as I know, there are three 1974’s released. Cask 2607 by Signatory @ 53.9% ABV (in 2011). Cask 2604 by Dutch bottler Van Wees @ 52.1% ABV, (also in 2011), and from 2010, Cask 2608 by fellow Dutch bottler Mo Òr @ 46% ABV. It’s not hard to guess how much (or how little) this got reduced. Rumour has it, these 1974 are pretty good.

Color: Light Gold

Nose: Very aromatic. Sweet and clean. Pops out of the glass. Fruity and lively. Great combination of farmyness and fruity sweetness. On the nose it’s already a lot better than the 1975 Ladyburns I tried before. Nice wood too. Great greenish notes with gravy. If the taste will be anything like the nose, we’ll have a winner on our hands. When this get’s time to breathe the lively fruits make room for something more dark and broody. Meaty and some perfume. Very interesting.

Taste: Fresh, fruity (pineapple) and in nothing you would say this is such an old malt. Not as complex as the nose is. The initial fruits are very quickly replaced by caramelized wood. Finish is good and slightly woody. But considering it’s age you would definitively expect more wood in this.

Very likeable Ladyburn. The nose is very much better than the 1975 Signatories I tried before. Taste wise, maybe not so complex, but less woody than the Signatories. Very nice Ladyburn, one of the best that’s still around, ánd reasonably priced as well!

Points: 86

Thanks again to Henk for this sample.

Kilkerran 7yo 2004/2011 ‘Work in Progress 3′ (46%, OB, 15.000 bottles)

Last May I tasted the second work in progress (the grey one). And now have a look. Here comes my friend Erik who has the third work in progress with him. I still have the second one on my lecter so I will try both of them head to head. There are rumours there are two batches of this third Kilkerran. I have one here with 11/219 on the back of the label, but there is also word about another batch: 11/314. For the completists the 6yo has: 10/220 on the back of the label. 10 is probably the year 2010, 11 the year 2011. 219, 220 and 314 could be the 219th, the 220th and the 314th bottle runs of their consecutive years.

Color: Light gold, marginally darker than the 6yo.

Nose: Fresh, sea air. Soapy and oily. Some smoke. The 7yo seems to me to be less fatty that the 6yo. The 7yo is more refined, but definitively from the same family as the 6yo version. Also some peat and clay. More sea freshness in this one. Lemon curd. In the nose this one has more of everything when compared to the 6yo. The 6yo is more meaty and musty.

Taste: Wood, and powdery. A bit of sour oak. Oily peat. Spicy wood. A bit thin on the finish. The 6yo was definitively fattier and thicker. The finish of this 7yo has more acidity to it, and more wood.

Strange enough this almost scores one point less and the culprit is the finish. The younger expression has a more meatier finish, more body and less acidity. Dirtier, something I liked a lot when tasting the 6yo alone. I guess this is only detectable when tasted head-to-head. Both are safe bets and show a lot of potential. The 6yo is obviously slightly simpler. Both score the same, but I like the 6yo better, I hope this transition into less dirtiness doesn’t continue in the 8yo that was released earlier this year. The 6yo seems stronger too.

Points: 86

Thanks go out to Erik for bringing this bottle.

Tormore 13yo 1984/1997 (63.9%, Cadenhead, 750 ml)

The other day, I reviewed a reduced Tormore by indie bottlers Mo Ór, that I called feminine. It was Floral and fruity, very easy accessible. I said other Tormores were more metallic and industrial. Luckily Master Quill has a vault where a whisky archive is kept, so I was able to find a Tormore fit for comparison. Here we’ll have a look at this Tormore bottled by Cadenhead. This particular offering was bottled for the good people of the U.S. of A. Hence the 750 ml bottle from 1997. 1997, that means this Tormore was bottled around the time previous reviewed Tormore was distilled (1996). Both Tormore’s are about the same age too. Let’s see if thís Tormore is any feminine.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Well this does start floral again. How consistent, but soon caramel and wood and yes, a metallic touch. Clean and very toffee like. Compared to the Mo Ór this isn’t all that fruity. Dry. Still very floral and sweaty maybe. Great stuff.

Taste: Well strong, it’s almost 64% ABV. Half-sweet, and the metallic part returns. Still that’s no bad thing here. Lots of caramel and toffee notes. This finishes a bit sour, from the oak, but no big problems here. Otherwise quite un-complex.

Tormore’s are definitively the odd ones out. Rather unpopular and who is surprised when you taste the official 12yo. But when you get your hands on a clean ex bourbon cask at cask strength, you might be in for a pleasant surprise. Even though they may not be the high scoring Whiskies, they do have something in them I particularly like. There’s a potential here that isn’t used. The stills have purifiers on them, that makes the spirit very clean. Most of the Tormore spirit is put in Refill Bourbon barrels and hogshead and most of it doesn’t even age on site. So you’re bound to have something ultra clean.

Still I consider myself lucky I got my hands on a second bottle of this. Great stuff.

Points: 86

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

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

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

Color: Full Gold

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

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

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

Points: 86

Glenfarclas 25yo (43%, OB, Circa 2006)

Earlier I reviewed a very old independent Glenfarclas, let’s see how one of the official Glenfarclas’ will do. The standard line is quite extensive, As there is a version without age statement, Heritage and an 8yo, 10yo, 12yo, 15yo, 17yo, 21yo, 25yo, 30yo and a 40yo. And lots and lots of other bottlings, of which the Family Casks is their newest, most complete, most expensive and most succesful series.

Color: Orange Gold.

Nose: Nutty and powdery. Malty and quite dirty. Laurel licorice with coffee. Chocolated coffee beans. It’s all there but with low intensity. Asian spices with hints of citrus fruits. Chewing gum mint.

Taste: Thin sweet sherry, wood and licorice again. It almost tastes like sugary cannabis. Grassy. Earth and chocolate with fungi. Cardboard. Espresso aftertaste. Hint of tar.

For me its a bit too weak, I think this kind of whisky needs another three points of proof. 46% ABV just sounds about right for this one.

I have tasted this whisky several times and from different batches. It’s pretty consistent, some are better than others. Be careful with oxidation. This will suffer from it. Don’t keep it open for too long.

A great family owned distillery, which I like better at cask strength, but maybe that’s just me.

Points: 86

Glenmorangie 30yo 1972/2004 (44.3%, OB, Oloroso Cask Finish, 4548 bottles)

Founded in 1843 by William Mathesen, but whisky was distilled on site as early as 1703 (or 1738). Glenmorangie is now known for their stills with very tall necks that ensure a very light and clean spirit that had to reach incredible heights. Glenmorangie are also known for their Dr. Bill Lumsden, a man who doesn’t fear innovation and experimentation with his grains and woods.

This particular bottling consists of whisky that aged from 1972 to 1989 in Bourbon Barrels and was finished from 1989 to 2004 in Oloroso Casks. We only don’t know what casks they were. Butts or Puncheons, American of European oak.

Color: Orange Gold.

Nose: Waxy and cherry liqueur and black fruits. Nice old whisky smell, old wood. The combination of casks worked quite well for the nose. Perfumy. Butter on toast. Bakery shop. Hints of mint. Fades into something plant like, sweet rhubarb with raisins. Great nose.

Taste: Wood and spice, with clay and chocolate. The taste of clean white sugar. Sourness from the oak. Tastes thin. cappuccino, mocha with cream. Toast from the cask in the finish, and again some light esters and sourness. Pastry, hint of tar and dry altogether. Red lemonade and almonds.

The whole is pretty balanced. It’s easy noticeable that this is from light spirit. The nose is great, and the taste is very nice. The only two things that let this down is its lightness. And a Glenmorangie should be light, that’s one of their pillars. Personally I like a bit of body to it, like yesterdays Glenkinchie which also has a higher proof. The second thing that lets this whisky down is it’s slightly unbalanced finish. It breaks down a bit.

Points: 86

P.S. This comes in a very nice wooden box.

Springbank 10yo ‘100 Proof’ (57%, OB, Circa 2004)

Springbank, the strongest survivor of Campbeltown, and one of the few family owned distilleries. Once a great center for whisky, and once a region of its own, it still is, but barely. The people behind Springbank do their utmost best to let Campbeltown survive as a region. Glen Scotia is intermittently operated by the crew of Springbank, and of course Springbank themselves are responsible for Longrow, Hazelburn and Kilkerran (Glengyle Distillery). All names from a distant Campbeltown past. Founded in 1828 by the Reid family, who were married into the Mitchells. In 1837 the Mitchell’s bought the distillery. In 1897 J. & A. Mitchell Company Ltd. is founded, the company that is still on the label today. Since 1969 J. & A. Mitchell is also owner of Cadenhead’s. Between 1979 and 1987, Springbank was closed. And since 1989, production is again as it should be. Almost nobody malts themselves these days, but Springbank take the remarkable step to reopen the maltings in 1992. Springbank is a cult malt has a great following, and is by far the most popular malt on Wall Street.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Strong, buttery, oily. Sparkling lemon curd. Clean and a bit closed at first. Grassy and smells of wet plants and earth. Cow dung in wet grass, and some “young” peat. Coastal fresh, malty and spicy, but not from wood. It has hints of popcorn and milk chocolate. Very rural, gritty and bold.

Taste: Sweet like toffee. Creamy and spicy, this time definitively from wood, and seems a bit winey, although no wine casks, even sherry, were used. It is supposed to be all Bourbon. Mocha, chocolate and peanuts. Yes it’s “Snickers” in a bottle. Slightly unbalanced by the soury woody, and peaty, finish. The finish also leaves a minty sensation on the tongue. Sweet mint as in “After Eight”.

Long live Springbank, very nice and drinkable, with a fine full body. This version is quite peaty and oily, when you think of it. Now I’m curious how a more recent bottle would taste like…

Points: 86

Clynelish 11yo 1994/2005 (58.9%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Sherry Butt #4011, 367 bottles)

Clynelish is a very popular dram. There are several reasons why. First of all it’s a sister of Brora, which maybe the best malt of all. Second. Clynelish has a unique waxy personality and it’s spirit is always of high quality. It’s very hard to find one that is not up to par.

Color: Full Gold, almost Orange.

Nose: Clean. Paper and wood. Spice and white pepper. Oranges with almonds and toffee. Leafy, waxy and coastal fresh with some added sherry mustiness. Later on some vanilla ice cream, cardboard and dust. It stays spicy throughout. Perfumy and a beautiful balance.

Taste: Spicy and definitively from a sherry cask. Wood, beer and spice again. Sweet and tarry. Shortbread and gingerlike. Turkish delight and has some traits of a Riesling wine. Full bodied. Slight sour wood and licorice on the finish.

I think it’s a bit of a shame this got bottled so soon. It’s good now, but what would this have been when it wood be several years older. Nothing here suggests its over the top or even near the full potential it could have reached. Nice Clynelish, always worth checking out.

Points: 86

Glengoyne 12yo ‘100 Proof’ (57.2%, OB, American Oak, Circa 2007)

There’s also ‘Cask Strength’ on the label, but wouldn’t that be really convenient that it’s precisely 100 Proof. What luck! And American Oak, what is it, a barrel, a hogshead, an American white oak butt or puncheon even? Just a little bit too much nonsense on the label.

Glengoyne then. Glengoyne got my interest because they were one of the first to specifically state, ‘unpeated malt’ on their labels. Also, I like the looks of the bottle ánd for still using Golden Promise amongst other barley’s of course. Golden Promise is somewhat of the holy grail of grains, because it is supposed to be very flavoursome. But the yield is not so good, compared to the favorites of today (which make all whiskies taste the same, to come out bluntly). So lets see if this one, and remember this is a fairly priced bottle, makes a golden promise.

Color: Very full gold, almost orange.

Nose: Malty and chocolaty, absolutely high-proof. Also quite a musty smell, heavy on yeast. Meaty even. The American Oak statement leads me to believe this is from Bourbon Casks, but the musty smell is very resemblant of Sherry and or First Fill Bourbon. Raisins. Very un-clean for a Glengoyne (which almost sounds like a complement doesn’t it?). Spicy and quite a good balance. This could well be a bang-for-your-buck type of malt.

Taste: Toasted wood, but still a lot of yeast. Can’t shake the Sherry here. High proof, so it makes an impression. Although this has bold flavours, the quality of the spirit shines through. Very Ahorn syrupy sweet, and corn sweetness, that’s totally different from the Ahorn. It almost tastes like a wheater! This could be a Weller, with some sherry musty and creamy yeastyness. It’s a picture with thick broad strokes. It is thick.

I know that Glengoyne is the perfect spirit to mature in refill casks. This is the way they make their casks “refill” for the next batch. But isn’t this first fill Glengoyne great? Simple, and with a style of its own. Very un-typical for Glengoyne, but still very nice. Maybe a bit too sweet? This I would drink playing cards. Lovely.

Points: 86

Glen Grant 1972/2006 (46%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Cask #1982)

Glen Grant came to life in 1840, and is being famous for being the first distillery with electric lights! (in 1861 already). But after that it’s very quiet. Apart from distilling not much happening here. In 1961 a descendant of the original founder made a deal with Armando Giovinetti which made Glen Grant the most sold Single Malt in Italy and as far as I know that maybe even true today. Half of what Glen Grant makes went to Italy. Since 2006 Campari is the owner of Glen Grant, so its even became Italian! The Italians love their whiskies young and the Glen Grant 5yo seems to be very popular over there, together with a version without an age statement.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: At first fresh and sea like, but that quickly transforms into wax, wood and spice. A dab of dried yellow fruits, but not much. Definitively a 70’s nose, a bit like Caperdonichs from 1972. Probably no coincidence that Caperdonich was founded as Glen Grant 2. Altogether dryer and more cold tea like. Yep, more spicy and some light mocha and raisins. Also a slightly floral and perfumy side to it (and some tar). So after some time in the glass, it distances itself from the typical Caperdonich nose.

Taste: Initially full-bodied, spicy yet not overly woody. Some wax and ash, but that’s also gone very soon. Also some distant tar and a little bit of coal. Yeah that’s the stuff you get from an old malt. Some sourness from the oak. You wouldn’t have said that it was reduced. In the middle and in the finish though, it ís a bit thin, and reducing probably wasn’t a good idea. The wood comes very late and is the main part of the finish.

It’s a decent Glen Grant, but nothing stellar. When I come to think of it I don’t even think its very balanced. I see this going for up to 250 Euro’s at Whiskyauction, and I can think of hundreds of other bottles for that kind of cash, that would outperform this Glen Grant. A nice piece of history from the seventies, but nothing more.

Points: 86