Category Archives: 86 Points

Glenfarclas 1994/2005 (46%, OB, for Switzerland, Cask #3979, 402 bottles)

First of all, the picture below is a picture of a similar bottle that was bottled at Cask Strength for Switzerland a year later. The picture is for cask #4726. Glenfarclas is great, it’s family run and most of the make is going into Single Malts, so no room for error, everything must be good. Second, it’s at its best as a Sherried Whisky and even in these times the Grants are able to make a very good Sherried Whisky. The self-proclaimed kings of the Sherried Whisky, namely The Macallan, gave up on this practice. For reasons only the marketing department will know. Good luck to them, Glenfarclas may very well be Speyside’s finest!

Color: Lively orange brown (like a Bourbon)

Nose: Nice creamy Sherry with quite some wood, of which more than half smells like new oak. Cappuccino or Tiramisu. Meaty like gravy. The longer you nose it the dryer it gets. Spicy, lavas and white pepper. Cardboard and ice cream. The wood is pretty raw as opposed to elegant. It’s new untreated wood (maybe some toast). Still I wouldn’t call this overly oaked. A sort of rural Sherried Whisky.

Taste: Initially it’s syrupy sweet that coats your mouth. When that coating is removed from your mouth by the alcohol, just as in the nose, a lot of wood emerges. Dried leaves. Apart from the wood, there is diluted licorice, with added bitterness. For the bold body this has , you could even say that the finish is rather mild. Also the wood makes the finish a bit sour and not of perfect balance. Nice coffee in here too. It does dry your mouth quite a bit, o there definitively is some wood influence. No sulphur.

Actually this is quite good. It’s not complex, but it does have character. It’s a nice young Sherried Whisky. It’s a bit on the edge considering the wood that’s in it, but I still do like it. It’s not over the top.

The best way is to drink it quickly after you pour it, since the mouth coating sweetness hides the wood a bit and makes it less dry and bitter, it gets when you take your time with it. When you are a quick sipper, than the score is even higher than mentioned below 🙂

Points: 86

Highland Park 19yo 1984/2003 (50%, Douglas Laing, Old Malt Cask, Sherry, DL REF 406, 636 bottles)

I saw some prices for official Highland Parks the other day, and I just had to try this one. It wanted to be picked. It’s and eighties Highland Park by Douglas Laing. A sherried one that was released almost ten years ago, and the cost then was next to nothing. (around 50 Euro’s). Well a lot has changed in the Whiskyworld the last decade. So Highland Park 19yo. Alas I wasn’t able to recover a picture for this bottle so I will show here a brother of the 19yo, the 17yo that was released two years earlier (Also a 1984). The 19yo I’ll review here will more or less look the same.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Apple sauce, very clean, a little bit of wood and a little bit of spice. Dusty but overall fruity. Lot’s of toffee and again warm sweet apple sauce. Although pleasant, it doesn’t seem quite right. There is something like coal smoke in the distance, maybe even some sulphur. A slight hint of burnt wood and paper and cardboard. The longer this breathes the better it gets. The apple bit wears off.

Taste: Short attack that dissipates quickly and falls again into a fruity sweetness. Alongside the apple there also is some blackcurrant. It’s nice, it’s a lemonade at first, that drinks nicely away. Prickly smoke in the back of your mouth. The 50% ABV delivers good oomph.  Licorice and a hint of wood with a lighter acidic and slightly bitter finish, after the ‘full’ body. The finish is the weakest part.

Likeable, but nothing special. It has its merits, but if I had tasted this blind, I would have never guessed this was a Highland Park. It’s quite far from the official Highland Park’s. I’m guessing Fino Sherry, but also a tired cask. In almost 20 years the Whisky hardly picked up any color, a not a lot of character from the wood itself. No use to compare, but the other Whisky from Orkney, Scapa, I reviewed for Master Quill’s 1st Anniversary was a lot better!

Points: 86

By the way. The depicted 17yo scored 85 Points.

Lochside 18yo 1991/2010 (59.7%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Refill Bourbon Barrel #15217, 149 bottles)

Here we have one of the many 1991 Lochsides, and one of the many that were issued as a Gordon & MacPhail Reserve. This one was picked by Dutch retailer Van Wees. Gordon & MacPhail code for this one is AJ/JBEC. The spirit was distilled on September 18th, 1991 and eventually bottled on March 8th, 2010. Alas we don’t know exactly the date when Han van Wees tasted it and picked this ;-). Kudos to Gordon & MacPhail for all the information on the bottle and back label.

Color: Gold

Nose: Clean and farmy or organic. The wood is upfront too. Slightly yeasty and estery, which makes it a bit fruity. But the fruit isn’t here in abundance. Actually it is pretty dusty and comes across as dry. Do I detect some fatty peat in here? Small hints of rubber and smoke. This definitively is one to work with, and then the best things are in the details. There are some hidden treasures in this. Some vanilla, cream and petrol. Complex and nicely balanced. The longer I nose this the better it gets. Definitively peat and clay in here. Salty too. I’ve got to stop nosing this, otherwise this will never end…

Taste: Sweet and woody. On the precipice of bitterness. Still the bitterness is controlled by the sweetness. Nice big body, and the ABV helps with this. Creamy vanilla again, but with a bite from the wood. In the depth there is some sugared dried yellow fruits, Apricots are the most recognizable. The sweetness is also aided by some late acidity, that transports the hint of yellow fruit. It seems to me as if someone squeezed some lemon into this. peppery, woody attack. The finish is slightly off-balance, but overall this is a very good malt.

It seems to me you can’t go wrong with these kinds of Lochsides. There are a lot of 1991 bottles around, but they are all different. sure the family resemblance is there, but I’ve tasted more of the 1991 G&M Reserve, and they all are variations of a theme. Even the reduced Connoisseurs Choice are very drinkable summer whiskies. If that is the case I would say that these 1991 Reserve’s are more of your winter dram. Recommended.

Points: 86

Thanks go out to Erik for providing yet another sample.

Longmorn 15yo (45%, OB, Circa 2002, Litre)

I just found out that Longmorn isn’t on Master Quill yet! Longmorn is one of my absolute favorites. Just have a go at a sixties or seventies fruitbomb or heavily sherried expressions from the days the stills were heated with coal. Sometimes it almost tastes like the coal went into the whisky too. A liquified locomotive. But no use crying over spilt whisky and let’s start-up with this old 15yo. This 15yo is no more and was replaced in 2007 by the current 16yo. So it’s off the market for five years now, but bottles are found in some shops and are still fairly cheap at auctions. Also the packaging has dramatically changed. The 16yo new bottle has metal and leather glued to it, and has an intricate box. This 15yo looks fairly simple. Surely Longmorn are capable of making a pretty good standard whisky? Lets find out how this eighties distillate behaves, and maybe we get a chance in the future to compare this to the new 16yo expression. I tasted the 16yo once in 2009, and scored it a measly 81. I hope it got better in the mean time.

Color: Copper gold, caramel.

Nose: Spicy and slightly smoky. Apples (not the skin), and heather. Vanilla ice-cream. Creamy with the slightest hint of pine. Malty and it smells quite sweet. Nougat. Powdery with wet leaves and even some wood.

Taste: Full sweet body, with a tad of almonds. Powdery texture. (no there is nothing floating in my glass). This does have its bite. I get apples again, half sweet and half sour.

In the whisky market of today and definitely in the whisky market of tomorrow which will be taken over by bottles without an age statement, something like this is hardly possible. Aged for so long, and bottled at this strength. This is pretty good stuff, and only a few can still drink this as their daily dram. It seems they can’t make it like this anymore…

Points: 86

Balmenach 23yo 1988/2011 (46%, Mo Òr, Bourbon Hogshead #1150, 440 bottles, 500 ml)

Why not try another Balmenach. Earlier I tried a Bladnoch Forum Balmenach from 1983, this time one by Dutch indie bottlers Mo Òr. A lot of those 1988 Balmenachs are bottled by Gordon & MacPhail and by the SMWS (Scotch Malt Whisky Society). There ís a sister cask around of this Mo Òr bottling. David Stirk (Creative Whisky Company) bottled Refill Bourbon Hogshead #1148 this year.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Wow! Spicy, lively, younger than expected. The cask impaired not a lot of characteristics on the whisky, so this is probably a refill Hogshead as well. Dusty and powdery, very dry, but not woody yet. In the back there is some perfume. Dry leaves and cloves. Toffee with mocha and a hint of lemon soap and late wood. Well maybe the cask was inactive, the whisky shure isn’t. Good balanced nose.

Taste: Sweet from the start, toffee, mocha and a hint of wood. Powdered sugar. Dangerously easy drinkable. Some red cherry candy. But the softness in this is fabulous. Dries out a little that adds to the character. Slightly imbalanced finish due to a shift into the sourness of wood, that doesn’t fit the rest of the palate. Finish isn’t too long.

Very nice whisky. I have to say that this may be another great find after those Ardmore’s. I see that a lot of Balmenachs from 1988, 1989 and 1990 are pretty good! Worth looking into some more. Recommended.

Points: 86

Glencraig 1970/1996 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Map label, IF/CCC)

Ahhh, yes, Gordon & MacPhail never cease to amaze me! Next up is this Glencraig 1970/1996 (40%, G&M, Connoisseurs Choice, Map Label, IF/CCC), but now it turns out that the exact same bottle with the exact same code (IF/CCC) was also released with the Old Map label too. Why? Can we conclude from this that 1996 was the year the labels got changed?

Glencraig is the little sister of Glenburgie. Glencraig was the name of the whisky that was distilled from 1956 untill 1981 in a pair of Lomond Stills at the Glenburgie distillery. Another example of a true Lomond pair of stills existed at Miltonduff, where the subsequent whisky was named Mosstowie. Mosstowie was made between 1964 and 1981. A tad different was the case at Inverleven, where only the spirit still was of the Lomond type.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Grainy. Apples. Every component from apple. Compote and waxy apple skin. Smells a bit thin. Did they reduce this too much? Very elegant wood shines through. Dusty vanilla, almost like smelling airborne powdered vanilla. Slight hints of orange juice. Creamy and some hard candy.

Taste: Wood is the main marker, but not bad. Sweet and fruity with liquorice. Actually the spiciness from the wood carries it. The grainy element is here too. This could have been a very old blend. Hints of french cheese, a Camembert. Funky, I love this cheesy element in this Whisky! Slightly warming. Given some time to breathe the whole gets more sweet. Still the wood stays with its licquorice element. Finish isn’t even bad. It stays longer than expected.

Yes, reduced too much. It is in places weak and watery, and it seems to me, that some areas of the taste got subdued a bit, wich affected the balance. Just let it breathe for a while in your glass and you will be rewarded. This is actually better than we think. Give it some time.

Points: 86

Dallas Dhu 1971/1994 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Old Map label, ID/H)

Again a distillery that was founded in the Pattison crash year of 1898. Building was finished one year later and the first spirit that came off the still was on the 3rd of june 1899. It’s history is like many other distilleries. Closures during both world wars, and of course a big fire on the 9th of April 1939. The last day spirit came off the stills was the 16th of March 1983. 1983, a dark year when a lot of distilleries were closed. In 1986 the distillery was sold to Historic Scotland who run the place as a museum now.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Fruity and sweet. Lightly woody. Fresh and a bit rural. Distant farmyness. Wet grasslands. Wet trees. That sort of thing. Hard powdered candy with some liquorice. Woody vanilla ice cream. Smoked bacon with cardboard and almonds.

Taste: Sweet and sherried. Cardboard in here too. There also seems to be some smoke in here. Watery vanilla ice cream. Some sourness of the wood is in the finish and later on some bitterness too. Nothing to worry about.

It’s very easy drinkable. But for me this is an example of those G&M’s from the past where the whisky didn’t stand the reduction to 40%. Also I find that the caramel coloring changed the original whisky considerably. Fortunately G&M know their market and don’t reduce their whiskies that much. Don’t know about the coloring though…

In the past I hated these Map labeled Connoisseurs whiskies and in fact I believe I don’t own even one. For me they got reduced too much and some are that much colored, that the caramel coloring changes the character of the whisky. The industry made you believe that it doesn’t alter the whisky, but having done some tests, it certainly does. It brings some sort of roundness and balance you get from most blends and it makes all of those Connoisseurs Choice Whiskies a bit similar in taste and definitively similar in color. Still the old Dallas Dhu that’s in here shines through.

Points: 86

Again Muchos Grazias to Nico for this sample.

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