Category Archives: 87 Points

Japanese Whisky Week – Day 2: Taketsuru 21yo (43%, Nikka)

Moving on into day two of this Japanese Whisky Week. The next one might not come as a complete surprise, because this time we’ll have a look at the elderly brother of Taketsuru 17yo, namely Taketsuru 21yo. Did they make this just an older version of the 17yo or did they do a completely different profile for this one? If you want to warm up to Taketsuru 21yo, please have a look at the review of Taketsuru 17yo.

Color: Full gold, almost copper.

Nose: Ahhh, this is more. Clay and musty, wow! Gravy laden with almonds. Dirty and fruity. Not überfruity but there are some hints of yellow and red fruits in here. Also some peat (Yoichi) and oak. More sherry casks I would guess. Nice!

Taste: Sweet with sherry. Slightly winy even, yet warming. Cannabis and clay. Gravy. Again this one is too low in ABV. Still I’m having a lot of fun with this one. Malty, honest and it has a bit of a beer like finish.

It’s slightly different, but easily from the same family. It just has more of everything and for me a shift into more clay like sherried malt. For me a no brainer if you have to choose between the 17yo and the 21yo. This has more character to it. Just beware, this one suffers from even more batch variation than it’s 17yo brother.

Points: 87

Tongerlo Tripel (8%, 33 cl)

The last reviewed beer, Westmalle, was a Trappist beer. This Tongerlo is an example of an ‘Abdijbier’ or Abbey beer. Thus linked to a monastery, yet commercially brewed by Haacht. So no Authentic Trappist Product then, but still a beer in the same style. But hey, this beer has an official hallmark too. It’s a “recognized Belgian abbey beer”.

It turns out this hallmark is issued by the union of Belgian brewers and it seems there are some rules. The hallmark was issued for the first time in 1999 and the rules are slightly different for Abbey beers from before that time, and those that applied afterwards. Some rules are pretty obvious. There are more rules but here are a few: There has to be a link with an Abbey. Part of the proceeds must go to this Abbey and the beer has to be brewed there before (history taken in to account). In this case we are talking about the “Norbertijnen abdij” from 1133! Well my kind of marketing I guess.

Before we move on I (again) have to say that my beer is aged a little and has a best before date of 27/5/10. But this bottle can lie in your cellar much longer.

Color: Clowdy gold.

Nose: Fresh, lemons and oranges. Sour fresh. Not a lot of depot, only some hints of yeast. Still this has undergone a third fermentation stage inside the bottle.

Taste: Oranges and medium bitter. Despite the elevated bitterness also a very nice and fresh and sour note, that makes this extremely drinkable. Appetizingly fruity and it doesn’t even seem to be 8% ABV. Slightly sweet with hints of banana.

A very good beer. I like it a lot. Extremely drinkable Tripel with a very good balance. I would like to have another one please?

Points: 87

Hoyo de Monterrey Epicure No.2

Heatwave over here, so a nice day to sit outside on the porch. I had a craving for a Robusto sized cigar and I noticed I haven’t reviewed a Hoyo de Monterrey yet. Therefore getting an Epicure No. 2 out wasn’t a hard task at all. My aged Epicure No.2 must be pre 2008, since it doesn’t have the second band that modern Epicures have. yes Epicures. The are a few around. There is an Epicure No. 1 (Corona Gorda), an Epicure Especial (Gordito) and in 2010 there was a Double Epicure (Doble) and in 2012 an Epicure de Luxe (Mágico) saw the light of day. Some of those were first a Edición Limitada. Hoyo de Monterrey was established in 1865 and is a Global brand selling lots and lots of cigars. There also is a plethora of choice, and all are known to be light yet for the connoisseur.

Hoyo de Monterrey Epicure No. 2 (50 x 124mm, Robusto, Box code unknown)

Color & Looks: The feel is spongy, also some small holes in the wrapper, and even the foot has a little tear in it. That doesn’t bother me since it always is the first to burn. One larger vein and some vague green spots, but that is all. If you look at the whole it looks pretty good and smooth.

A cru: Leavy and wet, a very elegant smell. Mildly woody with some paper thrown in and the whole smells rather light. After the cut it becomes very nutty, with cardboard and grassy. No salt on the lips. Draw is easy. Very light in fact. When the cigar gets warm if feels even more spongy and soft. It is underpacked, something that was already noticeable through the very light draw.

Taste: First impression it that it is very impressive. Great smell altogether and a lot of smoke. Not fatty full cream, but thin cream with a spicy bite to it. Mild wood spice I would say. For me the creamyness isn’t creamy enough.

The ash from the wrapper is white the rest of it is grey and black. I’m having some mild mocha coffee with this and it doesn’t fit. It hinders all the flavors of the coffee and makes the coffee taste sour. I tried a second cup, strong espresso and that was a bitter. Still this one is better accompanied by water and probably something alcoholic. The outside smoke is really prickly. The first 2 centimetres are a bit ‘nervous’ but after that it settles down, and settles for great balance. Toffee is added to the menu. Still there is little development throughout the cigar.

After some time with this the amount of smoke is really incredible. I’m sitting outside with a little wind and I’m still able to generate a sort of private cloud around myself. Overall this cigar could have been creamier, and for a Hoyo it has a atypical sharp and spicy edge to it. Definitively an after dinner cigar, even though it is light. You can smoke this one untill it burns your lips, isn’t that good value!

Points: 87

Port Ellen 19yo 1982/2002 (43%, Douglas McGibbon, Provenance, Spring/Spring, Cask #2733)

For the Douglas Laing brand, It all started in 1998 with the Old Malt Cask series, to commemorate their 50 years in business. Therefore if possible the series is bottled at 50% ABV. Later a more luxury series was introduced called The Old and Rare series. Although it is better known as the Platinum Series. In fact there are a lot of ‘names’ on their labels. The third series I would like to mention here is the Douglas McGibbon’s Provenance series. A series placed under the Old Malt Cask series, also with lower ABV, usually 43% or 46%, but also cask strength and small batch versions exist. There are also some newer series, like the Director’s Cut, introduced in 2011 with cask strength single cask single malts and single grains. Other series by Douglas Laing are the Premier Barrel and Douglas of Drumlanrig.

So let’s try an oldie but probably goldie. Yes another Port Ellen. One bottled in 2002. You remember there are a lot of names and stuff on the labels. On this label it is also stated that the whisky was distilled in spring 1982 and bottled in spring 2002.

Color: Gold

Nose: Fresh, lightly peated sea air. Yeasty. Sour fruit, sour cherries and lemons. Small amounts of complex rubber. For me there are two types of rubber here. The orange rubber air tubes you encounter in a laboratory ánd the black inner tube of a bicycle. Slightly sweetish nose and the whole is a bit dirty. Total smell is light, probably through reduction.

Taste: Very grassy, malty and some sweetness. Lemon curd, black and white powder and just now the peat. Bicycle tyre rubber. No laboratory tube. There is also a biological side to it. Hard green leaves and crushed bugs. There is also some bitterness here. There is a lack of balance in the nose. It does have a few distinctive markers but they don’t necessarily work together perfectly.

A bit of a shame this got reduced. For me the ‘rubbers’ would have been great without reduction. Still this is an example of the uniqueness of Port Ellen. It doesn’t compare to all its sisters on Islay. Eternal shame the distillery seized making Single Malts.

Points: 87

Bruichladdich 1989/2004 (57.9%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Cask #1957, 275 bottles)

On Monday, July 23 2012 it was announced that Bruichladdich of Islay was sold to Remy Cointreau for £58.000.000 to enrich their high-end portfolio of brands and to confirm their strategy in the luxury spirits segment. If I’m not mistaken it’s their first distillery, and maybe there is more to follow? We’ll see what happens next. In stead of picking one of their numerous official bottlings by the old owners, first a Sherried example from independent bottlers Gordon & MacPhail.

Color: Orange Brown.

Nose: Thick raisiny sherry, and fresh sea air (not salty). I guess some smoke, but peat? No, not yet. Mocha, coffee with tarry toffee. Strangely enough I detect some lime on this nose. Old ladies stationary. Yes, wood also. Altogether it doesn’t promise to be sweet.

Taste: Ok, half sweet. Tarry and thick. Toffee with some ash. Nice body and good balance. The nose and taste seem to match. It has the sourness of oak. There is some peat in the depth, but as with the nose, it has more smoke. Wycam’s cough drops! Very nice not over the top Sherry, but also not all to complex.

Pretty decent independent Bruichladdich. Although the Sherry isn’t too overpowering, the distillery character got lost here. Still it’s a very nice dram, with no obvious flaws but low complexity. Recommended

Points: 87

Lagavulin 16yo ‘Port Ellen’ (43%, OB, Circa 2006)

Well, after all those old, sometimes priceless, but always hard to get, independent bottles I reviewed recently, it’s now time for something more easy to get. A standard bottle, even sold, in some countries, in your local supermarket, at reasonable prices to boot. Add to that, it’s usually decent quality, so this is a bang-for-your-buck type of malt.

We’re talking this time about the Lagavulin 16yo. The bottle I’m reviewing is from 2006, and I guess because of the high turnover, it is probably bottled in 2006 as well. I don’t know exactly when the bottles with the royal warrant were succeeded by the “Port Ellen” ones, but this could be one of the first.

Many stories surround these Lagavulins. First of all that, when the royal warrant disappeared from the label, the quality went down. In fact the quality was dwindling even before that. Last year or maybe in 2010 I heard that the quality level is picking up again. This year I  hear again that the recent bottlings are not as good as they were once before. So lot of debate about this one, and considering the interest, we know this is a popular one.

I tasted once a bottle from 1992, and scored that 92 points, so lets see how this one from 2006 will compare to that.

Color: Full Orange Gold.

Nose: Smoke and burnt wood (the next day). Black and white powder. It’s less peaty than I remembered, creamy peat. Animalesk and spicy, which makes it a bit ‘dirty’. Salty, sea and seaweed. After a while only smoke and bonfire remains.

Taste: Sweet, licorice with some peat and a slight hint of milk chocolate, almonds and wood. Sugar water. Black and white powder again. Not as rounded as earlier expressions. Smoke towards the slightly spicy and sweet finish that isn’t heavy at all. Salty sensation on the lips. In comparison, this is less complex.

I love Lagavulin, and I understand the producers statements that it isn’t true that Lagavulin 16 got worse. That memory doesn’t serve us well. Well that’s not the case. Earlier bottles are still around in big numbers so it’s not hard to do a head to head between older and more recent expressions. All I can say is they don’t make Lagavulin 16 anymore as they used to, but with all those efficiency regimes and when only the amount of alcohol yielded per tonne of barley counts, you can hardly be surprised.

So Lagavulin 16yo isn’t what it used to be, but how does it do on its own, not compared to the older ones? Well that’s another story, even today it’s a pretty special dram, that still scores pretty high, but I like the new 12yo better, although a completely different dram.

Points: 87

Convalmore 28yo 1977/2005 (57.9%, OB, 3900 bottles)

Convalmore is one of those distilleries that is no more. Thinking of closed distilleries I alway think about Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch:  It’s not pinin’! It’s passed on! This distillery is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet ‘its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Its chemical processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-DISTILLERY! Or something down those lines.

Convalmore was founded in 1893. A large part of the distillery was destroyed in a fire in 1909. It was rebuilt with an added continuous still to make whisky at a lower cost. This didn’t work so the stills were discontinued in 1916. In 1962 the stills were heated indirectly with steam. Convalmore was mothballed in 1985 and the buildings were sold to William Grant & Sons in 1990, who use them for storing their own malts.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Sweet caramels, more brown sugar and leafy. Promises a full body, gravy. Fresh. Tea with spicy wood, calcium (a sort of powdery dryness) and sea-spray. Definitively meaty at first. Unbelievable, but this has hints of raspberry. Sawdust, Mocha with milk chocolate and orange juice. Vanilla and a touch of banana. Based on the nose alone, a very classy distillate. Great balance. Maybe not the most complex of malts at first, but give this nose some time and you’ll be rewarded. I like this a lot.

Taste: Spicy and sugary, fruity sweet with a turning point into wood and beer. Also some Worcester sauce and almonds. The transition from the toffee sweetness that turns quickly into the dry wood is quite interesting. Again some orange-juice. The beer returns, with the wood, in the finish. Well its safe to say that this one is all about the wood. you don’t hear me say that it’s too much of overpowering. No. it is a woody whisky, but it is one of those that really should be woody. Wood is its strength. The rest of the body is firm enough to counterpart the wood. Again very interesting, but no easy dram. I hate the word, but this may be for connoisseurs only.

I don’t hear this a lot, but I ám very intrigued by the special releases of Diageo (and the rare Malts of course). I’d really want to meet the people who make these releases. To know what they have in mind, what they use from their warehouses, and why. Intrigued. And give it some time to breathe. By the way, it worked well with water too.

Points: 87

Bourbon Week – Day 7: Parker’s Heritage 1996/2007 (63.7%, OB, First Edition, 750 ml)

Sadly the Bourbon week is almost over. I had a lot of fun with it and (re)discovered some true gems of American Distilling. I’ll definitively do another Bourbon Week again. So, to close this week off, here is the first edition of the Parker’s Heritage Collection of Heaven Hill. Distilled in 1996 the year of the fire, so we can’t be sure where this is distilled. If it is from before the fire, than it’s from the original distillery in Bardstown. If it is from after the fire it can be sourced from anywhere or even distilled by Heaven Hill distilled in another distillery where they rented time to distill. It’s not from the new plant (the old Bernheim plant in Louisville), since they started to distill there from 2000 onwards.

Color: Brown

Nose: Very deep slow-moving smell, that has to be force-sniffed out of the glass (a Glencairn). I’ll give it some time. On paper this seems to be a brute, and brutes can be very shy. Gravy with toffee, still very closed. Overall the gravy plays a big part as a component for this nose. Almost like it’s a syrup, a sense of foreboding. Like a giant, waiting to erupt. For now its still quiet. It smells of a caramel cain, or something we Dutch call “Hopjes” a kind of caramel, coffee, toffee candy. Yeah, that’s it. Slowly the wood comes out. Plain oak, no elegant polished mahogany, but slow-moving unpainted oak and sawdust. Mind you, the oak smell and the sawdust are two different smells. Also a food-like sourness that seems to be partnered with the gravy and the Hopjes.

Taste: Wow, what a body. Again dry wood combined with a rum-like depth and virtual sweetness. Tarry and thick. Halfway through a short burst of wood and char, that moves away again, to leave room for the return of the rum. It’s maybe a tad unbalanced in the finish and the strength and the deep refined taste doesn’t make this for everybody, but if you’re into this, well it doesn’t get any better than this. For me this is a Bourbon that didn’t have a lot of rye in the mash bill.

This is one where the word savoring was invented for. Just give this a lot of time, and you’ll thoroughly enjoy this. Just drink this when you have a moment alone for some contemplation. Don’t let it be interrupted by noise or by the feeling you still have to do something. A bedtime dram, when you’re the last one to go to bed. Top, have fun with it!

Points: 87

P.S. Reading around a bit, some claim this is a Wheated Bourbon made by Bernheim meant for Old Fitzgerald. others claim that it is made in the Original Heaven Hill Distillery (Bardstown) in April 1996, before the fire that was in November 1996. You decide what it is…

Aberlour ‘A’bunadh’ (60.9%, OB, Batch No. 33, 2010)

There just had to be an Aberlour in one of the first posts here. Aberlour 10yo was my first single malt whisky ever! There’s no 10yo anymore in my lectern, not even a 10yo in stock. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a decent whisky, and it delivers a lot for the price it costs. But the good people at Aberlour also make this A’bunadh (of the origin), and compared to the 10yo this is really a steal. Very high quality whisky and it comes in all those neat batches. Oh, and it cask strength, and I just love cask strength.

A’bunadh, as it’s called, has no age statement (NAS) on the bottle, but is believed to be between 8 and 10 years old, and comes solely from Spanish Oloroso Sherry Butts. Well, if you could smell it now, or see it’s colour you would know this is true.

Color: Dark Copper or Orange/Brown.

Nose: Musty and meaty. Oloroso Sherry with oak. It even smells young and harsh. It misses some depth you can pick up from old sherry casks. (Just nose some 40yo+ Glenfarclas and you’ll know what I mean). Toffee, clay and some sourness (from the oak). It’s dusty and has a flowery note. Blackberry anyone?

Taste: Thick and full of flavour. Berries again, ashy and very nice. Some cardboard and a bit harsh due to its youth and strength. Hot! Lots of first fill casks in here. It smelled like a young sherried whisky and it tastes like one to and that is very nice for a change. There is nothing wrong with young whiskies, as long as they are well made, and this, this is well made, I can assure you. Great balance. Toasted wood in the finish.

Even though it’s young, strong and harsh I still like this neat. Water takes away the little sweetness it has and makes it a bit more harsh. Drinking this at cask strength, makes me happy. It’s a bit of a drug that way. Recommended. There are a lot of batches which have their differences. More than you would have thought. So it can be a lot of fun comparing different batches from different years. Some are less harsh, or more sweet or…You guessed it, come back often to A’bunadh, and you’ll be welcomed back every time by a very nice whisky. By the way, who said there weren’t any good sherry casks anymore, and who said those sherried whiskies aren’t affordable anymore?

Points: 87