Category Archives: 88 Points

Tamdhu 6yo 2004/2011 (52.9%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #5439, 680 bottles)

Just before Christmas I reviewed a young Tamdhu bottled by The Ultimate (Van Wees, The Netherlands). That one was only 8 years old and I dared to mention in that review that at 8yo that Whisky was maybe bottled to late, since a lot of wood was present in that bottling. Luckily the wood gave the Whisky a lot of character, but I hoped it would have been a wee bit sweeter. Now look here. I’ve got an even younger Tamdhu bottled by The Ultimate. This time I’ll have a look at a 6yo Tamdhu from 2004 (the second of the six, bottled in 2011), and have a look how the two compare. How was your Christmas, by the way?

Tamdhu 6yo 2004/2011 (52.9%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #5439, 680 bottles)Color: Pale gold.

Nose: Definitely a less full on nose. Less powerful, dryer and somewhat more floral than cask #347. Again nice woody notes, but less prominent. Still a lot of pencil shavings though. This one needs a little breather. I just opened the bottle. Good balance and again a very likeable smell. Appealing. Somewhat cleaner this one is (thanks Yoda). When smelling these two H2H, is think this younger example is even more complex, since the 8yo is all wood.

Taste: Sweet and creamy and delayed pepper, but overall a weaker body than the 8yo. Now you all are going to think that I’ve lost it, but this 6yo Tamdhu is more complex than the 8yo I reviewed before Christmas. On the taste lots of nice aromas have lined up and come through one after the other instead of all at once. Black and white powder, vanilla pudding, elegant wood, licorice, and some yellow fruits even. What a treat. The finish isn’t longer, but has some more aroma’s and this one is heavy on cask toast and a little bit of sulphur, but again not dominant, so adding to the character. A nanosecond of sweet on the entry, than quickly into wood and then the workings of layers when the Whisky is swallowed. These young Tamdhu’s are hidden treasures!

The whole is more toned down compared to cask #347, but this one has some more going for it. It is a bit sweeter (as I hoped), but the sweetness is a bit funky, so I’m glad is isn’t sweeter than it is. The Whisky is only 6yo, but still it seems to be more complex than it’s older sister. I like the finish better too, although it has some sulphur, but that gives it even more character. As I said, more going on in this one. Time will tell what extra air will do for this Tamdhu. For the time being, a well urned:

Points: 88

Dailuaine 21yo 1992/2013 (53.3%, The Whisky Mercenary)

More than a year ago I tasted another Dailuaine. That one was from 1980 and bottled by Hart Brothers long before this example bottled by Jürgen. Although the Hart Brothers version was a bit anonymous, I remember it for having cannabis (yes, I spent a lot of my time in Amsterd(r)am, so no hiding the smell of cannabis from me. Bugger, now Dailuaine will be banned from many countries. Sorry for that. Let’s see what Jürgen selected and maybe we’ll find some cannabis in this too…

Dailuaine 21yoColor: Light gold.

Nose: Spicy, lemony and sweet apple skin. Dare I say banana? Clean ánd dusty (I’m not talking about cleaning the house). Small hints of old and new wood and some old rose soap. Hints of a damp cellar and wet earth. Woody cinnamon. Sounds very interesting already, don’t you think? The nose grows over time en becomes bolder and finishes of with some menthol (and elegant rose soap, a smell from the past, have you been at your granny’s lately?). Most definitely needs some air. Probably from a Bourbon hoggie.

Taste: Spicy and sweet. Cannabis (yes!) and burning off some cedar. A indiscernible hidden sweetness. Lots of vanilla that stays untill the hot finish. The body is made up from cannabis that comes from the wood, other woody notes like vanilla and wood spice. Add to that a lemony acidity that is playing around with the vanilla sweetness. The body is quite full, round and bold, but the finish isn’t as long as you would expect. In this case the Whisky is quite special and the finish being not as long as expected, you can’t wait to take another sip or another dram. No, it’s not perfect (but what is?). The initial taste and the body are great and in that is has a turning point. There is a second turning point when the bold body moves into the finish. That spot isn’t quite balanced, and the finish is “only” half-long. Does that mean I don’t like this? Hell no! The finish could have been longer and the nose could have been even more special, but the taste and the body…wow. I like this very much!

Well this is an experience. The nose is all right, typical clean Bourbon nose if you ask me. The fun is in the taste of this Whisky. Very bold. An exercise in good wood notes and has some hot spots. Not a Whisky for playing cards, but it will be a bottle in your collection that you would prefer, so it’ll be finished soon. I didn’t expect this one to be so good actually. ABV is low 50’s and that fits the Whisky excellently. Nice pick Jürgen!

Points: 88

Longmorn 17yo 1996/2013 (57.2%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #72319, 600 bottles)

I’m pretty amazed this Sherry Butt #72319 is still available. Here in the low countries there is a lot of discussion about these Sherry Butts released by Dutch indie bottlers The Ultimate (Van Wees). This Sherry Butt Sherry Butt #72319 is the third one in a row and earlier I already reviewed Sherry Butt #72315, which was the first one of the series. The second one was Sherry Butt #72318.

As I said, lots of discussion, since all casks are good, didn’t cost a lot and have some differences. So nice whisky to compare to each other. I still have some Sherry Butt #72315 left, so I can compare it to this Sherry Butt #72319. Word in the grapevine is that the first one (Sherry Butt #72315) is the “worst” of the three, all are very clear about that. Some consider Sherry Butt #72318 to be the best and some Sherry Butt #72319.

By the way I hosted a Cadenhead’s tasting recently and after the tasting, I passed a glass with Sherry Butt #72315 around, without telling people what it was, and it sure got a lot of thumbs up. So maybe some prejudice going around? Earlier I scored Sherry Butt #72315, 88 points, so let’s have a look at this “better one”…

Longmorn 17yo 1996/2013 (57.2%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #72319, 600 bottles)Color: Copper Brown (less red/orange in color than Sherry Butt #72315)

Nose: Sherry and polished wood, smallest hint of creamy acetone, soap and some mint. Definitely less raw and dirty than Sherry Butt #72315. Extremely balanced and “soft”. It does have its power, but it’s more laid back. Woody raisins are in here too, but here they show themselves quite late in the mix and more toned down and in balance with sour wood, (milk) chocolate and honey. Very thick.

Taste: Great! The first encounter in the mouth is very nice. Sherry with more than a hint of licorice and sweetness. After that the wood, albeit in a mild way, shows itself. Also some toasted cask and a wee bit of paint. These were some very good Sherry Butt’s. The finish itself seems to me to be a bit less balanced, it seems to be a bit disjointed. Probably the wood gives the finish an acidic (and ashy) touch that somehow doesn’t seem to be a perfect fit. A sourness and taste akin to oranges, (the flesh and the juice), not the oily bits out of the skin. On the plus for a lot of tasters: this one has no sulphur in the finish.

If I had to sum things up, I would say that Sherry Butt #72315 is more of a true Sherry nose, more raw and honest. Maybe also less complex. Sherry Butt #72319 is more elegant and more complex, wint small hints of all sorts of things. Both are worth the same amount of points, but are different, but is I had to pick only one I would say Sherry Butt #72315 would be my choice, since it compensates it slightly simpler profile and it’s rawness with a better finish. But I have the luxury of tasting these two head to head, which makes it a lot easier to pick up on small differences, without that possibility, both are an equally good choice (as if one still has a choice).

I don’t know Sherry Butt #72318, but the two I’ve been comparing here are definitely worth having both. They maybe examples of the same kind of Whisky (heavy Sherry), but both show enough difference to show you a bit more of the possibilities within this profile. Both demand a different mood of the taster, meaning you!  Well, now I’m very interested in Sherry Butt #72318. I hope Erik (a.k.a. Master Quills apprentice), opens his bottle soon 😉

Points: 88

Bunnahabhain 20yo 1990/2011 “Isle of Islay” (52.8%, The Creative Whisky Company, The Exclusive Malts, Cask #251211, 298 bottles)

Here we go again. Another monstrously long title, again a Single Malt of which the distillery name is not on the label, but we know it’s a Bunnahabhain. So three in a row, this being the third Bastard Malt in a row, reviewed here on these pages. The Creative Whisky Co. Ltd. is non other than David Stirk. Fellow Rush lover and Whisky bottler par excellence, or should I say Exclusive Whisky bottler?

Bunnahabhain 20yo 1990/2011 "Isle of Islay" (52.8%, The Creative Whisky Company, The Exclusive Malts, Cask #251211, 298 bottles)This Bunna is pretty dark in color so my guess would be a Sherry cask. Since David didn’t specify what (kind of Sherry) the cask previously held, we can only speculate what this is. Maybe a Sherry Hogshead, or maybe a Butt that was shared with others, or only half the Butt was bottled? My guess would be the former (a Hoggie). It looks like a Oloroso or PX Sherry Hogshead to me, so we’ll have to try, to make another guess at it…

Color: Copper orange (the typical color of most Bourbons).

Nose: Fresh and Sherried but not heavy or cloying. Nice hints of spicy sweet and acidic wood. Definitely a lot of raisins and overall rather dry. Dusty with some fatty cardboard (nothing wrong with that). Ground coffee and hints of wet sugared cherries. Well balanced.

Taste: Heavy sherry with small hints of fat peat and a little bit of smoke and steam. Nice cloying black fruit. Tarry and a bit dirty. I like it. Yes it is a bit drying on the tongue, so maybe it should have been bottled a few years earlier. Still this is a great dram. It has a lot of character. Near the finish the wood starts to play a part with its spicy and slightly bitter finish and some black fruits come up. Dry black tea, so there are some tannins in here…

I brought this one with me when my Whisky club went to Switzerland two weeks ago and there the drying palate put some tasters off. I for sure noticed the drying qualities of this Whisky, but I didn’t have so much of a problem with it. Far worse for me is a heavily sherried malt, with lots of sulphur of bitterness in the finish, something this malt doesn’t have. By the way, for me this is a Oloroso Sherry Hogshead…

Points: 88

Glenfarclas 40yo 1965/2006 “Blairfindy” (51.7%, Blackadder Raw Cask, Sherry Cask #1850, 194 bottles)

Well hello Blairfindy! Wait a minute, Blairfindy isn’t a real distillery is it? As far as I know, there isn’t a Blairfindy distillery, and there never was one too. No, Blairfindy turns out to be “another” name for Glenfarclas, used, when the bottlers weren’t allowed to use the real distillery name on their labels. Something like Tactical for Talisker, Leapfrog or Laudable for Laphroaig and so on. Blairfindy, amongst others, was the name of the farm, the Grant family (of Glenfarclas fame) originated from. Although the Glenfarclas name isn’t on the label, it most definitely is a Glenfarclas, and an old one to boot…

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: For me a typical perfumy Fino Sherry nose. Definitively a wine note up front, quickly chased by quite some wood. Toffee and caramel, with a hint of sweat (no typo). It gets more fresh after a while. Hints of car-wax and even later some black fruits. The smell of burning off dry leaves in the garden combined with a small hint of licorice. It all comes across a bit harsh, dry, dusty and powdery, but nice. I hope this doesn’t translate into the palate. Lets see…

Taste: Yes, not very sweet, but luckily not as woody and dry the nose suggested. Earwax and wood. Some drying tannins on the tongue, but hey, it was on a cask for forty years! The wood then becomes spicy. Although some people might consider this too dry, for me the wood isn’t that dominant. It is dry, but it definitely has a charm to it. Elegant stuff. No bitterness whatsoever. The finish is half long, and breaks down a bit into some sourness, toast and tar. The body is strong so it can take this sourness very well, and the light toast and tar add to the character of the Whisky.

Despite everything, this still is an easily drinkable Whisky. Great old Glenfarclas that fetch enormous amounts of money these days. Yes, the market is rapidly changing…

Points: 88

Longmorn 17yo 1996/2013 (57.5%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #72315, 606 bottles)

Suddenly this Longmorn appeared on the market. It’s color resembling Longmorns from the early seventies that were near perfect. This Ultimate bottling gained a very quick reputation of being a very good Sherried Longmorn. This sold out very quick, so Ultimate owners van Wees decided to bottle a second cask from this series: #72318, and is said to be even better than cask #72315. Alas Cask #72318 sold out rather quickly too, so Van Wees bottled a third one: #72319. That one should still be available, but already I heard a fourth cask is being bottled. If my information is correct there still are two casks left from this series, to make six in total. Let’s have a look at the series first one, cask #72315.

Color: Deep orange brown.

Nose: Raisins, musty and dusty. Typical Oloroso I would say, but it could also be a PX Cask. It smells very balanced and nice, no off notes whatsoever. Paper and some sawdust, and a little hint of lavender soap.

Taste: Thick sherry, almost syrupy, but again, only added bonuses, without any off notes. Spicy and there is some creamy wood, but nothing you would expect from a first fill Sherry bottling. Milk Chocolate, and some toasted wood. Very rounded out and easy even with its high strength. Never really harsh. Late in the finish an unexpected kind of acidity shows itself.

Overall the roundness and creaminess is great since a lot of those first fill bottlings can get woody and harsh, but this one is not. If there is a flaw than that’s the simplicity of it all. Is that a problem? It lack a bit in the complexity department is probably a better way to put it. Lovely stuff, taste, don’t analyze. A winner also due to the price of the Whisky. (around 60 Euro’s).

Points: 88

Aultmore 36yo 1974/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, Bourbon Hogshead #3740, 264 bottles, 500ml)

Here we have an Aultmore from 1974. The one official bottling in the Rare Malts range was also from 1974. Three years ago Douglas Laing bottled a 1974, and even more recently, two bottlings from The Whisky Agency saw the light of day. There is one more by Adelphi, but more about that one later.

Aultmore was founded in 1896 by Alexander Edward who also founded the Craigellachie distillery with Peter Machie in 1891. In 1896, Mr. Edward also owned the Benrinnes distillery. Mr. Edward sold Aultmore to John Dewar’s and Sons in 1923. John Dewar’s and Sons naturally became part of what is today Diageo, but Diageo sold the whole of John Dewar’s and Sons to Bacardi in 1998. Aultmore was built with two stills and two more stills were added in 1971, so this 1974 Aultmore was already made with four stills.

Color: Full gold

Nose: Estery and full. Seems sweet and has a perfect woody touch. Powdery with vanilla, but also some vegetal sourness creeps in, but only in whiffs, it’s not always there. Malty freshness, and the slightest hint of cow-dung, great! This kind of organics in Whisky is the best, look at all those fantastic Brora’s. I really like the complete profile this nose shows me. A great, but toned down or laid back Whisky. It doesn’t shout from rooftops it’s great, but whispers. People who know, will hear it’s call.

Taste: Woody cannabis, and in this case that’s very nice. Sugary sweet, but the “wood” is the taste giver of this malt. Mind you this is not a woody malt. It’s like somehow there is some fruit in here but it isn’t allowed to get out. Medium, slightly disappointing finish, and probably the reduction could have been skipped, since the Whisky shows some laziness. Could have been fuller, if so I’m shure it would have scored in the 90’s. Nevertheless a great Whisky!

One of my favorite Aultmore’s is also from 1974, a bottling by Adelphi, Cask #3739, yes a sister cask! That one yielded only 101 bottles @ 49.6% ABV. Cask #3740 yielded 264 bottles reduced to 46%, so I’m guessing this was a lot higher in ABV (I can’t imagine Adelphi doing a cask share, but you never know). If memory serves me well, this sister cask also has a lot of yellow fruits, cask #3740 lacks. I have a bottle of Adelphi’s 1974 Aultmore, so in the future, that one will be reviewed on these pages too…

Points: 88

Thanks go out to Dirk for handing me this sample some time ago…

Rodenbach Grand Cru (6%, 33 cl)

More than a year ago I reviewed the “Original” Rodenbach and concluded I wouldn’t buy that one anymore since this Rodenbach Grand Cru is so much better. Obviously I had it before. Time to write a review about the “better” Rodenbach. And as I have said before, I like to age almost all of my Belgian beers, and this one is no exception (this time). This particular bottle was aged for another year and a half (past it’s best before date). Before my additional ageing, the beer was aged at the brewery for two years (in oak) and then mixed with young beer. 2/3 old beer with 1/3 young beer.

At this point I must give off a little warning. I was in a beer shop recently and overheard some clients talking about pouring the big bottle of Rodenbach Vintage down the toilet. The big bottle should even be better than this Grand Cru, but this is a Flemish Red Brown beer, it’s acidic, so probably not for everyone…

Color: Dark red with brown foam

Nose: Fresh, with a small hint of stale beer, acidic. Sour cherries. Deep brooding yeast (not a lot of it though). Spices. With time some raisins and plum, which adds another layer of depth to the beer. Beef jerky? wow!

Taste: Yeah! Acidic, but with extreme depth. Too much to comprehend all at once. This is so much better than the original Rodenbach! Cherries in alcohol (the alcohol taste is enhanced by the extra ageing). Black cherries, and even some other red fruits from the family of berries. Definitely a favorite of mine. Extremely refreshing. One bottle is not enough. Long finish, with a lemony finish.

This beer takes ageing very well, but also warnings are given off no to age for too long. I just don’t know how long too long is. Ageing add’s  a lot of complexity. Can’t wait to try a vintage Rodenbach! I’m pretty sure I won’t be pouring that one down the toilet!

Points: 88

Tobermory 32yo 1972/2005 (50.1%, OB, Green Label, Oloroso Sherry Finish, 912 bottles)

This is the first Tobermory on these pages and the Whisky itself comes from the Island of Mull. This distillery was founded already in 1798 and was originally called Tobermory. Tobermory closed in 1930 and was turned into a power station. It stayed closed as a distillery, untill it reopened in 1972, but this time as Ledaig. Ledaig’s history, from its reopening was a rocky one, with a lot of buying and selling of the distillery with production stops to match. The current owner is Burn Stewart (which itself is/was owned by an insurance company (since 2002), that again was rescued by the government of Trinidad & Tobago in 2010. You don’t want to know…)

Back to Tobermory (or Ledaig). Ledaig was sold to Burn Stewart in 1993, and they decided to give back its original name: Tobermory. In 2005 Tobermory issued three 32yo from 1972. These were Oloroso Sherry finished Whiskies. One with a black label, one with a red label and this green label reviewed here. Purists mention an additional brown labeled version for sale at the distillery. Also 32yo and 1972, but “put on bottle” in 2010, so it must have been kept in stainless steel tanks of on glass from 2005 to 2010 to stop further ageing. Not a lot is known about this bottle…

Color: Brown

Nose: Tarry with lots of red and black fruits. Peat, asphalt and lemonade. Honey. Very appetizing. Coal smoke and steam. This is a true vintage steam locomotive. A little bit of plum with a lot of burned sugar. Toasted wood, burned wood (when turned cold again) and burned paper. Cookie dough. Later it gets dryer and more dusty. Incense. There are a lot of associations with burned stuff, but still, all that doesn’t overpower the whisky. The fruityness makes for great balance. This is truly one of these malts that oozes the days of yesteryear and really they don’t make them like this anymore…

Taste: Strong and again steam locomotive. The taste matches the nose perfectly. Thick sherry with some licorice. It’s fruity, red fruit and the fruit part is fresh and lively. Over this fruit steam and coal again. Hard (red) candied fruit. Quite nice is that the finish is only a little bit bitter. Warming. Wood and tar. The only beef I have with this Green label as opposed to the other two is that the taste is not that balanced and coherent. It doesn’t gel completely and with time it sometimes seems thinner than the other two.

Of the three, this is the least interesting one. In my humble opinion, the Red label Tobermory 32yo is the best, but the black follows in its footsteps quite well. Between the two it’s a matter of taste. Still, if the other ones aren’t available, do get this one in stead, because you’re up for a nice journey, and this one is pretty good by itself! All three of these whiskies may not be perfect, but they are classics in their own right and they do deserve a place in the Whisky hall of Fame!

Points: 88

Lochside 18yo 1991/2009 (56.7%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Refill Bourbon Barrel #15220, 106 bottles)

Yet again 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 JI/ACAC. The spirit was distilled on September 18th, 1991 and eventually bottled on October 15th, 2009. Picked by Van Wees in July 2009. Those of you that meticulously read this blog probably had a Deja Vu experience. We know this bottle, we know this lay-out. Well yes and no. February 4th 2013, I published a review of quite a similar Lochside, opened by Master Quill’s Apprentice (like this one). That was Cask #15217, here we have sister cask #15220, distilled and filled on the same day. This one was bottled some five months earlier, so here we have a chance to compare the two, to see what the effects are of another, but similar cask, and almost half a year of maturation…

Color: Gold (ever so slightly fuller in color)

Nose: Clean and fruity. Distant wood. Clay and organic. Dusty with smoked ham. All in good balance, but nothing pops out. A very quiet Lochside. The esters I remember from the “other” Barrel, are here too. Vanilla from the wood. The yeast is way down in this one, and there is no peat, rubber or petrol. It’s easier on the nose (more balanced), more rounded out, but also less complex. When nosing this a long time, slightly more (sour) oak comes along, but still not a lot, and it gets fresher, but in a mint and menthol kind of way. Also cherry liquor bonbons. The chocolate from them are in this Whisky too.

Taste: Sweet and farmy, with a great sweetish attack. Definitely less woody, at first, than the other Barrel. A nice peppery bite, next to the sweetness and the fruity, farmy notes. Again a nice big body, aided by the ABV. Honey and a great balance. Here too a chocolate liqueur bon-bon. Big body with a matching long and balanced finish. The wood is a lot more contained within this Lochside. Less vanilla though, so the wood reacted differently, it gave slightly more color, but less wood and vanilla. If you let it breathe for some time, the wood does play a larger role, and overall this is less “deep”.

You can’t go wrong with these kinds of Lochsides. There are a lot of 1991 bottles around, but they all are slightly 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. I feel it’s safe to say that some four or five months of extra maturation has a smaller effect on the maturation of a whisky, than te particular staves that were used making the barrel. Maybe I’m wrong. I just can’t imagine that the differences between cask #15217 and #15220, come from the small difference in maturation time. Here the “younger” one is more balanced but also less complex. For me I prefer the nose of barrel #15220 over #15217. Considering the taste, this one is easier, and less complex, but it has a better balance. All in all it’s definitely the same family, but the easiness, better balance and containment of the wood, the added farmyness and the difference in fruityness, makes me score this even two points higher. I just like this one better!

Points: 88

Thanks go out to Erik for providing yet another Lochside sample.