Category Archives: Single Malt Whisky

Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride” (Travel Edition) (46%, OB, L0387A L04 25:07, 2018)

This Highland Park was actually selected to be the follow up review after Springbank 15yo from a few weeks ago, but after looking at the label of the sample, there seemed to be some information missing. This Travel Edition was bottled multiple times annually since 2018 (at least until 2023) and as could be read on these pages earlier, Highland Park can differ a bit from batch to batch. Batches of Highland Park are supposed to be as similar as possible to each other, not to scare the public, and in the pursuit of getting close to the same flavour, not every batch is as good as some others were. Similar in taste yes, but some batches were just better than others. I found this out the hard way, actually with two of the standard expressions of the 18yo (twice!). The first occasion was before Master Quill even happened, but the second time around, both got reviewed on these pages. One batch from 2012 and the other one from 2014. Back to this 18yo from 2018. Luckily, in this case the provider of the sample is again Nico (just like the Springer 15), and Nico is in a way the high priest of Whisky (I have a picture of him fully dressed up as the high priest of Whisky, but I don’t think I would get permission to put it in here). If I ask him a year later after receiving the sample from which particular batch this sample was, he can still unearth the very bottle this Whisky was sampled from and sends pictures of it. Now that we know from which particular batch this is we can continue reviewing it.

Oh goody, goody, a travel edition! Often not a good sign, since big companies (and Highland Park is owned by such a big company) usually use the travel retail outlets to offer, lets say, not their best drop, for more money than necessary. Some of these bottling have even lower ABV than a bottle from their general release. Just have a look at an airport or on a ferry and look for a travel retail bottling, quite a few are bottled at 40% ABV or if you are in luck 43% ABV. Back in the day, lets say the 60’s, the 70’s and the 80’s, 40% ABV was nothing to scoff at. Lots of Gordon & MacPhail’s Connoisseur Choice bottlings were 40% ABV and almost all of them easily held their own. Just have a look at St. Magdalene from this series. I know it is a scarcity now, since these bottlings come from a distillery that was closed in 1983 (a travesty!), but those of my age will now. Over time (Single Malt) Whisky became ever more popular so owners of distilleries sought ways to be more efficient and the search for types of Barley which would yield the most per acre began. The tastiest of barley’s have a lower yield per acre than the ones mostly used today and sometimes the older varieties are even harder to process. One example is bere barley, low yield, hard to manage, but very, very tasty, just take your time with a Springbank Local Barley made with bere barley. For instance, the 2017 11yo is a favourite of mine (and Nico) or a Bruichladdich made with bere barley, a fine dram as well, young (around 6yo) but fine nevertheless. I digress again. On general release there is a Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride”, which is widely available, bottled in a clear glass bottle and reduced to 43% ABV, where this Viking Pride Travel Edition is in black glass and bottled at 46% ABV. So all signs say this one should be better than the normal one, so lets find out… (we won’t, because I have never tried the 43% version, but at least we will find out if this one is any good).

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: Sherry, very clean. Immediately very appealing. Highland Park heather and some sweet honey as well. Creamy sweet, with the cream masking the fruitiness this unmistakably has. Breath of fresh air whiffs by right from the start. Clean oak, fragrant wood. Orkney is rugged, but this smells summery (present day), maybe because is was bottled in summer? Altogether a very pleasant smelling Highland Park. Creamy custard, caramel and toffee, but also herbal, as well as spicy, not only from the wood, there is more to it. Chocolate chip cookies. Hot chocolate (with Rum). Warming the glass in my hand, helps even more aroma’s out. A warming chocolatey and smoky note come out to play as well as a tiny hint of bacon aroma emerging from the sizzling pan. Yes, dark chocolate as well, but not its bitterness. If the taste matches this very tasty nose, then we’re most definitely in for a treat.

Taste: Oooh yes. Sweet on entry but there is so much more. A smoky and slightly bitter edge to it. Bitter wood, bitter smoke, nothing overpowering though. The heather and the honey from the nose are present here as well, like a carbon copy. It actually tastes exactly like it smells. Modern Sherry notes, slightly tarry. Dark chocolate. Just the right amount of creamy sweetness. The oak delivers vanilla, so this must have been Sherry cask made from American oak. Toasted oak as well. Nice sweetness again. When tasted on another day, the sweetness was less, so dependent on the taster. The whole is very tasty, yet it is what it is, its not a super complex beast, but in this case it’s alright. A smooth, easy and elegant expression. The Springbank 15yo was more a in-your-face type of Whisky. 46% ABV seems to be just about right for this Highland Park, where it seemed to be too low for the Springbank 15yo. Not sure if 43% ABV for the standard edition will be enough. Who in their right mind would like to reduce a 18yo Whisky to 43% ABV? Because the consumer wants it, or because it makes you more money? All blah-blah-blah, but hey what do I know, lets revisit this review if I ever get the chance to compare it to the 43% ABV standard version or try it on its own. Final thoughts: Definitely a very good 18yo again from Highland Park, also quite modern, the wide neck 18yo from yesteryear is most definitely a step up from this one. However today, the price of the wide neck is also a step up from this proud viking.

Points: 88

Again, thanks go out to Nico for providing this sample.

Here we have some room to decipher the code: L0387A L04 25:07 (and a time code):

  • L0387 is the rotation number.
  • A is 2018, B is 2019, C is 2020, D is 2021, E is 2022, and F is 2023. As far as I know no bottlings of this expression were done since 2024.
  • 25:07 is the 25th of July.
  • L04 is probably a number depicting a particular bottling line, I didn’t check this on other Highland Park bottlings yet.
  • Now we also know the Whisky at hand was from the very first release.

A quick search on the ol’ interweb resulted in the following batches, and again, this list might not be complete:

L0387A L04 25:07 (2018)
L0520A L04 04:10 (2018)
L0216B L04 09/05 (2019)
L0449B L04 04/09 (2019)
L0165B L04 03/04 (2019)
L0117C L04 23/03 (2020)
L0117C L04 24/03 (2020)
L0003D L04 13/01 (2021)
L0081D L04 06/04 (2021)
L0355D L04 09/11 (2021)
L0135E L04 27/04 (2022)
L0038F L04 09/02 (2023)
L0124F L04 19/04 (2023)
L0209F L04 20/06 (2023)

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.

Longrow 11yo 1993/2005 (56.8%, Cadenhead, Authentic Collection, Bourbon Hogshead, 270 bottles)

At this point in time, the review of Springbank 15yo (the previous post) was written yesterday, so there is a big chance comparisons will be made between this Longrow and said Springbank. Yesterday’s review was written in one go. Happens often, yet is not a standard practice. Some Whiskies need a lot of time to show all they got and thus whiskies need to be revisited several times to truly “get” them and write up a proper review. These are often the more closed ones or the most complex ones. Yesterday’s Springbank wasn’t really all that complex to be honest. Sure, a lot is to be had from that Springbank, it’s very good, yet it offers it all up at the same time, not a lot of layering or development over time, so it lent itself perfectly for a one-go review. Also, some reviews write themselves and some, well, some just don’t. Sometimes it is actually very hard work, especially if a Whisky is closed and refuses to properly open up, not with warmth and not with water. Sometimes, and this luckily rarely happens, the mind just draws a blank, slowing the creative process. There are also a few reviews on these pages that were finished one or maybe two years after they were started, abandoned due to the mind drawing a blank, and rightfully so, because the subsequent review would have been sub-standard. But I digress.

After rummaging some more in the box mentioned in the previous review, I found another sample of interest, but since some data seems to be missing, that one had to be postponed, whilst I wait for some additional data to come in. After some more rummaging in said box, I found another sample from the Springbank distillery, this time around, not a true Springbank, but a Longrow. Same distillery, just more peat and only distilled twice as compared to a true Springbank which is distilled 2.5 times (as shown to the right). When you follow the flow in the chart, half of the Spirit flows through two low wines stills (#1 and #2), and the other half only through one low wines still (#2). In essence it is a 50/50 mixture of two times distilled Spirit and three times distilled Spirit. Fun fact, this Longrow was bottled by an independent bottler called Cadenhead, which has the same owner as the Springbank distillery. Nevertheless, Cadenhead bottles a lot more than Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn alone and have been doing that for a very, very long time.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Initially sweet and fruity. Nice vegetal peat, ever so slightly floral. Almonds and wax, typical Longrow of this age I would say. Sweet black tea (no milk used over here). Hints of coffee flavoured hard candy. Smells tasty, can’t hardly wait to take a sip. Just like the Springbank 15yo this also has a similar breath of fresh air, yet less so. Hints of cold gravy, this Longrow has a meaty quality to it, that definitely does not come from a Sherry cask, since this matured in a Bourbon hogshead. The meaty bits are right upfront. Leave the glass breathing and the meaty bits dissipate rather quickly. Since this is an ex-Bourbon refill cask, it is able to show more subtleties from within the spirit, where a Sherry cask can easily overpower the Spirit. You never know, but didn’t the colour on the Springbank 15yo give it away a bit? Tread carefully because often a lot of assumptions are made pertaining the colour of a dram. More funky vegetal notes emerge. See? It’s only 11yo and matured in a Bourbon cask, and this shows more complexity than the 15yo Springbank, and don’t get me wrong the Springbank 15yo is still a good Whisky, don’t get me wrong. Hints of white ashes and sweet woody liquorice, both well integrated with the peat. It is a young bottling at 11yo, but still it doesn’t smell heavily peaty, it smells like a peaty whisky that has matured for longer than it actually did. Peat gets softer and more mellow when the Whisky ages. Just compare a 10yo Longrow to an 18yo or a 21yo Longrow. Good Spirit, good cask. This Cadenhead offering is not really an elegant Longrow, and young Longrow’s rarely are, but it is most definitely a very accessible Longrow, it smells well balanced and well integrated, nothing really overpowers and everything adds to the whole. Definitely some development in the nose. The peat is more earthy now, with dry black tea leaves thrown in for good measure. Hints of distant fireworks, organic farmy notes and diluted red fruits, how’s that for complexity? No noticeable sulphur. Develops nicely with only some breathing, oxidizes very nicely, can take a lot of air.

Taste: Almonds, nutty, with a sweetish start. Sweet black tea. The first sip has a bitter tea-like finish to it, a note this Longrow could do without maybe? Second sip is more of the same actually, still nutty and still with a bitter edge to it, which is all right now, no worries. The taste actually matches the nose very well, both match quite good. In the taste, here it also has this vegetal feel to it. Waxy and velvety with a tiny burnt note, not entirely sure this is from toasted oak though. After the Springbank @46% ABV, I welcome this Longrow @56.8% ABV, it has more power, transports the aroma’s better and is more warming, which is nice with a peated Whisky. Next some Menthos, especially when you keep it in your mouth for a while without chewing on it. Very tasty stuff indeed this Longrow, apart from the ABV maybe, this one has a daily drinker quality to it. A fairly easy Longrow, one you will just want to keep pouring.

This is an accessible Longrow, easy going and very well balanced. Definitely not hot, and sure doesn’t taste like an 56.8% ABV Whisky to me. No need to add water. I did try though, sure it changes a bit (it becomes somewhat fresher, slightly less sweet), but it didn’t get any better, stays more or less on par with having it neat. In other words, you could surely add some water, in which case, you would end up with more tasty Whisky, because water also didn’t make it worse!

Points: 87

This time thanks go out to Andre Z. for the sample!

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.

 

Benromach Contrasts: Cara Gold Malt 11yo 2010/2022 (46%, OB, First Fill Bourbon Barrels, 20/01/22)

I almost forgot to write this review, because I though I’d already done it. Here we have the first Benromach on these pages after they revamped the look in to this slightly bulkier glass bottle, more straightforward cardboard box (easier to store) and last but not least the usage of the colour red. I was a bit hesitant at first because I really liked the copper they used in the previous package, but the red stands out, looks fresh, smart and traditional. So I do like the new look a lot now, and love having them around. If this one’s empty, I’ll probably replace it with another (red) Benromach. Most likely another one from the contrasts series, since it offers interesting takes on Malt. Here it is because of the usage of Cara Gold barley.

Most Benromachs that are on the market now are fairly young, sure there are some older bottlings like the 15yo and the 21yo, which are different yet not necessarily better. The Whisky at hand is 11yo and a nice choice for starting a flight of Whiskies or as a casual sipper. Not expensive and an honest pour. Benromach produces a heavier more meaty spirit, often slightly peated and sits well with knowledgeable anoraky aficionados, you know who you are, and since you are reading this, you’re probably one of them. This particular offering is partly made with Whisky made from Cara Gold barley as well as the normal Benromach lightly peated malt, both matured in first fill Bourbon barrels.

Color: Straw.

Nose: Sweet barley first, very appealing and very aromatic. Clean, fresh, fruity and malty with malt sugars and a nice layer of dust and paper-like aroma’s adding to the whole. Nice fresh wood tones, but nothing overpowering or off. Straightforward without any frills. Candied wood and candied yellow fruit, with hints of sweet smelling smoke, as well as some licorice. Clean and modern, although some yesteryear comes through as well. More wood (perfumed, highly aromatic) and wax with ripe yellow fruits. The label claims tropical notes, and sure enough… My perception of the fruit depends on the moment I’m smelling this. The first time around I wasn’t all too sure about the fruitiness, but the second time around, yes, here it is. I recently recovered from a nasty variant of the flu, and now that the nose is working again, I certainly pick up more on the fruit now! I’m very pleased with this Benromach. It smells very nice, accessible, balanced and its very aromatic and appealing. Well made, wonderful stuff and very affordable as well. After smelling this on many occasions over time, the fruity bit does wear off if you keep this for a while in your glass, focussing on the dusty and woody notes. Still soft and friendly though.

Taste: On entry, sweet smoke and sweet licorice. More subdued fruits. Candied Barley. You could smell it already, but it is most welcome tasting it. 46% ABV is a very nice drinking strength, definitely better, for modern Malts, than 40% or 43% ABV. Back in the day 40% ABV worked well, think of very old Gordon & MacPhail bottlings, like early Connoisseurs Choice bottlings (brown label, map label etc.) Yet Malts from this century definitely need a higher strength, higher than 43% if you ask me. Sweet, woody, spicy, somewhat bitter and slightly fruity (less so than in the nose). Tropical, well maybe. The wood has more to say here than it did on the nose. So more wood, slightly harsh even and showing some bitterness. The smoke is here as well and in the triangle between the wood, the smoke and the bitterness, it does take away a bit from the balance of the palate. A new sip with a fruity start masks the bitter bit for a moment. The finish is not very long and not a lot of it carries over into the aftertaste. But almost all you get is good (it turns out the bitterness has the longest staying power). No off notes. A very pleasant, fairly simple (it doesn’t develop a lot) and affordable dram. There is some diluted vanilla present, proving the maturation on (first fill) American oak. By the way, due to the bitter note this has, it isn’t entirely a casual sipper. Good, but I preferred the nose over the palate.

By itself a (partial) Cara Gold offering isn’t saying very much, it would be really interesting to have several Benromach bottlings, like this one, made with different barley varieties, open at the same time, to be able to compare them to each other. I checked my stash, but there isn’t another one at hand. A bere barley version would be nice, come to think of it, because bottlings like this remind me of the rebooted Springbank Local Barley series, where the Bere Barley version bottled in 2017 is my favourite. Yes I often prefer it over the 16yo and the dark 10yo. Sure the 16yo and the dark 10yo are great and definitely stellar as well, but the 11yo from 2017 is so good! Don’t be fooled by higher numbers or the colour of Whisky! Final remark, this particular Benromach worked best for me in a small tulip glass, a narrow, long stemmed Riedel for instance as opposed to a bigger glass, like the Holmegaard Perfection Spirit Glass. Both are very good, yet different. Good glassware always shows you more sides of the Whisky you’re drinking, so I do recommend to invest in good and several different pieces of glassware. It makes exploring your dram a lot more fun!

Points: 85

Glenrothes 2007/2021 (64.3%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Sherry Butt #1120, for Kirsch Import Germany, 646 bottles)

Glenrothes, I always liked the look of those bulky cannon ball bottles. Many of the highly reduced vintage offerings weren’t really all that interesting. Earlier written reviews of Glenrothes prove this. Just have a look at these vintages: 1979 (85 points), 1987 (83 points), 1989 (84 points) and 1992 (79 points), not to mention this Select Reserve (81 points), a NAS, not even a vintage. Where is the world coming to? Nope, I still somehow believe in the distilled spirit of Glenrothes, so I sometimes buy one at auction. I do prefer Independent bottlings at cask strength (and officially released cask strength versions as well). Until now, all independent offerings on these pages scored higher than their official counterparts. Although I have to admit that I tasted quite a few older vintages in my beloved cannon ball bottlings that were actually quite good (even after reduction), maybe that’s why I still believe? This time around we’re going to have a look at a Glenrothes bottled by indie bottler Berry Brothers and Rudd.

Those of you with a talent for reading every letter on labels, front and back, especially those that have one of those official cannonball bottlings at home, will have noticed that Berry Brothers and Rudd are also mentioned on the front label in fine print. In 1999 the Edrington Group (mainly known today for The Macallan and Highland Park) acquired Glenrothes. I have to specifically mention right now, that I mean the distillery ánd the brand by this. Since the main Single Malt focus was on the two aforementioned distilleries (and brands), and times were different back then, Edrington sold the Glenrothes brand to Berry Brothers and Rudd in 2010, yet retaining the distillery and the cooperage. Edrington acquired Cutty Sark (The Blended Whisky) from Berry Brothers in return. In 2017 Edrington bought the brand back and thus acquired a well known Speyside brand they could give the Macallan and Highland Park ultra premium treatment to. Funny then (or sad), that their old business-partner couldn’t even use the Glenrothes name (or should I say, brand) on the label…

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Initially milky, very a-typical and definitely not what you would expect. Vegetal and big raisins next. Modern, slightly sharp oak. Tea and old, worn down vanilla powder. The initial “strangeness” wears off quite quickly, making room for a more herbal feel. By now I would have expected more red fruits, but still not the case. This is more dusty, tobacco like with old sawdust. More black tea notes emerge. I’m quite happy with this nose, because it develops a lot in the glass, and it shows traits you don’t smell all that often. The longer you have it in your glass, the drier it gets. Cold Cuban tobacco and standing on the edge of a forest in the mist. After a while a more creamy nose emerges and dissipates again. Well I’m sure you all now feel this is a complex piece of work. Old books, dust. Very distinguished. Hints of cocktail cherries in the distance, followed by a fantastic mix of cold tobacco and herbs. Sometimes a dry smell of orange whiffs by, almost artificial orange. Definitely not from the freshly peeled fruit. Like a dried out tangerine. The dust now moves into the territory of dry grass and hay, and some more elegant wood. A truly wonderful and layered nose. A warm indoor fire in the back of the room.

Taste: Hot, yes, who would have thought at almost 65% ABV, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Initially this reminds me a bit of Damoiseau Millesime 2009, and not only because of the ABV. Next comes the wood and I’m happy to report, it is again the lovely elegant wood from the nose. I’m already really liking this one, now that I have tasted it. Here some more red fruits. Combining quite nicely with the wood. Second sip very similar. Here it doesn’t have the complexity of the nose, nope, it’s simpler than that. However, this is still a Whisky with a high fun factor. Nothing off, and the taste in combination with the high ABV turns out to be a pleaser (for me), but not everybody copes well with Whiskies with a high ABV. The color gave it away, this is not a Sherry monster, but it did come from Sherry and it is a bit of a monster. A friendly giant. Warm (sea) sand, well I have never tasted that, but it does remind me of that. I lived near the beach once, so maybe I did taste sand, one’s subconscious works in mysterious ways. It surely reminds me of it. Next some fruity sweetness becomes noticeable. Great balance to this. Puts some color on your cheeks.

Yet another good example of a Whisky that is not an easy one. The ABV is high and you need some experience and patience to get all out of it. Come to think of it, I even never tried this one with water. Novices would be put off by the initial aromas from the nose. This is not for casual sipping, but you need to work it and give it a lot of time. I bought this at auction and probably forgot about it, because I got myself second one at auction again (both were quite affordable). Definitely not regretting it, but then again, I also hardly ever open a bottle for the second time, always more interested in the next thing than going back. But it does happen, and sometimes one gets into this melancholy mode many years later, and than it is nice to have the possibility to get back to this one.

Overall a great deal. The bottle and the label look nice. The nose is very special, the taste is very well balanced and the high ABV works well. I should get me another one, ah, yes, I already got one, nudging and winking again. On my lectern I have a Macduff of similar ABV. The Macduff is closed as I’ve never encountered before, and this Glenrothes definitely is not. Final remark. Work this one, casually sipping you will never get everything out of all that it has to offer. Final remark, a disclaimer of sorts, nowhere on the bottle of the packaging is it ever mentioned this is a Glenrothes. The label states: “A Secret Speyside Distillery”, I’ve been assured this is a Glenrothes, and it surely does taste like Glenrothes, however there is always this small chance it is not, which would surprise me a lot.

Points: 88

Longmorn 1967/2003 (52.2%, Scott’s Selection, Speyside Importing Company, Duxbury MA USA, 750 ml)

Longmorn is a distillery with a huge reputation with Whisky aficionados. If you encounter a person who identifies as a Whisky aficionado and you start talking about Longmorn from 1971, chances are quite big that a person like that will start talking enthusiastically, not stopping for at least half an hour. Reason for this is that there are a lot of really, really good Longmorns from 1971. Actually, there are lots of really, really good Longmorns from the sixties and the seventies. The highlight of the Longmorn-era, although some feel that Longmorn still is very good. Sure, there are a lot of good Longmorns in more recent decades as well, yet those from the sixties and seventies are in a class of their own. Really, really good. Focusing now on Scott’s Selection, there are two dark sherry bottlings from 1971 bottled by Scott’s Selection that are amazing. One bottled @ 58.6% and the other one @ 57.8%. Both bottled in 1999, but there are two (?) others, one bottled in 2000 bottled @ 52.3% (one that I have never ever seen in the wild, no clue is this another dark one or not and if it actually exists to boot). In 2004 one was bottled for the US market, this one is definitely not dark. In 2003 and 2004 several more, “lighter”, Longmorns from 1967 and 1968 have been bottled for the US-market. Let’s have a look and a taste one of those, the 1967 Longmorn bottled in 2003.

Color: Full Gold.

Nose: Waxy (almond wax, if that exists) and super fruity. Soft warm fruit and candied fruit both mixed with a little bit of sweat. Old style. Old style is often riddled with funky organic aroma’s, which might be quite negative to read for some, like sweat for instance, yet those funky aroma’s are always very nice in an old style Whisky. Old clothes cabinet. Old, time-worn, smelling wood. Great complexity. Chewy with hints of black coal. Nope they don’t make them like this anymore. Soft, wet wood. Not spicy nor harsh. More wax mixed in with the wood. Old style dust and lots of old style yellow fruits. Deep and brooding. Hints of white chalk and white latex wall-paint. Old bottle effect combined with a minty note. Hints of peach, dried apricots and ripe, yet not overpowering, banana. Cherries on syrup. I don’t pick up on the banana every time I smell this though. Steam, also with hints of latex. Well balanced. Vegetal and green, especially after some time of breathing. Late to the mix: pencil shavings as well as some cold dish water. Maybe even a tiny hint of smoke, but this also can be the toasted bit from the cask-char. The whole nose has this promise of a sweet Whisky. The colored bits of Licorice Allsorts. If you leave the (not empty) glass standing around for a bit, notes of honey emerge (as well as some plastic). The empty glass the next day has even more of this plastic aroma. However, needless to say, but the whole is very nice, very nice indeed.

Taste: Starts powerful and spicy. Very fruity and a lot more wood-influence than expected form the nose. Where the nose finished on Licorice Allsorts, here on the palate it starts with it. Candied anise seeds. So yes it starts out sweet, but not overly so, especially when the wood kicks in. Slightly soapy. Green again with half-bitter hops and some cannabis. Waxed nuts and waxed wood with a decent amount of bitterness. Just enough for the whole taste of it. This has a beer-like quality to it. Half-sweet and very fruity again. Not only yellow fruits, but some red fruits as well. Sweetish strawberry and cherry juice combined with hints of vanilla. The minty bit comes through here as well as again the slightly soapy bit. Just like the bitterness, the minty taste comes from the wood. This is a Whisky that grows even more complex on the nose when you finally start sipping it. You’ll probably take a while taking in the complexity of the nose anyway. Finish shows some more cask toast and retains the soapy taste, which strange enough works well this time. Very fruity with a slightly bitter aftertaste from the woody backbone, especially if it got time to breathe. Great dram, just not as good, but also very different, as the darker 1971’s.

Hard to say really in what kind of cask this was matured in. First guess would be a Bourbon hogshead, not a barrel and also not a first fill. (Second) refill Sherry, could be.

Points: 91

Deanston 24yo 1996/2020 (50%, Hunter Laing, Old Malt Cask, Sherry Butt HL 17661, 452 bottles)

Deanston is not a Whisky or distillery I was interested in for a long time, no Deanston came much later. I obviously knew Deanston existed, but I felt it didn’t get much love, and you hardly read about Deanston back in the day, so I didn’t bother even to buy it and others didn’t bring it to tastings I attended. So it flew a long time under everybody’s radar until… In 2015 Deanston released their 20yo matured in Oloroso casks. All of a sudden Deanston found itself on the Whisky map, and people started to like it. Today Deanston is seen as distillery that puts out great honest stuff, a bit of a go-to Malt if your local watering hole hasn’t much stock of Springbank, a distillery with a similar “feel”. I liked the 20yo as well (someone brought it to a tasting), but never got to buy one, instead I went for several expressions of their Organic Whiskies. I suspected these might be maybe a bit of their take on a similar series from Bruichladdich, only those are much younger, or even the recent Springbank Local Barley’s. However the first bottle I opened and reviewed here was a Bordeaux Finish I probably got a great deal on, since I am usually very careful with Wine finished Whiskies. This Independently bottled Deanston is only the second review of a Deanston on these pages, but certainly not the last, since Deanston turned on their transponder and Deanston is now on everybody’s radar.

Color: Orange Gold.

Nose: Elegant with nice clean oak notes. Fresh smelling, almost floral even, but at the same time also old and distinguished. A deep fruity, partly waxy and well aged smell (that’s the old style). This also might have to do with the glass and the Whisky warming up when holding the glass in my hand. Creamy vanilla dust with sweet barley. Excellent balance. The Sherry adds some red fruit, but not a lot, also a fresh sense of acidity pops up, next to a paper-note (paper without ink). Bigger role than expected is played by a sweet and minty aroma. I may have mentioned Menthos before. But it’s like eating those. Hints of citrussy dishwater liquid cut through the waxy fruitiness. Next more freshly shaven American oak, mixed in with some toffee and/or caramel. On occasion it smells slightly too dry, because of the fresh oak notes, to be a true dessert Whisky. Now it’s closer to an aperitif because of the lack of “bigness”, or is it? Remarkable nose, it seems like it phases in and out of different aromas and notes, phasing out and phasing back in again over time. It smells complex, but also like it won’t be big on the palate. We’ll see. Nice smell of red fruits like a good old Sherry cask would impair back in the day. Herbal and vegetal as well. Licorice with horseradish. Can’t really put my finger on it now, what this herbal bit precisely is, although there is some lavas in there, but wait there is more. Cumin with gravy, yet still more. I remember the smell of this wood from casks that held Red Wines. Creamy, so American oak ones. This Deanston has a lovely depth to it. Smell it with a low flow of air, but smell it for a longer while (in one go, without passing out that is) to unlock all the underlying beauty this nose has. More of this minty acidity, which seems to be not fully integrated. Its definitely there, this slight unbalance, but on the nose its a minor gripe. The back of the smell feels like rain on earth on a dull day.

Taste: On entry, fruity, less sweet than I thought. Nutty toffee with hints of cannabis, and yes a bit thin, but also very tasty, well balanced stuff. Quite waxy and fruity, again old style and warming. Watered down toffee. Good balance, especially if you let it breathe for a while. Definitely let it breathe! The start is very tasty indeed. It matches the nose. Wood has a soft, yet big presence, but not only. There is a sense of fresh oak as well. Somewhat prickly and spicy, wet wood yet also toasted cask, giving it structure. More than in other Whiskies, the wood plays quite a big role in this one. A lot of shades of wood are passing by, and most surprisingly, woody bitterness isn’t one of them. A lot of great stuff is going on. Pecan ice cream, with a tad of warm honey and the taste of perfumed wood. This Whisky would make for a fantastic ice cream flavour. A kind of wet bitterness to the wood. Toffee here as well. This is a very, very interesting Whisky, tasty as well, not for novices though, since you need to be somewhat experienced and open minded to fully “get” it and it would be a waste of money if you’re not there yet. It’s not cheap, nor is it an easy Whisky as well. Again one that works well now when analyzing, yet somewhat less so when casually sipping. I like it better now than when I try it when watching a movie.

This one you have to work a bit, most of the nice bits aren’t well noticed when casually sipped. This really needs your full attention. A few years back I tried a wonderful 25yo Deanston from Hunter Laing that was much easier (Thanks Paul!), Bigger, right out of the gate, and one that did not need work from the taster at all. I might have expected more of the same buying this one, but its different, is it worse? No probably not, this one is beautiful as well, maybe even more complex, it only needs your attention some more. To sum this one up: toffee, (red) fruit, and wood. By the way, this one definitely needs a lot of air, the second half of the bottle was most definitely better than the first.

Points: 89.

Bladnoch Vinaya (46.7%, OB, Classic Collection, 1st Fill Sherry & 1st Fill Bourbon casks, 2021)

Only the third review of a Bladnoch on these pages, I actually thought there would be more. I guess the first review of the 8yo Beltie Label was a true learning experience to get to know Bladnoch. Bladnoch had a bit of a reputation and that particular bottle when freshly opened just confirmed this reputation. If I’m not mistaken the 8yo fully came out of the production when Raymond Armstrong was the owner. He produced mostly between 2000 and 2009. However, the more I tried it and the more air went into the bottle, that’s when the magic started happening.

Fast forward all these years (since 2012) and now Bladnoch is one of those “obscure” Malts that I really like. Between that review and the next, Bladnoch Distillery changed hands, and the second review (in 2021) was the official 10yo bottled in 2018 by the new owner David Prior. David’s Bladnoch started production in 2017. Comparing both reviews you can clearly see I warmed up completely to Bladnoch. When I finished the 10yo I replaced it with the Vinaya, which is a NAS Bladnoch, again from the new owners, to see how I would feel about another young Bladnoch like the 8yo, now that I’ve become fond of Bladnoch. Would the Vinaya have a similar false start like the 8yo Beltie, or is it more like a NAS version of the 10yo I mentioned earlier. First of all the difference, apart from the age statement, is that Vinaya has in part matured in Oloroso Sherry casks, where the 10yo matured solely in Bourbon casks. Vinaya uses older casks from Raymond’s Bladnoch blended together with (probably 4yo) Whisky from David’s Bladnoch.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Malty, pleasant, with slight notes of diluted Red Wine, which is also noticeable as an added acidic note. Also candied lemon seems present. Fruity overall. Fruit syrup. Since we know that this has some young Whisky in the fold, I’m happy to report that there is no sign of new make spirit or anything that resembles that. Creamy notes from American oak also some notes of toasted oak. It has a slight “bite” to it, which is very nice in combination with the thick fruity aromas. Yet again a big smelling Lowland style Malt from Bladnoch. Lowlanders are often grassy and hay like (and so they should, its their heritage), yet Bladnoch in general are pretty creamy and Vanilla-like, and all of this in a big way. Maybe that’s why I always liked St. Magdalene (Closed) en thus Bladnoch (Very much alive again). So the nose is big, big on the traits of a Whisky matured in Bourbon casks. Bourbon definitely plays a larger part in the profile of this Whisky than the Sherry does. Quite surprising, since the Sherry casks are first fill as well. Candied pineapple, (yellow) fruity aroma’s emerge. Hints of paper as well as traces of burning paper, Wine again and warm butter. Dust and the wood of an old dried out cask. Pretty mature smelling for a NAS-Whisky. Very good nose this NAS-er has. Hints of old style Malt, which is a surprise considering the composition of this NAS. I foresee great potential in Bladnoch’s new production, which as mentioned above, started just in 2017.

Taste: Just like the nose this starts Malty. Warm super-ripe fruit mixed in with a lot of cardboard (Malt) and some young wood. Here the wood provides a “bite”. Warm apple compote in a soggy cardboard box. Yes, definitely a fruity Malt, just with this wood/cardboard edge to it, probably from the Malt of the younger production. Next sip, more of the cream and vanilla, as well as some sweetness, astringent wood and distant nuttiness. In a way dull, in a sort of basic Malt kind of way that is. Simple, without a lot of development (by the way, the nose does develop more than you would expect). Present also, luckily, this acidic note from the nose, only less so. The whole is definitely a lot simpler than the nose promised. Not very expressive to be honest, yet what you do get is nice. Dull is a fitting word, not to be confused with boring, although I can imagine some of you aficionados that are not (yet) into “back-to-basics” (again) would call this boring. Still, it is fatty, creamy. Not entirely sure this Whisky is 100% balanced though. I get the Sherry influence, but it doesn’t seem to be perfectly integrated. Medium to short finish (hey, it’s a NAS), again with this slight unbalance to it, somewhat paper-like. The aftertaste is slightly creamy with wood and warming, with something new: hints of gout de petrol. I wonder how much of the new production is in this and how it is on its own. By the way, don’t let this sit in your glass for too long, a fresh pour tastes the best.

An excellent nose for an NAS-Whisky, yet somewhat less thrilling to taste. It’s good, yet not spectacular. But hey, it isn’t very expensive now isn’t it? Definitely worth a go, I would say. Daily drinker kind of stuff. Personally I’m not a daily drinker, far from it, but if I would be, this will definitely be on the list, especially amongst others with a different profile. Sometimes one doesn’t feel like getting a peated Whisky or a Sherry-bomb, but something like this (lets call this a Bourbon+ profile, “+” for the added Sherry influence), is always good. I never grow tired of this back-to basics profile. I’m not sure the 10yo and 11yo Bourbon versions still are available, but I would recommend both over this one. The score might not reflect it entirely, but this is a fun Whisky nevertheless, so no regrets, worth the price of admission for sure.

Points: 84

“An Islay Distillery” 9yo 2008/2018 (54.9%, Cadenhead’s, Small Batch, One Bourbon Barrel & One Sherry Hogshead, 330 bottles)

Let’s kick in the open door: this is a Lagavulin (supposedly). It’s not on the label, but I have been assured this is a Lagavulin. However, we still can’t be a 100% certain now can we! Lagavulin used to be, and probably still is, my highest overall scoring Distillery from Scotland. There were hardly any bad or mediocre Lagavulins around. Even the affordable standard 16yo (The White Horse version) was stellar, the newer “Port Ellen version” is still very good. When the 12yo returned as an annual special release at cask strength, again very, very good. Right about the time, lets say 2021, maybe even earlier, signaled a noticeable downfall in quality. Picking up notes of a milky almost new-make spirit. Around 2019 with the release of the 10yo, the 9yo Game of Thrones and the 11yo Offerman Edition came the time that made me look elsewhere. Especially because of the 10yo (and the 8yo, come to think of it). The 9yo and the 11yo were still decent. So, in come the independents! Thank god for them! An indispensable lot. Diageo protects the Lagavulin name with their life, so that’s why companies like Cadenhead’s can’t put the Lagavulin name on the label without being shot, or worse. Hence “An Islay Distillery”. Some others at least think of a resounding name from which the public might or might not guess that it is a Lagavulin, or leave some subtle hits on the front and/or back label. I am buying some of these anonymous Lagavulins just to see if all these younger Lagavulins have the same milky taste I dislike like the 10yo and the latest batches of the 12yo’s have. I hope not. Here is an example from Cadenhead’s, but there will be more in due course.

Color: Orange Gold.

Nose: As expected, peaty and smoky, not even all that heavy, even though there is a lot to take in right from the start. This leaps out of my glass. Some nice wood, although quite masked. Menthos with floral vanilla and quite dusty. Perfumy kippers, salty and smoky. More notes of fresh oak. Vegetal wood, mature and appetizing, so not sappy wood which is more fresh. Hints of textile, melting plastic and wet dog. Silent yet deep dark peat. Smouldering (I love that word, have to use it more often if applicable) embers. Funky organics. There is quite a lot going on, that’s for sure. Something does remind me of matches a bit, but to be honest, I don’t really pick up on any sulfur right now. It has a fresh feel to it as well, like walking in the woods on a sunny and somewhat cool day. A temperature just right for walking. Next a sweeter, yet organic note, like smelling the left over stones from eating really ripe cherries (just before they go soft). Combine this with some light beech wood smoke and maybe a more smoked meat note. This smells entirely different from an officially released Lagavulin 9yo (The Game of Thrones version). The nose keeps developing in my glass showing more traits of red and black ripe fruits and vanilla in a thin coat of peat. Maybe I do pick up on some sulfur now (a fart?). Still in a minute quantity then. Some Iodine, now that’s detectable. Sea-spray? Nevermind. Bonfire on a good day. Big nose, slightly creamy and sweet if you let it breathe. I do like it quite a bit and can’t stop smelling it for the layers it shows.

Taste: Yes, holy moly. Big peat but also big on the warm plastic I also found in the nose. Just enough wood, nice. Also sweeter than expected. Licorice. Definitely not a weak Whisky like the 10yo, much bigger and bolder. The 10yo seems unfinished, milky, nothing of that here. This is 9 years old and it is done and dusted, it’s ready. Very big for a Lagavulin. Iodine and warming. You can think of Lagavulin as an elegant Islay Whisky in general, but mainly because of the 16yo, this 9yo is not, it is raw and unpolished, a different take if you will. You can even see some resemblance to the boldness of the 16yo, at least the 16yo from a while back. The Whisky is so big that the plastic bit, that usually is a big off note, killing even, only plays its part in the whole. It is in no way overpowering nor bad. Still the whole is in your face! Sweet, (burnt) wood, toast, peat, licorice and warm plastic. That’s it, those are the main markers. Luckily more is happening in this one, especially on the nose. You can pick up on the American oak, I’m pretty sure both casks are American oak. The sherry bit is similar to the Sherry you get from a good batch of the 16yo. Cow dung in the finish. Aftertaste is sweet, peaty and plastic-y and very low on bitterness, lets say soft tannins.

Well, this is a small batch and in this case combining two casks, a Bourbon barrel and a Sherry hogshead, together normally good for some 600 bottles at cask strength. However only 330 bottles have been bottled, why is that? Not all has been bottled, leaky casks? I wonder…

I took this bottle to Nico, who seemed to really dislike it, claiming it was too much and over the top. For him this was just wrong, so be warned, this might not be for everyone. Of the two, I am definitely the one who likes extremes more. I’m still actually amazed he feels this strongly about this Whisky he claims is wrong, since I do really like it. I wonder, is my palate shot? Luckily no, since most other Whiskies we both still tend to score pretty similarly, but sometimes something like this happens. For instance, I really like the Palo Cortado Springbank 10yo, I also got pretty enthusiastic about it on a Springbank society tasting (in public). Nico did not (he didn’t even order it). In the end, I feel this 9yo is some sort of a 16yo on steroids and after that even some more steroids. It also seems to have some off notes the 16yo doesn’t have, which in this case works for me just fine, but it might not work for you, as it did for Nico. It is definitely a big Whisky, I’ll say that, very big.

Points: 87