Category Archives: Single Malt Whisky

Highland Park “Einar” (40%, OB, The Warrior Series, 1 Litre, 2013)

First we had a core range, after that came the special bottlings and since a short while we also have special series. Highland Park had a lot of success releasing Earl Magnus (a 15yo released in 2009), Saint Magnus (a 12yo released in 2010) and Earl Haakon (a 18yo released in 2011), one per year. Thus a series was born. Next series was the warrior series, specially released for travel Retail (airports, boats and so on). In statistical sales figures, travel retail bottlings are treated as a country! That’s how many are sold this way. The warrior series comprises of six different bottlings, all released in 2013: Einar, Harald, Sigurd, Ragnvald, Thorfinn and Svein. Next came not a “series”, but a “collection” called The Valhalla Collection. Thor (16yo, 2012), Loki (15yo, 2013), Freya (15yo, 2014) and Odin (16yo, 2015). Again one per year. Aptly named though, since those bottlings seemed to be snapped up for collections and not so much for drinking purposes. By now Whisky became a commodity for trade and not an alcoholic beverage. Not a lot of reviews exist of these bottlings, so they must be sitting on shelves of collectors, trying to sell the now complete collection of 4 to…other collectors. Yeah, this will work just nicely.

Highland Park EinarColor: Gold.

Nose: Sweet, mocha, vanilla (ice-cream) and a hint of funky Sherry, soft peat and wood. Tiny hint of cask toast and alcohol. Toasted bread and something meaty. Dried. Sweet barley, almost like corn. Sweet funky mud. This one does develop over time. Powdered sugar and a floral soap quality (not much). A likeable and un-complex nose. Not bad at all.

Taste: Sweet and candy like. Sweet, almost artificial, red fruit drops. Sugar water and vanilla. Sugar with a bite. A slightly bitter note of oak at the start of the finish, as well as a small gingery note. Also here is the funkiness I got in the nose, that seems Sherried. Too simple actually, but without off notes as well.

Very sweet and light Highland Park. Typical travel retail bottling. It’s a litre, its 40%, its light. Even a litre of this will be drunk at a fast pace, because to properly taste this you need to take this in big gulps. Not one to ponder over for many hours. A bit too plain and simple, not to say a bit dull. Is it bad then? No not really. It’s somewhat recognizable as a Highland Park and that’s no bad thing. It’s still a decent Whisky, that can only be surpassed by (a lot of) other Whiskies. Nothing to scoff about. Never the less, not something I would buy (I would buy the 18yo (if its a good batch) or even the Dark Origins).

Points: 78

The Glenlivet “Nàdurra Oloroso Matured” (60.7%, OB, First Fill Oloroso Sherry Casks, Batch OL0614)

Back in the lion’s den. Purely by coincidence, I recently reviewed some independent bottlings of Whiskies produced by distilleries of Pernod Ricard, like Braeval and Glenallachie, but also some official bottlings like Strathisla 12yo, Aberlour 16yo and The NAS Glenlivet “Founders Reserve”, but also the nice AS Glenlivet from 1983. Now another Glenlivet, and yet another new NAS bottling. I promise you, I’m not sponsored!

The Glenlivet Founders’ Reserve is the new entry-level Glenlivet that replaces the 12yo in Western European and some other markets except Asia and the US. This NAS Oloroso Nàdurra replaces the nice AS 16yo Nàdurra. I know, that one came from Bourbon casks only. However, the 16yo Nàdurra will be replaced by three new versions that will be called…Nàdurra. The first one of these is this NAS Oloroso version, soon to be followed by a NAS Bourbon version and later a NAS Peated version. Since both Aberlour and The Glenlivet have the same owner, everybody will be comparing this one to the Aberlour A’bunadh.

Glenlivet Nàdurra Oloroso Matured (60.7%, OB, First Fill Oloroso Sherry Casks, Batch OL0614)Color: Dark gold, copper gold. Quite light for first fill Oloroso.

Nose: Lots of vanilla, new wood and a bit sharp on first sniff. A breath of fresh air. Spicy wood and pencil shavings. I get a lot of pencil shavings recently, maybe its me. I don’t get a lot of A’bunadh like first fill Sherry though. Considering the color and also the way this smells, my guess would be that this Oloroso Nàdurra is younger than its sister from Aberlour. A’bunadh is pretty up front dark first fill Oloroso, and this Nàdurra is not. It really does smell like a young whisky with nice notes of wood without being overpowered. Nice, but not complex. The wood also gives off light chocolaty notes and some sweetish vegetal bits. Old bar of soap (from the eighties) and some licorice. For me a lot of these aroma’s come from wood and obviously from the Sherry used, but for me they aren’t typical Oloroso aroma’s you get from an A’bunadh. Wood it is then.

Taste: Sweetish and a bit hot. New wood, tree sap with its light bitterness. Coffee and licorice, a nice combination. Hints of glue. Prior to swallowing a hint of, and here it comes again, pencil shavings. We all have chewed on a pencil some time during our lives haven’t we? Italian laurel licorice. When the wood, a slight hint of bitterness, and the high strength pass, not a very big finish remains. Youth?

A young Whisky that by itself is a study of wood and not of Sherry. It isn’t complex, slightly underdeveloped, and it surely does have its moments. I guess the choice is right to think of this Whisky a bit as a Whisky for…well, not entry-level, by bottling this with a high ABV. Another good decision is probably that it is made to another profile from the A’bunadh which is more about the Sherry itself, whereas this is more about the wooden cask itself. Nice stuff, helped along by the high strength and spicy wood. Younger and really no match for A’bunadh in my opinion, but those who like higher strength Whisky, but found the A’bunadh too much, will disagree. (maybe a comparison to Benromach 10yo 100 proof would have been a better angle…)

Points: 83

Glenallachie 7yo 2007/2014 (50%, Dewar Rattray, The Specialists’ Choice, Sherry Butt #900168, 350 bottles)

Glenallachie, just like Braeval, is one of the fairly new distilleries originating in the sixties. Glenallachie was founded in 1967. (Remember Sgt. Pepper’s ?) Glenallachie is located in Banffshire in a region that we particularly know as Speyside. Built by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and sold to Invergordon Distillers in 1985. S&N ran it for two years and thus closed it down in 1987 and subsequently sold it to Pernod Ricard. Those of you who have read my recent reviews of Glenlivet, Strathisla and Braeval, know that Pernod Ricard are putting a lot of effort into marketing their big brands Aberlour and especially The Glenlivet, but don’t do a lot, if anything, with their other distilleries Strathisla and Braeval, but also Glenallachie, Glenburgie, Glentauchers, Miltonduff, Scapa and Tormore don’t get a lot of “Airplay”.

Glenallachie 7yo 2007/2014 (50%, Dewar Rattray, The Specialists' Choice, Sherry Butt #900168, 350 bottles)Those distilleries are viewed as production capacity for numerous blends owned by Chivas Brothers, like the well-known Chivas Regal. As said before, I would like to see those marketed as Single Malts by their owners! For the time being we’ll have a look at this independent version of a quite young and Sherried Glenallachie.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Nice half-stale meaty Sherry, with lots of wood, sawdust and pencil shavings and some nice woody spices. All of this wood after only seven years! Chocolate with a breath of fresh air. Lavas and other leafy spices. Remember cleaning out the gutter, when the heap of leaves aren’t completely dried out? After that chocolate combined with toffee, so it is most certainly interesting. Cold gravy.

Taste: Wood with chocolate and a hint of cherry liqueur. Forget about Ferrero Rocher, now we have this! Dark chocolate again and all the woody notes I mentioned above apart from the cedary pencil shavings. The wood brings some bitterness and a kind of acidity, The Whisky really doesn’t need. This sour note would probably disappear after some more ageing, so for me it shows its youth. Wood and leaves is what stays behind towards the finish.

Although initially very interesting, the nose is pretty nice and starting to sip this, yes, nice again, but along the way parts of the taste doesn’t seem to match the rest of it. Somewhere it’s pretty unbalanced and pretty young. A bit mono dimensional. It’s ok and without mayor flaws, but also not a lot to rattle my boat as well.

Points: 83

Strathisla 12yo (40%, OB, 2013)

Old Strathisla 12yoStrathisla is famous for producing one of the best Sherried Single Malt Whiskies ever. Just have a go with some nice examples from an independent bottler with distillates from the sixties and seventies. Gordon & MacPhail have a huge range of Strathisla’s from those days that have long gone by, but also a lot of other independent bottlers have similar Sherried bottlings. Those Strathisla’s can easily compete with the best Longmorns and Macallans from the same era. Nevertheless, the owners of Strathisla themselves have never done a lot with the brand. In fact, only a 12yo has been readily available and the occasional 25yo. When visiting the distillery and additional 16yo can be bought, but that it! For a long time Strathisla was bottled in a flat dark brown, screen printed bottle, but since 2013, a new dumpy bottle was released. Now we would like to know if the Whisky has changed as well, since the ABV has been lowered to 40%. We also would like to know if the range will finally be expanded. Chivas Brothers (Pernod Ricard) are the current owners of Strathisla and they could do lots more with Strathisla like they are doing with two of their other brands like The Glenlivet and Aberlour.

Strathisla 12yo (40%, OB, 2013)Color: Light orange gold

Nose: leafy, malty and dirty. Putty and highly aromatic. Hints of orange skin and vanilla. Creamy Whisky. Fresh cut grass and damp potting soil. Tiny hints of wood and tar and bitter-sweet chocolate. Smells of caramel coloring. Very funky altogether if you ask me.

Taste: Not really thin, but tastes watered down. Still warming though. Licorice. Sugar water sweetness and a distant hint of Sherry, killed by water and (burnt) sugar (coloring). Tree sap and bitter wood. Toasted wood. Hidden toffee-like sweetness. Again lots of notes I can only imagine coming from caramel coloring. A short warming boost in my throat, then a finish with not much staying power.

In essence this is the only official Strathisla on the market. It replaces another Strathisla 12yo, that was around for a long time. It is brought down to 40% ABV, and is still the only version released by the owners. Why not let it stand out more? Why water it down even more, and kill it with E150? Strathisla can be such a great brand, and there is so much you can do with it, so why even bother releasing this 12yo, which is pretty anonymous at best? Fire some managers for incompetence and take a look around and see what is already achieved by Bacardi with Craigellachie, Aultmore and Aberfeldy, with even two more in the pipelines. If that’s no inspiration, what about the achievements of Gordon & MacPhail with Benromach? Just do it people!

Points: 76 (I liked the screen printed bottle better)

Spey 12yo (40%, OB, Selected Edition, Virgin Oak Finish, 8.000 bottles)

When the Speyside distillery was sold to Harvey’s of Edinburgh in 2012, the new owner changed the name of the Whisky to “Spey” and by 2014 released three new versions: Tenné, this 12yo and finally a 18yo. I wasn’t very enthusiastic about the Tenné. Let’s see if this 12yo is any better. The Tenné is a rather young Whisky, finished in Port pipes. The 12yo is…well, 12 years old and was given a finish in new wood. Strange enough this older Whisky was given a lower ABV than it’s younger sister Tenné. 40% ABV compared to 46% ABV. For me that is usually not a good way to start…

Spey 12yo (40%, OB, Selected Edition, Virgin Oak Finish, 8.000 bottles)Color: White wine, much less color than pictured here.

Nose: Fresh, citrussy with hints of smoke (probably from toasted wood). Fresh oak and toasted fresh oak. Clean but also a dirty edge to it. Mocha and milk chocolate. Powdered sugar. Maybe simple but well-balanced. Leafy and dry grass. No off notes whatsoever. Shows a lot of potential, but, it’s already 12yo and it smells much younger. Young but without the typical smell or even hints of new make spirit. Hints of pencil. Not only shavings of the wood, but the whole pencil with the painted wood and the lead. Very interesting and surprising compared to the Tenné. Seems to let aroma’s pass in layers.

Taste: Sweet and barley. Sugary sweetness, which matches the powdered sugar from the nose. Malted barley. These two notes make up the taste. Again this seems very young without even hinting at new make spirit. (I recently reviewed The Glenlivet Founder’s Reserve, thát has the notes of new make spirit). Clean and grainy spirit. Sweet and vegetal. Has some staying power. Virgin oak and tree sap, reminiscent of ripping a branch of a shrub or tree. Although low in ABV, this Whisky doesn’t seem to suffer from it. Hints of sweet apple juice, freshly pressed at home, and a flowery note, Jasmin.

I can’t put my finger on it, but I like this. The sugar levels are just in check. It is no high-flying Whisky, but it has some lovely aroma’s to it. This time, I won’t even ramble on about the low ABV. This does nicely at 40%. Fruity and likeable. Surprising stuff. Who would have thought this about a Whisky from a young distillery, which found it necessary to finish its aged Whisky in new oak. Interesting. Almost ten points more than the younger offering called Tenné.

Points: 82

The Glenlivet 1983/2003 (46%, OB, Cellar Collection, French Oak Finish, 2L7F901)

The Glenlivet “Founder’s Reserve” I just reviewed, was actually quite simple and a bit disappointing. It is a very, very young Whisky, which in my opinion doesn’t show how good a Glenlivet can be. I rummaged a bit through my personal archive and unearthed another Glenlivet to review. So lets forget about the new one for a moment and let’s see how an old Glenlivet will do. Here we have a Glenlivet that has some 20 years behind its belt. 17 years in Bourbon and Sherry casks and a further 3 years in lightly toasted French Limousin oak casks. Not all casks were used for this bottling (quality control), so only 8.000 bottles were produced. A true limited edition! This review will probably show that this was 20 years well spent, time nobody seems to have these days since demand skyrocketed. We are told not to judge a bottle by its NAS, but in the old days the same people told us we hád to judge the Whisky by its AS (Age Statement) or Vintage. So without further ado, I give you a Glenlivet from their Cellar Collection, a 1983 French Oak Finish bottled in 2003, when age was still a benchmark.

The Glenlivet 1983/2003 (46%, OB, Cellar Collection, French Oak Finish, 2L7F901)Color: Amber gold.

Nose: Surprisingly fresh but also Sherried and certainly dusty. Elegant with silky wood notes, and some added depth of toasted wood and (partly burnt) caramel and slightly too sweet toffee. Lots of aroma. Flour. Funny enough, and I’m most probably not objective here, there is a silky wood note that seems to lie on top of the nose, not as much integrated as the deeper woody notes. Very nice to nose a Whisky that has several kinds of different wood aroma’s. With the toast comes candied fruits, adding to the depth of the Whisky. Vanilla and Ice-cream notes from American oak, so most definitely a mixture of Bourbon and Sherry casks.

Taste: Creamy Sherry and yes, lots of vanilla. Distant sweet Moscatel Wine. Very smooth. Even though this has seen two or three kinds of wood it is not overpowered by it. Sometimes the wood is hardy noticeable. In the back of your mouth some nice and sweet aroma’s form, but only if the Whisky is tasted with big gulps. Dusty on the palate as well, and alas, alas, a rather short finish.

I’m not sure what the French oak finish brings to the blend of Bourbon and Sherry casked Whisky. Sometimes you do get an un-integrated silky wooden note that lies on top. So maybe it is obvious what the finish did for this Whisky. I’m amazed this turns out to be 46% ABV. It seems more like 40 or 43% ABV. Maybe this should have been bottled with a higher ABV? Good stuff nevertheless. On paper one of the more complex Glenlivet’s from the Cellar Collection, but my mouth tells me otherwise. The aroma’s of this bottling are silky and deep and for some may lack a bit of fruity zest. Highly drinkable though and something you can enjoy properly.

For reasons only science can wholly explain, I followed the Glenlivet up with the Blackadder Lochside I reviewed earlier, and although the Glenlivet is also good, the Lochside blows it right out of the water, so when spending money at auctions I would know what to do!

Points: 86

The Glenlivet “Founder’s Reserve” (40%, OB, 2015)

Just like the Berlin wall, old, well-known Whiskies that have been around for ages are coming down. We already see the manifestation of NAS Whiskies, you know the ones without the pretty numbers on the label: 10yo, 12 yo et cetera. It has recently been announced, by Pernod Ricard, that not only the Glenlivet 12yo will be discontinued, but also Aberlour 10yo. George Smith Founder of GlenlivetThis is moving in the wrong direction people! The Glenlivet 12yo has already been replaced with the new Founder’s Reserve, a highly original name taken from the old 10yo expression of The Balvenie. The Glenlivet already dropped the age statement for their highly popular Nadurra range, and are wooing the consumer to stay with Nadurra, by adding new versions. Bourbon, Oloroso and the next step will probably be a peated version. Other recent experiments were the NAS Alpha, and the NAS Guardian’s Chapter. We all know where this is going, don’t we. Lot’s of distillate will be put out as young NAS Whiskies, and the rest will be aged a prolonged amount of time to be bottled as (highly expensive) Whiskies which will still have an age statement. Yes, we should judge a Whisky by its taste and we will, and not by its age statement. Still, the super premium Whiskies will have an age statement, because age sells, people. Another experiment done by The Glenlivet is the release of an 11yo single cask for 300 Euro’s in the Netherlands, called Bochel (Hill). How far can you go? Let’s get back to the beginning, shall we? I already reviewed The Glenlivet 12yo, so we have a clue what that was all about. Now let’s have a look at its replacement. The NAS Founder’s Reserve…

The Glenlivet Founders ReserveColor: Light citrus gold.

Nose: Barley and aged spirit. Raw and yeasty. A big part of the beginning of the nose is made up of new make spirit. Apart from…new make spirit, I have never come across a Whisky that is so upfront and young. Obviously young. The new make note disperses and makes room for plain white oak. Does have some traits of Bourbon casks, but also of virgin oak casks. I hope this is still aged in casks, could be stainless steel with bits of wood thrown in. Sweet barley, yeast and oak. That’s more or less it with this Glenlivet. On top salty and estery. Well this is your wormhole that offers a peek of NAS Whisky. I guess a lot of entry-level, inexpensive Whisky of the future (and you know, the future starts now), will be like this. Perfumy and floral, latex paint with hints of mocha and still a promise of sweetness.

Taste: Sweet water. Sugary. Very, very, un-complex. Not even a lot of wood now. More (oak and pencil) wood in the nose. This is sweet balanced sugar-water with vanilla pudding and…yes, what else? Weak green, vegetal notes. In the background again the specific taste of new make spirit. This is an aged Poiteen! Short finish (obviously) and in my opinion too young, but still interesting…well, not really actually.

A long time ago, this would have been used internally to give the marketing people an insight into production methods and especially how Whisky ages. Who would have thought that today something like this would be actually bottled, and better even, replace the standard 12yo. Do I mean The Founder’s Reserve is bad? No, not at all. I love Single Malt Whisky and this is still is well made modern Single Malt Whisky. It’s just so obviously young and simple. They should have named it Baby Glenlivet. Benromach actually have replaced one of their NAS Whiskies with one with an age statement and calls it their 5yo. I’m curious how that one will compare to this one. I’m curious how these will compare to old 5yo’s (Tomatin, black label) and 8yo (Aberlour, cube bottle), but I’m also curious to see how the public will choose between NAS Whiskies and Whiskies with a low age statement. Interesting times ahead!

Points: 75

Cragganmore 29yo 1973/2003 “Special Edition” (52.5%, OB, 6000 bottles)

Cragganmore, and an old Cragganmore it is. Last year Diageo released a 25yo Special Release from 1988. That one costs a pretty penny, and is almost sold out by now. Nevertheless these days people throw themselves at anything that looks or feels like a super-duper premium bottling. However, the short row of special editions of Cragganmore was started back in 2003, by this 29yo from 1973. Yes a distillate from the seventies, and distillates from the seventies are usually even harder to come by. Nevertheless, this 1973 Cragganmore is still not very hard to get ánd even at a lower price than the aforementioned 1988 special release. What is happening here? Is the 1988 way better or has everybody simply forgotten about the 1973?

Cragganmore 29yo 1973/2003 Special Edition (52.5%, OB, 6000 bottles)Color: Gold.

Nose: Waxy and floral but rather closed. Quite light, delicate and vibrant. Old smoke and toast. Distant yellow fruits with a hint of tar. Nice combination. Steam age Whisky. Hints of barley and (floral) soap, but also hints of wood (old furniture) and even a tiny hint of pencil shavings. Hints of soft white pepper and some discernible sweetness. Dusty, fruity and slightly waxy, but I have to say it again, very closed.

Taste: Tropical fruits and quite sweet, like other bottlings from the seventies. Just remember Caperdonich and Tomatin. Cannabis and dish-water. Old papers and slightly cardboardy, which in this case isn’t a bad thing. Nice combination of cream and tired oak. It definitely tastes better than it smells. Don’t get me wrong, it smells good (albeit closed), but it tastes better. The finish is announced by some oaky bitterness, which fits the fruity waxiness perfectly. And old gent of a dram. Old and brittle but lots of stories to tell. You never know with old stuff like this, but to me, this seems to be exclusively from old Bourbon casks.

I am not Mr. Water. I hardly use water when tasting Malt prefer movement. Just let it move around in my glass, airing, oxidizing of you prefer, maybe warming it up in my hand a bit. That does the trick for me. However, if I encounter a closed Malt, then, and only then, water can be a nice experiment. I’m such an anorak, that I don’t even use a pipette, but I use a syringe. (Smaller droplets giving me more control). I know it’s sad, but I do have a life, so don’t worry about me. Well after some droplets and some more droplets, water didn’t open up the nose a lot. I did get more floral and toasty. It did do wonders for the taste. It got better, with more cannabis, more pencil shavings and more yellow sugared fruits. The toasty bit crept in here too. Lovely stuff, a bit brittle (apart from the body), so be carefull. So in this case, do try some water. Yes it needs some work, but it’s also quite an experience.

I haven’t tried all of the other special releases of Cragganmore but I can’t imagine them to be better than this one. Sure, age doesn’t matter (or so they say) and distillates of the seventies don’t have to be better than more recent distillates. However, this 1973 does come across as a very old Whisky, meaning it does smell and taste like something that can’t be made like this anymore. To “prove” or “un-prove” my point here is a review of a more modern Cragganmore, that did manage to fetch a higher score…

Points: 87

Rosebank 10yo 1992/2002 (46%, Murray McDavid, Bourbon Cask, MM1413)

Long time no Rosebank. It has been a long time since I reviewed a 1990 Rosebank, bottled by indie giants Gordon & MacPhail. That one was pretty good, it scored a healthy 88 points. Time for another go at Rosebank. This time a 1992 from Murray McDavid, remember them? By the way Murray McDavid bottled two different Rosebanks, both registered as MM1413. (The other one is a 1989, called Mission V). This 1992 is something of a farewell dram since Diageo decided, in it infinite wisdom, to mothball the distillery in 1993, never to work again…

Rosebank was founded in 1798, although some sources mention other years like 1840 and 1773. In the end, Rosebank was sadly mothballed in 1993 by Diageo which preferred Glenkinchie for its Classic Malts portfolio. And why not, nothing wrong with Glenkinchie I say. I’ve tried some very good Glenkinchies, and even reviewed a very good one, a 1987 bottled by Signatory. But why did Rosebank have to go? From an anoraks point of view, bad move since Rosebank distilled some pretty good spirit that turned into some pretty good Whisky if you ask me. Eternal shame.

Rosebank 10yo 1992/2002 (46%, Murray McDavid, Bourbon Cask, MM1413)Color: White wine.

Nose: Softly buttery and citrussy. Full aroma and nicely fresh. Nice acidity and sure some barley. Quite clean. If this isn’t your typical Lowland style, than nothing will be. Highly aromatic with soft wood and a nice grassy feel to it. Good spirit and even though the cask seems not that active (due to the lack of color), the spirit is decent and gentile, and the cask did enough to preserve that, and adding some vanilla and cold creamy butter to it. Lurking in the distance is actually some hints of new make spirit. Nice elegant (cedar) wood with milk chocolate and coffee with creamy notes (or coffee pudding).  Nice vegetal notes as well. Easily recognizable as a triple distilled lowlander. The big aroma is Rosebank from a good cask. Just compare this to the 1979 Rare Malts version (which I know is much higher in strength, but that would be missing the point).

Taste: Slightly toasted wood and creamy again. This starts with a bitterish and sappy oak attack (with some cardboard and malted barley), but that dissipates quite quickly to show it’s even more malty and grassy side. Also coffee and milk chocolate return here. A tad drier than expected and the body is more about new make spirit than the nose. Still not much though. And yes on the palate we can find the vegetal side. The bitterness of the wood stays on throughout. The whole is very nice, and don’t forget about the refreshing citrussy note!

Classic lowland and even though a fairly young Rosebank from a Bourbon Cask, this is clean and such a typical example of Lowland and Rosebank especially. Even this simple Rosebank shows what a mistake it must have been (looking at quality) to close this distillery down. Thank you very much. This particular expression reminds me of some Bladnochs, so I hope that distillery will be saved before it’s too late and someone turns it into their summer home of some sorts.

Points: 86

Aberlour 16yo (43%, OB, Double Cask Matured, Circa 2003)

Here is another oldie from the archives. This time another big well-known brand with one of their succesful numbers. This bottling still exists, although it went through a few newly designed labels. As far as I know this was the first edition of this particular bottling. Double cask matured. Slap Double Wood on the label and you have a law-suit on your hands, but essentially it’s the same thing. Bourbon cask matured Single Malt Whisky with a finish in Sherry casks. Aberlour are well-known for heavy usage of Oloroso Sherry casks, but we already know from the 1988 bottling, that other Sherry casks are also used, and since this isn’t a highly priced expression I do suspect other than Oloroso casks may have been used with this one too. And why not?

Aberlour 16yo (43%, OB, Double Cask Matured, Circa 2003)Color: Copper gold

Nose: Sweet Sherry, and vanilla, which would already suggest maturation in Sherry and American oak casks. Sweet and slightly winey. Some hints of powder and dust and hardly any (tannic) wood, so definitely longer maturation in American oak than European oak. Just smell those vanilla and pudding notes. After a while more floral notes emerge. I’m not very good with flowers so I can’t tell you which flowers yet, but believe me it is floral right now. Together with the floral bit, elegant polished wood comes to the fore with some bad breath too. The Sherry part is getting less and less pronounced, so most definitely a finished Whisky all right.

Taste:  Sweet and again a combination of vanilla, pudding and a more winey note than a typical Oloroso Sherry note. Sweet and simple would sum this up just nicely. Creamy with a hint of bitter plain white oak, so at least the sweet vanilla body is given some backbone with wood. Slightly cardboardy finish as well as waxed milk chocolate. You know the shiny stuff. Leaving this in the glass even longer, a more candied fruit note emerges. Dried apricots and some honeyed almonds. It picks up more of a bite too. Not a very complex malt yet very likeable. Highly drinkable, but it wouldn’t be my first pick for a daily drinker, since it lacks some complexity and the finish seems to be not as well-integrated as should. Having said that, giving this some air to let it settle some more, does do wonders for this Malt and adds some nutty bitterness too.

In effect this does remind me of Bourbon matured Aberlours I’ve tasted in the past, but also the 1988 I reviewed earlier. When I come to think of it, it does also remind me a bit of Highland Park 12yo. Quite good, but also quite simple with a less than perfect finish. I haven’t tried them yet, but I expect later batches of this Whisky to be better in this respect, with hopefully more Oloroso casks used for finishing, but also a slightly longer finish in those casks will help it along as well.

Points: 85