Category Archives: Single Malt Whisky

Springbank 12yo 2003/2015 (58.3%, OB, Port Pipe, for UK Customers, 696 bottles, 15/177)

When the fifth release of Springbank Local Barley 10yo (2019) hit the shelf, I was offered a generous sample by Nico. In stead of money exchanging hands, it is always nicer and more adventurous to exchange it for a sample that hopefully can stand up to the Local Barley. Looking through my stock, I decided upon this single cask bottling for UK customers. I opened it, filled a sample bottle for Nico and when he got it, we had contact whilst he was trying it. Sort of an online tasting. I poured myself a wee dram as well. Well, what can I say, we both liked it. At first Nico liked it big time and appreciated it even more than I did, and I already did like it. Some time has passed since then, and with some air, and maybe even some more balance to it, it is time to have this more “official” look at this full time Port cask matured Whisky from the stills of Springbank Distillery.

Color: Orange gold. No red hue.

Nose: Funky Wine. Fresh and fruity smelling. Cherries (fresh and sour ones), sweet licorice, waxy and oily. Traces of peat, hints of dust and cardboard. Warm electricity cable and sometimes a whiff of hospital (ether). Funky organics and animalesk. Fruity and slightly sweet smelling. Nice warm wood notes with almonds and after a while a soapy note emerges, at times more resembling a lemon based dishwater soap. Sounds bad, I know, but it’s not, giving it a fresher, more zesty phase. If this soapy note comes back in the taste though, than it’ll be a problem! The winey bit is very present and almost overpowering, and it doesn’t remind me necessarily of Port. It was bottled just in time for it be be nice smelling and balanced in the nose as well. At times floral and perfumy. This is a nice smelling and highly complex Springbank, showing its provenance because of the oils and fats, not dissimilar to a (very) good batch of the 10yo. I see this as a Springbank “+”. It still is clearly a Springbank with just another layer added. Some light and subdued mixture of kitchen spices and sometimes some notes of hay and dry grass. Amazing balance and complexity in the nose. After a while a more fresh oak note emerges, and more grass, especially after sipping it. The nose becomes even better and more balanced after sipping.

Taste: Nice big entry. Again fatty, fruity and nutty, yet much less so than on the nose. Waxy and ever so slightly peaty, with a peppery and spicy attack (not yet from the wood it was aged in). Deep note of peat and red ripe fruit (and some plastic?). Big, big, big, yet somewhat less complex than the nose is. Black coal, maybe some tar and warm machine oil. More hints of wood, just like smelling fresh dried staves. Dried grass and definitely licorice. Honey-licorice with a slight bitterness and spiciness to it. Definitely more wood in here (eventually) than in the nose. Where the nose was almost overpowered by the fruity Port cask, here it is the other way ’round. The Springbank spirit overpowers the Port. Unmistakable Springbank here. Still enough fruit and sweetness now. You can’t call this sweet in any way, but there is some of it giving it even more balance, although I feel this is also less balanced than the nose was. More fruity wax, and the tiniest hint of clay. Fruity Port and some black coal in the finish. For this particular Malt, balance is very important. If the balance of the taste and the mouthfeel were just as good as the nose, than this would have scored (close to) 90 points.

A very good expression, yet not in the style of a daily drinker. A bit too demanding for that. Complex and big. In a way this doesn’t resemble a modern Malt. It has a rarely seen profile, that oozes the times of yesteryear. Also, to finish things off, if you want to catch some annoying fruit flies in your home, than this is your liquid of choice, even now that we’re well into autumn/fall.

Points: 88

Aberlour 8yo (50%, OB, Unblended all malt, EST. 1845, 75 cl)

So the last Aberlour review posted in October 2022 was of a modern 13yo officially bottled single cask. Modern, since it was distilled in the 21st century. This review of the 8yo was supposed to follow the 13yo right on its heels, but it didn’t. Autumn, or fall, started happening when I started to write the review, and it was suddenly time for peat. Fast forward to Spring. Winter has ended and although the time for peat still hasn’t ended, time has finally come for a nice old skool Sherried Speysider. No, it didn’t. Spring came and went and this review was again further postponed. When I picked up this review again it was summer, yet again the review remained in its draft state. Now finally when looking outside, summer is most definitely over. Maybe we’ll still get some days that look pretty good, but I guess autumn started happening. So no use any more for the desk fan and the air outside is cold. We might as well prepare ourselves, because winter is coming again, and peat already started lurking at me.

Never mind. After the Aberlour 13yo bottled in 2017, here we have an 8yo from the seventies, an oldie and hopefully a goldie, from a different century as well. There are a lot of permutations of this Aberlour bottled in the square bottle, and there can be quite some differences between the Whiskies, or so I’m told. Up ’till now I have only tried one other. Like with so many things in life, not all 8 year old Whiskies are created equal, I guess.

Color: Light orange gold.

Nose: Old skool Sherry nose. Waxy, toffeed, some fresh butter and funky. Like coal fired stills including some petrol fumes and exhaust gases from outside the still house. And like real petrol fumes and exhaust gases, they dissipate in the wind. Cola, cold motor oil and coal dust. Dusty old furniture. It seems as if some sugar sets down in the back of my throat, only from smelling it. Doesn’t smell like an 8yo Whisky at all. Initially some hints of Rhum Agricole, but this dissipates rather quickly and I also don’t pick up on it every time I smell this. We all have our better and worse days you know. Smells nothing like a modern 8yo Whisky as well. Much softer. Very mature for a standard 8yo. Things have changed since then, wasn’t everything better in the old days? Still dusty with this wonderful coal dusty Sherry nose, like we know from all the greats. Whiffs of sweet yellow fruit yoghurt and cookie dough. All is good. It smells nice and comes without any off-notes. After a while quite fresh for an old skool malt. Like a breath of fresh air (in an old earthen floor warehouse) and yet still sweet smelling.

Taste: Nutty and waxy sherry. Also some dry and active wood, slightly bitter as well. Drying my tongue and palate. Slightly spicy (cinnamon), fruity (dry bits of peach and apricot) and definitely old skool. Hints of cola and especially licorice. that wasn’t present in the nose. Besides that it is slightly prickly as well. Is this from the wood or some sort of liquid smoke? Crushed caterpillar (don’t ask). Slightly cloying Sherry,but I wouldn’t say this is all that sweet. I expected it to be way more sweet since this Whisky is so sweet smelling. All the specialness is in the beginning. It shows its age by halting its development halfway through and not being all that complex. Not in my glass nor in my mouth. It is a wonderful old skool Sherried Malt, but it is thus also a bit simple. At this age it was probably aimed at, amongst others, the Italian market, so no surprise here that it is highly and dangerously drinkable. Next some creamy and buttery notes are able to escape, albeit briefly, from the grasp of the Sherry. The bitterness shows some stamina with its staying power. It is not dominant yet quite noticeable. Well balanced though, since the taste matches the nose, and for me, it tastes slightly better than it smells, and don’t get me wrong it smells wonderful. By the way on some days I prefer the nose over the taste. On those days the taste seems a bit thin. Black coal and licorice in the finish and aftertaste. This actually works well, hiding the residual bitterness.

In the end this is a well made old malt, yet also a bit simple and regularly shows some fragility. Highly drinkable, definitely old skool, and there is no reason to keep this around for a long while, just enjoy it, since you never know what oxidation will do (or already did) to such an old Malt. By the way, the roof of my mouth is slightly anaesthetized, so definitely a higher ABV. Empty glass smells very nice by the way! Don’t sip it, bigger gulps are the secret to unlock this Malt to its full potential.

Points: 87

Ledaig 9yo 2005/2015 (56.8%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, 1st Fill Sherry Butt #900146, 664 bottles)

After Caol Ila and two cask strength Laphroaig’s, lets stay with peat for a while (winter is coming) and check out this peated offering from Ledaig. Yes I know, Ledaig isn’t from Islay. Why should it? You can distil with peat anywhere on the planet, or in this case, Scotland. There is already a lot happening on Islay, lots of distilleries, and isn’t Mull more unique? Not a lot of distilleries on Mull. Ledaig as we all know by now, is the peated Whisky made at Tobermory Distillery. You did read all my previous reviews on Ledaig, in preparation to this one, now did you? So you should know by now, yes? Tobermory distillery also releases unpeated Whisky, calling it…well…Tobermory, how did they come up with that! You could fool me sometimes with this statement though. Seems to me some Tobermory’s are peated as well, maybe less so than Ledaig, yet peated. Maybe they’re just not as good at line clearance as they are in making Whisky? Who knows, and who cares if the output can be this good. By the way, not even that long ago Tobermory did have some sort of a wonky reputation concerning the quality of their Whisky.

Earlier I reviewed a fantastic 11yo Cadenheads offering distilled in 2005 which has matured in a Sherry Butt. This time around I went for this 9yo 2005 Signatory Vintage offering, that also matured in a Sherry Butt, expecting and hoping for more of the same and wanting that all 2005’s are somewhat created equal. I just wonder why Cadenheads only managed to draw 450 bottles at cask strength from a Butt and Signatory 664 bottles. That’s quite a considerable difference. By the way, Cadenheads bottled two other casks from 2005, yielding 510 and 516 bottles. Still no 664 bottles though. Different oak with more evaporation or different warehousing conditions? Who knows.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Fatty, fragrant and delicious peat. Slightly Sherry sweetness. Full on sweet smoke with some toffee. A little dirty yet sexy. Licorice smoke. Salty and smoked licorice candy. Prickly smoke, with a minty side to it. Smoked menthos. Nom, nom, nom. I have to say, a peated spirit like this, aged in a Sherry butt, what a combination. The start was peat which morphs slowly into smoke. Hints of anise seeds and cumin. In the background dried beef, gravy and salty smoked fish. This has also an underlying fruity side to it, but again, just as in the Caol Ila I just reviewed, this is masked by the usual suspects of peat and smoke. What a wonderful smelling Ledaig again. Utterly amazing smelling Malt and it’s only 9 years old. Glowing embers, warm glowing charred wood. Hot barbecue before anything is put on it, burning off the last spots of fat left behind from the previous session, right before putting something on it again. Or imagine sipping this near the fireplace high up in the mountains. This nose never stops giving. Warm oil emanating from a steam locomotive (a fresh experience from two months ago in Quedlinburg, Germany).

Taste: Starts sweet and peaty, yet also somewhat unbalanced. The peat and the smoke have a bitter edge here right from the start, but also something fresh like a cola has. Nutty and some burnt fat from the barbecue. This note smells better than it tastes, by the way. Very warming and hot going down. Now I do notice quite some dry wood underneath, tucked away neatly between the peat and the smoke. So it might be a bit hidden, but the cask is quite active as well. More towards burning plastic now and again the minty note. The peat note is more bitter and together with the smoke, also less dominant. The Sherry comes trough some more. Dried salty fish. This one needs some time to breathe, but not too much. When standing around in my glass for a long time, the taste deteriorates a bit (the bottle is also nearly empty by the way, so I notice the air did play its part). This will be of no concern with a freshly opened bottle, because then, this Malt still does need a lot of air. Crushed beetle in the finish, and overall still warming. Also some caramel comes forth.

Are all Sherry Butt matured Ledaig’s from 2005 created equal? Nope they aren’t. The Cadenheads rose to the occasion much more than this Signatory initially, but, oh boy, when this got enough time to breathe in an open bottle, yeah man! The nose is up to par with the Cadenheads, alas on the palate, the Signatory falls apart a bit and the Cadenhead is the clear winner. Sure it’s different from the Cadenheads offering as well. That one was tasty from the first poured dram until the last, and this Signatory one did need some time to find its place, which luckily it did, although it never reached those highs of the Cadenheads, and deteriorated a bit when nearly empty. Nevertheless two big peated hits in a row from Tobermory. I’m suspecting an album of greatest hits now, so for the time being, I will be replacing every emptied Ledaig with another one. Can’t wait to open up the next one now. I have to look in my stash for one matured in a Bourbon cask after these two Sherried ones.

Points: 86

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 007 (56.3%, OB, 2015)

I have to admit, I bailed on Laphroaig for a long time when the first signs of considerable quality loss were visible in the regular 10yo. A marketing person would mention that it has been made with an “improved recipe”. Change of ownership and the decision to sell out the brand a bit, with issuing lots of mediocre bottlings. Some luckily turn out to be a bit less mediocre than I initially thought. Assumptions, assumptions. The mother of all…thanks Jane!

The 1815 Edition, Brodir and Lore, weren’t as bad as others led me to believe. So after the 10 Cask Strength “Red Stripe”, I somehow “forgot” about newly released bottlings of Laphroaig and turned my attention elsewhere. Little did I know, because, forgetting about Laphroaig made me also pass on all these wonderful 10yo Cask Strength batches for a long time. So rather late, I started to backtrack. At the time of writing, batches #006 through #015 are still “reasonably priced” and batches #001 through #005 are already quite expensive (at auctions). Nevertheless, I was also able to get some Batch #006 and used that one as a starting point and work my way up from there. I still have to figure out a plan for batches #001 through #005 though. I’ll probably have to throw some money at these or hopefully score me some samples of those. As could be read earlier, batch #006 was very good indeed, now let’s move on to batch #007 a.k.a. the “James Bond” batch, I wonder why…

Color: Light orange gold. Batch 006 is ever so slightly darker.

Nose: Top notch peat, prickly smoke, briny and sweet. Starts big, but after some breathing it softens up a bit. Gaining even more balance. Yes, this needs some air. Very, very nice. In the plethora of Laphroaig’s slightly less fantastic (travel retail) bottlings, this shines like a big sun! Chalk and paper and some warm asphalt. Tarred rope, dried fish. Sweet and creamy. Fireplace on a chilly evening. Hints of Christmas spices and even a cold sea breeze whiff by. Man, this smells so good. Brings back memories. Hidden away between all these hard hitting aroma’s is some nice fruitiness and the tiniest hint of chlorine, hidden away in a breath of fresh air. This bottling is a testament that Laphroaig still has what it takes and for me it also functions a bit as an apology for the rest of the aforementioned bottlings, which aren’t all that bad to boot, but still… This one is definitely for Islay aficionado’s. If you are a novice please turn to “Lore”, get a bottle of this as well, but open it only of you feel you can appreciate something like this.

Taste: Licorice and sweet black and white powder. Nice soft peat hinting at a higher age than the 10 years claimed. Soft cream and again some hints of acidic red fruits. The smoke and sweetness perform a delicate dance. Warming going down. Take this as a nightcap and you’ll sleep like a baby, or so I imagine. Don’t taste this carelessly or a lot might go unnoticed, This needs your attention like a faithful dog. This Laphroaig will love you back in the same way. Licking the insides of your face. Come to think of it, this does have a animalesk note, wet dog maybe too? Nice balanced finish, but the aftertaste doesn’t seem very long. It does leave a minty feel on my tongue though.

Amazing this is so much better than a lot of the Laphroaig’s I reviewed last. Considering the price, I have not really a use for a “Lore”, a “1815”, a “An Cuan Mor”, or even a “Brodir”. Sorry, but this one here, this is the one for me, I like it even way more than the 18yo, which is no “dog” as well. If I need Laphroaig-variation, I’m getting several different batches of the 10yo Cask Strength. that sounds like a sound plan! I really like Ardbeg Uigeadail and Ardbeg Corryvreckan, but these Original Cask Strength’s trumps both, it also costs a bit more, don’t forget about that. Luckily these three are different from one another, so this warrants me (and you) getting all of them. Yey!

Both #006 and #007 smell quite similar, and the difference, as well as the beauty, lies in the details. Batch #006 seems a bit more raw, more sea, minty, fresh salty air and less sweet, but also has a more perfumy note. Meatier even maybe and some more clay. Batch #007 has a meaty note as well, but it differs. Batch #006 has a black tea note that is absent from batch #007. Batch #007 is slightly sweeter smelling and has a herbal and spicy note which batch #006 doesn’t have. Batch #007 has a slightly more classic Bourbon cask note, and even hints of a fruity Sherry note. Batch 006 is dirtier and slightly “bigger”. I couldn’t say one nose is better than the other. As said above, similar quality, just some differences in the details. One moment I prefer a detail from one batch, and the next from the other…

Where the noses of batch #006 and #007 were quite similar, there is a slightly bigger difference taste-wise. Batch #006 is nicely sweet and very ashy, more raw and somewhat simpler maybe. Batch #007 tastes sweeter and more mellow, softer and fruitier, and slightly more polished and balanced as well, so I’m sure this taste profile would suit me better on other days. Batch #006 is more of a fisherman’s dram. Ashy, tarry and minty. Bigger, with more length and also slightly hotter, more powerful. Both are equally good and therefore score the same. But if I had to choose at gunpoint, today, I would prefer Batch 006 (the empty glass even smells bigger). If you aren’t an anorak or a completist, you don’t need both and either one of them will do, if you are an anorak you most definitely need both. Lots of them, for future reference!

Points: 92

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 006 (58%, OB, 2014)

So in 2019 I reviewed some Laphroaig’s meant for travellers. “Lore”, “The 1815 Edition” and “Brodir”. So with this, we have now a small part of that retail channel covered. Laphroaig also has/had some entry level Malts for the general public like the 10yo, “Select”, “Quarter Cask”, and to a lesser extent, (due to price), the 15yo and 18yo. There are also bottles for collectors, criminals, presidents and owners of luxury yachts, like the 27yo, 28yo and 30yo. All in fancy white coffins for your hamster. Luckily those Whiskies are very good, so when you spend a lot of “hard earned” cash on those, and decided to open them en drink them, at least you won’t be buying a dud.

Now, what if you are a Whisky enthusiast, connoisseur, aficionado or anorak, and somewhat shorter on funds, yet still a canoe in the backyard. What do you do? Yes, I do admit I am one of them, I have been infected. In stead of only drinking the stuff, I also spend some time writing about it, how anorak-y or insane can you get? So what do we do? We, for instance, are interested in lots of independent bottlings of Laphroaig and are more than happy to pay a somewhat higher price for them. Usually they are also less expensive than the Laphroaig’s in the coffins mentioned above. Don’t we buy official releases then? Isn’t there a reasonably priced, very, very good official Laphroaig on the market then? Yes there is! We anorak-y and insane people are going for the 10yo Original Cask Strength, a bottling John Campbell makes just for us. He said so himself! It is usually sold only online, at the distillery and not our usual watering hole, so the general public doesn’t know about them and therefore this is our little secret.

Since batch 011 however, it does seem to surface in some shops as well. It’s, obviously, cask strength, so not for everyone, It still is love it or hate it, so again not for everyone, and as said above, a bit hard to get. It is released in numbered batches. All things we aficionado’s like. Why do we like this one so bad? Because it is seriously good, it has batch variation, so we buy all different batches and it does remind us of the Laphroaig’s of the good old days, days when even the standard 10yo was a belter, less so today alas. The 10yo is made for a different audience altogether. Now, do you understand why the “Lore” and the “1815” were bought as bottle shares?

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Soft peat, nutty and sweet, almost perfumy. Wet earth after heavy rain (remember how fresh the air is after that?). DAS pronto (clay), paint and meaty. Quite some clay notes to be honest. Smoked and dried meat. Very, very fragrant. Hidden away, very well hidden are some red fruity notes (half ripe forest strawberries. You can sometimes smell the ripe aroma’s of the fruit, the sweeter bits that is, not the promise of fruity acidity. Hints of cola. Black and white powder, Licorice and iodine. Cold gravy. A hot aroma, like almost melting plastic cable. The initial smell, not when it is already melting, that could be a foul smell. Warming and animalesk. Sometimes even whiffs of sweet pickle water. Dried out plants in full sun and some sweetish spices. Sweet, dusty, balanced and complex. Dried fish. Smells much older than 10yo. No strong in your face peat and certainly no harsh and sharp smoky notes. A sort of Cask Strength “Lore” if you ask me, only way better. It adopts a bit of the gentleman-like qualities of the “Lore”. Quite different from other expressions from this series, I have tried before. Softer and maybe a tad more complex? Hints of old wood. Furniture-grade. Distant roadside dry grass fire, and then the perfumy bit returns. Yes this is a damn complex Malt.

Taste: Wonderfully sweet and fruity, black and white powder, lots of licorice, and I mean a lot of it. Cold ashes and liquid smoke. Amazing balance. Sometimes I get slightly sweet White Wine notes. Animalesk again. More licorice and ashes (and some cola again), this time mixed with crushed beetle (I already smelled the beetle before tasting it). Sweet peppermint, like Menthos (combined with licorice), and an acidic top note intertwined with the minty note. Can’t call the acidity fruity though, it’s different. Very earthy peat, sweet and earthy, and therefore less peaty. Masked by the plethora of aroma’s is some woody bitterness. The nose gets better, than it already is, when you sip this Whisky, the warm oral cavity does its work wonderfully. What an amazing Whisky this is, especially the nose is super-complex for what is considered a heavy hitting, heavily peated Malt. So much better than most other affordable Laphroaig’s. John Campbell, thank you, top stuff!

Man, one just can’t have enough of these 10yo’s.

Points: 92

Caol Ila 11yo 2008 (56.5%, Jack Wiebers Whisky World, Auld Distillers Collection, Bourbon Cask, 120 bottles)

Well here is Caol Ila #15 on Master Quill, once a scarcity and when officially bottled again, initially called a hidden Malt. Today it is probably the most abundant Whisky available, since Caol Ila is in operation 24/7. Diageo are putting out lots of expressions themselves and independent bottlers are going ape-shit with Caol Ila as well. It is probably the most readily available Islay Malt to them, and for a fair price to boot, since most independently bottled Caol Ila’s are quite affordable, although, I believe, not for long.

Caol Ila is always featured on my lectern, and after the Port Askaig-Caol Ila, which this one replaced, it is time to review the latest Caol Ila that found a spot on my lectern. Jack Wiebers is known for bottling parts of casks and bottling the rest later or bottling all at once and just slapping different labels on the same bottling. “Jack” loves making labels. This is likely to be one of those cases, since also in existence is this: Caol Ila 11yo 2008/2020 (56.5%, Jack Wiebers, The Old Pub Dogs, Bourbon Barrel #3071, 180 bottles). Just 300 bottles in total, at cask strength, from a barrel seems a bit much, so my guess would be, if all those 300 bottles were 70 cl, and if both bottlings came from the same cask, then it was probably from a hogshead. Nevermind though, lets see what’s in the bottle, shall we.

Color: White Wine

Nose: Peat upfront, almost heavy peat. Smoked and dried fish. Licorice and salty. Smells more like one of the three on the south shore to me. Slightly more meaty and somewhat bigger than the average Caol Ila. I think we have the relative youth of this offering to thank for that. I can smell this is fruity underneath, but all is well masked by the peat ‘n smoke. Well balanced. The fruity bit also plays a role in making the whole somewhat less “raw”. Lovely wood pops up, a more interesting smell than oak alone. Right after this a breath of fresh air. This is Islay on a cold and windy, yet sunny day. Peaty and smoky, yet not gloomy. After the “simple” Craigellachie, this is way more complex and a welcome change of pace. This Caol Ila has a lot to give. Hints of burning plastic, but it is a mere hint, only adding to the complexity. This level of complexity demands attention, this is not for casual sipping. You can do that obviously, but you’ll miss out on lots of the details this has. The fruity bit changes into a more citrus kind of aroma, making it more fresh (and even more sunny). The smell of wood changes into that of a century old cabinet. Wow, and this is only from 2008. This is just great, a must have by the nose alone. Only a few drops of water, right after pouring this dram, opens the nose right up.

Taste: The balance is the first thing on my mind after the first sip. Works really well this one. Fruity and soft to medium peat. The nose had definitely more peat to it, wait a minute, here it is, it just takes a little time to get there. Peat and iodine, check. Some acidity as well, After sipping, the nose gets even better. Also late to this party is a little sweetness. A thick toffee sweetness, so no sugar water. I’m distracted by the nose, it is so good, making it almost hard to write the notes for the taste of this Whisky. Go figure. The citrus acidity pairs up quite well with the sweet licorice note. There is also some nuttiness here, only it is a light note this time. After this, some pencil shavings emerge, as well as some dust (and do I detect a slight hint of soapiness now?). Fresh almonds, mixing well with the sweet bit. Well balanced, very well balanced in fact, the planets aligned for this offering bottled by Mr. Wiebers. Lucky Berliners!

I have to say, when casually sipping this one, I missed out on a lot of the wonderful details this dram has. Be sure to give it your full attention. This is a wonderful Caol Ila. Highly recommended, especially since this was a really affordable release to boot. Alas, I don’t have another 2008 vintage in my stash. It would have been really interesting to compare this to another one, oh well…

Points: 92

Craigellachie 1997/2014 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill American Hoghead & Refill Bourbon Barrels, AD/JIIG, 01/07/2014)

Craigellachie is no stranger to Master Quill. Funky and meaty, with often some hints of sulphur. Seize the day people, time flies like never before! Last time I reviewed a Craigellachie was almost 10 years ago, yes you heard that right, almost TEN years ago. Just sayin’. Craigellachie is now bottled officially by John Dewar & Sons Ltd. which are part of the Bacardi – Martini drinks giant since 1998. With plenty of stock they decided to put out lots of Whiskies from their newly acquired Distilleries, all with age statements. That’s not very 21st century now isn’t it. Fun fact: this only happened in 2014, so it took them a while think up of this plan of bottling their own Whiskies.

Apart from the officially released Craigellachies, also some casks manage to find their way into the welcoming arms of independent bottlers. Nevertheless, most of the output of this distillery ends up in several blends, but primarily end up in Dewar’s White Label. The bottling for this review isn’t a blend, but a (reduced) independent Single Malt offering from Gordon & MacPhail. After the Glenallachie I reviewed last week, I thought why not, why not do another of those 46% ABV bottlings from the previous iteration of the Connoisseurs Choice range before it got revamped a few years ago.

Color: Light White Wine.

Nose: Waxy, woody and warming. Hints of paper and somewhat sweet smelling. The first thing to do is to keep an eye (or rather a nose) out for sulphur. Craigellachie is so associated with sulphur, one must be careful not to fool oneself and smell it when it’s not there. Still, I’m happy to report, at the moment there are only mere hints right at the start during the first nosing. Soft mocha and soft milk chocolate with an ever so slightly acidic fruity note, something in the vicinity of unripe pear. Next the nose turns sharper, fine by me, but yes this has a tad of sulphur, which is also somewhat peppery. A sharp, and specific deep smell. Personally I never had problems with hints of sulphur, only when it becomes more dominant I start to dislike it. Most often that kind of sulphur can be found in Whiskies matured in ex-Sherry casks. This fine example hasn’t seen Sherry and this sulphury bit that must be present in the Spirit is fine by me. In this form it suits the sprit, it’s a part of the distillery character. I believe Bacardi, who are the current owners, even mentioned sulphur when they introduced their new official offerings, like the 13yo in 2014. The nose if fine, really soft overall.

Taste: Hints of paper, some indistinct ripe fruit and some cannabis, similar to the cannabis notes I get in some older Bunnahabhains. All of this seem to fit together well, however at times it also comes across as a bit of an unbalance, here a really minor gripe, hardly worth the mention. Next sip, more of the same really, paper and cannabis, sugar water. Not complex, nor layered, yet tasty. I actually expected more after some 16 or 17 odd years this has been in a cask. Where the Glenallachie wasn’t simple, this one sort of is. More fruity sweetness comes through. This is actually a pleasant and soft Malt, where Craigellachies can be more beefy and meaty, bigger and sharper. Again, I guess that the reduction might have had something to do with this. The Cannabis note is omni-present. It defines this dram. I like it for it, I was tempted to up the score with one point for the cannabis note, but I won’t. As a daily drinker however, it might be just a tad too sweet. Medium finish, with a pleasant and friendly aftertaste.

This one is really different from the G&M Glenallachie I reviewed before. This is actually a nice Whisky from an independent bottler when you’re a novice. I actually has no off notes unless you are really allergic to sulphur and can’t even handle minute amounts. For the rest of us, the hint of sulphur is OK. Where both the Glenallachie and the Craigellachie are good, I would buy the Glenallachie if spotted in the wild, and this Craigellachie I would pass up on. The Glenallachie is also hands down better and the Craigellachie is nice, but also somewhat less challenging, therefore a Whisky more for a novice. Across the years, some cask strength Craigellachies from 1997 were bottled by G&M, maybe I’ll come across one of those to compare it to this one, one day, although I won’t be especially looking out for one.

Points: 84.

Glenallachie 1999/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill Bourbon Barrels, AE/JJCG, 23/01/2015)

So in earlier reviews I found out that Glenallachie probably isn’t one of my lesser known distilleries that really click with me. Some bottlings I tried were good, some a bit mediocre and some quite forgettable. Up ’till now nothing really stood out. I have a feeling though the newer Whiskies might prove to be better than ever, so Glenallachie might be on the way up again (for me). Nevertheless, Glenallachie is making quite a name for itself the last few years. Lots of official bottlings but also a lot of independent bottlings are coming to the marketplace, with quite a few people who like the output very much, so who am I to argue.

I have already reviewed some independently bottled Glenallachies: Dewar Rattray, Kintra, Beinn a’Cheo, Mo Òr and Cadenhead. Missing from this list is “the biggest and the baddest” of them all: Gordon & MacPhail. Here we have a 1999 distillate reduced to 46% ABV. Alas the only Cask Strength 1999 Gordon & MacPhail ever bottled was sent to Binny’s in the U.S. of A. Not really my neck of the woods. It was bottled way back in 2011. Hard to come across one of those now, since it doesn’t have a lot of collector value, so I can imagine the good people of the U.S. of A. drank most of them, an d rightly so! So without further ado, lets just dig into this reduced one from 2015, shall we?

Color: White Wine

Nose: Wow, very malty and sweet. Cookies, dusty oats and breakfast cereals. Dry grass and hay like. A brekkie Whisky. Sweet smelling cookie dough, with a green note, a fruity note and a cold dishwater note and thus quite appetizing and pleasant. Marzipan and ever so slightly nutty. After a while a tiny hint of licorice. This nuttiness is the closest it gets to wood, because the wood itself is hardly noticeable. It has quite an interesting and appealing perfume to it as well, which emerges somewhat later from my glass. This is real and honest stuff and maybe a bit back to basics, although it isn’t really basic nor simple for that matter. Just a very nice smelling Whisky. Excellent example what a spirit in some “basic and simple” Bourbon barrels can achieve, also proving that the Glenallachie spirit is a good one. Based on the nose alone this could be a very good Whisky, and based on the nose alone I would definitely buy it. Let’s move on.

Taste: Hmmm, quite different here on the palate. Starts fruity, with a surprising and definite bitter note. How strong this bitterness is perceived by the taster depends upon the taster. The first time around, I found this to be more better than the second time around. Runny, thin toffee, wood and thus its bitterness, yet also spicy with some black pepper. Dark chocolate, wood and an alcoholic note you get with those bonbons that contain alcohol. Based on the nose I didn’t expect this bitter note. I expected fruity caramel to be honest. Let’s take another sip. After a while I guess my palate just got used to the bitterness and it isn’t so dominant anymore. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but just like the nose, this palate has something really appealing and interesting which intrigues me. In this case the 46% ABV seems very soft. I may be used to, and prefer cask strength Whiskies to be honest, but this example seems very do-able in the alcohol department. Its neither harsh nor hot.

This will do very well as a daily drinker, or as an aperitif. However, do not make the mistake believing this is merely a simple, entry level Whisky. It is quirky, it is able to surprise you and I definitely like this one (especially after leaving it in my glass for a while to settle some more). Still, this has some bitter notes here and there, so buyer beware. Definitely noticeable is the reduction to 46%, sure quite a high ABV, but it is definitely different from a cask strength offering.

To me this smells and tastes like a classic ex-Bourbon casked Whisky, not modern at all. Would never have thought this was from 1999, which feels like yesterday to me. Maybe today it is a classic Whisky though. Personally I’m shifting my interest in Glenallachie. Where Mr. Walker puts out a lot of different casks, I will be, for the time being, sticking to ex-Bourbon Glenallachie. Again personally: I like this stuff way more than the heavily Sherried 15yo. Yeah, this is a nice surprise, have to find me one now somewhere.

Points: 86

Kilchoman 5yo 2008/2013 (59.4%, OB, Sherry Finish, Small batch for Germany, Cask #392-393-394/2008, 780 bottles)

Kilchoman, even though not that old (first distillation was performed in 2005), seems to be fully accepted as a full blown Islay Malt. Good when young, and it also matures well. Great people with great vision. Lots of variants around, however for me, Kilchoman still works best in a Bourbon cask or the occasional Sherry cask. That’s why my attention mainly goes out to the bottles with the red labels and boxes (pictured below). Often single casks at cask strength. By the way, worth a mention, the Sauternes I reviewed last was very nice as well. This time around, on our hands, seemingly the best of both worlds. Bourbon matured Kilchoman, finished in Sherry casks. I guess the mentioned cask numbers are for the initial Bourbon casks, and it probably has been finished in one Sherry butt (considering the amount of bottles in this release), since the label states this is a single cask release. What was the number of the Sherry cask I wonder. There are probably some SWA-rules for this, for which I’m now too lazy to look up. Anyone? All in all quite a confusing small batch/single cask release…

Color: Full Gold (slightly hazy).

Nose: Well, heavily peated indeed. Lots of luscious sweet, tarry and smoky notes. Salty kippers with crushed beetles, giving me salty dried out lips (after sipping it obviously). Tarry rope. Notes we know from Islay. Amazing balance for a five year old Malt. Mature stuff, and rightly accepted into the Islay fold. Nutty. Definitely not a sunshine Malt. Who needs sunny beaches when you can have this beach with grey skies and torrential rain in a bottle right here with you. Nothing bad about bad weather, with a dram like this in your glass. Sweet licorice powder and powdered sugar. Dare I smell a slightly floral note here? You might resent me for this, if you’re one of those brutal-Malt lovers. Mint candy (you know those with lots of sugar, a trace amount of mint, which is probably artificial). Not a lot of noticeable Sherry influence though. The Pulteney I reviewed before this Kilchoman, also wasn’t very Sherried, but at least it had some noticeable Sherry influence. Maybe the sherry influence in this Kilchoman lies within the slightly cherried fruity sweetness and the wonderful balance of the nose. However, when this Kilchoman heard me talk about a fruity note just now,  it responds with even more licorice powder and peat. Hints of warm mineral machine oil. The nose, especially after some extensive breathing turns into something really wonderful. OK, it is wonderful in a way a tank can be wonderful. The nose is really, really good.

Taste: Initially a sweet Beer-like quality. More licorice notes and definitely less peaty than the nose. WYTIWYG (What You Taste Is What You Get). It is Whisky like a peaty lemonade. One big taste. Where the Pulteney, was complex and layered, this tastes like one big thing. Salty kippers with crushed beetles, giving me salty dried out lips (yes, copy & paste indeed). Salty and peaty licorice All-sorts. The nose seems complex and somewhat layered, the taste isn’t. Don’t get me wrong, in general this isn’t a bad thing. It just isn’t complex at all. Even the finish is rather simple, yet very tasty, as is the aftertaste. Simple, yet very tasty and effective. Hey, and it’s only five years old, and in no way is it immature or “un-finished”. My tongue reveals (in the aftertaste), that this has some wood, which is completely masked by the licorice, the dominant note in this Malt. This one worked very well for me in the morning (on a day off from work for writing reviews). Ain’t that brutal, ‘eh?

Well one thing is sure, the nose of this Malt is better than the taste. The nose is actually truly amazin’, the taste is actually really very good (to put it in perspective for you). Simple or not this is great stuff. So it’s WYTIWYG and WITIRL (What I Tasted I Really Liked) or to paraphrase agent Cooper; “damn good Kilchoman!” Dear Readers (and Nico), you might want to consider picking this one up from an auction (just make sure to let this breathe for a while).

Points: 90 (yes I must be mad, second 90 points in a row).

Pulteney 15yo 2004/2020 (63.3% Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Cask Strength, Refill Sherry Butt No. 629, 20/092, 507 bottles)

Pulteney is the most northerly Distillery on the mainland of Scotland, just 30km shy of John O’ Groats. The distillery is situated in Wick and lies in a part of Wick that used to be called Pultney Town named after its founder Sir William Pultney. The distillery itself was built by James Henderson in 1826 and was initially called Pultney Town. I don’t think James built the entire distillery with his own two hands though. The distillery was owned by the family of James for nearly a decade, but the family had to sell off the distillery in 1920 due to financial hardship caused by WW I. The distillery was sold to James Watson & Co, owners of Ord and Parkmore. In 1923 James Watson & Co. dissolved into John Dewar & Sons (D.C.L.), which closed the distillery in 1925. The distillery in its closed state changed hands several times, and several owners were busy rebuilding the distillery. In 1951 production resumed and in 1959 new stills were installed. In 1995 Pulteney, together with Balblair (part of the same portfolio by then) were sold to Inver House Distillers, the current owners. The last review of an official (Old) Pulteney on these pages, was distilled in 1982, and must have been one of the early releases by said owner. This time however, we are going to have a look at a 2004 distillate bottled by good old Gordon & MacPhail in their new Connoisseurs Choice Cask Strength range.

Color: Light orange gold.

Nose: Very malty and lightly Sherried. Slightly sweet smelling, soapy and dull (and I don’t mean boring). Right from the start a classic smell. I would have never guessed this was distilled in the 21st century. Slightly off-balanced acidic fruity smell. (This is the Sherry influence). Old paper, hints of pencil shavings and spices (part of the “classic” smell). It doesn’t have perfect balance, but still I do like the nose of this dram a lot. Who cares about perfection? Old, dusty, at times waxy, yet fresh and vibrant. It has been a while, analysing something like this. I have to say, based on the nose alone, this was a very welcome buy. Just lay back and sip it, clear your mind and let everything go away for a while. No children, no work, just you, Norah Jones, and your dram with its classic feeling. Wonderful wood spices. Fruity and some distant meaty notes as well. Aromas of an old court yard, of old buildings. An usually busy place, but now quiet on a Sunday. More nice wood spices, yet now helped along with some old honey (which has some nice staying power), soft mocha and whipped cream. Soft licorice added to the spices already present. The balance regains itself after some breathing, and it doesn’t need a lot of time to get there. Occasionally more whiffs of old paper, toasted cask and breaths of fresh air. Yes very special, what this is able to bring up from my memory of old places I visited and classic drams I had before. Keep it moving around in your glass. Keep Matilda waltzing so to speak. After some more extensive breathing the (sweet) licorice note gains in strength. Yes, this has a wonderful nose. A fresh pour is definitely more closed, so there is quite some nice evolution going on in my glass.

Taste: Prickly and again initially somewhat unbalanced (or is it?), yet so tasty. Quite sweet now, perfectly balanced by the woody notes and cigarette ashes, so it doesn’t feel sweet overall. After the first sip, the nose of this Whisky is really excellent more. Right out of the gate, a lot of different things are happening. Different tastes shoot off in many different directions. Pepper, Peppermint, bamboo, cold dishwater, licorice and fruit to name but a few I just caught in the moment. I’m sure I’ll catch some more going forward. Second sip starts again somewhat sweet, yet less so than the first sip. It shows almonds and more creamy notes, as well as more dry wood. A medium Talisker-like white pepper attack, paired with the licorice and cigarette ashes I mentioned earlier, and some sweetness. All of this also paired with the almonds, wood and its medium bitterness, which is hidden well by the medium sweetness. I guess all these paired notes constitute a very good balance. The fruits here seem somewhat different, more acidic and lemony than the nose showed. The balance is good and the palette of tastes and aroma’s is just great. Give it enough time to breathe. I’m stopping writing notes now, but rest assured, this still has even more to give, it just keeps evolving like mad. Wonderful tasty and fruity finish, with some nice oak, just not a lot of it. Aftertaste is perfectly balanced and friendly. Amazing drinkablity at this ABV. This never needed any water.

Even though this might have some minor flaws across the board, it is also a very good and tasty Malt. I don’t even know why I’m pointing out these minor flaws all the time, because by now we also know this is an excellent malt. Both the nose and the taste of this Pulteney are complex, the layering (the evolution over time in my glass) is impressive. We’re definitely in the in the “you-should-have-bought-a-second-bottle” territory with this one. But as is always the case on these pages, this is only my personal opinion, and as we all know, tastes can differ a lot. Keep in mind that ones taste can shift over time and are highly dependent of the moment as well. Tasting is a subjective science. So for me this is really great stuff, and it might, it just might not be entirely true for you. It is for me!

Points: 90