Category Archives: Single Malt Whisky

The Glenlivet 12yo (40%, OB, Circa 2005)

A few days ago I reviewed The Glenlivet 15yo and with prices of “better” Whiskies doubling by the week, it isn’t wasted time to look at some entry-level malts (again). Are the malts we anoraks always described as malt for the novices, still any good? Since we hardly can afford anything but the entry-level malts these days (the users, not the collectors), should we return to these Malts or should we move on and look for an alternative? As my dear readers already know, I review more stuff than only Single Malt Whiskies, and I can tell you that al the alternatives for Whisky, just don’t taste like Whisky and if they are any good in their own right, its price will be quite high too, so I’d rather look at entry-level malts and find some gems there. There are enough affordable whiskies around for us to find. The 15yo isn’t expensive, and this 12yo is even cheaper. This 12yo, although in my opinion suffers a bit from batch variation, is for a lot of tasters a benchmark Malt around the 80 points mark. The expression I’m about to review was bottled around 2005, but I have tasted a version from 2012 recently that scored only 77 Points. So let’s see if this earlier expression is any better…

Glenlivet 12yo (40%, OB, Circa 2005)Color: Gold

Nose: Malty, sweet-smelling and very aromatic. Fruity. Pineapple! Leaps out of the glass. Some Sherry influence, but also toffee and caramel (from coloring the Whisky?). Vanilla, but also powdery and almost no wood. Vanilla ice-cream. The smell is so full and pleasant I quite like it. Can hardly believe this comes from a standard 12yo Glenlivet @ 40% ABV (albeit from an older expression). Simple, but very effective stuff. I just hope the palate is not as sweet as the nose suggests.

Taste: Sweet, more wood influence here. Licorice. Entry into the mouth is syrupy and very nice, and as with the nose, it’s surprisingly aromatic. When kept in the mouth for a while it seems to break down a little bit. Some sour notes develop, and the initial full aroma get a bit thinner. The finish has some staying power, and is less sweet than the “beginning” of the Malt. However I can’t get away from the feeling this has gotten quite some caramel coloring. I’ve been involved in some tests where we colored our own Whiskies with original Whisky industry grade E150, and the effect of caramel is that is gives it a typical taste and mellows stuff out a bit. I’m getting that here.

If Glenlivet 12yo was always like this, this would be something of a benchmark Single Malt. Something to compare the others to. Alas that’s not true. As said before, I’ve tried a recent one that was less interesting than this one, but this example from round about 2005 is pretty ok for such a dirt cheap Whisky. I can’t use it as my 80 points benchmark Whisky, since I score it…

Points: 81

The Dalmore 12yo (40%, OB, Circa 2004)

Time for Dalmore, or The Dalmore as it’s called. I haven’t reviewed a Dalmore before on these pages, nor have I tasted Dalmore for a long time. So in a way I’m getting re-acquainted to it. Looking at my list of scores I have to say that Dalmore usually is not a very high scoring malt for me. Of course there are bottling that fetch high scores but when that happens it’s a Dalmore after some extensive maturation. However, the highest scoring Dalmore in my book is a Dalmore 12yo! A Duncan Macbeth bottling for the Italian market from around 1963! I won’t compare the two, since times have changed, but let’s have a look at a more modern 12yo. This example was bottled around 2004, so not yesterdays malt either…

The Dalmore 12yo (40%, OB, Circa 2004)Color: Full gold.

Nose: Powdery, creamy and slightly sour. Old bananas. Distant Sherry influence. Paper, I somehow smell a lot of paper in this. Malty, burnt sugar and some alcohol (like smelling Vodka). It smells a bit of caramel coloring. (Everybody tells you it doesn’t chance the smell and taste, but just try it for yourself and make your own mind up). Yet the whole smells just a bit different from other entry-level Malts. This is not bad, not bad at all (in the nose department).

Taste: A little bite from the wood, a little bit of dishwashing liquid too. Burnt sweetness you can find in some Rums. Did I mention some soapiness yet, indirectly maybe. Very nutty too. The nuttiness and the particular sweetness make up the signature of this malt. Crushed almonds ánd marzipan. A nice touch of woody bitterness towards the finish. Lots of markers that may well be typical for Dalmore. Finish is weaker than the body is, and lets it down a bit.

In the end a very different Highland Malt. Maybe not everything is in balance, not everything seems to fit together. It feels like a malt that was made to be accessible, but also a little bit different. I’m guessing this has a specific fan base. In the quest to make it different it isn’t quite congruent yet, but you have to love it for being slightly different.

Points: 80

Arran “Amarone Cask Finish” (50%, OB, Violet label, Circa 2012)

Here is the second Arran on these pages. Earlier I reviewed a pretty good 16yo and usually Single cask bottlings at Cask Strength are very good to. When they start to fiddle a bit with their Whiskies I tend to not like Arran that much any more. So I don’t have high hopes for this funky colored Amarone finished Arran…

Arran Amarone Cask Finish (50%, OB, Violet label, Circa 2012)Color: Salmon (Somewhere between orange, bronze, light red and pink). Very strange.

Nose: Malty and very winey. Wine gums. We know its Amarone wine, but it smells more like a less fruity, Ruby Port. Fruity and dusty, woody and vegetal. This is hardly Whisky, but it isn’t wine either. Very simple and the wine overpowers everything. It’s hard to discern anything. No sense in nosing this any further.

Taste: Sweet, milk chocolate mousse, hard fruity candy, but not wine gums. Pretty harsh. To sweet for my taste and its a bit anonymous. What is it actually? The finish has staying power, but is a bit, ehhh, unpleasant for my taste. Funky, but not terrible. Don’t get me wrong.

Yet not uncommon, this is more or less one of the strangest colored Whiskies of late You don’t expect to have Whisky in your glass as long as you don’t smell it. Actually the smell isn’t quite characteristic for a Single Malt either. The Amarone wine dominates the color, but not the nose and for the taste, well, you be the judge. I would recommended this to a bartender, because to me it seems an excellent spirit for a summery cocktail. Something has to be done with this…

Points: 74

Ben Nevis 21yo 1992/2013 (46%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #2312, 695 bottles)

Next we’ll have a look at an indie Ben Nevis. I love Ben Nevis, it usually is a malt that strikes a chord with me. For me Ben Nevis is still a distillery working today that is able to churn out very good Whiskies, and for sure is one I’ll always keep an eye out for. That said I also am realistic. Not every indie Ben Nevis is good. It isn’t a distillery I would buy indie bottles from without tasting first. Although pretty good, The Golden Cask Ben Nevis I reviewed earlier, did have a strange, funky finish, which makes it, in my opinion, less of a daily drinker. The Ben Nevis we have at hand here was sourced from Signatory. Just have a look at the cask numbers The Ultimate and Signatory are putting out from 1992.

Ben Nevis 21yo 1992/2013 (46%, The Ultimate, Sherry Butt #2312, 695 bottles)Color: Light gold, with a slight pink hue

Nose: Yeah, now we’re talking. Fatty, buttery, vanilla and fruity. Lots happening and everything seems to fit together quite nicely. Fantastic fruitiness, all sorts of mixed up fruits, red, black and yellow fruits. Almost impossible to discern any of them. Caramel, mocha and strawberry combined with sweat. The wood shows itself here as nutty. Yes this is very special. Do I detect some old school Whisky here?

Taste: Sweet but also a little bit acidic. Very appetizing. Some burnt notes and quite spicy without it being woody. Marzipan and again lots of fruits with some nuts. Highly complex, and I’m imagining this amount of flavor and its complexity might not be for everyone. Hints of smoke, and it has a curiously hidden sweetness to it. Maybe its high in fruits that it only seems to be sweet. Pure enjoyment. Is it without flaws than? Yep this Whisky suffers a bit from a weak finish. Everything that is so well-balanced in this Whisky is absent from the finish. It has some power but after the big body, the finish is a bit weak, and missing some of the big flavors that were so apparent in the body. But hey, this to me is still a pretty good Whisky.

I have to admit, I love Ben Nevis. Most of the times I encounter one, albeit blind or not, I seem to like it. It has characteristics I do like personally. I rated a full bottle of this 86 Points. This review is written about the last drops from the bottle. It is excellent and since I’m going to score this even higher, I’d say this needs some air people.

Points: 88

Springbank 10yo (46%, OB, 10/342)

Why not try another Springbank. This one does have an age statement. It’s 10 years old. Just like the “CV” I reviewed earlier, this one was bottled (late) in 2010.

Springbank 10yo (46%, OB)Color: Pale orange gold.

Nose: Clay and spicy. Fruity, creamy and nutty, almonds. Toasted wood. Smallest hint of coal and old dried orange peel. Compared with the CV this definitely has seen some ex-Sherry casks. Nice nose with lots more balance than the CV. Here we also have a papery note. Not only fruity, but also floral, more of everything and a lot extra. Floral part smells a bit like soap, and after that the fruitiness shines through. Lovely.

Taste: Clay, balanced and pretty sweet, with a small woody bite. Nutty again and definitely some peat. Good stuff this is, maybe a bit too heavy on the sugared fruits. Definitely sweeter than I expected. Toffee and cream, and where the nose and the CV have some rough edges, this 10yo if far more polished. Velvety. Good stuff, but I would have liked this even better if the taste matched the nose a bit more. Hints of petrol, we’re moving in the right direction again. Sweet and sweat. Lovely.

Unique stuff and there is nothing like Springbank. Yes this may not be for everybody, so if you are the regular hotel bar drinker or are only into Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Glenmorangie and Balvenie, this may not be for you. You might not like this, but if you aren’t, this is something special. You must try Springbank. Maybe not the best expression, but for this price and with this heritage you can’t go wrong. Probably one of the best 10yo around (with the Benromach 10yo).

Points: 85

Springbank “CV” (46%, OB, 10/12)

What does 10/12 mean, you might ask? Well, usually there are codes printed on the back of the front label, which you can read it through the glass. I was told the digits before the “/” depict the year of bottling, and the digits after the “/” is an operation number for that year, which in this case is a bottling run. Here 10/12 stands for the 12th operation of 2010, probably in January. In this case a bottling run. But also a marriage of casks or re-racking of casks get an operation number, so it’s not only bottling runs that get an operation number. There was at least one other bottling done of the Springbank CV in 2010 and it’s code is 10/123, probably somewhere from march through may of 2010.

Springbank CV (46%, OB)Color: Pale gold

Nose: Funky, raw and oily with added citrus notes. Reminds me of Kilkerran. Clay and yellow fruits. When concentrated, peppermint. Nice fresh oak, tree sap. Lemon curd and overall very intense and young aroma’s. Hint of unripe pineapple with vanilla and distant smoke. The wood also gives a nice spiciness to it, given some time to breathe. Good nose.

Taste: Less oily and seems peaty. Young, not completely balanced yet. peppery, paprika attack. Again this reminds me of Kilkerran. Oily and hidden sweetness. Traces of cardboard and oaky bitterness. It’s youth comes through in the simpleness of the dram, meaning that it’s not very complex and I was quite surprised by the weakish finish.

The initial mouthfeel is nice, so is the body. The nose shows a nice potential. Good Whisky just too young. Whisky like this needs some age to make it to the finish. I like Springbank and even here a lot is working for me, just the finish, thin, paper and watery, and that from a Whisky that was bottled at 46% ABV. Quality stuff, just bottled to early.

Points: 84

Glenrothes “Select Reserve” (43%, OB, Old Label, Circa 2011)

Yes another cannon ball bottle with Glenrothes Whisky in it. This time no vintage, but yes, we do have another new Whisky without an age statement. Probably young stuff, also since the Whisky isn’t very expensive. Nope not expensive at all. The bottle still has a cork in it albeit a plastic one. Nothing wrong with NAS Whiskies, just have a look at any Kilkerran for example, and the plastic cork is far better suitable for its job than a natural cork, with all is problems, like breaking whilst opening the bottle. I just hope the solvents in the soft plastic of the cork don’t mess with the taste of your Whisky. I just hear the industry whispering in the wind that Whisky wasn’t meant to be kept at home for a long time. Ha!

This Whisky costs about the same as The Glenlivet French Oak I reviewed last. That Whisky does have an age statement: 15 years old! Lets keep that one in kind whilst reviewing this Glenrothes.

Glenrothes Select Reserve (43%, OB, Old Label, Circa 2011)Color: Light gold

Nose: Malty and lots of vanilla and cream. Marshmallows. Dusty, slightly grassy (dry) and in the distance a wee bit of white pepper. It’s also fruity but I can’t get my finger on it, what kind of fruit is actually here. You know it’s fruity, but it seems to borrow fruity elements of loads of different kinds of fruit. Hints of dry paint and Macchiato Coffee.

Taste: Light, fruity and thin. Sweet. This one is quickly gone, yet the finish is warming and the fruit part of it is pleasant. Sweetish and creamy. Little bit of banana and lemon pudding. Definitely malty. I would have never guessed this is 43% ABV.

For a middle-of-the-road dram, I liked the nose of the Glenlivet 15yo French oak better. On the palate this Glenrothes is less interesting and a bit soft. The finish is too short too. Comparing this with the Glenlivet 15yo French Oak Reserve, even though that one is less fruity, it was more exciting due to the backbone the oak gave it. This Glenrothes is softer and fruitier but even though it is all that, it isn’t more pleasant. It is slightly less balanced and a wee bit weaker (also in the finish), so I score this a point below the Glenlivet French Oak Reserve.

Points: 81

The Glenlivet 15yo “French Oak Reserve” (40%, OB, 09.11.2009)

After the oldie from 1975 and the two recent “special” releases, Alpha and Guardians Chapter, here we look into a more “normal” release by The Glenlivet. This is a 15yo standard release Glenlivet, where the tipple came in contact with some French oak. French oak is known for impairing a slightly more tannic flavour to Whisky, whereas American oak usually gives off a more Vanilla or Toffee note. I expect a very easy drinkable Whisky with maybe a little “bite”.

Glenlivet 15yo "French Oak Reserve" (40%, OB)Color: (Light) gold, slightly pink?

Nose: Altogether light and slightly malty. Nice hints of wood. A little bit of toffee, vanilla and sweet apple. Very middle of the road, but also decent and pleasant. It smells like a good daily drinker. A little bit of dust on wood and nuttiness. Picture dust floating in the air in the sunlight in a room with unpolished wooden furniture. Also a touch of oil from tangerine-skins. Nothing out of the ordinary for a decent Single Malt Whisky, yet nice nevertheless.

Taste: Sweet, creamy with toffee and vanilla. A little tannic bite from the wood. Otherwise again very pleasant and very middle of the road. Slighty malty and nutty. Daily drinker written on its forehead. Slightly bitter on the finish, like licking walnut skin for a moment. Obviously from this particular type of oak, French you know.

A very reasonably priced 15yo, which offers a middle-of-the-road experience, with a little bite from the French oak. Pleasant but hardly entertaining, good but nothing special. Especially since it has aged for 15 years, in a time where all Whiskies are released without an age statement. It probably sells a lot, and why not. There is nothing wrong with it and it isn’t a bad Whisky either. Bang-for-your buck material, or a starters Whisky at 40% ABV  if you are interested in the effect tannins can have from French oak. Good but a bit boring (for me).

Points: 82

Macduff 32yo 1980/2012 (50.0%, The House of MacDuff, The Golden Cask, Cask CM 180, 155 bottles)

Macduff 32yo 1980/2012 (50.0%, The House of MacDuff, The Golden Cask, Cask CM 180, 155 bottles)Third Macduff on these pages and just like the other two, this is again an oldie. The oldest one was from the sixties, 1967 to be precise, just their fifth year of distillation. The second one came from the seventies, 1972, now we have one from the eighties (1980). So will the next one be from the nineties? At the rate (and prices) old Whisky is selling these days it probably will…

Color: Gold

Nose: Waxy and very fruity. Powdered yet not dusty. Slight hint of pepper with lots of vanilla in the mix. Some yellow fruits, white grapes, apricots and peach. Next some mocha, toffee and caramel are in there, giving balance. Later on, in the nose emerges a slight whiff of wood with dry roadside plants. Overall fruity and sweet-smelling. Good balance and very appetizing.

Taste: Strong and fatty. Cardboard and the taste is also pretty fruity. Vanilla with some sugary sweetness. Licorice and slightly bitter, the wood plays its part. Pretty hefty stuff. Not as complex as I would have hoped, but still pretty decent stuff altogether. The Whisky has a good start and a very nice body, the finish has a lot of staying power (toffee) and is quite warm.

This is a pretty good Whisky. It has a pair of balls and some nice sweet yellow fruits throughout. The finish is also decent, but for such and old Whisky I would have expected some more complexity.

Points: 87

Thanks Erik for the sample!

Bunnahabhain “Moine” 5yo 2008/2013 (46%, The Ultimate, Peated, Bourbon Barrel #800011, 341 bottles)

Just the other day, Jan from Best Shot Whisky Reviews reviewed a nice 5yo Islay peated whisky, so why shouldn’t we do just the same. Why? Because we can! Next up a Moine. A Moine say you, yes a Moine, the peated Bunnahabhain. This is bottled by dutch indie bottlers Van Wees under their Ultimate Label. Unchillfiltered and uncolored. Van Wees already bottled quite a few of these Moines, and if you are interested, get one quick since the latest expression bottled in 2014 costs a tenner (in Euro’s) more than the earlier bottlings…

Bunnahabhain Moine 5yo 2008/2013 (46%, The Ultimate, Peated, Bourbon Barrel #800011, 341 bottles)Color: Very pale straw yellow and/or greenish. Almost colorless.

Nose: Fat and fruity peat. I certainly have smelled this before. Than more peat and after that even more peat. Although this has lots of peat, I wouldn’t call this “heavy”. It has some smoke obviously, but you never know, they don’t always come together. The smoke part is light, as is the wood and toast. The fruit plays a big role in this Whisky as does its youth. Sweet licorice and spice. Black tea leaves and green plants. Given some time, it becomes less fatty and gets more floral even (and soapy) and the peat gets more meaty. Little bit of bonfire and coal dust. Not bad, not bad at all.

Taste: Sweet with delicate smoke and peat. Cardboard, plywood and sugar. It’s an almost lovely peated whisky lemonade. Extremely appetizing. Fern and tree sap. After several sips, you get the (thin) sweet watery feel, with tasty peat, but it is highly un-complex. Finishes on citrussy peat and a little bit of bonfire with ashes.

These Ultimate Moines are dirt cheap and sell well, but are not very highly regarded. Yes, at first it is peat peat peat and it looks like a vodka that has aged for a week in stainless steel with a blade of grass thrown in for color. But just forget about your typical peated Islay Whisky. It’s not a heavy peated Whisky, with sea spray and Iodine. Nope, it’s a more easily drinkable, fruity and sometimes floral, modern Islay Whisky. It fits right in with the newer easy drinkable and easy accessible expressions of the big boys like Laphroaig Select, Bowmore Small Batch and many Caol Ila’s. Those are easy drinkable too, but this has more peat to it and still is like a peated lemonade. Don’t expect a lot of complexity. It didn’t do a lot in the cask except for marrying its flavours, and its only 5 years old. But who cares, this is to drink and lie back, it’s about enjoying life. Peat reinvented and very easy drinkable. No high marks here, but still I enjoyed it a lot, and isn’t that the most important?

Points: 82

For fun, I did a head to head of this Moine with the Kilchoman Spring 2010, and found the Kilchoman at 3yo to be more balanced, smokier, less sweet yet more interesting and funkier (the Oloroso Sherry finish probably did that). More happening, more flavor. It’s more of everything actually.