Category Archives: Single Malt Whisky

Glenfarclas 35yo 1971/2006 (51.4%, The Whisky Fair, Oloroso Sherry Butt, 534 bottles)

Well why not, why not try another Glenfarclas from a bottle without the distillery’s name on the label. This time a Glenfarclas again, but now from 1971, especially bottled for The Whisky Fair in Limburg Germany. For many the mother of all Whisky festivals on the planet. This Glenfarclas is definitely darker in colour than the previous one I reviewed. I’m guessing the 1965 should be from a Fino Sherry Butt, and we know this 1971 is from a new and fresh Oloroso Sherry Butt.

KnipselColor: Copper Brown.

Nose: Wow, perfect dry Sherry nose, with mint and a lot of elegant wood. Lacquered mahogany furniture. You always get this from old dark Sherry casks. Dried meat, bacon and chocolate, lovely. Extremely spicy, licorice and old shelved books. For the die-hards of old dry Sherry, a stunning nose. Exactly what I like. Menthol in the finish, including its cooling effect in the nose.

Taste: Again heavy Sherry. Fruity and the promise there once was more sweetness to this. Like cold tea, drying with a lot of wood influence. Still its so “firm” the woodiness doesn’t deter me. Whiskies like this should have this elegant wood. It’s a distinguished old gentleman. Coal and steam, not a lot of tar, maybe the smallest of hints of tar. The finish is dry, very dry and the wood shows it’s acidity here, but hey, it’s not bitter. Now it does show its lack of sweetness, or roundness if you like. This usually hides this woody acidity. So yes its fabulous but has it’s flaws. If this would have been perfect this would have been an 1971 Longmorn (Scott’s Selection).

Although Fino’s are quite different from Oloroso Sherries (and PX Sherries), both works very well as a cask to age Whisky in. Both have different characters and both will have a large following. In this case I wish I could have tasted this alongside a 1971 Scott’s Selection Longmorn (the dark ones), that should have been a blast. Not having that, I still wish I had a bottle of this Glenfarclas too.

Points: 92

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

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

Color: Copper gold.

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

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

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

Points: 88

Tormore 14yo 1998/2013 (50%, Gordon & MacPhail, Exclusive for the Whisky Mercenary, First Fill Bourbon Barrel #1586, 277 bottles)

Easily the longest title for any of my blog posts. Finally summer is over, and the urge to drink some Whisky is back with a vengeance. Not that I’m happy about summer being over, especially when the last five years we hardly had a summer over here…

Next up to warm us up is a Gordon & MacPhail bottling of a 1998 Tormore, they bottled for The Whisky Mercenary a.k.a. Jürgen Vromans. Jürgen tries to pick some great casks for his own hobby-brand of Whiskies. Up ’till now Scottish and Irish products have been bottled under his own label. This time he picked a cask from Gordon & MacPhail. Gordon & MacPhail take their own casks to various distilleries and after they are filled, take them to their own warehouses for ageing. Gordon & MacPhail never sell a cask without it being bottled in one of their series.

Color: Light Gold

Nose: Floral, fresh and sweet, easily recognizable for a Tormore from a Bourbon Cask. They’re always a bit metallic, but in a way I like it. Just have a look here. It’s great to see, ehhh, smell the consistency, or distillery character. There are a lot of similarities between the Cadenhead 1984 and this 1998 Tormore. Nice balance between the sweetness of the nose and the wood spice from the cask. Quite perfumy, with a touch of smoke from the toasted cask, and floral (which is not soapy). Under this all some ginger and sugared yellow fruits, like dried apricots, which add to the complexity of the sweetness. This is how Tormore’s are and this is another fine example.

Taste: Less sweet than the nose let on to believe. Nice darkness with ginger, vanilla, paper and wood. The spiciness in combination with the brooding half-sweetness doesn’t let the finish become sour (from the oak). There is a fruitiness to it, and it seems to me to be from the black fruit department, blackberries? A little bit of mocha, toffee and/or unburnt caramel to round the Whisky off. Long nutty finish with a hint of mint. Pretty well-balanced stuff. I like it and I most definitely want it.

Nice Tormore by Gordon & MacPhail and for sure a great pick by Jürgen. A connoisseurs Whisky, otherwise Gordon & MacPhail wouldn’t have Jürgen take this away.  If you like the profile, this is a very nice Tormore, ánd I have to stress that I am a fan of whiskies @ 50% ABV. Excellent! I really love the Cadenhead but this is equally as good.

Points: 86

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

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

Color: Deep orange brown.

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

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

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

Points: 88

Glenfarclas 15yo 1991/2006 “Breath of Speyside” (60.2%, Adelphi, First Fill Sherry Butt #5642, 615 bottles)

Almost two weeks ago I reviewed a Adelphi Highland Park, and here is the next Adelphi bottling. This time a bastard malt. A bastard malt is a Whisky of which the distillery name can’t be found on the label. Usually some kind of fantasy name pops up like Probably Speysides Finest (Douglas Laing name for Glenfarclas), Director’s Tactical (Douglas Laing name for Talisker) or Laudable (Douglas Laing name for Laphroaig). Well this is called Breath of Speyside and in this case, that is Adelphi’s name for Glenfarclas. Glenfarclas do sell off lots of casks, but never allow the bottler to use the Glenfarclas name.

Glenfarclas 15yo 1991/2006 Breath of Speyside (60.2%, Adelphi, First Fill Sherry Butt #5642, 615 bottles)Color: Orange copper gold.

Nose: Cream and cherries. Quite fresh and fruity. Very lively, and not that deep dark in your face Sherry. Very obviously a first fill sherry. Perfumy, with a nice touch of wood, very elegant. lovely stuff and easier on the nose than A’bunadh, that can be harder or harsher (due to its youth). Toast and pepper come to mind and very spicy. Pot roast, tobacco and furniture polish. Very lovely and interesting nose. Great complexity and perfect balance, between the Whisky and the Sherry.

Taste: Creamy and woody. Nice sweetness that is delivered after the initial woodiness. It’s not overly woody though. Again roasted meat, combined with the dry woodiness and the late sweetness (caramel), makes for a very interesting play on your tongue. Excellent. Definitely elements of wine (Sherry). Also some organics I usually get from some white wines. Thick excellent stuff that works well at this high ABV. This Glenfarclas really intrigues me. Well chosen cask.

Heavily Sherried and high in alcohol, so this is Aberlour A’bunadh territory, the only difference being the age. A’bunadh is a young Whisky, probably around 8 to 10 years old, and this Glenfarclas is 15 years old. This one is milder older and wiser. It’s deeper, more complex and less rough around the edges. The only problem, you can only get this at three times the price of the Aberlour A’bunadh, just to show you how cheap the Aberlour actually is…

Points: 89

Macallan 1980/2012 (43%, Gordon & MacPhail, Speymalt)

Next up an already rather “old” Macallan. Macallan is a brand with a huge reputation as a Sherried Speysider, and therefore a huge following. The quality is unmistakable there, just have a look what older bottles fetch these day at auctions. Since the “new” Fine Oak series, Macallan have again a huge reputation, but this time more as a marketing giant, but again with a huge following. Alas from a connoisseurs point of view it not thát much of a Sherried Speysider anymore, not as they used to.

This is an independently bottled Macallan, and it doesn’t look like a heavily Serried Speysider. If I’m not mistaken Gordon & MacPhail can bottle Macallans in the Speymalt series, with a vintage, when the distillery themselves do not have a vintage of that same year themselves.

Macallan 1980/2012 (43%, Gordon & MacPhail, Speymalt)Color: Orange gold

Nose: Hmmmm, fabulously old and waxy smelling Speysider we have here. Lovely! Old soaked wood and very deep half-sweetness. The initial blast of fruitiness, and waxiness leave the building. What comes next is dry and dusty. The wood turns into old cardboard, but it works. It’s not an in your face Sherried Speysider, but definitely a very nice and elegant Macallan. Quality stuff. Toast and burn paper in the finish of the nose. Hints of a bonfire and vanilla (pudding). The nose is top-class.

Taste: Sweet with an edge. Estery and some acidity, that makes for great balance. Creamy and soft-toffee. Hints of black tea and a tiny hint of anise. Hardly any wood, which is a bit odd after give or take 32 years in the cask. The wood does show itself in the tiny bitter (and soapy) bite that graces the finish.

Absolutely a fine nose, alas the taste doesn’t match up. It somehow lacks some complexity. Having said that it is a damn fine Whisky, that for the price is easy drinkable. Gone before you know it. Therefore easily a favorite when on my shelves. For me a tad too much reduction here, I would have liked this at 46% ABV. Old Fino?

Points: 89

Thanks to Stan for the sample!

Tomatin 15yo (43%, OB, Bourbon Casks)

This is my last review of a Whisky from the standard range of Tomatins released by the distiller. The standard range comprises of Legacy, a 12yo, a 15yo, and last but not least, the 18yo. The age statement (or lack of it) not being the only difference. All are different in usage of casks:

  • Legacy – New Oak Casks and Bourbon Casks (82 Points).
  • 12yo – Bourbon & Sherry Casks (83 Points).
  • 15yo – Bourbon Casks (?? Points).
  • 18yo – Refill Bourbon Barrels with an Oloroso Sherry finish (87 Points).

So here we have the 15yo. This one is on paper the younger brother of the now sadly deleted 25yo. Both come from only Bourbon Casks. The new Tomatin is called Legacy, but the 25yo will turn out to be a Legend. But, and I can’t stress this enough, Tomatin 30yo, that’s even better imho!

Tomatin 15yoColor: Light gold.

Nose: Spicy and clean. Sweetish and creamy. Hints of toasted oak and crushed fresh leaves. Nice toned down fruitiness. Cookie dough. It does remind me a bit of the 25yo (and some notes of the fruitiness remind me of the 30yo). Fruity ánd perfumy. Very aromatic example of Tomatin. Good balance.

Taste: Clean and warming, warm wood and caramel. Hints of licorice, vanilla and toasted wood. Very creamy and half sweet. Again very good balance. Dangerously drinkable.

These four whiskies are absolutely family of each other. Brothers and sisters of one another. But just as with people, there is a family resemblance, but most definitely have different characters. It’s not merely an older version of the previous example, no, all are meant to be different through usage of different casks. I guess all of them will have different likers (or dislikers if you don’t like the mean Tomatin profile).

So time to come clean, which one would I buy? Well, according to points the 18yo is the winner. It has a stunning nose and taste to match, but there is always a candidate everybody likes, isn’t there. I scored the 15yo one point lower than the 18yo, but I think the 15yo is a true and honest malt (just look at its color), and is definitely easier to drink than the 18yo. I had problems writing tasting notes, because the glass seemed always empty, how is that for drinkability! So if you are new to whisky or just enjoy a good malt, I would buy the 15yo to start with, if you’re somewhat more seasoned and able to appreciate the added notes of the Oloroso finish , I would recommend the 18yo. Legacy and the 12yo are both alright, and dirt cheap to boot, but not my personal first choice. So for me the 18yo and the 15yo are the ones to buy, and differ strongly enough from each other to get both 🙂

Points: 85

Thanks to Jennifer for sending me this sample.

Highland Park 16yo 1986/2002 (57,9%, Adelphi, Refill Hogshead #2288, 273 bottles)

Together with the Cadenheads Glen Scotia I reviewed earlier I found this Adelphi Highland Park in the back of my lectern. Highland Park is no newbie on these pages and this will be the third independent bottling of Highland Park, as I have earlier reviewed Highland Parks from Douglas Laing and a heavily sherried one by Gordon & MacPhail. Adelphi is new to these pages. Adelphi once was a distillery, but it closed already in 1907. The name though was bought and used for this independent bottler since 1993. Funny that the people who are behind Adelphi Distillery now, are building themselves a new distillery not called Adelphi Distillery yet, but for the time being is called: Ardnamurchan. Another claim to fame is that Charles “Rory” MacLean does some if not all of the cask selections.

Color: Dull light gold.

Nose: Creamy, heathery and slightly soapy. Candied yellow fruits. Dried apricots. Very powdery and appetizing. A breath of fresh (sea) air. Very clean smelling, but also has a dirty edge to it. Only a small hint of dry wood and toasted oak. The nose somehow seems sweet, and sweaty, already, and the sweetness blends right in with the cream that’s very up front. It changes with air, so let it breathe. Classy smelling Whisky.

Taste: Smoked heather, honey sweetness and a peppery bite. It keeps it together right through to the finish, it (it being the balance) seems a bit flimsy towards the end, but the balance does manage to stay. A sign of quality. It has a tad of soapy woodiness to it. The sweetness develops from honey into toffee and caramel, but it never dominates. It seems to me the sweetness is somehow balanced with some hidden acidity. Quite nice.

A pretty good, easily recognizable Highland Park. The Heather and honey are definitely there, but the real bonus is the Talisker-like peppery bite. Since there isn’t a lot of bitterness or toast in this, and there seems to be a lot of potential, I wouldn’t have bottled this yet. It’s good, but it could have been slightly better. Of all the independent Highland Parks I have reviewed here, I guess this particular expression matches the profile of Highland Park the best. But do allow for some breathing. It needs air. Well done Rory, I mean Charlie!

Points: 86

Glen Scotia 17yo 1977/1994 (57.5%, Cadenhead)

I completely forgot about this one, otherwise I would have reviewed it sooner. This one was sitting comfortably in the back of my lectern and was overlooked for some time. Not the first time though, a Glen Scotia graces these pages with its presence and certainly not the first time a Cadenheads bottling with the green glass and the small label does. Previously I tried a much newer Mo Òr bottling distilled in 1994, so maybe a chance to see how Glen Scotia fared through its difficult history…

Color: (Dull) gold.

Nose: Spicy, nutty and clean. Quite sharp. Slightest hint of cat urine. Powdery and pretty bold altogether. Soft wood with a small hint of toasted wood. This is probably from a Bourbon Cask (Barrel or Hogshead). Actually it’s very clean and youthful, and it picked up quite some color along the way. It’s maybe half-creamy and has some hints of oranges, candied oranges that is. Later on some notes of cardboard and a yeasty cold room. Full bodied typical high strength Cadenheads bottling.

Taste: Wow, nice! Quite an attack from the alcohol. Very full-bodied with initial notes of wood and fern. Coffee, nuts and a slight woody bitterness. Again a typical clean Cadenheads Bourbon Cask bottling. Long spicy finish with black tea and almonds.

For me, and I’ve said it already. A typical Cadenheads bottling. Cadenheads in more recent times, seem to bottle a lot of ex-Bourbon Casks in their teens, and although there are obviously some differences, there are some similarities as well. High strength and clean. Great stuff for me, because I like cask strength, but it would have been nice to see these type of Whisky age a little longer, and with that, see the ABV drop a little. This certainly had a lot of potential, and would have been great in its (late) twenties and around 50 to 52% ABV.

Points: 86

Arran 16yo (46%, OB, Bourbon & Sherry Casks, 9000 bottles, 2013)

I always have mixed feelings considering Arran. It’s fairly new and I really like new enterprises like this. Mostly nice people with a lot of passion who start a distillery like this. Mice malt and so forth. A whisky I love to like. Just when it comes to tasting, and this sometimes happens, Arran usually does not gel with this taster. A Cask of Arran Single MaltLinkwood is another example. Luckily this also happens the other way around. For most people Teaninich is nothing out of the ordinary, but I really do like my Teaninichs…

This will be my 18th Arran and I hope this is a good one. There were a couple of good ones in the past. It’s not all bad for me, you know. I remember a 1er Cru Bourgogne Cask Finish from 2006, and two different Single Casks from 2004. There are obviously more, but I have to admit, I haven tried a lot of the newer expressions for a while. Time to reacquaint myself with Arran and hopefully find out they got pretty good by now, I really would like that, no I would really love that!

Color: Light gold. Nose: Wow that’s more like it! A nice clean and slightly spicy woody attack. Ginger. New carpets on the floor. After that a full sweetish nose that also is pretty floral. Flowers that is, not perfume. Very elegant. Some acetone, mocha and toffee in the nose, but powdery as well. Not a bad start…

Taste: Sweet and perfectly woody. The sweetness drops off a bit, to show some slight hints of acidity, but the sweetness never relents, it keeps the whole in perfect balance. What a nice short sharp shock of spicy, maybe white peppery attack. And the wood is also very nice. The balance keeps up, but fades a bit in the finish, but who’s complaining! The finish is half long, and the wood aromas turn a bit into cardboard, not a lot, just a bit. Still a pretty good Arran. I love that.

This is a nice Arran, and considering it’s age and the distillate being from the early years, I’m guessing the 16yo, if they keep making it, it will only get better and better. Not being posh, it’s already very good, but I would like to see Arran to be stellar. I would love to like that a lot.

Points: 87

Thanks Richard for the sample!