Category Archives: Whisky from Master Quills Lectern

Glen Moray 22yo 1995/2018 (53.2%, Adelphi, Refill Sherry Cask #7785, 292 bottles)

Just like Deanston earlier, Glen Moray was another distillery that showed up on my radar rather late. Glenmorangie was there from the start, but I wasn’t a fan of their general output I knew up to then. Later I was reading about how Glenmorangie (Bill Lumsden) was using  Glen Moray as a testing ground for Glenmorangie, well you get why I wasn’t really interested early on, not being a fan of Glenmorangie itself. Over time I also got the chance to try a lot of official releases of Glen Moray, which are, and still are quite affordable, yet also not very exciting. This is now the fourth Glen Moray on these pages and oh dear, the tree bottles that went before this one didn’t even manage to get a score in the 80 point range. All three quite disappointing. However a wise man from Belgium once said to me, every Whisky distillery is able to make a good or great Whisky, so the fun lies in finding one of those (and when you find a good one, the challenge shifts into finding (or at least assessing) the best possible expression of said distillery. Adelphi is an independent bottler that has an above average output quality-wise. I believe I actually never had a bad one, not saying there aren’t any, but I would bu surprised of they do. When a 22yo Glen Moray bottled by Adelphi popped up on an auction, I snapped it up, curiosity eventually killed the cat, being only the second Glen Moray I ever bought, and I still haven’t bought one since. Let’s see if I should.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: What a welcome smell after all that peat of the past reviews. Right now, I just love the possible variations of Single Malt Whisky. Funky Sherry, very fruity, nutty and waxy. Lots of nice organics ever so slightly meaty, like in cold gravy. Leather and jute, in this case a very expensive smell. Quite sweet and fruity, dried apricots mixed with a more minty aroma. Sometimes this smells like a Bourbon or even more like a Rye Whiskey, so not like a Whisky matured in a Bourbon or Rye cask. This also didn’t mature in an ex-Bourbon cask, but it probably did mature in a Sherry cask made of American oak in stead of European oak. Dry oak planks, you can almost smell the vegetal bitterness this has. It’s smooth and creamy. American oak has more vanillin and European oak has more tannin’s, which would be a hard thing to smell actually. Maybe we’ll encounter tannin’s when assessing the taste. I don’t smell sulphur per se, but the (rural) organics this nose has, definitely are based around one or more compounds containing the element of S (sulphur). However I have to say, the S-element gains in strength with some extensive breathing of this Whisky, but that is all way back, so this is not really a sulphury Whisky. The creaminess stays, and mixes a bit with a toasted (Sherry) cask aroma. You can add almonds and a little bit of cardboard to the leathery aroma mentioned earlier. Borderline dusty. Even though I believe this is from American oak, the overall the nose is well behaved, very well balanced and with an somewhat older style Sherry feel to it. Not a Sherry bomb like for instance a dark 1971 Longmorn nor like an old skool Sherried Malt. After even some more breathing, the fruit moves into the realm of apples now. Calvados. So it starts like a Rye Whiskey, with the body of a Single Malt and finishes off like a Calvados, how that for a change! Remarkable though that every time I pour this it never starts with the apple note.

Taste: Lots of fruit, but more of the overripe tropical kind. Buttery and creamy, almost custard like. Very tasty. Sweet and waxy, with only a slight bitter edge to it initially. It’s so big on fruit and its half-sweetness, that this more astringent, bitter bit integrates very well. I would day, wood and ear-wax. The wood has a bite. Nevertheless, highly drinkable and quite tasty, but also a bit hot initially. Sipping more brings out more bitterness, but it still doesn’t really hurt the Whisky, even though it does increase in intensity. Next a very nice burnt wood note that really blends in very well with the fruit. On all accounts this Malts shows its strength in balance. After sipping this, even the nose is starting to show more wood. On the palate we are now moving into the realm of toffee and caramel and right after this the wax from the nose comes back in as well. So even though it has this dry wood bitterness, the sweetness is never far away. This late in the tasting, the sweetness also shows us a tiny amount of integrated tar. I do have to mention that I do pick up more on the wood and bitterness with a tired palate, after dinner and/or late in the evening. Earlier in the day, (or even before breakfast, which is a time of day that is not uncommon for a reviewer of distilled spirits), the fruit is more prominent. Never forget that you as a taster are (highly) subjective, you change a lot during the day, or from day to day, so try to keep that in mind. If you tried a Whisky once, you may have an idea about the Whisky you tasted, but you really didn’t have the chance to really get know it, so proceed with caution with occasional tastings.

See, after all these, mediocre at best, Glen Moray’s I reviewed before, this time a very nice Glen Moray found its way into my glass and onto these pages, and I’m glad for it. Already based on the nose alone I was already very happy getting this one and even though it has this bitter edge, I’m also quite happy with the taste of it. Definitely a score into the eighties this time. Well done!

Points: 88

Willett Pot Still Reserve (47%, Kentucky Bourbon Distillers, Barrel #4802, 272 bottles)

After all these Scottish peated giants, and since May descended upon us, maybe a good time to change the tune a bit, an intermezzo of sorts. Over we go to the ol’ U.S. of A. Way back in 2015 I already reviewed another single barrel #82028, mentioning I was looking forward to trying another barrel of the same. That one came from a sample I got, and since I liked it, it must have been the reason I bought me one. Well fast forward for more than ten years, and here we are!

First of all, because you see it first, this rather unusual still type bottle, especially when its full, it is quite the spectacle, because let’s be honest, the darker colour of Bourbon in clear glass makes for a killer look. The bottle itself is very nice looking as well, but also highly unpractical, and since the cork is narrow, it tends to dry out more quickly than other corks. Personally I don’t have all that much room on my lectern, nor in other places I might keep some open bottles. This bottle has thus quite the footprint, so I guess when this one is empty, I can replace it with at least two, and maybe even three “normal” bottles, so much space this one takes up. Thinking like that, I will be happy when this one is gone, because of its size.

Willett distillery was founded by Thompson Willett in 1936. Located in Bardstown, Nelson County, Kentucky. The first spirit was put into a barrel only a year later. Not sure when the distillery actually became dormant, but after renovations the distillery was working again by 2012, however the Willett Pot Still Reserve was introduced in 2008 as a single barrel expression, with distillates of one or several other Kentucky distilleries which, as far as I know, are still undisclosed. The Whisky from those barrels was said to be 8 to 10 years old, but again, this has not been confirmed. The Whisky itself is therefore a bit shrouded in mystery, we all love that transparency. In 2015 Willett Pot Still Reserve was turned into a small batch release, which can be seen on the vertical label across the long neck of the bottle. Since Willett is a small outfit, I guess the small batch is also a really small batch, maybe 10 to 15 barrels? Again, shrouded in mystery, move on nothing to see here. Only in 2016 the first bottle of Whisky distilled on Willetts own still was released (Willett Family Estate Bourbon) in a tall more regular looking bottle, similar to those of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection. Not sure when, and if, Spirit of the Willett finds its way into the Willett Pot Still Reserve (Small Batch).

Color: Orange Brown. Lively.

Nose: Oak, toasted oak and green sappy vegetal oak. Lots of honey. The wood is beautiful in this one. Amazing. Smells tasty and chewy. Old dried out orange skins and crystallized honey. The toasted oak almost smells smoky. Quite waxy and also fruity, dusty and dry with hints of fresh almonds. Creamy with dusty vanilla powder. Old books and fallen dry garden leaves (from trees, not shrubs) in autumn. Sweet liquorice, dust and more virgin oak notes. Small hints of paint and thinner (I don’t get this on every occasion though). Crystallized honey again with toffee/caramels. A very appetizing and classy nose, almost melancholic. Well balanced, I like it a lot. This also works well with fresh air. Sometimes I do get some whiffs that remind me a bit of Rhum Agricole. A nose based on wonderful wood, yet never overpowered by it. Very well balanced.

Taste: Starts a bit thin, with spicy and waxy wood notes and thus quite some oak (and sawdust). Somewhat sweet with an liquorice edge. A bit soapy as well (rye?). Slightly sweet, a sweetness of the more chewy kind, helped along by the spicy and woody backbone, yes with some bitterness as well. Sappy wood style. The Rhum Agricole notes are apparent here right from the start as well. As said, thin, so maybe this suffered a bit of too much dilution with water. After sipping it, the nose shows some more floral notes, (again rye), than before. The taste shows some diluted sweetness in the realm of vanilla, caramel and honey. Yup a sweet and healthy dose of honey. The amount of wood I get, depends on myself and the moment I sip this, especially late in the evening I found more wood, than in the morning, when ones palate is rested and pick up more on other things.

Bourbon prices are soaring these days due to large demand, not in the least by Americans finally proud of their own product and appreciating aged Bourbons some more. Even though this has been reduced to 94 proof, this is a true gem, and very affordable to boot. I understand this might not be for everyone, since it is not an entry level or easy going Bourbon, because it’s quite spicy and woody as well, and the soapy bit in the taste might put some people off. Still this is so good. When I finally found out how good it was, it may have been a bit wonky when freshly openend, this went very fast and again I had to hurry writing this review before it was gone. Recommended, but a little bit less reduction probably would have been a good thing. I guess this has been targeted at a specific target audience, hence the ABV.

Points: 85

Talisker 8yo 2009/2018 (59.4%, OB, Limited Release, Deep Charred First Fill Bourbon Hogsheads, L8071CM001, 4.680 bottles, )

In the previous review I mentioned that the Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength had some Talisker moments (white pepper), so after looking on my lectern my eye fell on another Diageo Natural Cask Strength release of this 8yo Talisker that needs to be reviewed, for by now, obvious reasons. The Caol Ila is a NAS bottling (No Age Statement) and this Talisker has been stated, proudly I might add, as an 8yo, make for an excellent comparison. Mind you, in 2018 low numbers were more or less scoffed at. The public preferred funny named Whiskies over something with an age statement with a low number. Funny because a funny name allowed for even younger Whiskies to be used. Not a lot is known about the Whiskies that went into the different batches of the Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength, but we can be pretty confident (after tasting) it is made with Whiskies between 5 and 10yo, probably more 8yo to 10yo than 5yo to 7yo or is it?. Back in 2018 this release was quite popular, because even at this young age the Talisker was deemed excellent and it gained momentum. Many friends I have that dabble a bit in Whisky, purchased multiple bottles of this, as did I.

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Funky and deep. Very different from the Islay Whiskies reviewed before. Definitely a breath of fresh island air. A much wider stage. Deep, big and bold. Not quite sure how to describe this deepness, what is it and where is it coming from? Is it the deep char? If it is, it doesn’t smell burnt at all, an aroma one might expect. Lets start out with and old piece of dried out toffee, but don’t think about its sweetness, it’s everything you smell from such an old piece apart from the sweet bit. Old dried out swampy wood. Deep overripe fruit, but again of the dried out kind. No fresh smelling notes apart from the sea air. More wood now, apart from the swamp wood, indeed a charred note now. This smells very mature and in now way I would have guessed this is from an 8yo Whisky. Amazing. Sometimes a whiff of a more farmy note whiffs in and whiffs out again. Definitely not an easy of entry level Whisky. Definitely a special release. Part of the deepness seems to come from an acidic (not ripe) red fruit note. Quite complex 8yo if you ask me. After some breathing, slightly more balance, only slightly since it already started out very well balanced. More dusty now. Some of the yellow fruity notes I called over-ripe, are really borderline ripe, right before its going bad actually (now not dried). So some unique funky organics going on in this one. Throw all these strange aroma’s together and you get something really amazing. The wood emerged late, yet even later comes this earthy and funky peat note, mixed in with the funky fruit. With this also a smoky note which is unique as well to this Whisky since it als smells slightly soapy (not perfumy).

Taste: Aiaiai, this tastes so good right out of the gate. This has Taliskers trademark white pepper, it has also a very nice sweetness going on, and the smoke is upfront, where in the nose it was almost coming in as an afterthought, probably pushed back by the plethora of funky aromatics going on there. Talking about funky aromatics, these yellow very overripe fruits come next, complete with the acidic bits attributed to red fruit above and a more nutty and clay like note. It is almost 60% ABV, but in no way does it show that, where the Caol Ila was pretty alcohol upfront, this most definitely isn’t. I guess the Caol Ila might be younger than this 8yo. This is quite the Whisky. See, “8” is only a number, don’t make assumptions based on that (nor on the colour of Whiskies, as people often tend to do). The fruit in general beautifully rise to the occasion towards, and in, the aftertaste. After comparing this one to the Caol Ila, the nuttiness of this Talisker is amplified, interesting. With extensive breathing this only becomes better and better. Still, not an easy Whisky to “decipher”. It still has some elements in its depth I have a hard time to put my finger on.

I guess since this one turned out so well (also as in becoming popular and selling well), it did carve out a niche for Whiskies with a low age statement as well as convincing Diageo they could issue more Talisker 8yo’s in the annual Special Releases, as they promptly did in 2020, one that has some issues), 2021 and 2024. (2019 was a 15yo, 2022 was an 11yo, 2023 was a NAS and 2025 was a 14yo). Nobody in these modern times of ours was afraid anymore of a 8yo. For me both young Diageo offerings are hits in my book. Compared both head-to-head, Tha Caol Ila is so wonderfully Islay, and very different. Tasting them side by side their difference brings the best out of both of them. Good to have them open at the same time. The Talisker is definitely the more mature and more complex of the two, it very much shows the youth of the Caol Ila, so I guess the Caol Ila maybe does fall into the 5yo to 7yo bracket. I wonder why it got discontinued so quickly, maybe sales weren’t all that good? The Caol Ila emphasized the American oak vanilla of the Talisker. Comparing is always fun and cab show you things you might have missed earlier.

Points: 89

Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength (59.6%, OB, L7262CM000, 2007)

After two powerhouses of the love it or hate it Malt, a.k.a. Laphroaig, I felt it might be a good idea to have a go at yet another cask strength peated Malt from Islay, just not a Laphroaig. There seems to be Ardbeg time, but today its Caol Ila time. Caol Ila, by now the not so hidden Malt, because a lot of it is made and a lot of bottles get released as a Single Malt, especially by independent bottlers. I already reviewed a lot of Caol Ila’s and until now, all of them were from independent bottlers. This time around we are going to have a look at an official bottling. Diageo released this NAS Caol Ila named Natural Cask Strength for the first time in 2002. After that a similar looking “Cask Strength” saw the light of day in 2004. Maybe that one was not so natural, since the word itself is missing from the label, but we’ll count it in, because it looks like part of the series. From 2005 until 2009 it was released annually, with even two bottlings in 2007. Also, in 2005, 2006 and 2007 a 20cl version was released in a gift box with the 12yo and the 18yo, all three Natural Cask Strength versions with different ABV’s than their consecutive bigger 70cl brothers. Very interesting! So all in all, Natural Cask Strength was only a short series. I’ll put up a list below. The moniker Natural Cask Strength was used more often by Caol Ila especially for distillery only bottlings.

This review is again from my own bottle, (not from a sample), and once again one that has to be reviewed before it will be gone.

Color: Straw, light White Wine.

Nose: Malty and sweet. Medium peat and quite some nice smelling smoke. Charcoal. Right out of the gate some hidden fruitiness. You just know something is there. Very clean overall, no off notes or funky organics at all. In somewhat dirty Caol Ila’s I often get some coffee on the nose, but not here, so definitely a clean expression. Actually a nice one after both Laphroaigs from the previous two reviews. Different. An islander that behaves. After a while, some nice organics emerge. Smells of cooked food. The smoke sometimes gives way to a more fruity nose, only this time the fruits are of the citrus kind. Almost like the smoke is being turned on and off, like an annoying child playing with the light switch. Nicely balanced Islay Whisky. Nice oak smell as well, slightly acidic (citrus again). The wood smells like it’s freshly cut (adding to the clean overal feel, by the way). Vegetal. Green foliage. Also hints of Aromat, a salty powdery concoction used on cooked vegetables. The smoke and the peat seem to take more of a back seat when this gets time to breathe. It is somewhat moving into the direction of some of the unpeated Caol Ila’s (but not much). The nose gains even more balance after breathing, very likeable indeed, also it shows some layering. Nice development with lots of fresh air throughout, but not coastal in any way. The smoke is slightly herbal. I like this a lot, the nose on this is really wonderful, especially if you give it time to breathe. I now wonder how this would compare to other batches of this short series.

Taste: Sweet, toffee, caramel. Wood liquorice and some crushed beetle and cold dishwater (ever so slightly soapy and citrussy). Both not as bad as it sounds, so don’t worry. Alcohol forward. Wodka drinkers will recognize this bit. Vanilla pods and some custard. Warming and in the taste more smoky than on the nose. Edible smoke. The chewy smoke, gets some added complexity by a little bit of white pepper. If the smoke and the peat were slightly less upfront, I may have considered this, (when tasted blind), as a Talisker. Burnt and toasted wood. All from a bonfire and not so much charred cask aromas. I feel like sitting outside in the woods preparing myself to roast some marshmallows or sausages. Coffee candy, here’s finally the coffee. The thing I have with coffee and Caol Ila is most likely personal, I haven’t heard anybody else mentioning it. What I perceive to be a coffee note, might be different for you. Next some warm light peat and somewhat stingy smoke. Bonfire smoke, and it seems to be a little bit salty as well. Although I don’t pick up upon the salt every time around. Still a clean yet very tasty Islay Whisky, a great pour after the Laphroaigs. Hardly any bitterness. After a while big and aromatic, a fine pour for sure.

Very interesting offering, maybe I should try to get some (more) different batches of the Natural Cask Strength, purely for comparison or science or somebody has to do it. I’ll add it to the archive so I can revisit it when reviewing another bottle. Recommended.

Points: 87

70cl:

J15R02770848 (2002) 55.0% *
L4304CM000 (2004) 55.0% (Cask Strength, without Natural)
L5333CM000 (2005) 59.3%
L6180CM000 (2006) 58.6%
L7033CM000 (2007) 59.2%
L7262CM000 (2007) 59.6% *
L8288CM000 (2008) 61.6% *
L9237CM000 (2009) 61.3%

20cl:

L5 (2005) 60.1%
L6 (2006) 58%
L7 (2007) 59.3%

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 008 (59.2%, OB, 2016)

Back in 2023, matching up batches #006 and #007 was quite fun. Both Laphroaigs were stunning and scored the same. Lots of similarities and yet some noticeable differences as well, especially in the taste. As mentioned in the review of #007, I started looking (again) at cask strength Laphroaig 10yo’s at a time batches #001 through #005 were long sold out and fetching hefty prices at auctions, and now even more so. From batches #006 upwards, there was not really a problem finding those at reasonable prices, so I did just that.

I still haven’t got several of the earlier batches, so like star wars starting with episode 4, I’m going to use batch #006 as my starting point and work my way up and maybe I’ll get a chance to review the earlier ones as well some time in the future. If possible, I’ll try to compare one batch to another batch, (it worked for me to do pairings), but my stash is somewhat limited and the number of batches is rapidly growing, so it is impossible to compare each batch to each other batch. Although some people did do verticals of tastings of many different batches. For me: box ticked for comparing #007 to #006. Both batches were reviewed from bottles I had on my lectern. Now let’s do the next two. First off this batch #008 from my own bottle and the next review will be batch #009 from a sample provided by Nico, which comes in handy, so I can skip this one at home and open another batch. That would be batch #011 actually, since Auke already provided me with a sample of batch #010. 2023 is already a few years back so I won’t be comparing batches #008 and/or #009 with the two earlier reviewed batches, however I will compare batch #009 to #008. Lets start with batch #008.

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: I just poured it and it seems the whole room now smells of peat, the longer it stands the “thicker” the air. In my mind this glass stands on my lectern emitting aroma’s like a chimney emitting smoke, you just can’t see it, but you can most definitely smell it. Powerful, earthy peat, with lots of smoke. Meaty, fishy, tarry rope kind of stuff. Medicinal iodine laced peat, with some artificial lemon like aroma (ever did the dishes?) and even a hint of grandma’s old dried out floral bar of soap, both just a hint, so don’t be alarmed. Nice vegetal aroma. Very well balanced batch this one.  Fresh and at the same time very earthy and brooding. Liquorice and sweet liquorice wood sticks. Still also this pleasant smelling soapy edge. Soap on the nose is often good, if the floral bit fits the rest, not so much in the taste. Remember Bowmore’s FWP? (If not and you are proficient with google you might want to look up Serge’s review of Flowermore 38yo on Whiskyfun.com). More smoke and lost of ashes. Smells like a house that once was on fire and was abandoned for a few months. Glowing embers and bonfire notes, but also a sugary sweetness in the smell as well as some accidentally crushed beetle. Childhood memory, though terrible, it comes in handy when reviewing Whiskies. Still smoke is the main ingredient of this nose especially if you allow a glass like this peated candy to stand around for a while. The nose is excellent.

Taste: Initially sweet, with lots of liquorice, even sweeter than the nose promised, like keeping Liquorice Allsorts in your mouth for a long time. This one is like peated candy. Liquid peat and liquid ashes and therefore turns dry quite quickly. The sweetness takes a backseat to even let this slight bitter note some room. This smoky peat has a slightly bitter edge to it, which is slightly different from woody bitterness. Crushed beetle again. I never dit taste the beetle mishap described above, but how it smelled is recognizable in the taste as well. Both the taste and the smell of this batch are about peat, smoke, ashes and liquorice. The sweetness, though present, is overpowered by the aforementioned foursome. Its actually hard to find something more to it than this. Yes what you get is very good again, but I’m definitely not sure of this batch #008 is on par with both #006 and #007, without comparing it to one of those.

I do can recommend having an archive. I have bought a lot of standard 60ml sample bottles, with special inert lids, to keep things like they were, and occasionally it is very useful to be able to go back for some reason or another. Not to dent a particular sample from my archive too much, I poured a little bit of batch #006, not to really compare the nose of the taste, but to compare the scores. I do can say that #006 has more of a classic Laphroaig nose, more old style so to speak, it even has clay, that batch #008 clearly doesn’t have. Batch #008 has some kind of “fire” theme going on. Batch #006, since it is not overpowered, that much seems more elegant, both nose and taste. Not sure if elegance is something that springs to mind when reviewing a 10yo Laphroaig bottled at cask strength. Final remark: batch #008 is raw and in your face and therefore also simpler and also slightly less balanced. I preferred batch #006, but I’m also quite happy that there is quite some difference between the two.

Points: 90

Highland Park 13yo 2005/2018 “Yesnaby” (58.9%, OB, The Keystone Series: Part Four, First Fill Sherry Seasoned American Oak Casks, 1.200 bottles)

After some disappointment in the past due to batch variation in Highland Park standard bottlings (especially the 18yo, since that happened to me twice), I put Highland Park on the back-burner. Quite the decision, since Highland Park always was and still is one of my favourite distilleries. So after laying low for a while, this Highland Park Yesnaby came with a heartfelt recommendation, so I got one or maybe even two. I remember hearing something about this being reminiscent to the legendary wide neck 18yo. So it fits in my character to say; “why get only one if you can get two for twice the price”. Two of these is still considerably cheaper than getting the aforementioned wide neck at auction, or at least it used to be, since 1.200 is not a lot of bottles, prices for this one are rather going up recently.

Fast forward quite a bit. The guy initially recommending Yesnaby to me, recently (so after the initial recommendation), did a quick and small blind tasting of the “Yesnaby”, the 18yo “Viking Pride – Travel Edition” and the old wide neck 12yo, and low and behold (I always wanted to say this somewhere in a review), low and behold, the Yesnaby didn’t come out on top! Even better, it was on par with the wide neck 12yo quality wise. We all know the wide neck 18yo is much better than the wide neck 12yo. The 18yo Viking Pride – Travel Edition actually won it, although some in our outfit preferred one of the two others. All three are still good Whiskies and by now we all know, what my thoughts were about the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition (from the previous review). I don’t have a 12yo wide neck at hand so that one is out for now. Also there is some variation between the batches of that one too. But at least I had the chance of reviewing, in my tightly controlled environment, the two others from that impromptu blind tasting.

Color: Copper Gold, I guess caramel coloured.

Nose: Creamy and fruity. Vanilla pods. Fresh and slightly sharp. Sometimes Sherry, (Oloroso I guess), can have this slightly funky and farmy, bad breath kind of aroma to it. This has it, but don’t you worry, it sounds worse than it actually is. The aroma is somewhat akin to that of cooked vegetables. Hints of slightly burnt caramel, those of you that ever used a torch on Creme Brûlée will know. Diluted red fruit lemonade and slightly nutty as well. Soft wood, fresh oak (both distinct aromas and differ from each other) and a little bit of wet cardboard for good measure. Rainwater, somewhat dirty, because it has this organic, funky element to it which has me baffled a bit. Vanilla pods, but very restrained or masked. In the nose it is clear this is a a rather fresh yet also with this deeper and more brooding element to it. Slightly hot, high ABV Whisky. Less accessible than the aforementioned 18yo. Reasonably complex. This is more a Whisky for more experienced people, wouldn’t recommend this to you if you’re new to Whisky, since the taster has to “work” this one a bit, never a good sign, but can definitely bring in some results if you have the experience. It also smells hot what a beginner would call “sharp”, and nobody likes “sharp”. Finally it doesn’t let the layers out very well initially, but a few drops of water and some extensive breathing in my glass did wonders. Its thus a bit closed, but opens up after some “work”. Finally a nice mineral aroma you get from very good (mineral) White Wines, like Pouilly Fume and to a lesser extent Riesling. Even more organic rainwater now, very interesting Highland Park.

Taste: Sweet and dry at the same time. Lovely entry. Sweet nutty toffee and some sweet peat as well. Right upfront quite alcoholic as well, which doesn’t seem to integrate all that well initially. More sugary sweet than honey at first, (honey comes later on in the mix). Liquorice. Although heather does seem to be present, the dryness of oak and pencil shavings. seem to overpower it a bit. Oak is a main constituent of this flavour profile. Can’t imagine this being very old wood though. No use really to compare this to the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition, both are quite different and the difference in ABV is also too great. Very, very modern Highland Park. Strong as well. I’m often not the fist one to add some water to a Whisky, but this time I’m going to try that later. Without water still, but with some extensive breathing, the taste reaches a balance, which is very nice, but still not accessible and making it definitely not beginner-friendly. I hope travellers chose other bottling from the keystone series that have a much lower ABV than this particular one. This one anaesthetizes the roof of my mouth. I tasted this over the course of some days and where at first the dryness and woodiness did seem to overpower, the next time around (earlier in the day and with some tiny drops of water), the sweetness did stand its ground, making for a more pleasuring experience. So even though this is a Sherry bottling, which often don’t take water very well, this one actually gets beter. Just don’t overdo it. I have to say, this one definitely grew on me. Needs some water and not one for very late at night.

In the end this one stands further away from the wide neck 18yo than the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition. Yesnaby is probably closer to many of the many Single Cask releases of roughly the same age Highland Park is putting out to different outlets, airports and countries. So I guess I maybe misheard the claim and should have gone for the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition in stead, oh well… What is actually funny, looking at the previous review, is that I mentioned that a lot of travel retail bottlings come in at 40% ABV. It is actually Highland Park that is releasing lots and lots and lots of single casks all over the world, that are also very high in ABV, something in between 58% ABV up to 66% ABV, in a way I stand corrected. I plan to open one of those as soon as I finish this bottle of Yesnaby… (I’m happy to report the bottle has been emptied whilst I’m dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of this review (its the day after). A replacement has also already been found today: 14 yo (2004/2019) from the Single Cask Series bottled for Norway at 59.7% ABV (Refill Butt #6450). Final note, no clue what a Yesnaby is, sounds like a Yes tribute band. OK, I looked it up, Yesnaby are the dramatic, scenic sandstone cliffs on the west coast of Orkney’s Mainland. There also is a Yesnaby Castle.

Points: 87

The Highland Park “Keystone Series” consists of five limited-edition bottlings released to celebrate the distillery’s five traditional production pillars (1.200 bottles for each of the five expressions):

  • Hobbister, hand-turned floor malting, mix of 6yo heavily peated Whisky mixed with the Whisky intended for the regular 12yo general release, 51.4% ABV (Hobbister Moor is Highland Park’s peat source).
  • Shiel, locally sourced aromatic peat, 100% hand-turned floor malted barley, 48.1% ABV (Shiel is a wooden shovel to turn barley on the malting floor).
  • Quercus, Sherry-seasoned oak casks, First-Fill European Oak Oloroso Sherry Casks, 48.3% ABV (Quercus is latin for oak).
  • Yesnaby, cool maturation, First Fill Sherry Seasoned American Oak Casks, 58.9% ABV (Aged in Highland Parks most northerly and coolest warehouse).
  • Hillhead, Cask harmonization, Mix of Whiskies from: an European oak Sherry cask, an American oak Sherry cask and a Bourbon American Oak cask, 46% ABV (Cask harmonization is marrying Whiskies from a number of casks in a marrying vat).

Hazelburn “CV” (46%, OB, 11/441)

Even after the Springbank and the Longrow, I still didn’t plan to do a Hazelburn next. Actually, even the Longrow wasn’t planned as the follow-up of the Springbank 15yo. (but more on that later, probably the next review, when additional data comes in). However, I didn’t even get to rummaging through the box yet, the box I mentioned in the previous two reviews, to look for a sample for this review, when I opened a closet in my study, my eye fell on a low-level bottle of Hazelburn. The Hazelburn was put there to review it before it would be gone. Sometimes a Whisky is so easy that you tend to reach for it quite often, so it had to be saved from my lectern, before finishing it un-reviewed.

Right at the moment I saw it, only then it hit me like all planets suddenly aligned. The third review had to be Hazelburn of course! Funny enough, I even checked if maybe I already did write this one up, but to my amazement, I haven’t even reviewed a Hazelburn on these pages before. I did actually, but non of those have been published yet. I tasted lots and lots of Hazelburns over the years and I find Hazelburn to be a hidden gem and seriously underrated. Springbank has lots of fans, hence Hazelburn is therefore often a bit overlooked. I get it, nothing better than the original ‘eh? For instance, you can see that at auctions, Prices for Hazelburn and also Longrow are lower compered to a similar Springbank. In the end I somehow got a sign that this should be the next one, and since this is the last of the brands produced at Springbank Distillery, the next review will be of something entirely different, so If you expect the next review to be of Kilkerran, I’m sorry, nope, although it has the same owners and is partially made by the same people, it is from another distillery (Glengyle). The “brand” Glengyle has another owner, so they couldn’t name the Whisky that, so the Whisky from the Glengyle distillery is called Kilkerran. To finish off, Hazelburn is triple distilled, and unpeated, although peat doesn’t seem to be totally absent from many Hazelburns…

Color: Straw gold.

Nose: Clean, sweet and malty. Oily. Fruity and very aromatic, very fragrant. This leaps out of my glass and smells more potent than 46% ABV. Sharp fresh air, and only a tiny hint of wood. Smelling it more, keeps giving me these sweet ripe yellow fruit aromas. Sweet yellow fruit yoghurt, you tend to have after breakfast (at least, I do). Mind you, this is a powerhouse and I’m literally reviewing drops of the last 7 cl of the bottle. Springbank distillates are known to take air very well, almost every time oxidation is a friend, well this is most definitely no exception. Maybe the last few pours from this bottle simply are the best? Dried apricots and sugar cubes. Cold mineral machine oil (you use on a sewing machine), the cleanest you can get. Cold not warm, warm oil is different. Hints of coal and steam. Next some smoke, surely they can’t clean the pipes and the rest of the distilling equipment that well, that this doesn’t come from peat from previous distillations? I do get smoke, like from the bonfire kind. Peat? Not really no. First of all this is a NAS (No Age Statement) bottling so, this can have some young Whisky in it (CV is said to have malts from 6yo up to 12yo old), and still this has a fantastic balance to it, maybe even more so due to extensive oxidation. The Hazelburn distillate must be a magical Spirit. The people at Springbank that thought of distilling three times without peat and thus creating Hazelburn are geniuses. Right from the start, I have been a big fan of Hazelburn in the portfolio of Springbank, it still is sort of a well kept secret. Final remark on the nose: The fruitiness dumbs down a bit after tasting because of the wood slightly dominating (what?) the palate, which then takes over in your oral cavity, pushing the friendly sweet fruit notes away. How rude!

Taste: Malty and creamy. Sweet and nutty (and dare I say, ever so slightly peaty? A tiny bit? Please? Oh come on!). Sugared almonds and some wax. Less of a powerhouse than the nose promised, but not by much. Cereal and barley. Barley sugar. Quite buttery come to think of it (also in the nose). Very tasty! Where wood wasn’t all that prominent in the nose, here in the taste it has a larger role to play. There is some vegetal oak and sometimes even some hay-like notes (which then reminds me a bit of a Grappa), as well as some toasted cask notes, and when you get those, they are here to stay, later on accompanied with some woody bitterness. the bitterness is kept in check, but is definitely present. Yes, greener and less fruity than the nose. Less fruity, because the wood takes over. Less complex, and not as much development as I might have hoped for, but the balance makes up for that. I guess the lesser complexity is because of the younger elements of this Whisky. Mind you, this was intended as an introduction to Hazelburn of sorts. It doesn’t have an age statement and thus allowed for some freedom in the composition of it, (the ages of the Whiskies that went into this bottling), so it could be released for a fair price. If only this had slightly less wood and slightly more of that wonderful sweet yellow fruit…

Hazelburn CV (Curriculum Vitae), which stands for course of live and is mainly used for someone’s resume in which you sum up your live and achievements. Sometimes CV has also been explained to mean Chairman’s Vat. Together with Hazelburn also a Springbank CV and Longrow CV existed, all now discontinued by the way, the three were said to be blended from whiskies from 6yo to 12 yo, and the three would show the consumer the differences between the three. Again, Springbank being 2.5 times distilled and (lightly) peated. (2.5 times, because half the Spirit in Springbank is 2 times distilled and the other half 3 times). Longrow is 2 times distilled and (heavily) peated and Hazelburn, as mentioned already above, is 3 times distilled and unpeated.

Points: 86

For those of you, like me, that are more anoraky (a Whisky nerd of sorts): here are the rotation numbers for Hazelburn CV (the list might not be complete):

20cl bottles: 09/468, 10/422, 11/109 and 12/63 (so end of 2009 to early 2012), I believe all were in a CV-set of the three whiskies, not sure if they were sold separately. There are also bottles without a rotation number, maybe from 2013?

70cl bottles: 10/351, 10/356, 10/429, 10/506, 11/441, 12/251, 13/185 and 13/188 (so end of 2010 through early 2013, no sign (yet) of a 70cl bottle from 2009)

Assumptions, assumptions: Maybe the 09/468 set was intended for Christmas, which would make sense since there doesn’t seem to be a 2009 70cl in existence? Maybe the decision to bottle the 70cl CV was made after the release of the set, since is was bottled almost a year after the first set? Since the 2013 70 cl bottle was bottled in early 2013, it likely no set was made in 2013, also the last set was bottled very early in 2012.

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

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

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

Color: Straw.

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

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

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

Points: 85

Paul John (57.67%, OB, Single Cask #1615, for Germany, 216 bottles, 2016)

As said in the previous review, I tend to have a pair of open bottles of Paul John on my lectern. At the moment cask #4914 (peated) as well as this unpeated #1615 are on there. Both bottled for the German market. After the peated expression, lets mow turn our attention to the unpeated expression. In the previous review I have remarked that the peated expressions seem to be better and thus score higher. Unpeated cask #1051 scored relatively low with 84 points and low and behold, now the peated cask #4914 from the previous review scores mid eighties as well. 85 points is lower than its predecessors. This is how the universe tends to work. I’m now betting on this cask #1615 getting a score, very high in the eighties, to bring balance in said universe. Not much more to add to the intro at this point, all has been said, so why not cut this intro short for once and dive right into this unpeated Paul John.

Color: Slightly orange gold.

Nose: Fruity and very appetizing. Right out of the gate a fruity, nutty and friendly dram. Malts, sweet malt actually. Lots of unexpected fruit notes, still have to wrap my head around all these fruits. All yellow fruits. Now I get hints of grapes and Alsatian über aromatic Gewurztraminer. Wow, how’s that for yet another take on a single cask Paul John. Ripe yellow fruits, bananas from Jamaican Rum. Cask #1615 turns out to be quite the funky puppy. Wet cardboard and dust. Quite a change is happening now to the body of this Malt. Dry wood with more fruit and vanilla. Fruity ice-cream. Instant gratification, not a lot of layering or complexity. This one puts all its wonderful smelling cards on the table right away.

Taste: Very tasty right out of the gate. Fruity like the nose with nice, slightly prickly oak. Nutty, somewhat vegetal and with a slightly sweet deepness. Warming. Very well balanced. Amazing actually how all these Paul John single casks can differ so much, and remember all are coming from first fill Bourbon casks. Unpeated yes, but there is something about this one. Maybe toasted oak, maybe the oak had lots of residual sugars, like a hint of smoky, sugary oak. Although the fruit dominates this Malt, the wood definitely plays a wonderful role as well. Paul John always claim to be tropical, well if you want a tropical Paul John, this is it. It’s the most tropical I’ve had to date. Very fruity but with a paper or cardboard edge to it, turning into a more bitter wood note, as well as some pencil shavings in the finish. Quite dry. This would have benefited if some of the fruity sweetness would have made it into the finish more, as well as into the aftertaste. In no way is this young smelling or unfinished. Maybe if this had aged some more, it might have gained somewhat more complexity, but it might also have picked up some more wood and bitterness and it also has more than enough of this, so maybe it is at its best as it is.

Points: 88

As a casual sipper I definitely preferred this unpeated cask #1615 to the peated cask #4914. With other sets of open Paul Johns I had in the past, it is often the other way around. Also I’d like to mention that casual sipping is much different from analyzing, because in the case of the latter, the Whisky is getting much much more attention. When analyzing, the Whisky is the focal point whereas with casual sipping the center of attention might be a film, a book or an interesting conversation, to name but a few distractions. This shift in attention also changes your perception of the Whisky at hand more than you might think.

Since this turns out to be yet another high scoring Paul John, and since I still have a wee dram of peated cask #745 left, lets compare these two for a moment. Wow, smelling cask #745 (again, the darker of the two) after cask #1615 makes it truly amazing. Holy moly what a winner cask #745 truly is on the nose. And what a nice pair to smell. The peated one has the Paul John plastic note, and this unpeated one does not. cask #745 has peat, clay, rubber and plastic, all traits cask #1615 does not have (obviously). cask #745 is a way more fuller and aromatic Whisky, more industrial and much bigger (and it has horseradish in the aftertaste). It unhinges slightly in the finish though, and that is probably why cask #777 scored a point more than cask #745. Both cask #1615 and cask #745 taste entirely different. So again, 89 points for cask #745 still stands (again) and the way cask #1615 finishes and all things considered, 88 points is correct amount of points for this one as well. Mind you, all this scoring stuff is highly personal, so I urge you all to make up your own mind if you get the chance to taste the Whiskies you read about, and don’t follow what anybody says blindly. Over and out for now!

Paul John (59.2%, OB, Single Cask #4914, for Germany, Peated, 138 bottles, 2017)

For a long time now I have been opening two Paul John bottles at once. One peated and one unpeated, once a mix of both. Very often single cask offerings, simply because they interest me the most and beauty lies in the details. As far as know, all the single cask offerings I came across are ex-Bourbon casks, so no Sherry or Port stuff here. As many aficionados or anoraks know, Paul John appeared on my radar because of the wonderful tornado that is Shilton Alameida, currently of Tel Aviv outfit Milk & Honey. If you ever visit a good Whisky Festival go over and visit Shilton! Paul John does not seem to bottle a lot of single casks anymore, so most of the reviews that will appear on these pages in the future are bottles from my stash. These older single cask offerings will disappear more and more from retail shelves although they still do appear in auctions with decent hammer prices. Decent from the buyers perspective that is.

I’ve had plenty of Paul Johns open, and thus Paul John is no scarcity on these pages, with even several independent offerings from Malts of Scotland and Cadenheads. However the focus now lies on Officially released Single Casks and as has been the case earlier, I will review one peated and one unpeated expression. Until now, three unpeated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier (scores between brackets): cask #1444 (89), cask #1906 (87) and cask #1051 (84). Two peated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier: cask #745 (89) and cask #777 (90). As can be seen the peated expressions right now seem to be “better” than the unpeated ones. So lets see how the next pair will turn out. Let’s start with the peated expression: cask #4914.

Color: light, middle gold.

Nose: Initially quite malty, with fatty, smoky vegetal notes of peat. Clean and smoky, bonfire style. Light (and deep), yet also very balanced, fragrant and laid back. Ever so slightly meaty, more gravy-like actually. Slightly fruity with hints of warm plastic and distant vanilla. Soft wood and fresh almonds. Pencil shavings later on in the mix, and I might add, these are the shavings of a very old pencil. Its warming, fresh and clean at the same time. The nose has a pudding-like quality to it and is actually very nice, not raw or harsh in any way, nor is the smoke sharp. If the taste is anything like the nose is we’ll have yet another peated winner from Paul John. Its almost like a breath of fresh air. Seaside, a strong and windy day kind-a fresh air, mixed in with some minty notes and horse radish, that’s how fresh this smells. This smells different from all other Paul Johns I had before. Much cleaner, and this time around, when sniffed “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have guessed this is Indian Whisky. I struggle to find the six-row barley in this one, its there, but less apparent than in most other ones. Still an amazing Whisky considering it still must be a young spirit, although we know by now how ageing works in the Goan climate.

Taste: Quite an unexpected start after smelling this one for a while. It starts sweet and nothing in the nose prepared me for that. Sweet and fruity and the almonds from the nose are present as well. First sip is very warming going down. Sweet with vanilla and slightly bitter wood. Very tasty, yet also a bit thin and a lot less complex than the nose was. The balance seems slightly off towards the finish, since not everything you taste seems to fit together perfectly. The wood becomes more paper-like, as well as slightly acidic, but not in a fruity way at all. It’s the acid you get from oak. You can almost smell this acidity in freshly cut oak. So the start and most of the body are more than OK, it’s the finish and especially the aftertaste where things start to go slightly wrong. It is layered, but in this case the layers won’t stick to each other. A sort of unpleasant tension is happening between the layers. I have plastic in the finish, and if I smell it right after that, the nose shows this plastic edge as well. Plastic is not uncommon for Paul John, but it usually isn’t a problem. It is actually a bit of a shame the palate can’t keep up with the nose, especially since the nose promised so much, and this is not even a heavy hitter, so go figure. Hey don’t get me wrong, this is still a tasty Whisky, but it certainly does have its flaws. The wood is slightly too bitter, and it goes downhill in the finish and the aftertaste. It loses its sweetness and fruitiness, to be replaced by acidic wood. Easy to pick up on when one’s somewhat experienced with Paul John.

As luck would have it, I still had a sample lying around from cask #745, the liquid of which is quite a bit darker, way more creamy and pleasant and way more balanced. Yeah, cask #745 is really good stuff. Based an a quick comparison on the nose, cask #745 is the clear winner. It has a lot more going on for it. It’s quite a big difference as well for two bottles you would expect to be similar. To sum things up, not all single casks are created equal. If you come across one, you might want to pass up on unpeated cask #1051 and thus this peated cask #4914, both are sub-par compared to the rest, yet still not bad. On the palate, cask #745 is also much better, bigger and way more balanced. The peat is different and more special as well. It also has some off-notes, but these work well with in stead of working against the Whisky, and only adds to the experience.

Do I regret getting #4914? No, not at all. After a few of those single casks, one might think all are quite similar and also might get a bit boring. However cask #4914 is still a good one, and trying it is still a great experience because of the different feel it has, and it also shows me how good #745 really is. By the way, cask #745 also has the same plastic note as cask #4914, and is much better. See, off-notes aren’t necessarily bad, they can work. This review has again been quite educational, and when these two bottles are gone, I will more than happily replace them with two other single casks, one peated and one unpeated. I guess the 89 points for cask #745 still stand, although 90 points would feel good as well.

Points: 85