Category Archives: Whisky from Master Quills Travels

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg 17yo (40%, OB, Committee Exclusive, 2023)

The first of April is no joke this time. It is the start of Ardbeg April, one month which will be solely dedicated to some more recent bottlings of Ardbeg. Since there are already quite a few Ardbeg’s reviewed on these pages, the history of Ardbeg has already mostly been covered. For this review we first have to go back to 1996 when Ardbeg was put on sale and was bought by Glenmorangie Plc. for £7 million just a year later. Ardbeg distillery was in a bit of a state, so quite some renovations were necessary for which money was dearly needed. Also because of this, the most recent fase of Ardbeg’s modern history starts in 1997. Not only did Glenmorangie buy the distillery in that year (February 27th), with Dr. Bill Lumsden entering the Ardbeg scene, but also production was restarted (June 25th) and to bring in some money Ardbeg 17yo was released quickly thereafter.

Bottled at a mere 40% ABV (for the domestic market?), yet luckily there also was a 43% ABV version (for other markets or travel retail?). I tried several of both, and the extra 3% most definitely made a difference. Other landmarks were the releases of the 10yo (TEN) in 2000, Uigeadail in 2003 and Corryvreckan in 2008. These three form the true current backbone of the range. There are obviously a lot more releases since 1997, but in the day, these three together with the 17yo were “Ardbeg”. Alas the 17yo was discontinued in 2004, most likely, since Ardbeg was distilling intermittently, not a lot of stock for a 17yo was available anymore, hence the move to two NAS bottlings for the core range, though both boasted a higher strength than deemed normal for a core range. But hey, fans of Ardbeg are not normal folk. Then came 2023, the rebirth of the 17yo, return of a legend, bottled again at 40% ABV and commanding a hefty price. Both parameters made me pass up on a bottle of my own, but I did participate in a bottle-share with Nico and also Andy was so kind to provide me with a sample.

On the back of the box it is mentioned that for this release Dr. Bill Lumsden meticulously crafted this new 17yo to mirror the original, that is quite the statement, because the original 17yo has quite a reputation and proved to be highly popular and the available Whiskies at Ardbeg to create the original are very different from the Whiskies available today. I guess the original 17yo is a hard act to follow. For Ardbeg 17yo, Whiskies were used that matured in Bourbon and Sherry casks.

Color: Straw

Nose: Lightly peated, lively and very fruity. Light overall, so I guess the reduction to 40% ABV did its trick here as well, but I maybe getting ahead of myself here. Pour it and keep it under a lid for a moment, and then smell, works wonders. Comparing the old 10yo to the old 17yo. the 10yo was always more raw, peaty, just more of a beast. The old 17yo, was a way more refined and elegant Ardbeg. The smell of this new one is definitely soft, fruity and elegant, ther is a lot coming up from my glass. Pretty pleased with this one so far. Is it the same as the old 17yo? Hard to say without a head to head. Its been a really long time ago I had one full sized bottle open on my lectern. Does it smell like an older bottling? Sure, yes I believe so. So based on the nose alone I would say well done, getting this profile from more modern stock. Very soft and sweet smoke, combined with an almost sweet and citrussy fruitiness. After some breathing Iodine becomes noticeable. Very distant and very soft wood note (slightly salty smelling, yes salt has a smell as well). It is even more dusty than it is woody. Again, still very lively and fresh. The reduction is also noticeable that even after extensive breathing not a lot is happening anymore. No oozing of layers. Well balanced it is though. Extensive breathing also brings out more of a modern feel. Very nice nose. Well done.

Taste: First sip is almost like drinking water, I was prepared for some reduction, but not as much as this. OK, reset my expectations and palate and try again (just in case this is a big gulper, I splashed a little more in my glass for the second sip). Update: it is a big gulper, definitely! (This means, don’t drink this in small sips, this doesn’t work). The nose was quite “big” so this greeting was kind of unexpected. Second sip/gulp, still very thin. Slightly sweet, old peat, crushed beetle, slightly smoky and fruity again, exactly the same as the nose. Hints of cold black tea with yellow marmelade. Also hints of latex paint (minus the solvents) and a nice herbal note. Hot butter on toast. Again well balanced, but so thin. Funny enough the taste is more complex than the nose, especially when you let it sit for a while. Liquorice enters the finish, or better the aftertaste, it becomes apparent right after swallowing. Not a hard one to review.

Releasing this as a committee exclusive makes sense. This is for fans of Ardbeg (count me in). I’m a defender of all the NAS special releases, and believe me, I’ve got a lot of defending to do, even in my own Whisky-club. And just to annoy these people, then next review will be just one of those. The public in general probably haven’t tasted the old version, nor would pay the price. Aficionado’s have and will, and even better we even forgive them the reduction for historical reasons. I really like the experiment and seeing a 17yo again, and am happy I could try this. Will I buy it? Probably not, I guess the bottle-share suffices. No modern stock just doesn’t work at 40% ABV like older stock can, Great to get and older profile on the nose, but taste-wise I probably would have decided against 40% ABV even when the old 17yo was bottled at that strength, and please don’t tell me that is what the public wanted… This commands quite a hefty price, I wonder what an old 17yo bottled at 43% would cost at auction? Also, this new 17yo is a big gulper, as mentioned above, so be prepared you will finish your expensive bottle pretty quickly.

Points: 86 (It might be better than this, but it’s so thin!)

Thanks Andy: this was from your sample! I needed the lot in one sitting, also because I accidentally poured a little bit of it on my keyboard, sorry!

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 009 (58.1%, OB, 2017)

After batch #008, which was reviewed from my own bottle, just like batches #006 and #007, comes batch #009. Batch #009 which will be reviewed from a sample, just like in the future, batch #010. Having two samples provided to me for these two batches, I could skip those, so I opened a bottle of batch #011, for a batch #010/batch #011 review and comparison. Since these Laphroaig Cask Strength reviews are written in pairs, both will be obviously compared to each other. Batch #006 and #007 was quite fun to compare, and I guess batch #008 and #009 will be at least the same amount of fun.

One might think that all these batches would be very much alike, and sure, there are a lot of similarities going on, but quickly comparing batch #008 to a small drop of batch #006, showed quite a difference if you have them head to head. Especially if you are something of an anorak I suppose. Batch #006 was quite elegant as compared to batch #008, But from my notes, batch #007 was even more elegant, so far so good, with batch #008 being the most “raw” of the three. Obviously there are more (subtle) differences, but let’s not get into that here, especially since I can’t compare every batch to every other batch that Laphroaig has released, and there are a lot of them. For now, we are now going to focus on batch #009 and we will be loosely comparing it to batch #008. After that no more batch #008, since that bottle will be empty when we are done comparing batch #009 to it.

Color: Light orange gold.

Nose: Fresh air comes first together with some fresh oak and some fruit. Old bar of soap, and more fruits, yellow fruits initially and red fruit candy later on. Right out of the gate this has a very different character than batch #008. Like a winter storm (#008) and a summer breeze (#009). Smoke from a wood fire emerging from a chimney as smelled on a street on a cold evening, during a healthy stroll. Clay and glowing embers, warm charcoal. Next the fresh air again as well as some sea spray iodine. Warm cloth, yet almost overpowered by this cold fresh air note. It’s not minty or menthol like, just fresh air with a lot of oxygen in it. Warm smoke, the smoke in this one is excellent. This is, for a Laphroaig, a very accessible and also a very well balanced nose. Come to think of it, the smoke is wonderful, and its smoke alright, the earthy peat is very soft and subdued and almost pushed to the background. Hints of caraway seeds and cloves. I like this one very much, makes me a bit melancholic even. When I was little my parents often went to friends, and I came along. I had to sleep there when it was my bed time, only to be woken up again deep in the night (at that age, late in the evening feels like deep in the night), to go home. When driving home (it was strange to get out of a warm bed en be put into a cold car), i really liked the smell of fresh air at night. Also this batch #009 has some layering going on, because the nose changes over time (without adding water or warming it up in my hands). The nose gets deeper, slightly more peat now and maybe even a more nutty note emerges. The balance is great, of the four for me this one has the best nose, with better details than batch #006. Wow.

Taste: Sweet and smoky. Sweet and peat, sweet and ashes. Very nice fruity sweetness. An orchard Laphroaig. Quite a surprise for me. Warming, and ever so slightly bitter (peat, not wood). Seems slightly thin at first, and also the finish seems not to be the longest of the different batches, but not by a lot though. Tiny hint of a minty candy (one that is mainly sugar with a weak minty flavour). Only after tasting it, the nose shows me a meaty aroma, that of a thin slice of cold meatloaf (right out of the fridge). Soft and wet liquorice wood. The bitterness mentioned earlier is like a sharp edge, that somehow distorts the fruit aroma, in a way that it isn’t able to show me its fullest potential. I really like the complexity of this batch, especially since batch #008 isn’t very complex at all, that one has 4 heavy hitting pillars. Batch #008 has a very strong fundament, like a bunker, with nothing built on top. Batch #009 is like this wooden shed, with, stories being added over time. This might be the best of the bunch, but to me it is also the most interesting one. Still the nose changes over time and just keeps giving.

Well, comparing both noses to each other, first shows us that both are Laphroaigs, and not even that dissimilar. Definitely siblings, but not twins. I can’t add a lot more about the differences in the nose, that I haven’t already mentioned above. The head to head comparisons confirms what is written above. Batch #009 is slightly better balanced and more soft spoken, batch #008 is more bold and louder. Batch #009 has more room to show its sweetness and also its fruity sweetness. Batch #009 is in both the nose and the taste more complex than batch #008, actually, batch #008 is the least complex and the least balanced of all the batches mentioned above. Still, all batches are clear winners, but for now, batch #009 is the clear winner of the bunch.

Points:  93

Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride” (Travel Edition) (46%, OB, L0387A L04 25:07, 2018)

This Highland Park was actually selected to be the follow up review after Springbank 15yo from a few weeks ago, but after looking at the label of the sample, there seemed to be some information missing. This Travel Edition was bottled multiple times annually since 2018 (at least until 2023) and as could be read on these pages earlier, Highland Park can differ a bit from batch to batch. Batches of Highland Park are supposed to be as similar as possible to each other, not to scare the public, and in the pursuit of getting close to the same flavour, not every batch is as good as some others were. Similar in taste yes, but some batches were just better than others. I found this out the hard way, actually with two of the standard expressions of the 18yo (twice!). The first occasion was before Master Quill even happened, but the second time around, both got reviewed on these pages. One batch from 2012 and the other one from 2014. Back to this 18yo from 2018. Luckily, in this case the provider of the sample is again Nico (just like the Springer 15), and Nico is in a way the high priest of Whisky (I have a picture of him fully dressed up as the high priest of Whisky, but I don’t think I would get permission to put it in here). If I ask him a year later after receiving the sample from which particular batch this sample was, he can still unearth the very bottle this Whisky was sampled from and sends pictures of it. Now that we know from which particular batch this is we can continue reviewing it.

Oh goody, goody, a travel edition! Often not a good sign, since big companies (and Highland Park is owned by such a big company) usually use the travel retail outlets to offer, lets say, not their best drop, for more money than necessary. Some of these bottling have even lower ABV than a bottle from their general release. Just have a look at an airport or on a ferry and look for a travel retail bottling, quite a few are bottled at 40% ABV or if you are in luck 43% ABV. Back in the day, lets say the 60’s, the 70’s and the 80’s, 40% ABV was nothing to scoff at. Lots of Gordon & MacPhail’s Connoisseur Choice bottlings were 40% ABV and almost all of them easily held their own. Just have a look at St. Magdalene from this series. I know it is a scarcity now, since these bottlings come from a distillery that was closed in 1983 (a travesty!), but those of my age will now. Over time (Single Malt) Whisky became ever more popular so owners of distilleries sought ways to be more efficient and the search for types of Barley which would yield the most per acre began. The tastiest of barley’s have a lower yield per acre than the ones mostly used today and sometimes the older varieties are even harder to process. One example is bere barley, low yield, hard to manage, but very, very tasty, just take your time with a Springbank Local Barley made with bere barley. For instance, the 2017 11yo is a favourite of mine (and Nico) or a Bruichladdich made with bere barley, a fine dram as well, young (around 6yo) but fine nevertheless. I digress again. On general release there is a Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride”, which is widely available, bottled in a clear glass bottle and reduced to 43% ABV, where this Viking Pride Travel Edition is in black glass and bottled at 46% ABV. So all signs say this one should be better than the normal one, so lets find out… (we won’t, because I have never tried the 43% version, but at least we will find out if this one is any good).

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: Sherry, very clean. Immediately very appealing. Highland Park heather and some sweet honey as well. Creamy sweet, with the cream masking the fruitiness this unmistakably has. Breath of fresh air whiffs by right from the start. Clean oak, fragrant wood. Orkney is rugged, but this smells summery (present day), maybe because is was bottled in summer? Altogether a very pleasant smelling Highland Park. Creamy custard, caramel and toffee, but also herbal, as well as spicy, not only from the wood, there is more to it. Chocolate chip cookies. Hot chocolate (with Rum). Warming the glass in my hand, helps even more aroma’s out. A warming chocolatey and smoky note come out to play as well as a tiny hint of bacon aroma emerging from the sizzling pan. Yes, dark chocolate as well, but not its bitterness. If the taste matches this very tasty nose, then we’re most definitely in for a treat.

Taste: Oooh yes. Sweet on entry but there is so much more. A smoky and slightly bitter edge to it. Bitter wood, bitter smoke, nothing overpowering though. The heather and the honey from the nose are present here as well, like a carbon copy. It actually tastes exactly like it smells. Modern Sherry notes, slightly tarry. Dark chocolate. Just the right amount of creamy sweetness. The oak delivers vanilla, so this must have been Sherry cask made from American oak. Toasted oak as well. Nice sweetness again. When tasted on another day, the sweetness was less, so dependent on the taster. The whole is very tasty, yet it is what it is, its not a super complex beast, but in this case it’s alright. A smooth, easy and elegant expression. The Springbank 15yo was more a in-your-face type of Whisky. 46% ABV seems to be just about right for this Highland Park, where it seemed to be too low for the Springbank 15yo. Not sure if 43% ABV for the standard edition will be enough. Who in their right mind would like to reduce a 18yo Whisky to 43% ABV? Because the consumer wants it, or because it makes you more money? All blah-blah-blah, but hey what do I know, lets revisit this review if I ever get the chance to compare it to the 43% ABV standard version or try it on its own. Final thoughts: Definitely a very good 18yo again from Highland Park, also quite modern, the wide neck 18yo from yesteryear is most definitely a step up from this one. However today, the price of the wide neck is also a step up from this proud viking.

Points: 88

Again, thanks go out to Nico for providing this sample.

Here we have some room to decipher the code: L0387A L04 25:07 (and a time code):

  • L0387 is the rotation number.
  • A is 2018, B is 2019, C is 2020, D is 2021, E is 2022, and F is 2023. As far as I know no bottlings of this expression were done since 2024.
  • 25:07 is the 25th of July.
  • L04 is probably a number depicting a particular bottling line, I didn’t check this on other Highland Park bottlings yet.
  • Now we also know the Whisky at hand was from the very first release.

A quick search on the ol’ interweb resulted in the following batches, and again, this list might not be complete:

L0387A L04 25:07 (2018)
L0520A L04 04:10 (2018)
L0216B L04 09/05 (2019)
L0449B L04 04/09 (2019)
L0165B L04 03/04 (2019)
L0117C L04 23/03 (2020)
L0117C L04 24/03 (2020)
L0003D L04 13/01 (2021)
L0081D L04 06/04 (2021)
L0355D L04 09/11 (2021)
L0135E L04 27/04 (2022)
L0038F L04 09/02 (2023)
L0124F L04 19/04 (2023)
L0209F L04 20/06 (2023)

Longrow 11yo 1993/2005 (56.8%, Cadenhead, Authentic Collection, Bourbon Hogshead, 270 bottles)

At this point in time, the review of Springbank 15yo (the previous post) was written yesterday, so there is a big chance comparisons will be made between this Longrow and said Springbank. Yesterday’s review was written in one go. Happens often, yet is not a standard practice. Some Whiskies need a lot of time to show all they got and thus whiskies need to be revisited several times to truly “get” them and write up a proper review. These are often the more closed ones or the most complex ones. Yesterday’s Springbank wasn’t really all that complex to be honest. Sure, a lot is to be had from that Springbank, it’s very good, yet it offers it all up at the same time, not a lot of layering or development over time, so it lent itself perfectly for a one-go review. Also, some reviews write themselves and some, well, some just don’t. Sometimes it is actually very hard work, especially if a Whisky is closed and refuses to properly open up, not with warmth and not with water. Sometimes, and this luckily rarely happens, the mind just draws a blank, slowing the creative process. There are also a few reviews on these pages that were finished one or maybe two years after they were started, abandoned due to the mind drawing a blank, and rightfully so, because the subsequent review would have been sub-standard. But I digress.

After rummaging some more in the box mentioned in the previous review, I found another sample of interest, but since some data seems to be missing, that one had to be postponed, whilst I wait for some additional data to come in. After some more rummaging in said box, I found another sample from the Springbank distillery, this time around, not a true Springbank, but a Longrow. Same distillery, just more peat and only distilled twice as compared to a true Springbank which is distilled 2.5 times (as shown to the right). When you follow the flow in the chart, half of the Spirit flows through two low wines stills (#1 and #2), and the other half only through one low wines still (#2). In essence it is a 50/50 mixture of two times distilled Spirit and three times distilled Spirit. Fun fact, this Longrow was bottled by an independent bottler called Cadenhead, which has the same owner as the Springbank distillery. Nevertheless, Cadenhead bottles a lot more than Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn alone and have been doing that for a very, very long time.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Initially sweet and fruity. Nice vegetal peat, ever so slightly floral. Almonds and wax, typical Longrow of this age I would say. Sweet black tea (no milk used over here). Hints of coffee flavoured hard candy. Smells tasty, can’t hardly wait to take a sip. Just like the Springbank 15yo this also has a similar breath of fresh air, yet less so. Hints of cold gravy, this Longrow has a meaty quality to it, that definitely does not come from a Sherry cask, since this matured in a Bourbon hogshead. The meaty bits are right upfront. Leave the glass breathing and the meaty bits dissipate rather quickly. Since this is an ex-Bourbon refill cask, it is able to show more subtleties from within the spirit, where a Sherry cask can easily overpower the Spirit. You never know, but didn’t the colour on the Springbank 15yo give it away a bit? Tread carefully because often a lot of assumptions are made pertaining the colour of a dram. More funky vegetal notes emerge. See? It’s only 11yo and matured in a Bourbon cask, and this shows more complexity than the 15yo Springbank, and don’t get me wrong the Springbank 15yo is still a good Whisky, don’t get me wrong. Hints of white ashes and sweet woody liquorice, both well integrated with the peat. It is a young bottling at 11yo, but still it doesn’t smell heavily peaty, it smells like a peaty whisky that has matured for longer than it actually did. Peat gets softer and more mellow when the Whisky ages. Just compare a 10yo Longrow to an 18yo or a 21yo Longrow. Good Spirit, good cask. This Cadenhead offering is not really an elegant Longrow, and young Longrow’s rarely are, but it is most definitely a very accessible Longrow, it smells well balanced and well integrated, nothing really overpowers and everything adds to the whole. Definitely some development in the nose. The peat is more earthy now, with dry black tea leaves thrown in for good measure. Hints of distant fireworks, organic farmy notes and diluted red fruits, how’s that for complexity? No noticeable sulphur. Develops nicely with only some breathing, oxidizes very nicely, can take a lot of air.

Taste: Almonds, nutty, with a sweetish start. Sweet black tea. The first sip has a bitter tea-like finish to it, a note this Longrow could do without maybe? Second sip is more of the same actually, still nutty and still with a bitter edge to it, which is all right now, no worries. The taste actually matches the nose very well, both match quite good. In the taste, here it also has this vegetal feel to it. Waxy and velvety with a tiny burnt note, not entirely sure this is from toasted oak though. After the Springbank @46% ABV, I welcome this Longrow @56.8% ABV, it has more power, transports the aroma’s better and is more warming, which is nice with a peated Whisky. Next some Menthos, especially when you keep it in your mouth for a while without chewing on it. Very tasty stuff indeed this Longrow, apart from the ABV maybe, this one has a daily drinker quality to it. A fairly easy Longrow, one you will just want to keep pouring.

This is an accessible Longrow, easy going and very well balanced. Definitely not hot, and sure doesn’t taste like an 56.8% ABV Whisky to me. No need to add water. I did try though, sure it changes a bit (it becomes somewhat fresher, slightly less sweet), but it didn’t get any better, stays more or less on par with having it neat. In other words, you could surely add some water, in which case, you would end up with more tasty Whisky, because water also didn’t make it worse!

Points: 87

This time thanks go out to Andre Z. for the sample!

Springbank 15yo (46%, OB, 21/156)

Hello all, long time no see. Just in case you’re wondering, nope not dead yet! Just some busy and some trying times have passed, where reviewing took a bit of a back seat. All good now, so already busy filling this blank page with black words. For this review (Post #901 already), I looked through one of the many boxes I have standing around, filled with samples of mainly Whisky and some Rums. Whilst rummaging my eye fell on this particular sample, of which I thought, well that should be good, so after this long while, here we are with the third official Springbank 15yo on these pages. In 2015 I wrote up a review of a Springbank 15yo from round about 2003 (86 points) and in 2019 one from 2018 (86 points again). This time around, 2026 already, here we go with yet another Springbank 15yo, this time one that was bottled October 5th, 2021, will this one also get 86 points?. Here we go, let’s find out…

Color: Orange brown gold. Quite dark!

Nose: Holy Moly (Mo-99 in my case, nudge nudge Auke). Heavy sherry, black coal, liquorice, tarry, modern and “classic” at the same time. Almost that tarry salty rope you get from Islay Whiskies complete with this breath of fresh air (sea wind). “Classic” yet not old bottle though, but it does remind me a bit of good Whisky I tasted when I started out at the turn of 1999/2000. A nose that also reminds me of the better peated Whisky matured in Oloroso Sherry casks, yet still not old bottle though. Slightly funky, maybe from a tiny amount of Sulphur, but nothing to worry about. A thick jam-like fruitiness in this one and a whiff of sandalwood, unlit cigarette, cardboard and the smell of a sugar cube (yes, a sugar cube has a smell). Toasted oak and a nice vegetal greenness to it. Cold gravy and cold motor oil, as well as a little bit of hot cable (plastic). Tarry raisins. Very nice and interesting nose. You just gotta love Springbank. Don’t expect a lot of elegance in this particular expression though. This is the nose of a big and bold Springbank, yet not the most complex smelling expression. I wonder now of this will taste (somewhat) sweet…

Taste: Nope, not sweet and I also expected it to be thicker to be honest, but it seems quite thin. Well balanced though. Peat and tar again and a more accessible red/black fruitiness than the nose led on. Ever so slightly farmy. Hints of burned newspaper as well as the toasted oak from the nose. Toffee and slightly waxy. No sulphur, and slightly minty. Tasty stuff it is again. Still the thin aura sticks with me a bit. This might have been better at around 50 to 52% ABV to carry the weight a bit better, obviously a higher ABV won’t fix thinness. This is definitely not a sipper, I learned a long time ago (from Olivier, when tasting a 50’s Richebourg), that some Wines just taste the best in big gulps, big meaning not sipping before you call me crazy, although a big gulp sounds about right to me, so call me crazy then! I found this to be true, not only for Wines. This Springbank is thus not a sipper. With a bigger… ehhh, sip, more sweetness and more tar and liquorice emerge, making it even better balanced. Final note, almost every time around Springbank can handle a lot of air/oxygen, it oxidizes well, and gets better over time. This 15yo handles handles air/oxygen quite good, but not as much as other Springbanks. A fresh pour is definitely better than a glass that has been airing for half an hour. In the end this is a medium sized big boy, in your face yet also lacking a bit of complexity that would make it even better. Good Springbank for sure, I like it, could buy it, but it is not as good as some people say it is. It gets a lot of raving reviews, is this because of the colour I wonder?

One of Springbank’s biggest strengths has always been batch variation making Springbank a rather adventurous Whisky. Yet it also needs a word of caution if you don’t really fit the aficionado bill, and expect more of the same goodness you had before. Some batches are good and some batches are just better. If you come across a very good batch and you go out and buy a batch from that same (or another) year, you might be in for a small surprise, because going back from a very good batch to a good one, might result in a minor disappointment. Just look at the Springbank at hand, this one has rotation number 21/156 (bottled October 5th), and its the third time Spingbank bottled the 15yo in that year. There are two more bottle runs for te 15yo in 2015 that I know of: 21/01 (bottled January 4th) and 21/110 (bottled June 14th). Since its highly likely that the other two are different batches (too far apart?), there might be a difference in the composition, different casks used, although this time, word is, all three batches are fully Sherry, but I can’t be sure. Oh, and this one was released without a box.

Points: 86 (yes again, for me, this is what it deserved)

Thanks go out to Nico, the source of this generous sample, and Auke for asking for a new review.

 

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

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

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

Color: Light White Wine.

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

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

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

Points: 84.

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

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

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

Color: White Wine

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

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

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

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

Points: 86

Tomintoul 12yo 2007/2020 (65.7%, OB, Single Cask, Bourbon Barrel #11574, 235 bottles)

After all these years here we have another first on these pages. Recently Speyburn showed up here and now Tomintoul is featured here for the first time, so another old, yet not all that old distillery, since it was founded (only) in 1964. In this case, for me, Tomintoul is a very well known distillery and should have featured earlier, since I have already tried a lot of stellar bottlings from this distillery. Here we also have an official bottling. Not one of the core range, but one form the Single Cask series. I haven’t seen it here in shops in mainland Europe, so I guess this is some sort of an UK exclusive. I have managed to receive some drops of this at a Whisky festival. It were the last few drops from the bottle, so I hope it is enough for a full blown review.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Typical Bourbon cask, yet an especially very fragrant offering. Very big and aromatic, floral and nutty, making it quite special, setting it off from the typical Bourbon cask offerings. Appetizing. Fresh, like a cold day after lots of rain. Wood but in a soft way. No harsh oaky notes. So floral but also fruity. Quite citrussy. Seems like a simple refill barrel, but a very good one. Right out of the gate, quite big, aromatic and complex. There is a lot happening at once, as well as more than enough evolution, whilst sitting in my glass. The aromatic are a bit Christmassy. Bonfire and Christmas perfume. Toffee and caramel, yet also slightly woody and waxy. The fruity citric acidity sometimes drops out and comes back, like a turn signal or a neon sign. The nose is very good and also very interesting for a “simple” Whisky from a Bourbon barrel, well, let me assure you, simple it is not! The amazing complex floral aroma just keeps giving and expanding like a budding flower, but it is a big aroma, not a delicate small flower, but a big overpowering one, yet the smell is not overwhelming in this Whisky. The Whisky just keeps opening up, give more and more. This is a really big complex thing! Amazing stuff. I hope it is similarly great on the palate as well.

Taste: Fruity on entry, also sweet on entry. Very fruity and much more fresh and acidic than the nose alone promised, Sweet yoghurt with peach and some hints of licorice. Fresh, yet not really virgin oak. Yes at times it is a bit hot, but I wouldn’t give it the ABV it has. Wow! Hints of ashes and toasted cask. Vegetal and very well balanced. Slight woody bitterness in the finish and especially in the aftertaste. It starts fruity and sweet, turns dry quite quickly and then it shows its third tier with the woody bitterness, which sits a little bit outside of the balance for this Whisky. Layered. Nutty toffee. When finally tasting this (I smelled it for a long time), the nose just keeps evolving more and more. The profile and the ABV makes this a Whisky not entirely suitable for novices. I believe, experienced “drinkers” will appreciate it, and will appreciate it a lot. Medium length aftertaste, which is nice and tasty.

Not a lot more I can add to that. This is a remarkable Whisky, which is finished after only 12 years and coming from a “simple” Bourbon barrel. I want a full bottle!

Points: 89

Thanks Ben.

Speyburn 1991/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill American Hogsheads)

Speyburn is a distillery that is owned by Inver House which also owns Balblair, Knockdhu, Pulteney and Balmenach. This is the first time a Speyburn features on these pages, and the last one of these five that lacked a penned down review from me. Speyburn distillery was founded by John Hopkins in 1897. John was a Whisky Merchant keen to have his own distillery to make Whisky. So this distillery is 125 years old now and managed to fly under my radar for a very long time. Personally I had so little to do with the output of this distillery, in all honesty, I thought this must be a rather new distillery. So in the world of Whisky aficionado’s, this Whisky never popped up. I’m a member of a Whisky club, that exists for 21 years now, and I believe Speyburn popped up only once. Why is that? Sometimes distilleries just have a bad reputation or no reputation at all (which may be even worse). Just look at Tobermory, which for a while had a bad reputation, and look at them now! Deanston (had a bad reputation for a while, not any more! Glen Moray and Fettercairn are still not very popular, but definitely on the way up. Some distilleries somehow just stay under the radar, without a reputation, in all anonymity, like Speyburn. Glen Spey is another one of which I’m not even sure if it had/has a bad reputation or it is just anonymous, since I never tried a lot of it. Never mind. Let’s introduce to us: Speyburn!

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Malty, half sweet and pretty nice. Fruity and dusty. The dusty bit has to do with soft (wet) wood, paper and cardboard (and some distant dried apricots manage to trickle down as well). Creamy and somewhat unpleasantly organic at first (which is short lived), somewhere in between dishwater and someone’s bad breath, or evenmy own. Otherwise a typical (fruity) hogshead nose, hogsheads made from American oak (ex-Bourbon) that is. The whole nose seems initially quite restraint, yet manages to open up quite nicely eventually. This one isn’t leaping out of my glass (maybe the reduction to 46% ABV was at fault). When given some time the balance will be better and the slight off note mostly disappears. The bad breath note has now more to do with the wood. It integrates with it. After a while the yellow, sugared fruit pop up some more, they were hidden behind a paper-like note. Dried papaya, dried peach and apricots, retaining thus the sweetness of it. But still there is this funky breath/wood bit behind it all, mixing in with a faint liquid licorice note. The wood is slightly losing its innocence as well, becoming more spicy and assertive. Good for you wood! Actually not a lot more is happening nose-wise, even after I give it some time to breathe. Fruity rainwater. The more this breathes the weaker it gets.

Taste: Well, nice entry, with a short-lived acidic note right from the start. Yes fruity and lively. Nicely so. Appetizing and friendly. Highly drinkable, especially at this ABV. In our modern times, 46% seems to be an ideal drinking strength (and also the bare minimum, since 43% isn’t really accepted any more), whereas 30 years ago, 40% did suffice. Just try some Connoisseurs Choices from that era. Wood and nuts. Creamy, sweet (artificial sugar like aspartame) and fruity. And the paper bit from the nose is here as well. Not a lot of bitterness from the wood, yet it manages to grow a bit over time. It is very “nice”, yet it also lacks a bit of complexity and evolution, although it does gain a bit on the palate if you let this stand for a while, becoming bigger and better. It is what it is, and it won’t change much. Paper and fruit in the finish.

Yes likeable and no, it doesn’t make up for the lack of complexity and evolution. Although nice at first, I guess I would get bored a bit, if I had to drink the whole bottle over a period of time. Good stuff for a bottle-share or a sample though, but the whole bottle I would pass on. It just isn’t exciting enough to warrant a buy. On the other hand, if you are new to Whisky, this might be an instant pleaser for you, so it has earned a spot for itself under the sun, and rightly so. Having said all that, I still did like it.

Points: 84

Macallan “The Harmony Collection – Rich Cacao” (44%, OB, Sherry Seasoned European and American Oak, 2021)

When visiting the Whisky show last year (2022), my biggest disappointment came at the huge and wonderful looking Macallan stand. The Edrington group really knows how to market their stuff. I tried two different 12yo’s and the 2022 rare cask. All quite underwhelming for me. I might be spoiled, since I have tasted a lot of Macallans from the glorious days of “Science can’t wholly explain…” I can’t even remember when I bought my last Macallan, I only remember is was probably a Sherried Wilson and Morgan bottling (not the fantastic the 12yo though), yet still an independent bottling of “The Mac”. Good and affordable (for a Macallan). Now this modern “Rich Cacao” found its way onto my lectern… a free sample with a bottle of Cognac. I don’t expect much to be honest, after the aforementioned London experience, but I do hope this will be a good one. Probably sold out already, no surprise there, and I see it already costs a pretty penny in the secondary market, yet not as much as the Macallan from the glorious days, even the pretty standard ones.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Clean, fresh, woody Sherry, mocha with hints of latex paint, toast and some over-ripe almost rotting fruit (a good thing here). Better than expected actually, way better. I’m not smelling it blind, but I would say that it is recognizable as a (modern) Macallan Spirit. Nice dry and soft oak nose. Elegant, yet also somewhat robust even since this has been reduced to 44% ABV. Sweet caramel and toffee. Give it some time (but not much) to breathe and the aroma coming out of my glass is big. Dry cocoa powder, cookies and clean, dry, Oloroso Sherry. Dry vanilla powder and cold custard come next. Dark chocolate mousse, slightly sugared. Perfumy and complex. After all those weak Macallans I have tried recently, finally an interesting expression again. At least in the smell. Let’s try it now for real.

Taste: Sweet, waxy and Sherried, likeable and fun. Soft sweet (not acidic) red fruit compote (warm). Yes, a bit thin, tastes like a 40% ABV bottling. Tasty, but this has nothing to do with the Macallans from the glorious Sherry bomb days. Not the same quality and definitely not the same ooomphhh. This is soft, refined, elegant and designed and still manages to pack a small punch of the white pepper kind and some spicy dry oak. Cute. Some sweet licorice and Sherry notes come next. Dark yet sweet chocolate. Otherwise fruity and likeable, with a dry finish.

Well this was a nice surprise, a decent Macallan. Tasty and fun, yet also not all that special. Nice and highly drinkable, but not good enough to warrant the amount of hard-earned cash you have to shell out for this particular bottling (if you plan to drink it). If you are collector, then please do. Nevertheless, with a name so big as The Macallan, I expected a bit more. Good yet not a must try Malt for me. I’ll will continue to keep oogling the Macallan from a distance for the time being.

Points: 85