Category Archives: Whisky from Master Quills Travels

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Ardcore (46%, OB, Black Malt, 2022)

I do have to admit, I really am a sucker for the Ardbeg visuals, and yes, the marketing does play its part in that. Even I am susceptible to that, there is no escaping from it! I just love the classic Ardbeg bottle, its shape, the green glass, and all those many different labels it now comes with. So having a few of those side by side on my lectern makes for a nice look, somewhat akin to me really liking the look of the wall of books in my living room. Also a stunning visual. People are collectors by nature, so gettin g a few of these is quite normal, also I do like the explore the different takes on Ardbeg, however I’m not a completist, I do not necessarily need to have them all, although more is definitely more. If I pass on one or the other it is mostly based on price.

For this fourth instalment in Ardbeg April, lets do even some more recycling shall we: A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones I previously reviewed use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximénez (Spain), Marsala (Sicily, Italy) or Port (Portugal) kind. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks, casks with toasted virgin oak lids (funny business with casks) or using a high density mash (funny business during production). For Ardcore, Ardbeg did a hardcore roasting, ending up with black malt. A process more common in the world of Beer. Just think of Beers like Porters and Stouts. A stage before black malt is called chocolate malt (slightly less roasted). A malt that is used by Dr. Bill for Glenmorangie Signet.

Color: Light straw.

Nose: Initially malty, milky, young. Not particularly the nicest of smells. Barley, barley sugar. Soon after the first sniff a more balanced, less young and more spicy profile emerges. Spicy wood and maybe some a-typical woodsmoke. Roling the Whisky around in my glass brings out this youth again for only (and luckily) a brief moment. Sweet yellow fruits, not ripe per se. Nice fruity notes, like peach and apricots. Fruit balanced with paper and something a bit soapy. Interesting, but not a problem though. So heavy mash was supposed to add more tropical fruit notes to “Smokiverse”, but didn’t, and now barley that has been roasted to (almost) a crisp, does. Amazing. I guess these experiments show us some different results to what we might have expected, (all this obviously based on nose alone). So these experiments supply us with some essential data, another reason why it is pointless to be so highly critical to these bottlings (apart from their pricing maybe). If the price was lower, more people could learn a thing or two from these experiments. Now this NAS-series might be somewhat elitist because of their price and how many there are. That’s why quite a few of these reviews were from bottle shares, mostly done with Nico. Between Smokiverse, Spectacular and Ardcore, and absolutely smelling past the youthy bit mentioned above, I like the nose of Ardcore best. Forget about the first whiff though…

Taste: Sweet entry, initially a bit simple. Smoky and nutty, but it quickly gains momentum and opens op nicely. A very nice effect. The typical Ardbeg liquorice is present again, yet in this one it doesn’t overpower the rest of what you can taste as it did in some others reviewed before. In the others it was maybe a bit mono, here is it quadraphonic, making for a bigger stage (well, at least stereo, let’s settle on that). Ashes, charcoal, soft peat and soft smoke, but with an added bitter/burnt edge to it. Dark chocolate, pencil lead and ear-wax. Not over the top, so it is a nice addition, giving the fruit a bit of a backbone. These notes (not the fruity ones) are amplified if you have this one after dinner or late in the evening when your palate is saturated or tired. Clay (of the artificial kind that children play with). Again, very nice. Very fruity, with all these strict edges. Wonderful combination. Great balance between the more astringent notes, the sweetness and the fruit. Nice balance as well with the nose in  mind. Also worth another mention is this wonderful development. Classy. For those who wonder based on the previous reviews, nope, this one is actually not a big gulper, this one can be sipped just fine. For me it worked best as an aperitif and not an after dinner dram. Combined with the initial whiff, this is a Whisky that needs a bit of an user manual, so its not an easy one. Slightly bitter in its aftertaste (especially with a tired palate), that’s the black malt, dark chocolate bit of this Ardbeg

Well, Ardcore suits me just fine, this is right up my alley, its fruity and offers a lot more. Develops like crazy, development also quick right out of the gate. I can’t wait to get me one of those Committee bottlings, bottled at 50.1%, which can be an ideal drinking strength, like all those Old Malt Casks from the previous two decades, especially since I feel 46% might be slightly too low for this profile. Yes this Ardbeg makes me very enthusiastic! Dr. Bill please consider this experiment a success. What about an addition (also in ABV please) to Uigeadail and Corryvreckan in the core range based on the Ardcore experiment, only slightly longer aged, to get rid of the first whiff? Oh, that would be so nice! Please? This one really seems to work best as an aperitif rather than as a digestif, it loses quite a bit of its magic after dinner. This one is meant for a fresh palate and not a tired one.

Points: 87

By now, and for now, we can identify the following three main groups for the special NAS-sers I have reviewed up until now:

1. (Part) Maturation in non-bourbon casks, easy peasy, not unusual, lots of options here,
2. Experiments with casks, experiments, nice, experiments are definitely a learning experience,
3. Experiments in production, even more experiments, how very nice, excellent!

2022 Ardbeg Ardcore: (Extremely) roasted black malt (3)
2014 Ardbeg Auriverdes: Toasted virgin oak lids (2)
2023 Ardbeg BizarreBQ: Double charred casks, Pedro Ximénez casks & BBQ Casks (1) & (2)
2012 Ardbeg Galileo: Bourbon + Marsala (1)
2015 Ardbeg Perpetuum: Bourbon + Sherry (1)
2025 Ardbeg Smokiverse: High gravity mashing (3)
2023 Ardbeg Spectacular: Bourbon + Port (1)

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Spectacular (46%, OB, Port Wine Casks & Bourbon Barrels, 2023)

For this third instalment of Ardbeg April, we can go green and totally sustainable, because in the previous review there is a sentence that I can recycle and expand upon with every review of an Ardbeg NAS special release, so here is the updated sentence: “A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones (I previously reviewed) use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximénez (Spain) or Marsala (Sicily) kind, probably anything other than Whisky matured in ex-Bourbon casks. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks, casks with toasted virgin oak lids (funny business with casks) or using a high density mash (funny business during production)”. Obviously there are more expressions, and the real list is much longer. All of the above are experiments from the mad professor Dr. B. Lumsden. Ardbeg Spectacular falls into the first category, since it is a blend of Whisky matured in Bourbon barrels as well as Whisky matured in Port casks. Port is a fortified Wine, from, you guessed it, Portugal. Bottled on November 14th 2023 and November 15th & 16th 2023, (for Feis Ile 2024). The back label of the bottling runs on the 15th and 16th have Shorty in the top right corner, whereas those bottled on the 14th have not. Shortie is Ardbeg’s Jack Russel Terrier pictured above, here on his official portrait.

Color: Light gold, without even the slightest pink hue.

Nose: Smoky, dusty and only mere hints of anything Wine like (apart from a hardly noticeable funky sulphur going on, matches). Smoky sharpness with soft and warming bonfire notes along with some minty notes. The sharpness you smell in the streets walking in the snow, and people burning wood in the fireplace. Mocha and milk chocolate. The whole much softer than Smokiverse. It seems to me these recent (modern?) Ardbegs are more based on smoke than peat. Sure the peat is never far away, but it seems to be a bit turned down in the mix. (Remember Lars Ulrich turning down Jason Newsted in the mix. “Turn him down until you can barely hear him, and then turn him down some more”). So, toned down peat, not very earthy and hints of burning newspaper. Still not a lot of Port like candy, yet there is some (I guess). Not a lot of red fruits in general. Funny enough, towards the finish I do pick up on some well dried orange skin. Well dried, so without the acidic bit. Also some fresh oak, slightly more peat and iodine. Should I again mention the marketing department? Why not, so here we go again (briefly). It seems to me they read somewhere that Port casks were used and came up with the “Spectacular” narrative. Based on the nose alone, let’s say, to cut the story short, not a lot of Port-like aromas can be found. But hey, I still have to taste it. I do have some humongous déjà vu right now, there seem to be some similarities in the construction and marketing between Spectacular and Smokiverse. So I now wonder, will this be the another big gulper? I should trademark this, oh great it already is, bummer.

Taste: On entry quite thin with the same liquorice notes Smokiverse has, just somewhat less of it. Barley with a more milky spirit, which makes me believe this is overall a younger Whisky than Smokiverse. Looking at the two initially it’s like both are very similar with the only difference being that spectacular saw one or two Port pipes. If there were more, I’m sure they are refills, and the heavy mash might be a difference, which also didn’t dominate in Smokiverse. The Port didn’t impair a lot of sweetness. The sweetness this has is more of the toffee kind, than it is fruity. However, after some extensive breathing, they start to differ more. Spectacular gains more wood, with a slightly bitter edge, some tar and a more powdery feel and finally some more (thin) red fruity notes, complete with some red fruit acidity. Although hardly noticeable, I’m now pretty sure the Port used must have been of the Vintage kind (red), since the back of my tongue picks up on some tannin’s. Also the smoke in the nose becomes more “tasty” with an added dimension from what seems to be cigarette smoke). A very interesting development. Dare I say it? Can I, can I? Yes, this is yet another big gulper, with bigger gulps this gains in complexity and overall body, remember the thin entry? This has been remedied by the bigger gulp.

Based on the colour (which is a very dangerous assumption), but also on experience (am I experienced?), it seems to me not a lot of Port casks found their way into the final product. A very understandable decision, since Port can easily overpower, giving the Whisky a sweet candy like taste.

I might seem highly critical of these NAS Ardbegs, but again, the nose of this is very good, but the taste stays behind a bit, also it seems to me to be somewhat less balanced. I did like Smokiverse and most of the others more, but the drinkability of Spectacular is a redeeming factor. These NAS-ers are nice additions across the board, but for what they are, maybe somewhat overpriced. The  higher proof standard bottlings Uigeadail an Corryvreckan are very reasonably priced, and maybe therefore the special NAS releases are getting some slack when they are compared to those. And to finish things off, no mention whatsoever about the kind of Port these casks held before. Based on the colour of the Whisky I would say White Port since it totally lacks the pink hue Red Port impairs. Still Red Port seems to be more likely, why would there otherwise be so much red used on the packaging? Confusing.

Points: 85

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Smokiverse (48.3%, OB, High Gravity Mashing, 2025)

Last week we started off Ardbeg April with the “new” Ardbeg 17yo. This time around we are going to have a look at one of the many Ardbeg NAS bottlings.  This bottling was released to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Ardbeg Committee. A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones I previously reviewed use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like several fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximenez or Marsala kind. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks or casks with toasted virgin oak lids.

This Smokiverse is one of these out of the box ones. No funny business with casks this time, but funny business with mashing. This time we are talking about high gravity mashing, which means that the wort is highly concentrated or more dense and subsequently contains more (acetate) esters, giving flavour, or better, which áre the flavour. Less water, more grain, and to cut a long story short, this would result in a more (tropical) fruity and maybe sweeter Ardbeg. Also no mention at all about the casks used on the box or the label, so lets assume (refill) Bourbon casks before starting off, careful with that assumption, Eugene…

Color: Straw.

Nose: Some smoke, with citrussy yellow fruits, so definitely fruity. Recognizable Ardbeg peat, earthy and funky. Also a little bit of funky organics going on within the peat smell. Fans of Ardbeg will recognize it immediately. Hints of burnt plastic, like melting cables. Luckily a mere hint, because if this would have been a more dominating smell, we would be in for a problematic journey. Hints of sulphur in the smell. Tea and moss. Is it overly fruity? No, I wouldn’t say so. Based on the marketing I expected slightly more fruit. The fruit, by the way, is all citrus, I have a hard time finding any kind of tropical fruit in it, and most definitely no ripe tropical fruit. All in all, the nose is quite restrained and also a bit simple. It doesn’t attack my nose when it nears the glass. It helps to warm the glass inside in your hand for a while, to get more out of it. Warming mocha pastry type of smell, maybe even mocha cake made with cream. For me a well behaved Ardbeg. The focus here lies on the dense mash, and with that the fruit, yet the name focuses on smoke. I have to admit that the smoke has a larger role in this one than even the peat does. For me these two definitely do no define this Ardbeg, both don’t dominate the nose of this Ardbeg, something else almost does. Please read on. I guess the marketing department read a story about it, in stead of tasting it. Personally, I would have used images of alone drinker in an armchair and a fireplace instead of a galaxy. I guess the galaxy came in when someone read the word “gravity”, not bothering to ask someone with a nose how this actually smells. But hey, I might be way ahead of myself here, I’m rambling, ranting almost, without even tasting it, so let’s do that now, shall we?

Taste: Well, “nutty” was the first wordt that sprang to mind when tasting this for the first time. Smoke and liquorice next, liquorice is a main marker, it pops up everywhere, and is especially present in the finish and aftertaste, aided again by some smoke. Slightly sweet, but not in a fruity way, yet more like a sweetness coming from the liquorice. The taste is a bit thin again, so again, I feel this is an Ardbeg that needs a bigger gulp, like the 17yo from the previous review did. By the way, this review is written on a entirely different day than that of the 17 yo’s, in case you might wonder. The next sip was indeed a bigger gulp, and yes that’s it, this brings it out way better! I immediately poured some more in my glass. Proper gulping needs more volume. If you have one open, and you are reading this, please join me. The bigger gulp offers us much more depth, more sweetness and yes more liquorice. The whole comes together way better, also achieving a better balance. Chewy sweetness and yes finally, with more ripe fruits as well, with this tiny smoky backbone holding it al together. Interesting development.

48.3% ABV is slightly higher than most of these NAS bottlings which are bottled at 46% ABV I believe. I also understand why. This well behaved Ardbeg needed a bit of a boost, only, 48.3% ABV is still not enough, it’s still too quiet and maybe too well behaved, or it is what it is and we need to accept that this is its nice character. Letting it stand for a while, more of the Islay traits emerge, smoke, peat and tar. The Ardbeg smoke we all know, but not more or different from other Ardbegs, so to especially use the word “smoke”in the name is in my opinion slightly misplaced. Let it go, it’s not important really.

This almost turned out to be a review of a marketing idea instead of the Whisky. I’m sorry for that. Don’t worry, this is only a minor distraction. This is again most definitely not a bad Ardbeg, like many of the other special NAS releases, that somehow get a lot of negative reviews. Granted, Uigeadail and Corryvreckan are very, very good, high in ABV and cost (much) less. And the Ten is not bad either. Still I like Smokiverse. It’s a contemplative Malt, not one for a (big) group of people to have together, but one for you by yourself in your armchair before a cosy fire. To finish things off, haters will be haters, but for me this “yet another NAS” has more than enough interesting things that I like.

Points: 86

 

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