Category Archives: Whisky from Master Quills Travels

Aberlour 16yo 1995/2012 “Warehouse No 1” (57%, OB, Single Cask Selection, First Fill Sherry Cask #4934)

That’s not all! There is more. I hope you didn’t think I would have only hand-filled Aberlours from ex-Bourbon casks now didn’t you? This is a case of saving the best for last, at least so I hope. Experience showed me that the Aberlour spirit fares well in Sherry casks, and often something wonderful emerges. Just take a look at one of the best NAS bottlings in the Marketplace: The Aberlour A’bunadh. Up ’till now I reviewed two batches on Master Quill: #13 and #33 and calling both pretty good would be an understatement. Here we have a sort of A’bunadh only older and coming from a single cask. So who knows, maybe it’s even better!

Aberlour 16yo 1995/2012 Warehouse No 1 (57%, OB, Single Cask Selection, First Fill Sherry Cask #4934)Color: Warm and dark orange brown.

Nose: Wonderfully sherried. Toffee and cherries. Slightly tarry and very reminiscent of A’bunadh, so I would go with Oloroso Sherry for this one. Nice soft oak. Slightly burnt caramel and the whole comes across with nice toffee notes, without its sweetness though. Well balanced and definitely older than A’bunadh. With some air more rubbery notes appear and more dry wood. Very dusty actually. Tiny hint of cola sweetness and even a hint of florality? Where A’bunadh sometimes can smell a bit harsh, this oozes softness. Excellent stuff.

Taste: Yes more A’bunadh. Starts with a high note of acidity, that quickly moves into cherries and a tarry woody depth. Nice liquid toffee temporary sweetness. Mocha and cream. Latte Macchiato (with a wee bit too much milk). Sticky toffee pudding. Schwarzwalder kirsch trifle, all again without their usual sweetness. Dusty. Extremely drinkable. Lovely.

Even though its twice the age of A’bunadh, it’s very similar in its initial profile. Forgetting the smoothness and softness brought to this Whisky by ageing, you can see this as a single cask A’bunadh. Both share a lot. Having said that, and more or less claiming this is (easily) recognizable as an A’bunadh, I have to say that it also reminds me a lot of the 1996 Ultimate (and Signatory) Longmorns. Earlier I reviewed three of those: cask 72315, cask #72319 and cask #105091.

Points: 89

Aberlour 12yo 1990/2003 “Warehouse No 1” (58.8%, OB, Single Cask Selection, First Fill Bourbon Cask #11552)

Time to follow up the Bourbon casked Aberlour from Warehouse No 1 with another one! This one is a few years younger and bottled more than ten years ago. Right off the bat the colour does seem quite light for something that is from a first fill Bourbon cask. I think it will be quite interesting to compare the two, so without further ado…

Aberlour 12yo 1990/2003 Warehouse No 1 (58.8%, OB, Single Cask Selection, First Fill Bourbon Cask #11552)Color: Light gold, white wine.

Nose: Typically ex Bourbon cask. If you don’t know it by now, you’ll never will. High alcohol, with vanilla. Clean wood and a bit sweet smelling. Toffee. Creamy and dusty. Fresh with a hint of lemon. Mildly spicy, but in a sticky kind of way. I know it does sound a bit strange. Wet dirt and dust. Big in its typical “Bourbon-ness” (the aroma combined with the high ABV.), but the rest is all details, meaning the rest are all mere hints. Fresh air. The wood itself releases quite some nice aroma’s. Slightly sugary wet paper even. Sometimes even whiffs of something meaty can be picked up. Stuff like this may all look alike, and in a way they are. But if you give it some time and attention, yes you have to work for it, the details will show, and sometimes you’ll be rewarded when it strikes a chord with you, like this one almost does with me.

Taste: Sweet, waxy, and nutty. Almonds. Quite hot, due to the high ABV, but the aroma is, again, quite big, so the aroma and the initial sweetness overpower the alcohol and that is quite a feat. Fatty butter, and mixed with that, a dry and leafy quality. Pencil shavings. It breaks down a bit towards the finish, where some bitterness comes to the front and an acidic note decides it doesn’t want to be part of this Whisky anymore. The finish itself is shorter than expected. The finish is gone, when the strength is still making its way down and warming you.

Compared to the 16yo I reviewed last, this one is more about the wood and the vanilla, and creamy toffee. This lack the fruit the more recent 16 yo has. So there is a difference. This 12yo is cleaner and has a more typical nose for a Whisky coming from a Bourbon cask. The 16yo in comparison is way more funky and fruitier and tastewise less balanced and softer. It also has a much longer finish. Who said all ex-Bourbon cask whiskies are alike, since these two alone are already quite different, and I’m not only focussing on the details. Same score though.

Points: 85

Aberlour 16yo 1995/2012 “Warehouse No 1” (52.2%, OB, Single Cask Selection, First Fill Bourbon Cask #8959)

Aberlour was one of the first Single Malts I’ve ever tried. Back in 2000 or 2001 I got the 10yo for my birthday (thanks Arthur!). Nice stuff. Especially for the novice I was back then, and maybe still am, since there remains an awful lot to learn. For me Aberlour was always more about the Sherried Whiskies than the ones aged in Bourbon barrels or hogsheads. The character of the Aberlour distillate is definitely easier to “get” when trying Aberlours from (refill) Bourbon casks, but this hand filled Aberlour from first fill bourbon will do just nicely too. However, I’ve never came across a Bourbon cask aged Aberlour that knocked me off my feet. Maybe this is the one, since it came directly off the distillery. Distilleries hold the best for themselves don’t they?

Aberlour 16yo 1995/2012 "Warehouse No 1" (52.2%, OB, Single Cask Selection, First Fill Bourbon Cask #8959)Color: Light gold.

Nose: Floral and leafy vanilla powder with some funky organics going on. Extremely fresh and fruity. Canned concentrated fresh air. Combinations of pineapple, dried peaches, peaches in light syrup. Sweet white grapes and cherry liqueur bon-bon. Very aromatic and dusty as well. You don’t get a lot of sweet and dusty, but here it is an evolution going on in the glass. It starts sweeter than it ends. It’s fresh and lively and I’m actually surprised this is already 16 years old. I expected a darker Whisky coming from a first fill Bourbon cask. Fresh and minty with small hints of lime. It has everything you can have from an ex Bourbon cask. Florality, vanilla and lots of fruit. In the background typical wet oak and slightly meaty. Sawdust and paper, and sometimes I smell the Bourbon itself. Reminds me a lot of the 1994 Golden Cask expression I reviewed earlier.

Taste: Soft and spicy and quite sweet right from the start. Almonds and very nice creamy vanilla and fruit, peach it is again. Wow, great Bourbon cask. A lot of the elements fall in its place. For me Whiskies with this profile need to be a bit sweeter (especially when the whole lacks a bit of complexity). Creamy toffee and fine powdered sawdust. Vanilla and fudge. Well you get the picture don’t you? Soft wet wood, like snapping off a branch. Hints of latex paint and sweet wood (with a walnut skin, bitter edge to it).

I like the sweetness and the softness of this Malt. Dry, cask strength Bourbon cask Malts can be quite sharp and hot. For instance. The 1997 Tomatin that was aged in a Refill Bourbon barrel is less sweet, and therefore drier but also a bit hotter and harsher. Again a decent Bourbon Aberlour, as I’ve come to expect by now

Points: 85

Springbank 15yo (46%, OB, Circa 2003)

So the Springbank 10yo is always a nice dram and really affordable to boot. Springbank 15yo is usually quite a different dram, never simply only an older version of the 10yo. We already know there always is quite some batch variation with Springbank, and we love that. Not every consecutive 15yo is similar to the previous one, and now the 15yo is not a mere step up of the 10yo. Apart from the taste of it, probably the reason a lot of anoraks love Springbank. So without further ado lets finish off this rotten year 2015 (at least for me it was) and aim for a better year in 2016. So I’ll see you again next year, in good health. Slainthe!

Springbank 15yo (circa 2003)Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Funky Sherry, right from the bat, mixed with fresh air. Something completely different from the 10yo. More fruity with fruity acidity from all kinds of different fruits. Apply acidity as well as acidity from dark fruits. Dry and dusty. Lean and sharp, as opposed to the fatty vanilla from the 10yo. It’s not just an older version of the 10yo. Small hints of peat as well as (only) a small hint of the clay and wax from the 10yo at first, but these aroma’s, as well as the sweetness, develop a lot over time, so give it time to grow. Wonderful stuff.

Taste: Sweetish, red fruits, cloying syrup. A bit Port like. Toasted cask. Peatier than the 10yo, but the peat is well hidden behind the Sherry notes. Definitely a lot drier and fruitier from the 10yo. Alas, just like the 10yo, this has not the longest of finishes and the aftertaste is not particularly big as well. Lovely development towards more fatty peat and oil and sweet tar and a hint of licorice and sugared black tea. Extremely well made and balanced.

I remember when this was released, it wasn’t a very popular bottling. Sure it deviated quite a bit from the usual Campbeltown profile. Even today the 15yo isn’t the most popular Springbank. People seem to dish out more for the old 10yo than for this old 15yo. I’m just happy it is here and it is different from the 10yo. I love both, but for me the Sherry brings something new to the Springbank table, and therefore will score this slightly higher (and because I like it more).

Points: 86

Springbank 10yo (46%, OB, Circa 2003)

So I guess you managed to survive Christmas, congratulations! Christmas is over, but the year is not. There are still a few days left before this year is over, so I dug up two Springbank Whiskies from some twelve years ago. It’s not long ago since I reviewed a more recent 10yo from 2010, so its nice to see how this older version “behaves”. Yes, I said two Springbanks, so the last review on these pages for this year 2015 will be its brother (or sister), the 15yo, from the same time as this 10yo.

Springbank 10yo (circa 2003)Color: Gold

Nose: Oily and fatty. Typical Springbank. Warm barley.  Creamy sweetness. Vegetal. Lots of vanilla, vanilla sugar, vanilla pudding. Nice soft wood. Warm sugar-water. Amazing how sweet this actually smells. Dusty and powdery, but again think creamy and vanilla. Sure it shows its typical Campbeltown profile, but believe me, this is nowhere near the complexity of the current 10yo. Almonds and slightly acidic crushed beetle (with a hint of banana and paper), combined with more and more dusty and dry oak. Tiny hint of smoke and maybe some freshly cut muddy peat, but in fact it is hardly peaty at all. Seems a bit simpler compared to more recent offerings of the same age.

Taste: Sweet it is. Oily, nutty and slightly industrial. Lots of clay. Sweet toffee. Chewy. Very big aroma. Typical Campbeltown. Sugared fruits and again quite a lot of wax (and clay). Warming with noticeable peat this time. After a while a citrussy and fresh note appears. Lemon curd, not sharp lemon by itself. Lemon captured in sugar. After the big and sweet body, I didn’t see the rather weak finish coming. The nose still oozes aroma of wax, clay and wood, then you sip it, and it is big and sweet, and then it starts to leave the building rather quickly. The aftertaste is slightly off with oaky acidity.

It different from the 2010 10yo, but both are great. If you can get this one for not too much money, I would say pick it up. It’s good and very educational compared to more recent bottlings. Where every other distillery try to manage some kind of consistency, Springbank is not that anal about it. The Campbeltown profile is pretty specific, so I don’t think its customers are seeking consistency, but rather welcome the evolution over the years as well as the batch variation that is clearly the with all of Springbank’s products. One of the Whisky nerds favorite distillery, and you are probably one of them, and just like me, proud of it.

Points: 85

Glenfarclas 21yo (43%, OB, Circa 2006)

Following up on the 15yo I reviewed last, here is the 21yo Glenfarclas from the standard range that was around in 2006. Trying the 15yo I was in a way amazed how the feel was “different” from the more modern malts that are around today. There seems to be an old way funkiness to that Malt. I’m quite curious now, how this 21yo will do.

Glenfarclas 21yo (43%, OB, Circa 2006)Color: Full gold.

Nose: Funky and somewhat waxy and sweet. A different profile from the 15yo. Lighter in color and fuller in a different kind of way. It almost smells chewy! Maybe more Bourbon aged Whisky went into this 21yo. Smells funky and organic. It’s like being licked by a dog which earlier licked some spilled honey (don’t ask). I love it. Hints of wood, and especially sawdust. Chocolate and some acidic fruits. This is more a creamy and woody Glenfarclas. Dusty vanilla pudding. It’s almost like his is more fruity than it shows. It just doesn’t come out of the liquid for us to smell. Encapsulated by some ice-cream notes. Great nose, and it has not a lot of the florality the 15yo had.

Taste: This starts with cardboard we know from the 15yo, and a lovely dried apricot fruitiness as well as some Calvados. Definitely lower in ABV than the 15yo. Waxy and before the wood comes this persistent cardboard and paper note, I don’t particularly care about. The finish is accompanied by the same burnt note the 15yo has, but in a softer more gentle way. Just like the 15yo, again not overly complex. Extremely drinkable. This is a Whisky I fear will be gone soon. By the way, this one does have a bit of soap in the finish, as well as in the aftertaste, which also carries some bitterness.

Although this starts well, the finish and aftertaste let it down a bit. Again a very specific Glenfarclas, and just like the 15yo, it’s hard to imagine they still can make it like this. I really have to get me a new version of one of those “standard” Glenfarclasses, or is it Glenfarcli? If you ask me I’d probably go for the 25yo, although the 17yo is also a fan favorite. But, you also might want to consider this one, which fits the same profile and I liked it very much.

Points: 84

Glenfarclas 15yo (46%, OB, Circa 2006)

Almost three and a half years ago I reviewed it’s older brother from the same series, the 25yo. Rummaging through samples stored (read: misplaced) all over the place, I found this 15yo, as well as the 21yo, which I will review next. These two are samples of the standard range Glenfarclas from more or less ten years ago. Today the label look different, although the dumpy bottle stayed. So without further ado, I give you Glenfarclas 15yo.

Glenfarclas 25yo (43%, OB, Circa 2006)Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Dusty and dry, hints of Wine and Sherry. Creamy with vanilla and some nice soft oak. A perfumed woody wind seems to emanate from my glass. The perfumy, jasmine tea, bit seems more powerful with air, up to the point you could almost wear it. Next a cardboardy note joins the slightly minty florality. It smells nice, not “wrong” as most soapy notes often do. Quite some depth. Notes of roasted beef, covered in black pepper as well as toasted oak. Wow, the diversity of aroma’s the Sherry has given this Whisky is amazing. I’ll call this “oriental”.

Taste: Starts with oak and wood, with a smooth and slippery mouthfeel. Some burned oak and cardboard again. Luckily the cardboardy notes don’t ruin this Whisky at all. Warming, fruity and aromatic. Not heavy, cloying of full of raisins. Nope this Sherry is more lively and fruity. This one is bottled at 46% ABV, where as the 21 and the 25yo are 43% ABV. The slightly higher strength hold it up beautifully. Beer-like finish, some burnt notes. The Sherry returns in the aftertaste, but the charcoal, burnt wood notes never leave. Not overly complex.

Well, one thing is for shure, they don’t make them like this anymore. Although this was bottled almost 10 years ago, I can’t imagine the current 15yo will taste, and smell, anything like this. But I could be wrong. I hope I’ll get the chance to try some more recent bottlings of “standard” Glenfarclas (apart from the 21yo I’ll review next).

Points: 83

John Jameson & Son 7yo “Three Star Pure Old Pot Still” (43%, Bow St. Distillery, Dublin Whiskey, 75 cl, Circa 1965)

Who would have thought I’d still have an ace up my sleeve considering Jameson’s? The title seems a bit of a mouth full, but when you are identifying old bottles like these, you have to identify minute differences on the labels to carefully date them. I don’t know when exactly they started to use this exact label, but I do know the last year they used it was in 1968. So “circa 1965” is a carefull guess.

The Bourbon world has adopted the old “Stitzel-Weller” distillery as the ultimate Bourbon heaven on earth. Similarly, the Irish have the old “Bow Street” distillery that was/is situated in Dublin. The Bow Street distillery started working in 1780 with John Jameson acting as General manager. John bought the distillery in 1805. The distillery was eventually was closed in 1971. Since 1997 it is opened again, but alas only as a “tourist” attraction.

John Jameson & Son 7yo Three Star Pure Old Pot Still (43%, Bow St. Distillery, Dublin Whiskey, 75 cl, Circa 1965)Color: Light gold.

Nose: Extremely fruity steam punk kind of Whisky. Hints of old paint. Even if I would have tried this blind, you know when you have an old Whisky on your hands. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; They don’t make them like this anymore, and the other Jameson reviews just prove that. Wonderful old dried fruit intertwined with almonds and wax. It really smells of steam and coal and a bit of old engines. Warm machine oil and vanilla. Very appetizing. When you let it breathe the fruit gets less pronounced and a more dusty creaminess starts to emerge. A dustiness which seems to be coming from wood. A wonderful experience.

Taste: Quite different. It starts with old newspaper and luckily the waxy fruitiness hold it up. Still, somewhat lighter than the nose. The nose is special and quite “thick” this is less so. paper and wood but both are light and well-balanced with the rest of the aroma’s. Slightly warm apply note comes next. Those of you who are regular Calvados drinkers will recognize this apply note, and now that I recognize it, it’s there in the nose too. Hints of caramel and slightly burned caramel emerge, which is noticeable on the tongue. Not everything stays behind for the finish, but still a nice, but short finish, but we are left with a nice aftertaste. Good, but not as special as the nose was. The nose really oozes with times long gone.

The current Jameson and this Jameson are both tasted early in the morning before breakfast. The current Jameson is a nice aperitif. It’s niceness is in the detail, which is much easier to pick up in the morning, than in the evening, when you have just eaten and your palate is tired. The current Jameson has lost much of it charm when I tried it in the evening, after finishing the previous review. Tasting this, I fear this one will be better in the morning too…

Points: 87

Jameson (40%, OB, Circa 2012)

Today if anyone mentions an Irish Coffee, you say Jameson. If you say Irish Whiskey, you still say Jameson, unless you’re an anorak, than you might say something different, like Connemara, if you like it peated, or Teeling, or Middleton. Enough to choose from and Irish Whiskey is on the rise again, and that is really great! It’s the ancient battle between the Scottish and the Irish, where Whiskey originated from, so why then is the Scottish Whisky so big and why was the Irish Whisky nearly dead in the recent past? There are enough examples of fabulous Irish Whiskeys and there is this Jameson. The oldest and best known of all Irish Whiskeys. Again a bottle you see in all the hotel bars and restaurant and in many homes as well.

When I started getting interested in Whisky in general, a long, long time ago, it started with Jim Beam White, the obvious Jack Daniels, Scottish blends like Teachers and Grant’s, and this Jameson. I hated Jack Daniels and Jameson actually, so I moved quickly into Single Malts and was immediately sold on Aberlour and Laphroaig. The rest is history.

Jameson (40%, OB, Circa 2012)Color: Gold.

Nose: Toffee and caramel. Grainy, fruity and quite fresh. The fruity note is quite lovely. Actually it reminds me of Gin a bit. The fresh, juniper like smell with some well hidden clean alcohol. Definitely grainy and seems to me in part like a sweet Dutch Jenever. It also has a paper like quality. This really smells nice, and I don’t recognize the nose from the first bottle of Jameson’s I had. Is that saying something about me, or is that saying something about Jameson? When the Gin aroma’s dissipate a bit, it at least smells like a Whiskey. And a very pleasant one too. Hints of spicy wood, paper and light wax.

Taste: Paper soaked in sweet apricot water. Definitely a bigger and sweeter body, than I remember from my first encounter with this Whiskey. Yes, slightly fruity sugar-water, with a hint of Whiskey. This sounds pretty negative, but let me tell you it is tasty (in a way). It is nice, very light and extremely simple stuff, but tasty nevertheless. No real off notes, not even the paper notes. but also hardly a Whiskey I guess. Short warming finish, with a short but nice aftertaste. Should work well in Irish Coffee! Otherwise, this is only suitable as an aperitif. If you use this as an after dinner dram, you’ll lose a lot of the subtleties.

This actually smells quite nice, I’m surprised. It is something you could drink easily. How is easy. Anything goes. Mix it, drink it straight out of the bottle, use a straw, you name it. It’s the Whisk(e)y-worlds lemonade, and not as horrible as I remember it. Compared to the “Select Reserve” this is more vibrant and a tad more fruity and playful which suits this destillate. I prefer this one, but the 18yo is way better, way more special, and costs more. If you’re interested in the Jameson 18yo, you’d probably do better with a Redbreast 15yo, but I think I mentioned that before.

Points: 72

Caol Ila 11yo 1994/2005 (58.2%, Gordon & MacPhail, Cask Strength, First Fill Sherry Butts #12423 & #12424)

I actually picked the 1990 Caol Ila and this 1994 Caol Ila, to compare Bourbon cask matured and Sherry cask matured young Caol Ila’s. However I don’t think the 1990 was aged in a Bourbon cask, but rather in a Fino or similar type of Sherry cask. However, American oak is probably the wood of choice for the 1990, and maybe the comparison with the two types of Sherry is maybe even a more interesting one. I’m a bit on thin ice here, since nowhere it is said in what kind of cask the 1990 has matured, nor is there any mention for both of what type of Sherry previously inhabited the casks.

Caol Ila 11yo 1994/2005 (58.2%, Gordon & MacPhail, Cask Strength, First Fill Sherry Butts #12423 & #12424)Color: Slightly orangey gold.

Nose: Fatty and funky Sherry. Raisins and wax. Stale rainwater and some muddy peat. Peaty clay, not very fatty or round, as some might say. The raisins do remind me a bit of a Highland Park bottled by Gordon & MacPhail as well. Although that one is much, much darker, it is the same raisiny aroma. Probably the same kind of Sherry. Wood spice and salty smoke. Nice creamy wood, smoky licorice. Perfumy sandalwood and a buttery acidity. Creamy and slightly meaty. Burning candles. Enough happening in this one. Vanilla comes late, it is just overpowered by so many other elements in the nose. A nose from an old house at christmas.

Taste: Initial sweetness with some toffee. Lots of wood, slightly dry, but it is soothing and not harsh nor sour. Some sweet licorice again, with some dusty spice and Cappuccino. After the dusty part comes a woody and slightly acidic wine-note. A fruity acidity that doesn’t fit this Whisky. It makes all the tastes up ’till now, fight each other, instead of becoming a band of brothers. It is obvious that this Sherry didn’t integrate that well. Dries the lips. Finish has only a medium length and quite bit of an unbalanced aftertaste, an apply acidity, which is not entirely tasty if you ask me. The aftertaste ruins it a bit for me. I definitely prefer the previous Caol Ila.

It almost seems as if you can’t go wrong with Caol Ila. Let’s say this is from a Oloroso Sherry or even a PX, both are considered somewhat “normal” Sherries, by wine-people, and considered of a lesser quality then a Sherry that has matured under flor, a “hat” of fungus that grows on the surface of the Sherry. The hat prevents contact with air. The G&M Caol Ila I reviewed the day before yesterday, I believe came form such a Sherry. For me that is the superior one of the two. I do usually prefer Oloroso ageing, especially when it is a Whisky that was aged a while back. Good Oloroso Sherry matured in European oak, instead of the American oak preferred by the Sherry industry these days. Vanilla, people, Sherry drinkers prefer a more creamy Sherry these days. European oak also seems to need longer ageing, to deal with the tannins, and that is time we don’t seem to have…

Points: 80