The Glenlivet 18yo (43%, OB, Circa 2003)

When thinking of the middle of the Whisky road, for me, two distilleries somehow stick out. Glenfiddich as the daddy of Single Malt and Glenlivet. There may be others. Both have a big reputation, huge sales and lots and lots of versions. Most encounters with Malts from the standard range of these distilleries will be in hotel bars and such. Here we’ll have a look at (The) Glenlivet 18yo. This is already the fifth Glenlivet bottled by Glenlivet themselves on these pages, but only the third from the standard range. Earlier we had a look at the 12yo and the 15yo “French Oak Reserve”. The 18yo is another step up from both predecessors. By the way, just recently it was announced that Glenlivet are discontinuing the highly popular sales hit: the 12yo. A decision Diageo say they could’t make when everybody is fearing the discontinuation of their Talisker 10yo. Diageo think that would be stupid…

The Glenlivet 18Color: Amber gold.

Nose: Waxy and fruity. Quite nice, but also pretty simple. Can’t imagine the recent version of this 18yo smelling this “old”. Burnt paper and a slight hint of Sherry. Some vanilla mixed with a more organic note. Quite dusty, but it somehow seems to be a sweet dust. Fruity Sherry with hints of meaty Sherry. Also some hints of Bourbon casks, especially the vanillin and creamy pudding.

Taste: Quite sweet, but when that dissipates more fruity notes appear. Also the slightest hint of tar and a burnt note similar, but not the same as the burning paper note I got in the nose. Sweet Sherry and cookie dough. Very likeable and highly drinkable. Great fruitiness. I even have some cooked banana in here but also some maracuja and dried apricot.

This tastes way nicer than the Macallan 1986 Sherry I reviewed last. This tastes more like an old Whisky, with a bigger body and kind of sweetness that is acceptable due to its balancing with the burnt notes. Quite nice, but slightly too sweet to be a daily drinker, although maybe it is. Good standard bottling from a decade ago. Now I’m curious how a more recent 18yo will taste.

Points: 85

Tomatin 40yo 1967/2007 (42.9%, OB, Seven Bourbon Hogsheads, 1614 bottles)

As can be read on these pages, Tomatin rarely disappoints. There is always room on my lectern for a tropical Tomatin. Especially older Tomatins quite hit the mark with fabulous aroma’s of tropical and citrus fruits for which it is known. Tomatin has a high reputation with bourbon cask only bottlings like the 15yo that has been discontinued to be replaced with the 14yo port finish. The 25yo has been discontinued too, which also was made with Bourbon casks only. Now, here we have a 40yo Tomatin formed from seven Bourbon Hogsheads with distillate from 1967. You may have heard of The Beatles and Sgt. Pepper? Yes 1967. And this is still available. How is that possible? Is this bottling a dud of some sorts? Time to find out…

Tomatin 40yo 1967/2007 (42.9%, OB, Seven Bourbon Hogsheads, 1614 bottles)Color: Copper brown gold.

Nose: Sweet and fruity, quite typical for older Tomatins. Lots of vanilla and quite thick. Highly aromatic. Quite syrupy too. Hints of mint and black coal and even some tar and sweets. Complex with lots of development. Give it time. Almonds are coming through after a while. Great nuttiness, rarely seen in Tomatin. Fruity, dusty and dirty at times. Great.

Taste: Fruity again, but also some bitter hops, waxy bitter wood. Elegant. Sweet and brittle at the same time. Lovely waxy stewed and candied fruits towards the finish. Lovely vanilla, with memories of old wood in the back. Apricot and vanilla pudding with fresh and acidic red berry sauce on top. Hints of mint are here in the taste as well. Fabulous development built up in layers and a lovely finish to boot. At the end of the finish the expected woody bitterness (and pencil shavings with almonds) appear or stay behind when the momentarily overpowering waxy fruitiness dissipates. Sweet almond cookies are all over this Malt. The taste is less complex than the nose and shows a surprising fruity freshness and youthfulness.

Malts like this were reasonably expensive when they came out and prices have been rising ever since. However, modern malts can never be like this anymore. So why dish out 300 euro’s for a modern 12yo generic special edition when you can pay a measly 100 more and get yourself a museum-piece still readily available on the market today. This is history in a bottle. Isn’t that worth something?

Points: 89

The Macallan 18yo 1986 “Sherry” (43%, OB, 2004)

Macallan 1986 18yo (old)In 2004 Macallan officially released two Sherried 18yo’s. The one on the right, we know very well, that was the one with the old labels that have been used for decades. (For reasons science cannot wholly explain…). Around 2004 Macallan also started to release a new bottle design we all know from the Fine Oak series and later bottlings. Here we’ll review the 2004 18yo with the new design. The label states that this is Whisky distilled in 1986 and earlier years. We know the “other 18yo” to be very good, now lets see if this is any better or maybe it’s the same stuff…

Macallan 18yo 1986 Sherry (43%, OB, 2004)Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Pretty laid back and toned down nose. Sweetish Sherry. Hints of wood, dust and cardboard. Not a full on sherry we know from the other 18yo’s. Very floral and even some orange fruitiness. Some whiffs of this even smell like someones bad breath. Strange hints of cooked vegetables. So bad breath, cooked vegetables, but a moment later also a breath of fresh air emerges. Very strange indeed.

Taste: Sweetish (sugar water) and thin. Fruity and slightly waxy, but the wax comes through as fruity and it’s only a hint. So definitely and older cask found its way into this. Hints of sweet apples and pears come through, which makes me think this is not from Olroso Butts. Fino maybe? This also lacks complexity, and the sweetness somehow stays on top. I expected more development from this. Well, it’s nice, pretty simple and easily drinkable, but this is not a Macallan as we knew it. This could have been anything.

This bottling really marks the end of an era. The era that was dominated by the Sherried Macallans with the old labels. I Always thought the beginning of the end for Macallan was with the release of the Fine Oak series, but would I have tasted this one back then, this would be it. Who would have known that almost never again we would get a Macallan like we used to. In hindsight the Fine oak’s may have not been that bad, since after that the likes of Macallan Gold, Amber, Sienna and Ruby, to name but a few, were released. Costs a lot of money these days. bit tastes like a good standard bottling that you can get for 40 or 50 euro’s…

Points: 81

Aberlour ‘A’bunadh’ (59.8%, OB, Batch No. 13, 2005)

By now, batch no. 50 is the latest A’Bunadh released and when you are reading this, the number will be even higher. Saying that the A’Bunadh is a pretty popular bottling. Whisky always was intended to age in Oloroso Sherry butts. Today however, in general, there seem to be more Sherry butts available than the consumption of Sherry seems to warrant. Saying? There are some nice NAS Sherried Whiskies around, Glendronach, Benromach, The new Tomatin, but none of those are so heavy as this powerhouse from Aberlour. On average around 4 batches of A’Bunadh are released every year. Furthermore what makes A’Bunadh exiting, from my anoraks point of view, is the batch variation. Most batches are great and definitely worth the money. Sometimes something less interesting pops up like the notorious batch no. 40 from 2012. A few others from the 40’s range, were slightly less than perfect. I hope that’s not a trend. To be sure not to encounter another dud, let’s try an older version of A’Bunadh, with this lucky batch no. 13.

Aberlour ‘A’bunadh’ (59.8%, OB, Batch No. 13, 2005)Color: Copper gold. Not extremely dark.

Nose: Creamy raisins and vanilla. Creamy with a little backbone provided by toasted oak and maybe from the Sherry. Some more wood, typical oak, and some dust. A lot friendlier than I remember batch no. 33 was. pencil shavings. This is a tale about wood, just without the rawness of batch no. 33 (which actually came from the Sherry, not the wood). Creamy, raisiny and sweetish. With wood. That’s it. Not a lot of complexity, but also lacking some red fruits, Oloroso butts can give off. Nevertheless a very nice smelling dram.

Taste: Chocolate, Ferrero Rocher cherries, than wood, fresh oak and pencil shavings (cedar) and some hints of coal. Quite hot (not raw) when sliding down my throat. A classic combination of aroma’s from soft Oloroso. (It lacks the meatiness batch no. 33 had). Nice hints of mocha and whipped cream. Tiny hint of bitterness gives the finish some oomph.

I haven’t tried it myself yet, but I understand this takes water very well. That is an indication of a high quality cask (and Sherry it held), since more recent bottlings can get very hot, very hot indeed when water is added.

OK, why not. With water the whole softens up a bit, and brings the aroma’s closer together. The wood seems to stick out a bit more, which isn’t a problem. It momentarily also enhances the fruity part, and the bitterness of the finish. Toffee, caramel and oak.

Points: 88

Bruichladdich 10yo 2003/2013 (56.3%, Malts of Scotland, First Fill Sherry Hogshead, MoS 13051, 285 bottles)

Almost two years ago I reviewed a Glen Keith bottled by Paderborner outfit Malts of Scotland. Being an indie with quite a reputation it took me quite a while to review another bottling of theirs. A sample of this very Bruichladdich was bestowed upon me by the former owner of this very cask. MoS renames the cask numbers so we do not know the original cask number. I hate it when Thomas does that, just like Bert does with his Asta Morris bottlings. Something to hide guys? Well nothing more to say really, (I’m a bit distracted by some nice live music by Primus), so let get on with it…

Bruichladdich 10yo 2003/2013 (56.3%, Malts of Scotland, Sherry Hogshead, MoS 13051, 285 bottles)Color: Orange brown.

Nose: Mellow Sherry of the Oloroso kind. Soft wood, dry forest plants like fern and slightly sulphury. Freshly baked bread. Chocolate, brown sugar, honey and fruity acidity from red fruits and berries. Vanillin and a distant bonfire in the woods. Wet earth and mocha. Raisins. Nice and pretty laid back. Mint in the finish (when warm).

Taste: The fruity acidity from the nose. Waxed chocolate sprinkles, cola and some wood. Again some sulphur, but not a lot. Extremely warming. The acidity stays on well into the finish and deep into the finish the sulphur gets more room to play, but still it is not a lot and never overpowering. It’s in the background carrying the aroma along with black tea leaves and a hint of woody bitterness. Not a very long finish though. Reminds me a (more than a) bit of the Bunnahabhain and to a lesser extent of a Bruichladdich I reviewed earlier. A quieter version of both I guess.

I have to say this one needed warming up. Even at room temperature I found it pretty closed, but when I held it in my hand for a while it showed a lot more of itself. Honey in the body and mint in the finish for instance. When I finished it, I poured myself a fresh dram, and again, very closed. This is an example of a closed and dry heavily Sherried expression as opposed to a fruity one. Bottled at the right time. Ready for another strange remark? The empty glass smells better than the full glass…

Points: 85

Thanx Andy!

Caol Ila 21yo 1981/2002 (58.2%, Signatory Vintage, Cask #465, 364 bottles)

Just recently I reviewed a 21yo Caol Ila from Signatory Vintage Cask #467. When rummaging through some sample bottles I collected over the years one of its sister casks popped up. This time it is Cask #465. How’s that for luck. And as luck would have it, I still have a wee bit of cask #467 left, so a comparison can’t be avoided. Again no picture available for this particular cask, seems to me this is very obscure stuff. I’ll use the ol’ picture of cask #470 again. So without further ado…

Caol Ila 22yo 1981/2004 (59.0%, Signatory Vintage, Cask #470, 281 bottles)Color: Light gold. The color of this one is ever so slightly lighter than cask #467.

Nose: Grassy and vegetal. Citrussy. Fresh and actually young smelling. Even the wood smells sappy. Powdery. Hints of soft, fatty, and creamy smoke. Appetizing. Milk chocolate (with sugared citrus in it) and a tiny hint of latte. All very friendly smelling, and although this is not a heavily peated Caol Ila it is very attractive. Good balance.

Taste: Sweet and fruity. prickly smoke with some late development in the licorice department. Light licorice. also a tiny hint of cannabis, so probably a lot was allocated to the Netherlands. Alcohol and again a small hint of coffee and fern. Milk chocolate again. Small amount of woody bitterness starts the finish and lingers on the back of my tongue. Not the most expressive of Caol Ila’s but quite nice in its own way. Not a very long finish. The high strength is obvious on the tongue, but not a lot of aroma is left in my throat. It’s not what you would expect from a Caol Ila like this, but when you let that go, it’s pretty rewarding.

Comparing the two, the noses of the two are obviously pretty similar. Cask #465 has the better nose, more balance to it. Aroma’s seem to fit together better and has more depth and complexity. Still the difference is not great. The taste is very similar too. Cask #467 seems to be somewhat more raw at first, and less balanced.After a while it is also softer and sweeter in the finish. Cask #465 is for me the better pick of the two, with even a slightly better finish, so overall it performs better. Still they are really twins and the differences are in the details and easier to pick up on when doing a H2H.

Points: 86

Thanks go out to my mate Michel for providing this sample (a long time ago).

Glenmorangie Signet (46%, OB, White Oak, Oloroso Sherry Finish, Circa 2012)

I never was a big fan of Glenmorangie. Early on in my explorations of Single Malt Whisky I came across the litre bottle of the 10yo. Good value, looked great. Wow a litre bottle even. I didn’t like it. I had bought some other expressions but when I had the chance to taste them elsewhere I was quick to sell them off. Never regretted it since and in fact never came across a Glenmorangie I really liked. Well one I did like, a 30yo 1972/2004. Rare stuff. Ten years I didn’t look back and never got interested in Glenmorangie again. Just one of those malts that didn’t suit my tastes I thought. Recently I got a sample of the extremely rare 18yo and yes, that one was so nice and drinkable that I got myself a bottle of that. Great golden box too. If you ever going to bury a small pet, look no further than Glenmorangie 18yo. After that I accidentally had a blind tasting of the new 10yo and again didn’t like it. Back to the Whisky. Glenmorangie’s Dr. Bill (Not Dr. Phil) was experimenting a lot at Glen Moray, and when all lessons were learned, Glen Moray got obsolete (and sold off). Maybe not entirely for that reason. Glenmorangie started to churn out great designer Malts. Maybe not the 18yo, which still has an age statement and is more old school I guess, but probably true for this Signet. Just look at the design of the packaging here! Signet is a NAS Whisky and besides the white oak and the Oloroso finish, is known for the usage of heavily roasted chocolate malt. Glenmorangie SignetColor: Light copper gold. Nose: Malty and fresh. Citrus lemonade with a burnt caramel twist. Fruity and very likeable. Am I going to be surprised with another decent Glenmorangie? The white oak is discernible, but not very up front. Also some toasted wood, or maybe the toast comes from the chocolate malt? The white oak is masked just like the peat in good old Laphroaig 10yo was masking the heavy sweetness of the Malt. The masking agent in this Glenmorangie being sweet-smelling Oloroso Sherry. I have to say it is what you would expect considering “the ingredients”. Well crafted stuff. I hope this is what it is by design then and not trial and error at Glen Moray. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Taste: Sweet Sherry, petrol and nice warming wood. Fresh untreated oak (not the toasted oak from the nose). Vanilla creaminess grows stronger in the finish and has great staying power, where the body seemed to be light at first. Silky burnt notes or silky tannins, are accumulating in my cheeks and are a pretty nice complement to the creaminess. Better finish even as the 18yo, which should have been bottled at 46% too. Both the nose and the taste are nice and both are about aroma. However if you are looking for development and/or complexity, not the case. You quickly understand how this Malt tastes and that’s where it stays. probably the reason this is a NAS bottling. Don’t get me wrong, Dr. Bill did a great job making this, designing this Whisky. It is really good and a must try if you get the chance. Its different from the 18yo and twice the price. I hope one day a Signet with more age will see the light of day. A version with more complexity and foremost more development in the glass.

Points: 88

Jura 30yo 1984/2014 (44%, OB, American White Oak, Amoroso & Apostoles Casks, 1984 bottles)

Well, this should prove to be an interesting review. First of all, not a lot of Jura’s are around with this kind of age behind its belt. Second, I do know what Amoroso is (Sweetened Oloroso Sherry, most definitely not the highest quality Sherry around), but Apostoles? George OrwellThird, unbelievable what this Malt costs. It has been reduced to 44% (I think) and for sure is colored, why? Is this typical caramel colour so much better than the colour of the original Whisky? Fourth, This malt has been “created to celebrate the famous George Orwell” what’s next, a 2011 Isle of Jura bottled at 50% ABV to celebrate E.L. James? She probably put up a tent of her own on the Island too some point in time. Fifth, in 2003 Jura already released a 1984 commemorative bottling for George Orwell. This time with a Palo Cortado Oloroso finish (I understand that one wasn’t so great). Sometimes I just don’t love marketing. Let’s concentrate on the Whisky then.

But first a word about Apostoles. Apostoles is a Palo Cortado Sherry, a 30yo from González Byass. From Wikipedia: “Palo Cortado is a rare variety of Sherry that is initially aged under flor to become a Fino or Amontillado, but inexplicably loses its veil of flor and begins aging oxidatively as an Oloroso. The result is a wine with some of the richness of Oloroso and some of the crispness of Amontillado”.

I told you it would be interesting.

Isle of Jura 30yo 1984/2014 (44%, OB, American White Oak, Amoroso & Apostoles Casks)Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Extremely pleasant nose. Thick Sherry, but not your normal run-of-the-mill Sherry, but special Sherry coming from the black coal age. Thick but also fruity. Cherry syrup. Antiques, with a small hint of smoke and toast. Unusual but well crafted. The nose shows great balance. I don’t know how they crafted this, but is really smells awesome. To me it smells like something from the fifties or sixties. It has oldness, a backbone and nice fruits. So job well done.

Taste: Fruity again, but somehow not the same fruitiness as the nose promised. The coal returns but in a more creamy way. Vanilla pudding and orange skins. Again well-balanced. Great stuff, but. It’s a bit weak, it has been reduced too much. Why? Money? It’s already colored, and now it’s also reduced too much to fetch more? Ok forget about that for a minute. This is a wonderful malt, that probably was stellar before reduction. Now it’s still great, however it starts to go off a bit, halfway through the body. Although it breaks down in the middle of the body, the yielded parts are still nice and balanced. John Lennon and Paul McCartney did make good solo albums by themselves, but… The only flaw is the weakness of the finish and the shortness of it. I would have liked the creamy fruitiness to stay on a little while longer.

Reading through the intro, I may not be too happy with Jura’s marketing department, ok the packaging looks pretty nifty though. I am impressed with the people involved in crafting this Whisky, and that’s where it’s all about. I’m just a bit sad this great Whisky got reduced too much, albeit 2% higher than the former Orwellian bottle. If only it were somewhere in between 46 and 50% ABV. Maybe next time in 2024, when the Palo Cortado’s turn 40 we get a version bottled at 46% ABV. Watch the wood people.

Points: 90

Many thanks go out to Dave G. for providing the Whisky.

Glengoyne 21yo 1985/2006 (53%, OB, First Fill Sherry Butt #629, 632 bottles)

Two years ago Master Quill had a week specially dedicated to Glengoyne. In that week I reviewed a Glengoyne from 1985 called “Summer” a Limited Release. There also was a Winter (1984 Vintage), a Spring (1972 Vintage) and an obviously an Autumn (1969 Vintage). Essentially all four are Single Cask releases (SC) like the one I’ll be reviewing shortly. This 1985 should be quite interesting since it was drawn from a sister cask of the “Summer”. Summer was drawn from cask #608, and this SC was drawn from cask #629, so that should be interesting.

Glengoyne 21yo 1985/2006 (53%, OB, First Fill Sherry Butt #629, 632 bottles)Color: Mahogany brown.

Nose: Nice Oloroso Sherry nose, with lots of fruits. Fresh and acidic. Wonderful depth. Earthy and dusty, but never dull or heavy. Creamy with hints of vanilla. A very vibrant fruity nose. This probably was a considered a contender for the “Summer” spot. Small hints of warm asphalt. Dusty with some licorice, mocha and licorice. Meringue. Extremely balanced and likeable.

Taste: Cardboard, almonds and quite some licorice again. Warming. Spicy and soft old wood. Creamy and very nice. Fruity vanilla, pudding with warmed up red fruits on top (part fruit, part sauce). Spicy sharpness (hot) because of the alcohol, without that, quite soft and creamy. Slight acidic touch towards the finish, and enough wood. Again, just like the nose. Extremely balanced. Wonderful Oloroso Sherried bottling.

Although a very good Glengoyne Single Cask, I thought the “Summer” was even better. More complexity and even better integrated aroma’s. A bigger body and an even better finish. However, make no mistake. This Butt #629 is no dud, far from it. Hardly any Sherry bottling these days is a good as this is. You know the lonesome tropical Island question, and what to take? If I had to take this one instead of the “Summer” I still would go in a heartbeat!

Points: 89

Tamdhu 23yo 1987/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, Oloroso Sherry Butt #3649, 656 bottles, 500ml)

Earlier I reviewed two young Tamdhu’s, a 2004 and a 2005 bottled by dutch indie bottlers The Ultimate (Van Wees) and both turned out to be pretty good. This time we’ll have a look at a much older 1987 bottling by another dutch outfit, this time Mo Òr (The Whisky Talker). Tamdhu’s are usually pretty good when matured in Oloroso, so I’m guessing this also wil not be too wonky.

Tamdhu 23yo 19872010 (46%, Mo Òr, Oloroso Sherry Butt #3649, 656 bottles, 500ml)Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Lovely creamy Sherry. Nice alcoholic nuttiness. Clay and cask toast. Not too cloying and can be even called fresh, like in a breath of fresh air (carrying a little bit of dust). Licorice mixed with a hint of burnt leaves. Very aromatic, just move it around in your glass and lots of aroma leaps out of the glass. Creamy vanilla and some good oak. Nice balance and highly aromatic. Medium complexity but very appetizing.

Taste: Creamy with licorice and cask toast. Warming, and half-sweet. Clotted cream. However, already from the start this has a “thin” quality to it, which is remarkable since the nose was so aromatic and full. In stead of the creamy and honeyed sweetness, it starts with a sharpish burnt note. Charcoal and in the background a tiny hint of sulphur. The vanilla cream comes later. Smoky toffee. Warming with good creamy sherry and although the start was thin, the finish does linger on a bit.

I’m guessing this was better at cask strength. Very appetizing. good stuff and the kind of Whisky you’ll want to have first when this is in your collection, so easily drinkable. A bottle that will be empty soon, also because it’s only 500ml. Yup, not wonky at all.

Points: 88