Highland Park 12yo (43%, OB, Circa 2003)

Remember this one? Before this came the nice broad-shouldered bottle with the big knob cork. And somehow they changed it into this. We hated the looks of it back then, but looking at it today it doesn’t look that bad. Well this version of the bottle is also no more and again they changed the looks completely into something that looks oval from above.

For me the ditching of the wide neck bottle also seemed to be the ditching of the plain old good quality. With this bottle came the downfall of the standard Highland Parks. The 12yo, the 18yo and all the others that came after that. A lot of single cask versions were released around that time, so we all can take a guess why the standards got pretty weak don’t we? Well let’s have a look back and see if this was any good.

Color: Slightly Orange Gold (Caramel)

Nose: The obvious heather and honey. Nicely floral. Almonds. Quite sweet (sherried) and nice balance. Sometimes dusty and powdery. Nice balance, still a good recognizable Highland Park. Lovely.

Taste: Sweet, nutty, slightly sour, chewy, with small hints of smoke and tar. Yeah, this still is very good whisky. Creamy mocha, green apple and a little bit of wood. Alas it breaks down a bit in the end, and the finish is a bit weak. Gone quickly. That’s a shame, but I’m happy it still is a Highland Park, and taste wise that’s very good news. Still if you want an even better one, have a go at a wide neck bottle. Still a lot of those around.

I’ve already claimed this isn’t as good as it once was. Actually compared to a lot of official bottlings they are churning out today, this was pretty good, but still the downfall is marked. This one got weak in the finish and later releases also suffered in the taste department. This brings tears to my eyes because Highland Park used to be fabulous, please come back!

Points: 85

Tongerlo Tripel (8%, 33 cl)

The last reviewed beer, Westmalle, was a Trappist beer. This Tongerlo is an example of an ‘Abdijbier’ or Abbey beer. Thus linked to a monastery, yet commercially brewed by Haacht. So no Authentic Trappist Product then, but still a beer in the same style. But hey, this beer has an official hallmark too. It’s a “recognized Belgian abbey beer”.

It turns out this hallmark is issued by the union of Belgian brewers and it seems there are some rules. The hallmark was issued for the first time in 1999 and the rules are slightly different for Abbey beers from before that time, and those that applied afterwards. Some rules are pretty obvious. There are more rules but here are a few: There has to be a link with an Abbey. Part of the proceeds must go to this Abbey and the beer has to be brewed there before (history taken in to account). In this case we are talking about the “Norbertijnen abdij” from 1133! Well my kind of marketing I guess.

Before we move on I (again) have to say that my beer is aged a little and has a best before date of 27/5/10. But this bottle can lie in your cellar much longer.

Color: Clowdy gold.

Nose: Fresh, lemons and oranges. Sour fresh. Not a lot of depot, only some hints of yeast. Still this has undergone a third fermentation stage inside the bottle.

Taste: Oranges and medium bitter. Despite the elevated bitterness also a very nice and fresh and sour note, that makes this extremely drinkable. Appetizingly fruity and it doesn’t even seem to be 8% ABV. Slightly sweet with hints of banana.

A very good beer. I like it a lot. Extremely drinkable Tripel with a very good balance. I would like to have another one please?

Points: 87

Glenugie 30yo 1977/2007 (46.3%, Signatory Vintage, Hogshead #5507, 243 bottles)

Yes, it’s a Glenugie. long time overlooked and very popular the last few years. It’s a closed distillery (1983) and quite popular with whisky aficionado’s. Just as is the case with Banff today, connoisseurs discovered a closed distillery that has a special quality to it. I have to admit that all of the Glenugies I tasted scored at least 85 points and most well higher than that. Only one is lower than that. I scored the sister cask #5506, also by Signatory Vintage, only 81 points. So let’s have a look if all those 55xx casks are the same and if this one’s any better.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Estery and fresh. Green apple skin. Grainy and a slight hint of vanilla. You could have fooled me with the age of this one. Seems much younger and cleaner, than I would have expected, knowing what this is. There is also a hint of cask toast and wood. Sweet and fruity, peaches on syrup. Creamy toffee with a hint of coconut. I like the nose, it’s like candy. Great balance.

Taste: Sweet like sugar, icing. Vanilla, no wood whatsoever, not at first anyway. It has some spice from the wood. Apples, without the bitterness from the skin. Finish isn’t too long, and just a tad sour. The wood does show its face, late in the finish. Good drinking strength with enough oomph. Again, it seems much younger. The balance in the taste is also somewhat weaker than the very nice fruity nose.

It’s nice and likeable. Nice piece of history. Just not a lot happened in all those years. For me it’s better than it’s sister cask, but still no high flier. You’ll really have to be a buff to recognize the markers of an old Glenugie. But isn’t beauty in the details?

Points: 84

Thanks go out to Nico again for handing me this sample.

Hoyo de Monterrey Le Hoyo du Maire

It’s a rainy day today, grey and bleak  and I am a little bit under the weather too. Luckily I have some notes lying around I can work with. Otherwise not actually a nice day to go out and have a smoke. But a nice day to put some Art Blakey on. I have A Night in Tunesia & Moanin’ to warm me up and write something about Le Hoyo du Maire.

Compared to the picture below, my Hoyo du Maire is much older. Just have a look below at the ancient box code. Mine is without band. Bands on the Hoyo du Maire were placed somewhere around 2005. Another difference that is very obvious is that my Hoyo du Maire is a lot darker than this one and looks less rustic. It looks a lot smoother. Another thing you don’t get from the picture below is how small it really is. For me it’s almost cigarette-size, and you will never believe how small the wooden box with 25 cigars is. It’s unbelievably cute! Today it comes in Sliding Lid Boxes (SLB’s) with 25 or 50 cigars or in cardboard pack’s with 5 cigars.

Hoyo de Monterrey Le Hoyo du Maire (30 x 100mm, Entreacto, Small Panatela, Box code FR NNSR)

Color & Looks: Maduro and looks very elegant and well-built. Oily.

A cru: Mocha, dry and chocolaty. Hints of paper and altogether mild.

Taste: Oily wrapper and salty on the lips. Just lit and it tastes immediately great. Very woody, but a great overall taste. The wood becomes a little bit sour but the cigar still has good balance. The draw and the smoke are good. It’s a sour-woody and spicy cigar. Ash is light grey with some whites. As often, ash has tiny white spots. It’s very thin so it is stronger than your usual Hoyo. A cigar to ‘sip’, otherwise it will burn too hot. Sometimes you do get small whiffs of…fireworks. The development is linear, still it does have a lot of character for such a small cigar. The draw diminished in the second half, but rolling it between my fingers solved this minor problem.

I don’t know how newer versions hold up to this, since this is really well aged. I can’t tell you what ageing did for this cigar untill I can taste a new one. I don’t think such a small cigar will have to age for a long time, to get to a decent level. In the end it seems somewhat stronger than Hoyo’s usually are, but this is never overpowering. Ideal very short smoke.

Points: 77

Gordon & MacPhail Codes

Lots of times I witnessed situations where an ‘old’ bottle from Gordon & MacPhail was opened and we all started guessing how old the whisky was, since only a distillation year was printed i.e. “1970”. I fondly remember the discussions when a particular bottle was bottled because the bottle had a ‘nipple’. Another situation could be when a particular bottle was distilled and/or bottled, because only the age of the whisky was printed i.e. “30yo”. Very annoying when you taste a Strathisla 25yo by Gordon & MacPhail that was made for several decades with the same label and different batches are very different. Lots of those ‘old’ bottles don’t have such information, or do they?

Luckily for us there are some hints to be found. I’ll tell you about two of them.

  1. Laser Code
  2. Code on the bottom of the bottle

Laser Code

In the case of Gordon & MacPhail, since 1988 a laser Code can be found somewhere on the bottle. Usually printed on the back of the front label, or on the back of the bottle, near the bottom, for newer releases. As can be seen on the picture to the left. Here an enlarged view through the back of the bottle, through the whisky. The code is IB/ABD.

Of interest are the first two letters. IB in this case. The code used is like this: A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=9 and J=0. IB therefore is 92. The bottle is very probably from 1992!  The second series of letters are probably a batch code. On the right is a picture of the same bottle from the front, and indeed it is bottled in 1992.

So continuing on from this code, here above is a complete list of codes that are used up untill now.

Like with any system there are of course a few exceptions.

  • There are cases known where the laser code states a particular year, but the bottling actually happened the following year (january or february). An example of this is a Longmorn 14yo that according to the label was distilled on the 30th of may 1975 and bottled on the 14th of february 1990. Code IJ would be expected, but the code on the bottle turned out to be HI/DCB, which is the code for 1989.
  • Sometimes the first part of the code comprises of three letters instead of two. This is very rare and when this happens two of the three letters match the table given here.
  • It seems 1991 was a year where Gordon & MacPhail were a bit inconsistent with the codes used. I’ve come across examples where the labels clearly state a year of bottling, but the laser code used on the back of the label is wrong. I’ll give three examples from the Connoisseurs Choice range:
  1. Convalmore 1969/1991 with the following code: HB/AJB. HB would have been 1982, but that was a year no laser codes were used. The correct code would have been IA.
  2. Coleburn 1972/1991 with code HG/ACD. HG would have been 1987, but that was also a year that laser codes were not used. In this case too there is a neck label with 1991.
  3. Tomatin 1964/1991 with code HI/AAF. HI is 1989, but here there is also a neck label with 1991.

Bottle Code

On the bottom of the bottle, in the glass are a lot of codes. I’ll take two of my older G&M bottles as an example.

  1. Strathisla 25yo: Liquor Bottle Scotland, 750ml, 79 08*, 66 mm, SC 999.
  2. Strathisla 15yo: 750ml, 66mm, 49, SD 133, also some signs I can’t reproduce here.

* 79 08 doesn’t seem to mean that the bottle was produced in (August) 1979. I’ve come across SC 999 bottles that had 90 08 or even 99 08 on the bottom.

The important stuffs are the ‘model numbers’ for the bottle. Here they are SC 999 and SD 133.

Doing some research in the invaluable archives of Whiskyauction, I comprised a list of codes and the years the bottle was used for bottling. All years stated here are confirmed by a year stated on the label of the bottle:

  • SC 96 (75cl): 1972, 1973, 1974 & 1975.
  • SC 803 (75cl): 1975, 1976 & 1977.
  • SC 99 (75cl): 1977.
  • SC 999 (75cl): 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988.
  • SC 247 (75cl): 1983, 1984 & 1985.
  • 4699 (75cl): 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991.
  • SD 522 (75cl): 1989.
  • 6436 (75cl): 1989.
  • SD 133 (75cl): 1990 & 1991.
  • SD 686 (70cl): 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 & 1996.

This information is far from complete and hopefully correct. Up to this point no contact was made with Gordon & MacPhail. There is probably a lot more information to be found, so if new things do pop up, I’ll add them to this article.

Westmalle Tripel (9.5%, 33 cl)

My good friend of “I think about beer” did a review of Westmalle Tripel recently, and I thought, I have that one too! Please check out his blog, it’s very well written, with a lot of passion for beer. It features tasting notes like mine but especially the in-depth stories are fantastic.

As with a lot of beers, I like to age them a little, and this beer’s no exception. I guess mine was aged for 4 years (best before date 30/07/10), but it is recommended to leave Westmalle alone for at least 5 to 10 years!

Westmalle is one of six Belgian breweries that are ‘protected’ by the Authentic Trappist Product logo. Achel, Orval, Chimay, Rochefort and Westvleteren are the others. The logo was presented to discern the trappist beers from the more and more widely available ‘abdij beers’ of Belgium and other countries. (Abdij = Monastery). Most of those beers aren’t even brewed near a monastery, but commercially brewed under a licence. Still, it’s the same style of beers. Usually with a blond beer at normal strength, a dark “Dubbel” and a heavy blond “Tripel”. occasionally a very heavy “Quadrupel” exists.

It is not only beer that falls under this logo, and not only Belgian beer to boot. Here is a list of all products that fall under this logo.

  • Trappist Beer from Achel in Belgium
  • Trappist Beer and Trappist Cheese from Orval in Belgium
  • Trappist Beer and Trappist Cheese from Scourmont-Lez-Chimay in Belgium
  • Trappist Beer from Rochefort in Belgium
  • Trappist Beer and Trappist Cheese from Westmalle in Belgium
  • Trappist Beer from Westvleteren in Belgium
  • Trappist Beer, bread, biscuits and chocolates from Koningshoeven in Tilburg, the Netherlands
  • Trappist Liqueurs from Echt-Tegelen in the Netherlands
  • Trappist Liqueurs from Stift Engelszell in Austria
  • Trappist Cheese from Mont des Cats in France

Info is from The International Trappist Association site, have a look here for more information.

Westmalle comes in 33 cl and 75 cl bottles. There is a selection made and the best output is bottled in the big bottles. Being already the best of the best it is further ‘bettered’ in the big bottle due to a better beer to air ratio. Thicker glass so less influence of light and foremost, more contact between the beer and the yeast that’s in the bottle. The third fermentation stage takes place inside the bottle. Add to this the ageing potential and you could end up with a fabulous beer! Now back to our little, slightly aged bottle.

Color: Murky Gold. Almost no yeast depot. Old fashioned yellow-orange. One centimetre of white foam. I tasted this beer in its original chalice.

Nose: Fresh, citrus, both lemon and orange peel and yeast.

Taste: Alcohol, quite bitter too. Refreshing. Creamy foam with half-sweet orange skin infusion. fantastic balance and a beautiful texture. Warming.

Nothing for the novice. The bitterness is quite a bit of the character. Beware because ageing makes this beer less fruity and more deep and bitter. The label, the bottle, the iconic WA-logo, the smell of it all. It breathes a time long forgotten, pré WW I. You consider yourself back in the thirties. A high score, but not necessarily your easy, every day choice. This is a classic.

Points: 88

Vegas Robaina Clásico

A very new brand, established just in 1997 by Don Alejandro Robaina, one of the best tobacco farmers on the island of Cuba. Don Alejandro lived a full life and died of cancer in 2010 being 91 years old. Who said the Cigars are not good for you? The major part of his crop was used for wrappers, he was thát good. Today this multi-local brand with minor market share has only three expressions left, since two of the five expressions were deleted.

  1. Don Alejandro, a Double Corona, 49 x 194mm.
  2. Famoso, a Hermoso no.4 (Corona Extra), 48 x 127mm (almost a Robusto sized cigar).
  3. Unico, a Pirámides, 52 x 156mm.

This year, probably to save good tobacco for other Habanos brands, and due to the popularity of fat cigars, the other two relatively slender Vegas Robaina expressions were discontinued. Today anything under ø48 is considered ‘thin’.

  1. Familiar, a Corona, 42 x 142mm, and last but not least,
  2. Clásico, a Cervantes or Lonsdale, 42 x 165mm.

I’ll have a look at the latter one.

Vegas Robaina Clásicos (42 x 165mm, Cervantes, Lonsdale, Box code unknown)

Color & Looks: Colorado, on the light side of colorado actually. Rustic looking, no large veins. Firm and good build.

A cru: Deep tobacco smell. Leafy like nice old books. It also has a mocha or chocolaty side to it. Even unlit it oozes strength, but still in a way it smells fresh and green. Sandalwood. Freshly cut, more chocolate and powdery dry. Good first impression, elegant maybe (due to some perfume). It’s not salty on the lips, but maybe a bit soapy. Mind you it’s not soapy in the taste. Burn is uneven around the vein, otherwise burn is all right. An unbelievable dark ash and thick impenetrable smoke.

Taste: Already after a centimetre or so, it’s obvious that this isn’t a beginners cigar. Its tarry and very spicy. Hints of petrol. Wow, heavy cigar, that goes wonderfully well with water and this made my espresso taste like something for children. I guess that if you want this to accompany a drink, you should pair this with a very heavy rum, a sweet one perhaps. Lots of smoke. Some kind of industrial grade? It’s funny it’s so heavy-duty since it smelled so elegant a cru. Ash is gray, dark grey and black, with countless tiny light grey spots. No white ash whatsoever. Some plastics and popcorn in the finish.

I found it very heavy and very linear in developement. I knew beforehand that this would be very strong, but not as much as this. It has enough nicotine to last you for a week. One plus though. It doesn’t leave a three-day (bad) taste in your mouth.

Points: 77

Bunnahabhain 9yo 2001/2010 (46%, Daily Dram, for Bresser & Timmer and The Nectar Belgium)

Bunnahabhain was founded in 1881 and the first spirit trickled from the stills two years later. The distillery was closed two times. The first time in 1930 (for seven years) and the second time in 1982 (for two years). In 2003 the distillery was bought by Burn Steward Distilleries, and they really started to market Bunnahabhain. First of all a series of new bottlings saw the light of day, and in 2010 they started to upgrade the core range with the 12yo and the 18yo. The ABV was raised to 46.3% ánd the new versions are unchillfiltered and no coloring is added. Way to go!

Bunnahabhain is known for being the least peated of the island, still like a lot of others, raising to the occasion by answering the call of the public for more ppm’s. Burn Steward therefore started to bottle a “Moine” expression, with more peat, mimicking pre sixties Bunnahabhain.

Color: Warm Orange, slightly hazy.

Nose: Rubber like bicycle tyres, but also a floral note. Very strange. Almost a strangely burnt Cognac? It smells like a grape distillate. Burnt sugar and toffee. Skins of hazelnuts. First whiffs were ehhhh, lets say, very atypical. I can only hope this will not be one of those harsh tasting rubbery fresh Sherry bombs. Luckily it does get a lot better when aired for a while. I would say, leave the cork off for a short while, a week or two maybe 🙂

Taste: Ash and toasted wood. Burnt sugar again, with its bitterness. This must be a somewhat mistreated or bad cask. And/or very poor Sherry. Sweet grains and caramel. Burnt sugar and rubber. Hint of soap. Thick and chewy. Simple and rather unbalanced. Dark chocolate with burnt bitterness. Quite woody in fact, something you could miss by the overwhelming Sherry influence. Was the cask really empty, when the Bunnahabhain spirit entered the cask?

Little if any distillery character. This could have been any spirit, from any distillery. No merits at all for Bunnahabhain, because this is a Sherry influenced grape thing. This is all fresh Sherry cask. And for me not even one of the nicest casks around. Is this nice? I don’t know. There shall be fans of this, but I’m not one of them. If you like Loch Dhu, then please give this a try.

Points: 76

Thanks go out to Nico for handing me this sample.

The Balvenie 10yo “Founder’s Reserve” (40%, OB, Circa 2003)

And here is another entry-level whisky by the same owners as Glenfiddich. I guess Glenfiddich was (not anymore) the poor man’s Single Malt Whisky and The Balvenie is the more posh one. Even Glenfiddich started to churn out Vintage Releases from the seventies, that have a heft price tag. Balvenie makes about half the amount of Whisky Glenfiddich makes and with that still is a top ten seller. So William Grant & Sons have two golden goose’s on hand.

When looking around. and being new to Single Malts I almost fell in love by the shape of the bottle and really liked the way their labels looked. Not a lot to choose then. There was this 10yo (Founders Reserve), a 12yo (Double Wood), a 15yo (Single Cask), a 21yo (Port Wood) and a 25yo (Single Cask). And there was one limited oddity, the 17yo (Islay Cask). Nothing more. Today like with others there is more choice than ever. Lets have a look at the cheapest Balvenie, the 10yo “Founders Reserve”…

Color: Gold

Nose: Perfumy and powdery. Almonds and lemons. Apple pie. Hint of wood. Creamy. banana and cookie dough. Syrupy. Sweet and light.

Taste: Sweet and very fruity. Cardboard. Very short finish. Sweet but very light. Hints of smoke? Hints of wood and wood-shavings that give it just a little bit of character. Vanilla ice-cream.

First of all I have to admit it was a very long time since I’ve had those standards like this one and Glenfiddich 12yo. I almost never have a whisky that’s 40% ABV, or it has to be a very old Gordon & MacPhail bottling. So I’ve become very much detached of these standards. With that I may become a bit decadent and in memory unappreciative of these whiskies. Having said that I have to admit that these two whiskies surprised me a lot with their quality and taste. Nice stuff. There is one big if. These type of malts seems to me are so easily drinkable, that you would drink them the way you drank lemonade when you were a kid. These types of malts make alcoholics out of us 😉

Compared to Glenfiddich 12yo “Special Reserve”, both are different styles. This is sweet and fruity. Nothing more. Glenfiddich is more honest in style, more of a Lowlander I would say. I thought Glenfiddich was better.

Points: 77

Glenfiddich 12yo “Special Reserve” (40%, OB, Circa 2003)

Looking back I’ve reviewed here a lot of old, priceless or impossible to have malts. Let’s counterpart that decadence a little bit with some malts that are interesting when crossing over from blended whiskies or other types of distilled drinks. The first that comes to mind of course is Glenfiddich. Glenfiddich is up there with their Single Malts since 1964. Already in 1964 they have sold 48.000 bottles of Single Malt Glenfiddich and today they still outsell anybody. Today they sell around 12.000.000 bottles annually. That’s a share of about 20%! Lets have a go at this Glenfiddich 12yo. A bottle that was bought ten years ago. Today the “Special Reserve” doesn’t exist but it is replaced by a normal 12yo in the same colours. It’s probably the same.

Color: Gold

Nose: Very malty and grain alcohol. Grass and lemons. Hay with mocha. If I had done this blind I would have said that it’s almost like a blend or a Lowlander. In part very clean, but sometimes also some hints in the depth that make it a bit dirty, syrupy and waxy. Soap-like perfume. Fresh apples and light peppermint. Not very complex, but it has its balance.

Taste: Green and grassy. Grainy again. Hints of tarry toffee and apple compote. Very light and fruity. Easy drinkable. Finishes a little bitter. Altogether the finish is short. There is more to the nose than the palate.

Perfect start for people wanting to cross over from blended whiskies into Single Malts. The transition will be a smooth one and no shocking differences will emerge. People who scoff at this are wrong. This is not a bad whisky. I have tasted far worse than this. It’s completely inoffensive and yes, not a high flyer. But it isn’t here to fly high. It’s here to get you there…  Often the only single malt whisky in a bar, but easily the best drink available. An honest product.

Points: 80