Bowmore 37yo 1968/2006 (43.4%, OB, Bourbon, 708 bottles)

It’s Islay time! oops, maybe that was from Ardbeg. Well Bowmore is also from Islay and both are in the same time-zone. I see it’s the first Bowmore here, so I choose a potentially good one. Obviously not from a single cask, since no Bourbon Cask (Barrel or Hogshead) can yield 708 bottles.

 

Color: Full Gold.

Nose: Wow, wow, wait for it, gathering words for this…wow. Clay, noble peat. Thick, unbelievable great nose, but you’ve guessed that already. it’s from Bourbon casks, but this has so much great red fruit in it. Strawberries, blackberries, red currant hard candies. Butterscotch. Distant waves breaking on the beach in the night. Bonfire that has almost gone out. I can’t even remember a Whisky that smelled as good as this. (Well, that’s not completely true). I sincerely hope this will taste as good as this and I will even consider its price to be fair. This is a 100 points nose, this smells perfect!

Taste: Fruity, peat merged with sea clay and the body’s actually a bit thin. All those fruits from the nose are there again. Kippers and tar, remember this is not a big body, so this is all very elegantly proportioned. There is some wood in there, and that gives the body a slightly spicy toasty, Bourbony edge, but in no way does it play even a big role. It’s there to underline the rest, it stands in service. The finish is great though.

Still available for around £999.00

Points: 93

Thanks Serge for handing me this sample.

Clynelish 11yo 1994/2005 (58.9%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Sherry Butt #4011, 367 bottles)

Clynelish is a very popular dram. There are several reasons why. First of all it’s a sister of Brora, which maybe the best malt of all. Second. Clynelish has a unique waxy personality and it’s spirit is always of high quality. It’s very hard to find one that is not up to par.

Color: Full Gold, almost Orange.

Nose: Clean. Paper and wood. Spice and white pepper. Oranges with almonds and toffee. Leafy, waxy and coastal fresh with some added sherry mustiness. Later on some vanilla ice cream, cardboard and dust. It stays spicy throughout. Perfumy and a beautiful balance.

Taste: Spicy and definitively from a sherry cask. Wood, beer and spice again. Sweet and tarry. Shortbread and gingerlike. Turkish delight and has some traits of a Riesling wine. Full bodied. Slight sour wood and licorice on the finish.

I think it’s a bit of a shame this got bottled so soon. It’s good now, but what would this have been when it wood be several years older. Nothing here suggests its over the top or even near the full potential it could have reached. Nice Clynelish, always worth checking out.

Points: 86

Short Stories: Kuentz-Bas Pinot Gris Tradition 2007

Kuentz-Bas Pinot Gris Tradition 2007, ABV 13%, Husseren Les Châteaux, Alsace

Color: Light White Wine.

Nose: Already a balance between sweet and sour. A bit flinty maybe, and a hint of Galia melon. Very fresh and light. Perfumy.

Taste: Well, not very sweet at first. Dryish and simple. Not overly acidic, so there is balance. I would have thought that some yellow fruit would stick out, but none of that. It has a fuller body for a second or two, and dissipates in a very light and slightly warming and short finish. After some time, there is some more sweetness to it. The perfumy note that was there in the end of the nose, seems to creep into the finish too. Easy drinkable.

Definitively better with fish than meat.

Have a look at: http://www.kuentz-bas.fr/index_en.html

Points: 79

Glengoyne 12yo ‘100 Proof’ (57.2%, OB, American Oak, Circa 2007)

There’s also ‘Cask Strength’ on the label, but wouldn’t that be really convenient that it’s precisely 100 Proof. What luck! And American Oak, what is it, a barrel, a hogshead, an American white oak butt or puncheon even? Just a little bit too much nonsense on the label.

Glengoyne then. Glengoyne got my interest because they were one of the first to specifically state, ‘unpeated malt’ on their labels. Also, I like the looks of the bottle ánd for still using Golden Promise amongst other barley’s of course. Golden Promise is somewhat of the holy grail of grains, because it is supposed to be very flavoursome. But the yield is not so good, compared to the favorites of today (which make all whiskies taste the same, to come out bluntly). So lets see if this one, and remember this is a fairly priced bottle, makes a golden promise.

Color: Very full gold, almost orange.

Nose: Malty and chocolaty, absolutely high-proof. Also quite a musty smell, heavy on yeast. Meaty even. The American Oak statement leads me to believe this is from Bourbon Casks, but the musty smell is very resemblant of Sherry and or First Fill Bourbon. Raisins. Very un-clean for a Glengoyne (which almost sounds like a complement doesn’t it?). Spicy and quite a good balance. This could well be a bang-for-your-buck type of malt.

Taste: Toasted wood, but still a lot of yeast. Can’t shake the Sherry here. High proof, so it makes an impression. Although this has bold flavours, the quality of the spirit shines through. Very Ahorn syrupy sweet, and corn sweetness, that’s totally different from the Ahorn. It almost tastes like a wheater! This could be a Weller, with some sherry musty and creamy yeastyness. It’s a picture with thick broad strokes. It is thick.

I know that Glengoyne is the perfect spirit to mature in refill casks. This is the way they make their casks “refill” for the next batch. But isn’t this first fill Glengoyne great? Simple, and with a style of its own. Very un-typical for Glengoyne, but still very nice. Maybe a bit too sweet? This I would drink playing cards. Lovely.

Points: 86

Convalmore 28yo 1977/2005 (57.9%, OB, 3900 bottles)

Convalmore is one of those distilleries that is no more. Thinking of closed distilleries I alway think about Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch:  It’s not pinin’! It’s passed on! This distillery is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet ‘its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Its chemical processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-DISTILLERY! Or something down those lines.

Convalmore was founded in 1893. A large part of the distillery was destroyed in a fire in 1909. It was rebuilt with an added continuous still to make whisky at a lower cost. This didn’t work so the stills were discontinued in 1916. In 1962 the stills were heated indirectly with steam. Convalmore was mothballed in 1985 and the buildings were sold to William Grant & Sons in 1990, who use them for storing their own malts.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Sweet caramels, more brown sugar and leafy. Promises a full body, gravy. Fresh. Tea with spicy wood, calcium (a sort of powdery dryness) and sea-spray. Definitively meaty at first. Unbelievable, but this has hints of raspberry. Sawdust, Mocha with milk chocolate and orange juice. Vanilla and a touch of banana. Based on the nose alone, a very classy distillate. Great balance. Maybe not the most complex of malts at first, but give this nose some time and you’ll be rewarded. I like this a lot.

Taste: Spicy and sugary, fruity sweet with a turning point into wood and beer. Also some Worcester sauce and almonds. The transition from the toffee sweetness that turns quickly into the dry wood is quite interesting. Again some orange-juice. The beer returns, with the wood, in the finish. Well its safe to say that this one is all about the wood. you don’t hear me say that it’s too much of overpowering. No. it is a woody whisky, but it is one of those that really should be woody. Wood is its strength. The rest of the body is firm enough to counterpart the wood. Again very interesting, but no easy dram. I hate the word, but this may be for connoisseurs only.

I don’t hear this a lot, but I ám very intrigued by the special releases of Diageo (and the rare Malts of course). I’d really want to meet the people who make these releases. To know what they have in mind, what they use from their warehouses, and why. Intrigued. And give it some time to breathe. By the way, it worked well with water too.

Points: 87

Port Ellen 23yo 1983/2006 (50%, Douglas Laing, Old Malt Cask, Refill Butt, DL REF 2790, 716 bottles)

Instead of expanding into unchartered territory, let’s do something oppositional and do yet another Port Ellen, and another bottle by Douglas Laing. This time from the old series in the normal scotch whisky bottle and not from the new tall bottle. People tend to think this older look contains better whisky. Let’s see if that’s true. By the way ,I read somewhere that in the few months Port Ellen operated during 1983, there weren’t a lot of good casks around, and they filled almost anything they could get their hands on. This Port Ellen looks quite light in color. Is this from a tired butt or a normal refill Fino butt?

Color: Light gold, almost white wine.

Nose: This leaps out of the glass and can be smelled from a mile away. That’s good! Fruity, musty, animalesk and malty. Salty sea spray, fresh air. Apples with elegant peat and cardboard. Nice distant spice and no wood (tired cask?). Milk chocolate. Yes, this has the kind of orange air tube rubber I like so much in Port Ellen. Actually quite good, I like this nose very much. Does this show how the Port Ellen-spirit actually was? (because of the tired cask)

Taste: Peat and rhubarb. Sweet, big, leafy and chewy. Black tea with clean refined sugar. No rubber here and it’s no monster either. The peat is very mild here and the finish is quite simple. Still it seems to be very balanced, just not very complex. It has the dryness and a bit of the spiciness of the oak, but not the bitterness, and that’s a big plus (not a Chevrolet). It has citrus with cardboard in the finish. If tasted blind, I would have thought it to be some odd ten years younger.

It’s an end of an era, even if it was a tired cask, this is still very typical and good. Really a shame this got closed. In a way it resembles Talisker in it always being decent. This may be no high flyer, but is has a lot of fine moments to give. No I’m not sentimental, this is good in itself. A very nice Islay Whisky. As I’m sipping the last few drops: “Here’s looking at you kid…”

Points: 88

Port Ellen 28yo 1982/2010 (57.5%, Whiskysite.nl, Refill Sherry Puncheon #2039, 100 bottles)

This Port Ellen is from Dutch retailers Whiskysite.nl (100 bottles). It is a cask-share with Belgian retailers QV.ID (72 bottles). Original bottlers Old Bothwell bottled the rest for Germany (Amount of bottles unknown). So there are three different labels for this bottle. Since a Puncheon ranges between 470 and 600 litres, and the angels are not thát greedy, there should be a lot bottled for Germany. Mind you, a Puncheon is never filled to the brim. The bottles gained a reputation quickly and were sold out in a blink of an eye.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: A day at the beach in the springtime and springtide. A nice musty and fresh Fino Sherry nose. Very distant licorice. No Port Ellen rubber, and not very briny or overly peaty. It’s quite sweet and elegant. The Sherry play a large role in defining this nose. It’s unbelievable how fresh this is. If you give it some time, the tar, smoke and sea saltyness arrive in a very laid back style. Like so many of these, it has a citric component. Since this is no beast at all, you’ll have to give it your full attention. Don’t smoke or eat. Just you with this Port Ellen. It has balance and complexity, but seems so fragile.

Taste: Yeah, creamy, full-bodied Port Ellen. Black and white powder, licorice, vanilla, spicy hay, wow! This has to be cask strength, otherwise it would have been ruined. It hasn’t got a lot of wood (you’ll feel it later on the tongue), but you can detect the toast. Utter balance and very full bodied.

Again no misses with Port Ellen. Very light and delicate, even atypical nose for a Port Ellen, but when you put it in your mouth, the rollercoaster gets going! Beautiful Port Ellen. Ellen’s a nice lass.

Points: 92

Thanks Jack, for the sample!

Glen Grant 49yo 1956/2005 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail for La Maison du Whisky, Refill Sherry Butt, 459 bottles)

I just had to write another one about Glen Grant. Do I really have to revert to Gordon & MacPhail to find me a good Glen Grant? There are a lot of great Glen Grants around, but are they bottles of the past maybe? Here I have another Glen Grant that as it turns out ís from Gordon & MacPhail. Will it be good or do Gordon & MacPhail also have some mediocre casks? This one is bottled for La Maison du Whisky who usually pick good casks, so no need to worry, this probably will turn out all right. Besides, this is no 70’s Glen Grant, but a 1956. The year Alfred Hitchcock became American and made “The man who knew too much”.

Color: Copper Brown

Nose: Wow, this I like. This is the old sherry, with tar, licorice, clay and coal nose that I like so much! It’s farmy (which is not elegant) and has elegant wood. Spicy and winey-sweet. Dark fruits lemonade all over this. Raisins in the finish after leaving it to breathe a little. It’s a nose like this that make me live up to my blues-name: Fat Killer Jenkins, because I wouldn’t mind having a few cases of whisky that smell like this.

Taste: Very balanced because it’s the nose in diluted form. Sherry, tar and asphalt, Black fruits with a lot of wood and a hint of cardboard. Luckily the main character is so powerful, that it is capable of masking a lot of the wood. You just know it’s there on your tongue and you’ll notice it in the finish. But then again, it’s so old, that it should be there and it fits the profile. It has a lot of wood but it doesn’t make the finish overly bitter nor harsh. Not overly complex though, like a nice old cognac.

The not so sound statistical and scientific conclusion might be that you’ll have to get yourself a Gordon & MacPhail bottling of Glen Grant if you want a good one. Well as I said there are a lot of other good Glen Grants around. We’ll have to keep searchin’ to find us one, but for the time being we’ll have this Gordon & MacPhail 1956, and that’s no punishment! The nose is to die for, that alone is worth almost a 100 points. But the whole I will score…

Points: 91

There is also a second one for LMdW. Also a 1956/2005, only this one is from a First Fill Sherry Hogshead that yielded 105 bottles.

Many thanks also go to Christian Lauper of World of Whisky who sent me the picture of the back-label. As far as I know, this shop is the only one in Europe who still has this bottle on stock (CHF 509.00).

Glen Grant 34yo 1975/2009 (50%, Douglas Laing, Old Malt Cask, Refill Hogshead, DL REF 5597, 278 bottles)

I did some rummaging in my boxes with samples and found another Glen Grant. Well I actually found several of them, but I just chose this one. You know Glen Grant, the place that was the first distillery that was illuminated without burning fuel by themselves. This time we have a Glen Grant bottled in the Old Malt Cask series by Douglas Laing. Again in the new tall bottle, just like the Glenfarclas and the Port Ellen reviewed earlier. We know that there are some stellar Glen Grants issued by Gordon & MacPhail. Yesterday we had a Berry Brothers & Rudd version from 1972 that didn’t impress me very much, lets see if Douglas Laing bottled a better Glen Grant. This time from 1975.

Color: (Light) gold.

Nose: This is sweet and fruity, apples and warm apple sauce, a profile that suits 70’s Glen Grants and Caperdonich’s. The next whiff was less balanced and shows some mustiness. Almost herbal, as in herbs that were in water too long. It still smells sweet and musty with some hints of cigarette smoke. Seems strange but isn’t bad. Another very strange smell that reminds me of the acid and estery smell of crushed beetles (not Beatles, have you never stepped on a beetle, when you were a kid?). There was definitively something wrong when distilling this, drunken maltman maybe? After some time some spicy wood comes through the sweet and sour sauce and even later hot butter. All in all it’s not thát horrible as it may read. But on the nose definitively not one of their best casks.

Taste: Sweet and sour again and little wood and ash. Very strange sensation in the back of my mouth when swallowing. Minty apple gravy? (if that makes sense?). It an experience this malt is (Yoda intended). It starts thin and volatile when this enters my mouth, and quickly becomes ‘thicker’, with an attack like pepper from Talisker, and turns into pineapple! The finish picks the wood up again, combines it with spice (pepper), almonds and a kind of sour bitterness from the wood itself.

This is one to remember, and is right behind the Signatory Teaninich that seemed to be carbonated.

A Glen Grant that is obviously flawed and seems much younger than it actually is, but the strange bits were indeed an experience, I wouldn’t want to miss. Luckily though, I bought only a 3 cl sample of this, because a whole bottle wouldn’t be funny…

Points: 85

Glen Grant 1972/2006 (46%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Cask #1982)

Glen Grant came to life in 1840, and is being famous for being the first distillery with electric lights! (in 1861 already). But after that it’s very quiet. Apart from distilling not much happening here. In 1961 a descendant of the original founder made a deal with Armando Giovinetti which made Glen Grant the most sold Single Malt in Italy and as far as I know that maybe even true today. Half of what Glen Grant makes went to Italy. Since 2006 Campari is the owner of Glen Grant, so its even became Italian! The Italians love their whiskies young and the Glen Grant 5yo seems to be very popular over there, together with a version without an age statement.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: At first fresh and sea like, but that quickly transforms into wax, wood and spice. A dab of dried yellow fruits, but not much. Definitively a 70’s nose, a bit like Caperdonichs from 1972. Probably no coincidence that Caperdonich was founded as Glen Grant 2. Altogether dryer and more cold tea like. Yep, more spicy and some light mocha and raisins. Also a slightly floral and perfumy side to it (and some tar). So after some time in the glass, it distances itself from the typical Caperdonich nose.

Taste: Initially full-bodied, spicy yet not overly woody. Some wax and ash, but that’s also gone very soon. Also some distant tar and a little bit of coal. Yeah that’s the stuff you get from an old malt. Some sourness from the oak. You wouldn’t have said that it was reduced. In the middle and in the finish though, it ís a bit thin, and reducing probably wasn’t a good idea. The wood comes very late and is the main part of the finish.

It’s a decent Glen Grant, but nothing stellar. When I come to think of it I don’t even think its very balanced. I see this going for up to 250 Euro’s at Whiskyauction, and I can think of hundreds of other bottles for that kind of cash, that would outperform this Glen Grant. A nice piece of history from the seventies, but nothing more.

Points: 86