Brora 30yo (56.6%, OB, 2004, 3000 bottles)

This one is Priceless. I remember the times these came onto the market since 2002, and I heard people boycotting these bottles for their price, then around 250 Euro’s. Well in the mean time, these are still around but only just. When the moment comes these are really sold out, those boycotters will shoot themselves in the foot, especially when looking at whiskies issued today and what you can get these days for 250 Euro’s.

Unlike Talisker, Brora was a frequent visitor of the Rare Malt series, and we all know the 1972’s to be spectacular. People are starting to pay almost 2000 Euro’s for a 1972 Brora from The Douglas Laing Platinum Series. And just have a look at the 1972 Rare Malts. yes these Brora’s are that good. But I will never pay such money for Whisky, but I did pay 250 Euro’s for this one. I tasted a few of these 1972’s and most of the 30yo’s from Diageo. I even did head to head tastings with Platinum 72’s and 30yo’s. This version from 2004 must be filled with a lot, if not all of 1972 casks! And it is unbelievable. Anyone telling you that the Platinums are way better, well its a matter of taste isn’t it, but you catch my drift. I’ll stop the rambling now, and let the Whisky do the talking…

Color: Full gold

Nose: Very good,no, perfect nose. Perfect elegant peat. Gravy, clay, tea and mint. This nose isn’t actually that far away from the equally legendary Brora 29yo 1972/2002 (59.5%, Douglas Laing, Platinum, 240 bottles), just more subtle and rounded out (and that could be the difference between a single cask and a whisky made up of multiple casks). Yes, the nose is (near) perfect.

Taste: Sweet and ashy and endless depth. Great latent sweetness. Burnt toast. Very nice peat. Clay and milk chocolate. Cow dung (Yummie). Licorice, black and white powder. Just fantastic. Slightly sour wood in the finish but that fazes out, and the fantastic Brora returns to keep on lingering in your mouth. The taste it leaves in your mouth is very nice. Long finish.

Well, if there is any perfection possible, than in the top ten of those whiskies will be absolutely some Brora’s. It seems to me that there’s (and never will be) anything like it. It’s just that you think there must be the odd bottle of even better whisky around. A Springbank maybe, or a Port Ellen. Only this thought doesn’t allow you to give a 100 points score. So, the nose is perfect and yes there is some room for a better taste, therefore I score this Brora a measly…

Points: 97

Pulteney 8yo 1990/1998 (63.1%, Cadenhead, 222 bottles, 750 ml)

My good friend Christoph asked me to have a look at a clean bourbon cask whisky and look for mint. As it happens, I have just such a thing on my lectern, so let’s have an adventurous search for mint in this whisky. This whisky was opened on November, 27 2010 at a tasting session with my Whisky club “Het Genietschap” where the theme was “Whiskies younger than 10yo”. This was one of my entries (together with the Kilkerran). I remember I found it very closed when freshly opened. Just have a look at the picture from june 5, 2012. How full it still is.

Color: White wine, light gold.

Nose: Very clean bourbon nose, clean ethanol, some chocolaty wood and musty. Fresh sea air and powdery. Very typical for high cask strength young Cadenhead bourbon barrel whiskies. I’ve smelled everything there is now, no evolution, so we can move on to the taste. Beware it’s 63.1% ABV.

Taste: Strong and spicy, but not woody (just a bit). There’s also some smoke ánd a freshness resembling menthol a bit, but not mint. Everything is in the details. It’s great to taste something that’s spicy, not from the wood. It’s obviously sweet at this high strength, maybe a tad too sweet for my tastes. High alcohol with a lot of sugar can be a bit nauseating. This one’s on the precipice, but didn’t fall in.

As I said this is very typical for those high strength Cadenhead bottlings. They are very clean and reveal quite some information about how the cleanly distilled spirit from a distillery is. This is as honest as it can get, so it’s quite interesting to taste a few head to head. I guess this is a connoisseurs whisky. Not made for your gulping pleasure at a card game. And it can only be ‘enjoyed’ with caution. If you don’t give it enough attention, it will give you very little. The fun is maybe more in analyzing and discovery. The fun is also for those people (like me) who occasionally like their whiskies strong and utterly clean.

I once had a similar bottle of Tormore that was even stronger and older (13yo, 63.9%, 85 Points). There were many things wrong with it, like a very metallic taste, but still I had a lot of fun with it, when ‘enjoyed’ at the right moment. I found myself another bottle before it completely vanished of the face of the earth.

Sorry C. No mint, I’ll have to look further, or you have to taste this for yourself this summer 😉

Points: 84

Talisker 25yo (56.9%, OB, Refill Casks, 2006, 4860 bottles)

And here is Talisker. Talisker is a favourite of mine, a love affair maybe. It is a unique distillery on a unique island. Talisker is always good. So many big names from the past have slipped, some where good in the 60’s, but not now, some were good in the 70’s, but not now. Talisker isn’t one of them. Just buy any Talisker 10yo and it’s great. Even the worst Taliskers are still good. So the quality is alway delivered. Kudo’s to the people of Talisker. And when Talisker went cheating (Cask sold of to brokers or independent  bottlers), Talisker was still very interesting. Just have a look at the different Taliskers issued by Douglas Laing, (as Director’s Tactical). All those casks were probably sold off since they didn’t possess the typical Talisker markers. Peat, pepper and so on. But give these a chance and something extraordinary is revealed to you about the Talisker spirit. And again even the worst Taliskers from them are still good. That’s why I like Talisker very much.

Strange enough Talisker was never issued as a Rare Malt. But saw the light of day in many forms in a Special Release. As a Normal release we have the 10yo, 18yo and the distillers edition (finished in a Amoroso Sherry cask). And de standard Special releases were the 20yo, 25yo and the 30yo. The 20yo was released in 2002 and 2003, the 25yo was released in 2001 and from 2004-2009. The 30yo was released from 2006 untill 2010. In 2011 there were no Taliskers anymore, just a 34yo from 1975, that cost a pretty penny.

Now for this 25yo from 2006, considered to be one of the best 25yo’s (if not thé best).

Color: Gold

Nose: Elegant peat and log fire smoke. Clean and fresh at first, but give it some time to develop. Perfectly balanced. Fern, leafy, wet forest floor. Gravy with a slight hint of mint. Some black peppered butter and toasted wood. Also a mysteriously depth, like there’s something very old that’s been kept secret. Some Brora like farmyness, and river clay. This just keeps developing.

Taste: Pepper! Animalesk. Sweet and woody (a bit sour). The clay from the nose comes through big time. Ash, almonds and putty. It has some sweetness hidden in the clay, but that disappears quickly. This is some great full-bodied stuff. The finish has some wood in it, slightly bitter and could have been a wee bit more balanced. Water does little for this whisky, so you’d better not.

This is great, but still I do understand why some people don’t like the 25 yo’s in particular. For a long time these didn’t sell so well, and because some of the earlier releases were quite big batches of 15.000 and 21.000 bottles. Now these are mostly still available, but again at the higher price from the beginning. People got wiser and start to ‘get’ the 25yo and started to appreciate them. Now it’s time for you to do the same…

Points: 91

P.S. here is Rockin’ Jan’s take on Talisker 10yo.

Lochside 28yo 1981/2009 (56%, Blackadder, Raw Cask, Cask #617, 202 bottles)

One from the (in)famous Raw Cask series. A lot of ‘stories’ are told about this one. For instance that Blackadder just throw any toasted cask trash they can get their hands on in there during bottling.  That would be a shame wouldn’t it? Blackadder are also the people who bring us bottlings from the Aberdeen Distillers series and the Clydesdale series in the dumpy bottles.

The whisky in the bottles was distilled on the 23rd of February 1981 and was bottled in june 2009. Why do we know the day of distilling, but not the day of bottling? And why does anyone bother to put ‘Oak Cask’ on the label? What else is there? Plastic, Japanese Fig? Still, Blackadder gives us more information than a lot of others…

Lochside Distillery commenced as a Whisky Distillery in 1957, but before that is was a brewery. The side was mothballed in 1992 and demolished twelve years later. Most bottles that are around today are from 1981 and 1991 and come from all kinds of casks, no, not plastic and Japanese Fig, but Bourbon and Sherry. Barrels, hogsheads and butts.

Color: Gold with a slight greenish hue.

Nose: Fresh, spicy, but not very woody. Fat make-up powder. Vanilla with old paint. Licorice. Hints of a damp cellar. Flowery and you would expect it to be dry in the taste. After a while it develops in the glass. Sweat and dry construction wood or sawdust. If you give it some time and work it a bit, than it can be a very rewarding smell. In a laid back or introvert way. Again vanilla ice cream. Nice balance.

Taste: Wow, full body and spicy, Vanilla with apricot sauce. Nice! Yeah, this is it. Slightly beer like bitterness in the finish ánd black pepper. Alcoholic cherry bon-bon. Blueberry juice and creamy vanilla. Yes this has it all. When the bottle was opened at the Genietschap Lochside tasting, this was very closed and hard to score, but it has now opened shop. Very good. Like the nose, you have to work it a bit and give it a chance, but when you focus on the details, this is a gem!

Points: 91

Rafael González Panatela Extra

Here is a cigar that’s with me for a long time. I bought this box seven or eight years ago, so this had a good chance to age well. Still, this is a Panatela, usually a cigar people buy to smoke quickly and do not give it a chance to let is age. Hey, but I did! Rafael González is a very small brand, that has always been known for a very good Lonsdale or Corona Extra. Now only this Panatela Extra, a Petit Corona and a Perla are made. All small cigars.

Cuban Rafael González Panatela Extra (36 x 127mm, Vegueritos, Short Panatela, Box Code ORE JUN 04)

Color and Looks: Colorado with a big green spot. (It was the only one in the box with a green spot). One larger vein, otherwise smooth surface and no frays. Feels firm.

A cru: Nice ‘old’ smell. Well aged. Nothing overpowering. The foot smells great. With cedar, leather and old books.

Taste: Draw was ok, a bit heavy at first. Great smoke that’s a bit sour. Woody and well rounded out, very balanced. Ageing did this cigar well. Mild smoke. Draw now ok. Mocha, milk chocolate mousse. Firm white ash. Easy, uncomplicated smoke. Again the second-hand smoke smells great. Still it’s not overly complex. Ash falls off rather quickly. The whole taste is on the dry side, woody, cedar, it would have been nicer if it had a creamy component.

Almost halfway its grassy, cool and I detect something chemical, but I can’t put my finger on it. Predominantly white ash with some grey thrown in. After the halfway point the wrapper started to crack. Later I found out that the binder was locally folded and wanted to unfold itself. All this without any problems in draw. The cigar keeps giving you a lot of smoke.

Than the last third, and boy what a turn! When the first part of the cigar is very mild and tasty, the last third is extremely strong. It does have its merits but if you are an inexperienced smoker, this part is the part that turns you green! (I’ve seen it happen to someone at work, with this cigar when it was younger). The strength is well countered by a good coffee, but without is it is extremely drying and a bit harsh. Heavy on nicotine. The ash turns brown so you’ll even have a visual aide in recognizing the last third…

This cigar tastes great with double roasted coffee and also does very well with water. I didn’t try it with anything alcoholic, because the cigar doesn’t call for it. It doesn’t need anything really, it does very well on its own. Beware of the last third! I’m writing this the next day and I still have the taste of the last third firmly embedded in my mouth.

76 Points

P.S. Both guys are really called Rafael González. If you turn out to be one of them, I hope you let me use these pictures.

Craigellachie 1982/1999 (61.6%, Scott’s Selection)

And here is another whisky from my lectern. This time an old (bottled in 1999) Craigellachie from Scott’s Selection. The people who brought us the fabulous Longmorns from 1971. Therefore I always have a soft spot for these guys. This Craigellachie was opened on our whisky trip to Switzerland. What I will never forget was the foul smell this whisky gave off when the bottle was first opened, (but tasted good). That was unbelievable. Very soon after that I found that the bad smell was quickly gone and getting better with time. The bottle has some 30 cl left now, so let’s see how this will perform now. The initial score was 83 points.

Color: White wine.

Nose: fresh, dirty ánd clean. Dirty in the sense that it has some hints of asphalt, tar, sweat and mud from a moat. I hesitate to say it, but it has hints of a good fart. But after all those niceties it shows to be a very clean bourbon cask smell. Lemons and some hay with a nice body to it, and no, it’s not a Lowlander. Still all of this fits together well, so you might want to call this ‘balanced’. I like it (now). To me it does not smell too much alcoholic considering the high ABV.

Taste: Sweet and something like Kirsch with some mocha. Spicy but not woody. Apples. Stays sweet, but fortunately not that sickening heavy sugary sweetness you sometimes encounter, no, this sweetness is just perfect. Maybe not the most complex whisky around but still very enjoyable. Just slightly unbalanced in the finish. Fortunately it has some great staying power.

A great one to drink when playing cards, even with this ABV. Don’t bring too much money to the table though, because some shots of this will lose you your money. At least you enjoyed a nice whisky in the process. The ‘stink’ that was there when opening the bottle is now completely gone, or maybe turned in something more fitting to the taste. So here’s another lesson for us all. A lot of whiskies do need time ánd air. A lot of them just benefit from some oxidation. So be brave and leave the cork off for a while…

Points: 85

Bladnoch 8yo (55%, OB, Beltie Label)

This should turn out to be a very interesting review. If not for you, than certainly for me. Mr Bladnoch, Raymond Armstrong has a lot of fans, just have a look at the forum Bladnoch has. When looking around, this 8yo is considered to be very nice. Also, when you have a look at the average score for this bottle on Whiskybase it turns out to be 86.5 points (8 ratings).

I mention all this, because my bottle of 8yo was officially opened at a gathering of my whisky club last saturday and this Bladnoch was considered to be the worst of the day/evening! Auch! So I gave it a few days and will taste it again now in all tranquility (only some Flower Kings on the stereo). What is wrong, is the whisky bad, or were we doing something else than a proper tasting saturday? We’ll soon find out…

Color: Gold

Nose: Malty and definitively nothing wrong at first nosing. Hint of smoke and butter. Grassy. It smells like it has a more than a light body (for a Lowlander), clean and honest. The butter evolves over time. Mr. Brilleman of the Dutch Whisky Information Centre (WICN), thought us that this is a distillation error, (which sometimes can smell nice). It’s not overpowering so no problem here for me.  Hints of sour wood and powdery. Also slightly fruity. It smells like it will be very sweet and buttery.

Taste: Starts very strangely, like new make, and some woody spice. A little bit soapy and fatty. Sure there are some grassy notes, but not as I’d come to expect from a Lowlander. It’s like the grass turns a bit bitter. I find the taste to be unbalanced to boot, and seems to me as if some feints that found their way into the cask aren’t completely transformed by ageing. I guess this should have been in the cask for a longer while. I also don’t detect any citrussy notes which would make the whisky more refreshing.

After giving the whisky some time to breathe it gets somewhat more balanced and friendlier, some nice spices shine through, with just the right amount of wood. It just doesn’t shed its new-make-and-wood finish.

Adding water added even more balance to the nose, and that’s definitively all right. The palate however got even more simple. Fatty wood and slightly bitter. I’m glad most people like this, because Raymond deserves his success with this own distillation of Bladnoch since the take over. This unfortunately just wasn’t for me. But I’ll find me another one…

Points: 77

By the way the Beltie label should mean this was from Bourbon Barrels. (The Sheep label was used for Hogsheads). Sometimes, both labels were used for Sherry Butts though.

May 25, 2015 [UPDATE]. Now that the bottle is almost empty I feel I have to add something to my additional review. Reading back my notes, the nose is pretty much the same, but I feel the taste has changed, or maybe I have changed. The taste is more balanced, still buttery, but sweet and better integrated. The new make is no longer there. Fresh oak, giving spice and grass. Quite a transformation when it got a long time to breathe. Hurray! First time around it wasn’t for me, and I tried to sell it, but nobody wanted it. I’m happy I still have it. It came ’round nicely. With water the grass and spice got even better and a honeyed note enters the fold, Nice!

New score: 83

Oud Zottegems Bier (6.2%, 33 cl)

What catches the eye with this beer is the statement: “bier met smaakevolutie” thus stating that this is a beer with an evolution in taste. Great! I love that in my drink. Evolution.

Oud Zottegems Bier is made by the Crombé brewery in Zottegem Belgium established around 1800 and is called a (sour) brown beer. To be frank. The installations of Crombé are crap and worn out, so the beer is really made by Strubbe in Ichtegem upholding the original traditions.

Color: Murky brown, not much foam.

Nose: Muddy yeast and toffee. Malt.

Taste: Slightly sour, which adds to the complexity and balance. To be appreciated here. Very tasty and carbonated feel. Toffee with a hint of banana and spice. Mocha and slightly bitter. Citrus.

Ehhh didn’t catch the evolution there… but it has its complexity.

Well some tips then. It is said that this beer get better when you put it in your cellar for a while. Mine was lagered and was quite nice.

I would say. Drink this beer! It’s very nice ánd nearly extinct. It has become a very regional beer and deserves a lot of attention. Losing this would be a shame. I’m definitively buying this again, but sure am curious for the Grand Cru version of this. So thumbs up and a well-earned:

Points: 82

Shepherd Neame Spitfire (4.5%, 500 ml)

And now for a completely different beer. This time something from the oldest brewer in Britain. Sheperd Neame from Faversham, Kent founded in 1698. Spitfire is a cask conditioned bitter that came onto the market in 1990 to commemorate the Battle of Britain. This bottle of britain is named for the famous fighter aircraft from the second world war. The beer also has a different kind of advertising than we are used to of which I only give you a few, but there’s a lot more. Let’s move on to the beer, shall we?

Color: Copper, Amber, not a lot of foam.

Nose: Fresh, it almost has no scent at first, certainly malt but after that we’re in the twilight zone. Hard to tell what else there is.

Taste: Thin (probably the low ABV). Fresh, summery ánd bitter. This bitterness once tasted, never leaves and dominates even the finish. The body is light, hoppy and malty. The middle and the finish make this less summery, although I guess this will do well as a thirst quencher on a terrace looking at people passing by.

In the end I found this to be very easy, not to say very simple. For me even though it isn’t very bitter, still the bitterness dominates the light palate. Maybe that’s why they call this a bitter.

Points: 68

Petrus Aged Pale (7.3%, 11.2 fl.oz.)

Still nice weather and too hot for writing blogs, so hereby I apologize to my readers that it took a few days for a new review. This time a review of beer brewed by Bavik in Belgium called Petrus Aged Pale. This beer was initially intended only for the US market, hence the typical warnings on the label, even though I bought this bottle in Belgium. This Aged Pale is considered by many to be Bavik’s best beer (and thus compared with Rodenbach Grand Cru). It is made with pale malt only and lagered for two to two and a half years in oak casks. Funnily enough its style is the same as with the Rodenbach. So this can be considered to be a “white” red beer.

Color: Gold

Nose: Announces acidity, yellow fruits, apricots and pear (not the skin).

Taste: Sour and woody. Refreshing. Citrussy and is almost a white beer (but it isn’t). Herbal and grassy, and a woody finish.

Initially you might say that it’s simple, sour and very refreshing, so it fits the summer day profile. But when given some attention and your ability to work on it for a while, this simple beer let’s you know it has a lot more going for it. It awards you with a lot more complexity than you would say at first. It is close to a Rodenbach but in my opinion, better balanced and way more complex. You just have to work it a bit. For me this is better than the classic Rodenbach, but I’ll have to give the Rodenbach Grand Cru a go. This Petrus could be an acquired taste, but one I like a lot.

Points: 84