Ardmore 18yo 1992/2011 (46%, Mo Ór, Bourbon Hogshead #5013, 286 bottles)

Three months ago, I reviewed two Ardmore’s, and was very pleasantly surprised, not to mention impressed. At a certain moment I even called it the present day’s Brora, or something of that nature. First a 1992 bottled by Domiek Bouckaert a.k.a. The Whiskyman, that scored a nice 89 points, and second a 1993 by the omnipresent Gordon & MacPhail. G&M’s version still got a very nice 87 points. Both malts were available for (much) less than 100 Euro’s, and that’s a steal in today’s feverish market. Today after a week’s absence, let’s have a go at this 1992 bottled by Mo Ór. Let’s hope it will do as well as the other 1992.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Nice, fresh acidic and aromatic lemon, but it has a lot more going for it. The wood comes across as pretty sweet with lot’s of vanilla. A storm of fresh air, as I said, very fresh and quite clean. Barley. I remember the other Ardmore’s as more dirty versions of Ardmore. I can hardly detect any peat in this and the smoke does need some time to manifest itself. Perfumy it is and slightly buttery (hot butter). Actually this is a lovely whisky on the nose. Not very complex, but it does have a well-balanced nose.

Taste: Hmm, licorice, clay and the (earthy) grains from the nose return. I expected a bit more of an attack, but it stays a bit back. Well don’t underestimate the smoke now! That’s here in abundance, but there isn’t a lot more coming from this. I guess this one was quite clean and lovable from the start, but I feel the reduction to 46% ABV didn’t benefit the Whisky this time. It has a late and mild fruitiness to it, pineapple and the fatty, sweetish smokiness is quite nice. Still as with the nose, the palate is undemanding and of average balance. The finish is of medium length.

This time around, the cask didn’t do much for the whisky, probably second or third refill considering the color and age. Still a well-earned…

Points: 84

Glen Scotia 18yo 1992/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, First Fill Sherry Butt #6, 1076 bottles, 500 ml)

Next up Glen Scotia, also a first on these pages. Glen Scotia hails from Campbeltown, once a big place for whisky with regional status (again). Try to imagine a place that has almost 30 distilleries working at one time in the 19th Century. Not so long ago this Glen Scotia was the ‘other one’ from Campbeltown after the well-known Springbank. Today Springbank makes also Longrow and Hazelburn. And from the same owners the recent ‘addition’ that is Glengyle Distillery (Kilkerran). Let’s say that Glen Scotia is the only Campbeltown distillery not owned by the people of Springbank. Owner today is Loch Lomond Distillery Co. and the place is fairly run down. When the distillery was mothballed in 1994, the staff of Springbank restarted intermittent production in 1999, not to lose the regional status of Campbeltown. A status lost eventually, but eventually reinstated.

The distillery was founded in 1832 by the Galbraith family. For one reason or another the label on the bottles state 1835. Lots of changes of ownership during the years and even some closures in 1928 and 1984. Since 2000 Loch Lomond has taken over Glen Scotia and runs the distillery with its own staff.

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Very musty and dirty. Fruity as in fresh sweet apples mixed with apple compote. A very nice hint of smoke and coal that reminds me of an old steam locomotive. It actually smells like something from the industrial revolution. Old Skool? Lets move on. Mint and still a lot of apple. Lit matchstick. Nice balance and easy. Not very complex. Underneath it all, a sort of sweet wood smell, very laid back.

Taste: Wood and toffee. Caramels and quite a bit of ash and toasted cask. A nice bite and definitely a firm body. Sulphury (of the egg kind) and quite some oaky and milky sourness. Actually I get some more egg notes, especially boiled egg (the white part). Closing in on the finish, it dries out a bit, and is not as big as expected. Here the wood plays a much greater role, than on the nose. Not as balanced as the nose.

Usually you’d expect more color after 18 years in a First Fill Sherry Butt, so this must be a Fino (again) and it kinda goes into that direction.

I was asked to keep an eye out for sulphur in this one. It’s there slightly on the nose (as a burning match). But it is more pronounced on the palate (the bite here comes not only from the wood, but also from the sulphur. Usually there is some sulphur in Sherried Glen Scotia’s. Lots of it in a 1991 Cadenheads offering if I remember correctly. It’s there on the palate and even more so in the finish (late). Is it ruining the balance or the palate? Does it disturb me? No, it’s some kind of good sulphur. it’s somewhat hidden. It’s there but not in the usual obvious way. That happens sometime, that’s why I called it good sulphur. Still, overall there isn’t a lot of sulphur in this one, so don’t worry. And hey, sulphur is good for the skin!

Points: 84

Ardmore ‘Peat fighting man’ 20yo 1992/2012 (49.9%, The Whiskyman, 146 bottles)

Dominiek Bouckaert is known for being the billionth ICT guy that does something in whisky. When I started with whisky I was an ICT guy myself and of course was introduced to the stuff by another ICT guy. In fact I was introduced to Whisky by two of them. One was partial to Laphroaig (eventually my first self bought Single Malt), and the other was more into Talisker (I’m something of a Talisker-collector now).

Besides ICT, Dominiek took it upon himself to dabble a bit with distribution of the Malts of Scotland (A german bottler) and play a bit with Luc Timmermans doing their Hand Written Labels. and last but not least, Dominiek has his own label now. The Whiskyman. Nice psychedelic colorful labels with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge to music. Beatles and Stones to start with, and this is an example of the latter called peat fighting man.

Color: White wine

Nose: Sweet, citrussy and malty, but this time with depth. Fishy, salty peat, lemon and wet grass. Given some time, the lemons are replaced by oranges. Fresh. Smoke, soap and latex paint. Ultra clean wood and hay. All elements fit nicely together. Very bold statement. From the name Dominiek gave to this Whisky, I would have expected some kind of peat attack, but far from it. The peat is there, but fits in rather well instead of singing the lead. A bit like how Charlie Watts fits in the Stones.

Taste: Sweet with a lot of liquorice. Again, not in your face peat, but nice warming peat. It’s not quite farmy, but it has an organic quality to it. Toffee, tea and clean wood again. Fruity. Lots going on here. Nice, very nice.

Very well-balanced malt. Great find, well done Dominiek. Now we want another one!

Points: 89

Thanks go out to Jack for handing me this sample.