Tag Archives: 2000

MacDuff 10yo 2000/2010 (56.5%, The Creative Whisky Co, The Exclusive Malts, First Fill Sherry Butt #3525)

Just like the Dailuaine from the previous review, Macduff is featured quite some times on Master Quill already, twice in 2012 and twice in 2014. That’s certainly a while back. What also isn’t new on these pages is a Whisky featured from David Stirk’s old company: The Creative Whisky Company. Earlier I tried a 20yo Bunnahabhain and much later a quite quaffable 10 yo Girvan and not so long ago a very good 14yo Highland Park, I had to work hard for to get the most out if it. The Bunnahabhain was bottled in 2011, the last two mentioned offerings bottled somewhere around 2017.

This time we’ll have a look at a 10 yo Macduff distilled in 2000, and bottled in 2010, in a different style bottle than the Girvan and Highland Park yet the same as the Bunnahabhain. The bottle I bought is an example with an over-glued back label. The original back label mentions that the Whisky was selected by our Belgian friends of The Bonding Dram (200 bottles for them) and that this Whisky shows what can happen when a great Malt Spirit is put in an excellent Sherry cask. The rest of the cask was bottled probably at the same time, with some of them (or the rest of them) with the over-glued label. The label also learns us that the bird on the label is a Eurasian Jay (Vlaamse Gaai, a bird common to Belgium). See the bottle on the right here. The over-glued label that’s on the bottle I have, mentions non of this all, not even what kind of bird is on its label, yet it does mention that Macduff produces a strong Spirit used in major Blends. From my label we can also find out that the Sherry Butt is a First Fill, hardly a surprise looking at the colour of this Whisky. David would never tamper with his Whisky, so the colour does say something in this case. The label promised that the Whisky will have rich stewed fruits, raisins and plums and sweet syrupy-flavours. Knowing The Bonding Dram (a very knowledgeable bunch) as well as David (an even more knowledgeable man), I’m sure I will be in for a treat with this one! (I know I am, I’ve had this one several times before…).

Color: dark orange, almost brown.

Nose: Soft and sometimes a bit harsh at the same time. Soft fruits with vanilla and some harsh fresh oak. Harsh might be a slightly too big of a word to describe what I am smelling here. Smells very tasty and red fruity. Dusty and chilly fruits still in the cold shop. Cold cooked vegetables, cold dishwater, Rhum Agricole (closest to J.M from Martinique). In a way also a bit floral, like a nice floral perfume in a fine detergent. Well kept in check, so not a problem (I know, it may sound horrible, but believe me it isn’t). It’s not soapy. Sometimes even hints of honey, pine, horseradish and cola. Well masked wood spice. Sometimes animalesk and sometimes farmy. How’s that for complexity. What a wonderful combination. The wood smells like pencil shavings and after a while more green and leafy. After this, whiffs of fresh air. Starts to smell somewhat elegant after breathing. A rich and wonderful nose. Definitely more special than a hard hitting all-overpowering Sherry monster. Quality stuff this one, with amazing complexity.

Taste: Big, sweet and sour. Tasty! Big, yet also lively and fresh. Fruity cherries, black coal and some tar (woody bitterness). Chewy (not always though, it seemed thinner when tasted late in the evening) and some late, mouthwatering, spicy and prickly bits with just enough oaky bitterness. A good kind of bitterness. Tarry and toasted oak. Unlit cigarette tobacco. Slightly minty feel. Ever so slightly soapy, masked well by dark syrupy fruit. This is a big one, but not a monster. This is, as well as the nose is, and the whole of the Whisky, very well balanced. Very nice spirit and a very nice cask did come together in this one. This is better than many 10yo Whiskies from first fill Oloroso Sherry casks that see the light of day these days. Whiskies that taste like they only are used to season the cask for use as a refill, where the refill is more important than the first fill. This one tastes fantastic. It just stays on the right side of being over the top. With some notes it hints at the past, yet in an entirely different way than the old skoolness of Dailuaine 16yo and Strathisla 25yo mentioned in the previous review.

By the way, I mentioned the knowledge of David in the intro. He has a new book out, and if you are interested in independent bottlers please check it out, since it is about… well… independent bottlers (he should know, he is one). Here is a link, but there are many others that are selling his crowdfunded book as well.

I originally planned to compare this one to the Flora and Fauna Dailuaine 16yo of the previous review, still some drops left in that one, but this wouldn’t work, both are so different and actually incomparable. The difference in ABV’s also wouldn’t help. As a whole, both Whiskies are entirely different. Yet again the Macduff is a whisky that smells really good but tasted even better. Dirt cheap when it came out, now worth looking for at an auction.

Points: 89

Advertisement

Plantation Panama 2000 (42%, Old Reserve, Panama)

Wow, that was quite a disappointing Trinidad expression from Plantation, didn’t see that one coming to be Frank. Lets move on quickly and have a look at this Panama expression instead. Just like many other expressions of Plantation, this is also a double matured Rum. As we all know by now, Plantation is owned by Cognac Ferrand, so no shortages of ex-Cognac casks in that company I suppose. The Trinidad I reviewed last, wasn’t hurt by the Cognac casks at all, au contraire, it did it good.

However, there is another practice Cognac Ferrand applies to their Rums (of this “Old Reserve” range, at least). Dosage, the practice of adding extra sugar somewhere in the (maturation) process to cater to a certain taste profile of their consumers. In the case of the Trinidad expression, well…it smothered it essentially… But, I digress, so back to the task at hand. Panama. Again nothing is known where this Rum was sourced, and Panama does house more than Varela Hermanos alone, you know, although… In case you don’t know, the Varela brothers are the people behind the Abuelo brand. At this point, I can add nothing more to this introduction but to say Vamos, and review this Ron de Panama…

Color: Full Gold.

Nose: Sweetish, vanilla and quite some clear office glue (Velpon). The glue leaps out of my glass, especially with a drop of water added. Slightly dusty. Big on toffee, butter and caramel aroma’s, but this time in a more pleasant way (meaning, not so damn sugary). Soft spicy wood notes for balance, and hints of cigarette smoke and new oak. All probably coming from cask toast. Not really a very “sweet” nose, not even with the presence of toffee and caramel. Coffee and mocha. Black tea and a whiff of florality. Sweet yoghurt and vanilla. Cannoli. Well balanced and pleasant. I hardly dare to say it, but sometimes I’m getting fresh Gin-like notes again, like I did with the Santa Teresa. This maybe me. Lacking are the Cognac cask notes present in many Plantation bottlings. Maybe the Ron is masking it, or the second maturation was done more sparsely. This already smells a lot better than the Trinidad expression, although very exciting it is not.

Taste: On entry, well, Cognac (yes its here) and some cola, but also, luckily, some bitter oak. Definitely more character. Quite sweet again, vanilla and runny caramel. Again, also a bit flat. The spicy backbone, present in the nose, is somewhat masked in the taste. It still isn’t heavily sweet, but there seems to be enough dosage to flatten the taste. The Rum used as a base for this probably had enough oomph not to be totally overpowered by the dosage, like in the case of the Trinidad expression. The fact that a little bitter note stays behind in the finish (and aftertaste) shows that. The taste is less balanced than the nose was, and flatter, which is a shame since the nose was pretty good in my opinion. Here the thicker and sweeter bit, seems to be not really well integrated with the alcohol. You can almost taste the separation between the two. Towards the end of the finish and the warming aftertaste, are notes reminding me a bit of the Abuelo 7 and some other notes reminding me of the Abuelo 12. Definitely to much dosage again in this Plantation expression for my taste.

In the end, this is not all that bad (as the Trinidad was), but given the choice I would rather opt for an Abuelo 7yo or 12 yo, depending on your taste, or if you dare, mixing both in one glass. The Santa Teresa has a similar profile and is also better than this Plantation. You can also have a look at one of the Panamanian Rons from Rum Nation. I have some more Plantation Rums to review, but by now I’m already feeling that these Plantation Rums are nice, if you are a novice, but almost unsuitable when you passed the novice station already, and on your way to greater Rums. If you already know your way around Rums, you might want to skip these Old Reserves altogether. I had a whole bottle of the St. Lucia Old Reserve, and although it is probably the best Old Reserve, Plantation has done, the dosage in that one really started to annoy me a bit towards the end. I still have samples of both the The Jamaica and the Guyana expressions, so I’m going to try them after the last new Plantation review, to see if they are still worth buying, and if necessary update those reviews.

Points: 76

Plantation Trinidad 2000 (42%, Old Reserve, 1H200111, Trinidad)

As you might have gathered from my recent reviews, I picked up on Rums again, and after reviewing several bottles I have open on my lectern, I also turned to my stash of Rum samples, to see what’s there. I unearthed a few Plantation samples from the time of the Jamaica and Guyana samples I reviewed earlier. The Guyanese review already covered a bit about Plantation so no need to repeat that here. Trinidad is also the birthplace of the wonderful, yet utterly wrong (according to some), and alas, no-more, Caroni Rums, which has quite a following. Trinidad is also the place Angostura is made, and based on my review of the 1919 and the newest 1824, a Rum distillery I’m in no hurry to buy more of. I’m afraid this Plantation Trinidad isn’t likely to be based on Rum from Caroni. Nevertheless, the three Old Reserve’s reviewed until now, got quite some favorable marks, so let’s see how this Trinidad turned out…

Color: Full gold.

Nose: Quite closed at first. Sweetish, buttery, vanilla powder and crushed dry leaves. Greenish, half ripe banana and slightly floral. On entry quite big (almost Bajan). In the back of the smell there is something I recognize from Port Charlotte CC:01, yes this Rum was finished in Cognac casks alright and it is recognizable as well. A welcome addition. Again a Rum based on Cookie dough and vanilla aroma’s. Dusty, minty and woody notes come next with more banana on top, reminding me a also bit of Angostura 1919, of which I’m not a fan. That’s it, nothing more comes from this. After the initial aroma’s it flattens out quite quickly. At this point, I checked if my nose maybe died on me, with the Santa Teresa in a second glass, and I’m happy to report there is nothing wrong with my nose, works perfectly, and I’m also happy to report the Santa Teresa is a much, much better Rum than this Plantation Trinidad, although the smell of this Trinidad is initially not bad.

Taste: Quite sweet on entry, but also a hint of fresh oak. Recognizable Cognac casked sugar water, with more cookie dough and vanilla again and a sort of flatness I get from Blended Whiskies laced with caramel coloring, dumbing down the finished product (Blanded Whiskies) and cloaking all that used to be there (fruit probably). Dosage flattened this Rum as well (with a sledgehammer, I might add). This enters your mouth and seems not that bad, but disaster strikes when you swallow it, you get a sort of rounded out total taste, that’s it. You swallow it whole, and the sugar stays in the cavity of your mouth the longest. A taste and sensation you can follow up with another sip, but really, what I am craving after this is a nice cup of coffee. When I wait a bit, and still before the ordered coffee arrives, my mouth contracts because of the sugar residue left behind. So coffee and a toothbrush are needed after this Rum. I’m quite happy right now this is only a sample and not a full bottle. This Rum really lacks development, it just sits there in the glass staring back at you with its dull eyes. You look into its brain and you don’t even sense the synapses firing. A very dumb (dull) Rum. A stupid Rum. The dosage even leaves some sort of bad taste behind in my mouth. It shows me no respect. Very good though, this has some notes from Cognac cask maturation, otherwise it would have been even worse than it already is. Even Diplomático was better than this.

From this series I liked the previously reviewed Guyana and the Jamaica versions much better, and to be honest, you have to do a lot to damage to a Demerara or to kill Jamaican funk if the dosage was the same in those examples. So as a novice it didn’t hurt me getting to know the Demerara and Jamaican styles with those two bottles). A light Angostura on the other hand, yes, you can hit that very well with dosage. This Plantation Trinidad, for me, isn’t up there with both others. Dull, dumb, boring. A dud. The Angostura (and hey we are not even sure this is an Angostura) they had to work with wasn’t probably much, but what they did with it is kill any character dead that might have been left in it. I hope more recent bottlings of Plantation Trinidad are better than this, but I won’t be the one to find out, since there are a lot more, and way better bottlings out there, waiting to be discovered. I still have a few Plantation samples left, I hope it gets better again from here.

Points: 72

Evan Williams 9yo 2000/2010 (43.3%, OB, Single Barrel #379)

Sometimes Master Quill tends to repeat himself, well, not really this time. Yes, In the fall of 2015, The Master did do a review of an Evan Williams Single Barrel bottling, and now here is yet another, but not a repetition, because luckily this “new” one is from a different vintage. The former review was this spicy 2003 vintage and this time we’ll have a go at a 2000 vintage. Is older better? I understand that the mash-bill for Evan Williams Single Barrel looks something like this: 78% corn, 12% barley and 10% rye. Lots of corn and not a lot of rye in this mash-bill. The “vintage” range already saw the light of day in 1986, so with this 2000 expression, Heaven Hill already had some 15 years of experience bottling this. So without further ado: take it away Evan, ehhh Master, ehhh Quill. Nevermind. Go, just take it away…

Color: Light orange brown.

Nose: Wood, lots of fresh cut oak. Perfumy. Sweetish and even more floral. Wood driven, but with lots going for it. Balanced and likeable. Greener notes come next, some hay and grass, oak and latex wall paint. More cuttings from the garden and after a while some more fruity notes appear. Slightly acidic and fresh, only adding to the balance. Hints of toffee and caramel. Excellent nose if you ask me. One moment fresh and lively and the next, deeper and more brooding. Definitely some Rye in here, but less so than expected, even though I didn’t expect a lot. After some more breathing, honey notes come forward. Smelling this after some sipping only enhance the honey notes that were almost absent from the start. Interesting.

Taste: On first entry, a bit thin to be honest. I prefer Bourbons at high strength, because especially Bourbons release their intricate aroma’s better at a higher proof. That said, this Single barrel smells very good and is definitely interesting (there is that word again), even when you like your Scotch Whiskies. Another sip. Well, this does the trick, beyond the low proof, some nice aroma’s emerge. Wood, latex paint again. Honey, hints of toasted oak and a tiny hint of leather. Definitely not as sweet as I would imagine, even though this Bourbon saw lots of corn. A slightly bitter note comes next, oak, tree sap, wax. The finish has less length than the nose and is also less complex. medium at best (and it has paper notes). Today the bitterness has some staying power which was less so on other days, so it depends on the taster (as always), time of day and the moment trying it. Aftertaste somewhat indistinct, so it definitely suffers from reduction to 43.3% ABV. Nope, in the taste department, this turns out to be much simpler than the nose promised.

For a nice evening with some Bourbons this is the starter. Well priced, and interesting, but I prefer other, (higher strength) Bourbons more. Compared to the earlier review, this 2000 example is softer (weaker is maybe a better word this time around) and less spicy, and also is lacking the licorice and cherry notes of the 2003. The 2003 is definitely a step up from the 2000. So yes, the date makes a difference. So choose your single cask vintage Evan Williams wisely!

Points: 81

Potter Distilling Company 15yo 1985/2000 (54.9%, Cadenhead, Indian Corn, Bourbon Barrel, 360 bottles)

For the first time on these pages we’ll have a look at a Canadian Whisky, sorry Davin, I hope you can forgive me. This is some sort of oddity considering the place this was distilled as well as the grain used. Let’s start with the latter. It’s easier. For this Whisky, Indian Corn was used. Indian Corn is better known as flint corn, with a hard (as flint) outer layer, making it also suitable for use as popcorn. It has a very low water content, so it is more resistant to freezing than other vegetables and thus pretty resilient under harsh conditions. This is actually one of the three types of corn cultivated by Native Americans hence the name Indian Corn. Most Indian Corn is multi-colored.

Information about The Potter Distilling Company was a bit harder to find. Potter’s Distillers was founded in 1958 by Ernie Potter in Langley B.C. The company first operated as a bottler of Liqueurs but after a few years expanded into spirits. Sometimes the distillery is also known as the Cascadia distillery. In 1962 Captain Harold John Cameron Terry (Born in Australia) bought Potter’s Distillers and headed the business for more than two decades. According to the website of the current owners Highwood Distillers, production was moved in 1990 from Langley B.C. to Kelowna B.C. where it remained until 2006, after which it moved to its roomier current location at High River, Alberta. Does this mean the label of all those Cadenhead’s bottlings are wrong? The Whisky in those bottles was distilled in 1985 (a 14yo, 15yo, 31yo and a 32yo) and 1989 (a 10yo, 11yo, 24yo and a 26yo), but state Kelowna B.C. and not Langley B.C. Oops!

The picture below is from the 11yo, 1989 bottle, but the 15yo I’m about to review, looks exactly the same. Both Whiskies were bottled in 2000. I tried both before buying and I ended up with the 15yo…

Color: Pale gold.

Nose: Sweet and fatty, yet very fresh with a nice touch of wood and Bourbon Whiskey. Very big nose. It has two sides to it. One big on creamy notes with vanilla, fudge, caramel, toffee, butter and pudding, you know where this goes. The other side is sharper, like a breath of fresh, very cold air. Nice defined wood, sharp and spicy. Toasted oak and licorice. The alcohol is quite pronounced as well. Notes of mocha. This is a big strong Whisky, which has been open for a long time and these are literally the last few drops from the bottle. Time and air can’t hurt it. Well balanced and slightly dusty now. A wonderful nose, that you need to add to your library of Whisky smells.

Taste: Sweet and tasted blind I might have said Demerara Rum, or Rhum Agricole even. Somewhere in between both. Definitely closer to a Rum, than a Single Malt Whisky. Just like the nose the alcohol is pronounced in the taste as well. Yup, sweet vanilla, warm butter and notes of a liqueur. Hints of toasted oak, tar and caramel and some slightly burnt sugar. Beyond the sweetness, there is more. It does have a certain depth to it. In a way it has something of a Rum, a Bourbon Whisky and the added freshness of a Gin. This is a Chameleon of a drink. The finish is not as long as expected, and a nice warming creamy, buttery and toffee note stays behind for the aftertaste, which is of medium length.

Another bottle finished as I’m writing a review. I’ve had this a for long time (I opened it in 2006). You can’t drink this sweet stuff very quickly. This needs its moments, and if you pick them wisely, you’ll have this around for a while, but every time you’ll get it, it’s great. I’m actually sad its empty, and for old times sake I’ll try to get another one of those Potters by Cadenhead’s. I can be a very sentimental guy sometimes.

Points: 84

Caol Ila 1991/2000 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, Barrel Selection)

This Caol Ila is one I just cracked open, literally. It is an oldie I bought some 15 years ago. Sure it is a reduced independent bottling, and it didn’t cost much, but its a Caol Ila and its bottled by Wilson & Morgan, who have bottled a lot of good Caol Ila’s, just have a look at this 24yo expression distilled in 1975, to name but one. The cork broke on this one. This time it didn’t only just break off, it seemed to disintegrate completely. Vaporized into thin air, so to speak. Luckily most of the crumbs were easy to fish out of the bottle and hardly anything sank to the bottom. Just a few weeks ago I wrote an ode to the screw cap, now you know why… Karma strikes again.

Caol Ila 1991/2000 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, Barrel Selection)Color: Pale gold.

Nose: Ahhh, right after pouring the room filled with the smell of beautiful peat. Nothing harsh and rough, but smooth and refined. Nice, clean and soft and aromatic peat. Helped along with a citrussy fruitiness. Well-balanced and much nicer to smell than the Kilchoman Spring I reviewed (much) earlier. Smells quite sweet. Leafy and chewy. Dry vanilla powder, maybe even some powdered coffee-creamer. Some hidden tar, but also an expansion on the fruits. We have hints of sweet, ripe pineapple, mango and banana, mixed with vanilla from the wood, and the wood itself somehow didn’t make it. Crushed beetle and some distant dried basil in the background. Remarkable. Ohhh yes, and some bonfire smoke. I nearly forgot to write that down! I have to say it again, well-balanced stuff and remember, this isn’t even ten years old, which today has become standard.

Taste: Quite sweet on entry. Sugar water. Syrup. Very fruity and a little hoppy bitterness. Big and chewy. Sweet, funky and nutty peat. Not at all earthy. Nice touch of smoke, but not much. It’s like all the aromas are fighting over front row seats. As mentioned, there is a lot of sweetness, that exerts itself right from the start, but these is a lot of fruitiness as well. The Whisky is also nuts. I mean, full of nuttiness. All big and all upfront. I always get some coffee in good Caol Ila’s, and this time is no exception. Sweet coffee, with a tad of toffee in the coffee. It’s not stong black coffee but rather a sweet Cappuccino or Latte Macchiato. Underneath a nice, herbal and lightly bitter undertone (from oak). Long finish and similar aftertaste. Leaves me behind with salty lips. Good Whisky! I hope todays young Caol Ila’s are just as good and affordable.

Ohhh these were the days, where young Whisky seemed better than it is these days, or maybe I’m biased.  This is a very tasty Caol Ila, not overly complex and one I’ll come back to again and again. This will not take years to empty, which it usually takes me, since there are lots of open bottles around the place…

Today there is much ado about young Whiskies, especially NAS Whiskies. It seems NAS isn’t really accepted by everybody. It sometimes is viewed as a devilish plan selling us inferior and immature Whisky (sometimes at a premium price). On the other hand, when distilleries and independent bottlers alike, just mention an age statement of a young whisky there doesn’t seem to be much of a problem anymore, since you know what you’re getting. Just look at the recently released Lagavulin 8yo and compare that to the plethora of NAS Taliskers (also owned by Diageo) and NAS Laphroaigs (not owned by Diageo), which seem to be under par and the fantasy names do not help the acceptance process of the (educated) public, or those who have seen different times buying Single Malt Whiskies.

For the fun of it, let’s compare this “9yo” Caol Ila to the NAS Talisker ‘Neist Point’. Smelling the Talisker after the Caol Ila, it is remarkable how much the Talisker smells of grainy immature Whisky and even shows some whiffs of new make! Much more than when smelled by itself alone. Although having new make in the mix is illegal, since Whisky must be at least 3 years old, there must be a big component of very young Whisky in the Talisker. The Caol Ila behaves like a 9yo, nice, well made, good cask, but lacking some of the complexity often brought to a Whisky by extensive maturation. In the taste it is noticeable that the Talisker has some more happening than just the new make, and young Whisky, alone. Thank God almighty. The Talisker needs some air to get the new make out, after that it is not bad, not bad at all. Sweet as well and buttery. The taste of the Talisker grows on you, even though the new make never really leaves the scene. A draw, or is it? Considering the amount of money Diageo wants for the Talisker (in some markets), the jury made a unanimous decision in favour of the Caol Ila. [sound of judge’s hammer on wood]

Points: 85

Plantation Jamaica 2000 (42%, Old Reserve, 2013, Jamaica)

Some two months ago I reviewed the first Plantation Rum bottled in the Old Reserve Series, time for another one. The first one was made in Guyana, an easy choice since I do love Demerara’s. Same with Jamaica. Jamaican Rums tend to be big and bold, high on esters and funky! Actually Jamaica 2000 (in the old bottle, like the review of the Guyana), was my first Plantation Rum ever. That one was stunning. Here we have probably the first batch, released in the new bottle. There is a laser edged code on the bottle stating this one was bottled on April 18, 2013. I know both batches already, and there is some batch variation. I found the earlier one even bigger than the one I’m about to review here…

Plantation Jamaica 2000 (new bottle)

Color: Full gold.

Nose: Extremely buttery start. Lots of caramel and toffee aroma’s. Big, big, big, compared to other Rums from this range. It smells sweet, candy-like and so funky. I love the smell of stuff like this. Sugared yellow fruits in alcohol. Buried deep down below, there is this wine-note, so Cognac is noticeable. Ex-Cognac casks were used to finish the Rum in. Leather, nuts, nougat, chocolate. Hazelnuts, wood and sawdust. It’s all in here and for you to smell, so the big Rum didn’t even overpower it all, so no heavy thick cloak of toffee lies over this Rum, or is it? Next, because these is an evolution going on, a more nutty aroma emerges. Wood, almonds and cold black tea. The whole seems to become drier, which I like. Smells great, as often with Jamaican Rums.

Taste: Not as thick as one would expect, and certainly not as chewy. Fruity, yes. It is not overly sweet as well, but the sweetness is your typical refined sugar taste, as well as some burnt sugar. Right from the start quite some influence from the wood, combined with the defining Jamaican funk from the smell. Toffee, wax and nuts. Vanilla Ice-cream with Rum and raisins, which I also remember from Christmas. No big toffee from the nose as well. Liquid toffee and alcohol. Without smelling it, I repeat, without the smell, tasting this blind I would almost call this an Abuelo expression (the 7yo), only less sweet and more powerful. How strange. It has a nice woody backbone, with a slight bitter edge to it. Cask toast, burnt sugar, something like that. Warming. letting this “melt” on your tongue, a more fruity aroma emerges and even some fresh artisanal cola notes, which aren’t so damn sweet as those sold to you by the US sugar mafia. Whatever the aroma, it will always be slightly woody accompanied with a woody and waxy bitterness. I guess in this case the finish did some work on the typical Jamaican profile.

Just try something like this from Jamaica and try to compare it to a Rhum Agricole, I bet you can’t do that in the same tasting without losing something that both Rums offer. That far apart are both distillates, and so broad is the scope of Rum.

Since I still have it around, I compared it directly to the Guyanan offering I reviewed earlier: The Guyana seems more organic. More smells from the earth in that one. Flora and fauna and a wee hay-like Grappa note. Both share the same waxy notes though. In the taste the Guyana is a bit sharper and hotter. The Jamaica is definitely sweeter, and the sweetness overpowers the finish. Both are influenced by wood. In fact, both are similar but not similarly good, and if you have one of them, you don’t really need the other as well. Yes the smell is different, but the treatment both have received by their owners have brought them closer together.

Points: 81

Bowmore 12yo 2000/2012 (46%, The Whisky Mercenary, 42 bottles)

What time is it? It’s Jürgen time! Those of you who regularly read my reviews will have come across Jürgen quite a few times by now. Click here for a round-up of all Whisky Mercenary bottlings I reviewed up untill now. Today we’ll have a look at one of the first Whiskies Jürgen picked, maybe even thé first. Alas, this will be a review for your reading pleasure only, since only 42 bottles of this were made in 2012 (and by now most of the were consumed). Jürgen got some help from fellow Belgian independent Whiskybottler The Maltman. Usually this means that a cask was shared, and looking at the releases of The Maltman we can find another quite small release of only 65 bottles (done with Whiskysite.nl). That one is bottled at cask strength at 57.1% ABV. Now we have a total of about a 100 bottles, so probably even more bottles were filled from that particular cask by yet another party.

Bowmore 12yo The Whisky MercenaryColor: Light gold, vibrant.

Nose: Sweet peat with hints of smoke. Very appetizing. Refreshing citrus. Clay and toffee. Malty. Green and black tea. Cold fresh (and untreated) almonds and dried meat (not salty nor spicy). Light rubbery peat and subtly smoked. Toast and sweet malt again. Slightly burnt cable of an electrical appliance. Tiny hint of sawdust. Very nice nose, especially when inhaled vigorously. Chalk. Fresh, friendly and fruity.

Taste: Malty and smoky. Earwax with its typical bitterness. Late sweet attack with ashes. Cold black tea. Lemonade fruitiness. Licorice root. Waxy again. Paper and half-dry leaves in the forest including the odd crushed beetle. Tastes reduced, a bit too thin, with nothing left which made the nose and the plethora of tastes when the Whisky enters your mouth so great. BUMMER!

Although 46% ABV is not a bad strength, this seems to me like a perfect example of a Whisky that should have remained at cask strength. The nose shows lots of potential as do the entry into the mouth (excellent!) and the start of the body (niiiice!). Quickly, the body becomes a tad simple and thin. Especially the finish shows the fault of reduction in this one. It really needed some oomph. Very nice Whisky. Reminds me of old Islay Whiskies that are usually around 25yo, (Caol Ila). I didn’t care for the reduction though. Stellar stuff that has been ruined by the second half and the weak finish.

Points: 84

Macduff 10yo 2000/2011 (46%, Dewar Rattray, for Specialists Choice, First Fill Sherry Butt #5788, 360 bottles)

Macduff 10yo 2000/2011 (46%, Dewar Rattray, for Specialists Choice, First Fill Sherry Butt #5788, 360 bottles)Finally a younger expression of Macduff. Not one I predicted in the last Macduff review, would be from the nineties, but already one from the new millennium. We’ll see what happens next time. All the Macduffs I reviewed up untill now were all in their thirties, this time we go back to basics with a good old ten year old from the year 2k. Lets see if the computers monitoring the distillation process didn’t go berserk.

Color: Copper

Nose: Raisins and fat Sherry. Pencil shavings. Creamy oranges. Nice soft and velvety wood. Milk chocolate and warm chocolate milk. Hint of cranberry. Pretty meaty if you ask me. Curious mix of red fruit with spicy wood and chocolate. Licorice root. Intriguing.

Taste: First a short, sharp, spicy and slightly bitter bite, than the (slower) sweetness comes into the mouth. Again pencil shavings and licorice. Excellent sweetness and the pencil shavings are great. Also some ashes. Lots of not too dark chocolate although later on, the wood turns a little bit bitter turning the milk chocolate into a darker kind. Also over time, the sweetness seems to be more and more out-of-place, disturbing the balance a bit.

A nice daily drinker or a Sherry grenade. Well, it’s not a Sherry bomb, and I feel the reduction worked well this time. I obviously haven’t tasted this at a higher strength, but I have noticed that adding water to a first fill red Sherry, gives the Whisky a sharp edge. This example is far from sharp. Very drinkable and very nice nevertheless.

Points: 84

Bowmore 12yo 1988/2000 (50%, Douglas Laing, Old Malt Cask, Sherry, 702 bottles)

The Master of Malt version of an eighties Bowmore did not turn out to be a FWP-Bowmore after all. Looking though the whiskies that have accumulated at Master Quill’s castle, I found another eighties Bowmore. This time an oldie by Douglas Laing. At one point in time, the Laing Brothers thought they would have to show the public what are the ‘young’ whiskies in their Old Malt Cask range, so decided on red lettering and a red tube. Somehow this ‘experiment’ didn’t last for very long, so this look is rather scarce. Lets see if this time we have a genuine FWP-Bowmore on our hands? Is it lavender & violets or peat & smoke?

Color: Light Copper Gold.

Nose: Butter, popcorn, quite some hints of flowers, but not like a FWP. Peat and a decent amount of smoke. Deep almost brooding kind of licorice. Clay, smelly pond in summer, probably a sulphur compound. This organic smell is actually great in this Whisky. Ashes and gravy, meaty.

Taste: Nice elegant Islay. Soft tasty peat, with smoke on top. Lots of caramel, toffee. Nothing is over the top. Perfect non-sugary sweetness in the background. But as with the Master of Malt version, it breaks down a bit towards the end, and has a sweet yet ‘light’ finish. There is something else that is pretty similar with the Master of Malt bottling. Again, the acidity quickly follows the sweetness. They somehow are linked. Do I detect some soap at the end of the finish? If it’s there it doesn’t hurt the whisky much. On occasions it takes the properties of a rum.

Not a perfect Whisky. Has some distillation faults (butter) and some issues with the finish and stability (with air), but overall it’s a very drinkable and likeable Whisky. Again not a victim of FWP.

Beware, this whisky doesn’t take air very well, let this breathe and you’ll see how it breaks down in your glass. Break open a new deck of cards, invite some (lady) friends over for a nice and friendly game and drink the whole bottle in one evening, you’ll do yourself and the Laing Brothers a big favour.

Points: 88