Tag Archives: 2002

Ardbeg Auriverdes 12yo 2002/2014 (49.9%, OB, American oak casks with toasted virgin oak lids, 6660 bottles)

I have to say that many of Ardbeg’s “special” releases aren’t getting a lot of love. It almost seems to be in fashion to slam these releases. Maybe a combination of NAS and silly marketing or the combination of NAS and the pricing of these “specials”, because obviously these Whiskies could be containing pretty young stuff. Maybe people dislike the posh new owners LVMH. How can a leather bag and a mediocre Champagne be the owners of the mighty beast that is our Ardbeg. Whisky is romantic and better than all other alcoholic beverages! Another explanation might be that the core range is actually quite good. Especially Uigeadail and Corryvreckan if you ask me, both better than the 10yo, An Oa and the 5yo Wee Beastie. All five are more affordable than all these special releases. Most of which are often NAS Whiskies (Hence the funny names) and also are a bit more experimental in nature as well.

In 1997 Ardbeg was bought by Glenmorangie, so the experimental nature of these releases comes as no surprise when, since 1995, they have Bill Lumsden on the payroll (Head of Distilling & Whisky Creation at The Glenmorangie Company). For those who don’t know Dr. William “Bill” Lumsden (The Mad Scientist), he previously experimented quite a bit with Whiskies at Glen Moray before experimenting on an even higher level at Glenmorangie and Ardbeg. Online, two of the most disliked Ardbeg expressions are Perpetuum and the Auriverdes at hand. Perpetuum in fact wasn’t even very experimental. Old en Young Whiskies from Bourbon and Sherry casks. Still, I found it was a decent expression and I never had a dull moment with it. I scored it 86 points which is certainly not bad at all. But the two aforementioned cheaper ones from the core range: Uigeadail (2018 batch) scored 87 and Corryvreckan (2014 batch) scored a whopping 89 points, so both outdid the “special” release. As mentioned above , this time around we’ll have a look at another unloved Ardbeg: Auriverdes. Is it experimental? The Whisky matured in second fill Bourbon barrels. The original lids were removed and replaced with new virgin oak ones, which were toasted using a very special secret toasting process, which accounts for the experimental bit.

Color: Light gold, not pale.

Nose: Nice funky peat, soft smoke with some notes of crushed beetle. A fireplace in December. The smell of Christmas in a log cabin. Hints of black coal and glowing embers. Old bicycle inner tubes. Less salty and fishy than expected from a south shore Malt, even though more than enough organics are happening in this nose. After a while, a more fresher approach starts, with breaths of fresh air, and more citrus-like aroma’s without being overly fresh or acidic, just adding to the perfume. After this fresh phase, we’re back in the realm of black coal and chimney smoke in winter, preferably on a dark evening after a snowy day, only lit by street lights, by odd coloured sodium lamps. Tiny hints of sweetish licorice powder, a Licorice-Menthos combo and some dust for old-times sake. Ooooh, the rubber comes back. I think this is a really nice smelling Ardbeg. Maybe some experimentally and specially and secretively toasted cask ends, but other than that, no funny business and nose-wise quite a successful experiment. I really do like the nose on this.

Taste: Sweet licorice comes first, as well as the crushed beetle. Somewhat vegetal and tea-like. The texture seems a bit thin initially. An indistinct fruity note is also present. Citrus, only more sweet, more sugared, than it is acidic and maybe some other ripe yellow fruits as well. Warming going down. Somewhat sweet, somewhat peaty and more of the Menthos feel that came rather late in the nose. It tastes somewhat like a minty licorice powder. Whisky-candy. The sweetness works very well in this Whisky. After swallowing, a nutty note emerges as well as some distant vanilla. Initially not big-bodied at all, maybe this is what people dislike in this expression. It is definitely simpler than the nose. The nose is really good and melancholic, the taste is initially a bit watered down, or maybe not mature enough. Is this the youth a NAS Whisky allows for? Yet it has great balance. Everything fits and works together well. Mind you, this is still not bad, but the nose carried some sort of a promise of things to come, a promise that hasn’t been kept entirely. I expected more complexity. During sipping, the nose still keeps on evolving, and truth be told, the taste does collect itself, which makes for a highly drinkable Ardbeg. I’m not having a beef with this one at all. Well, well, well, the taste really does develop after a while. This needed some time as well, time I might have saved, if I had added some water (but why hurry). It did gain even more balance and the body and especially the finish are bigger now, still not very complex though.

If really analysed well, with more than enough time, it is much easier to pick up on the true Ardbeg underneath. Maybe these specials aren’t for casual sipping at all, and if you try to be patient and give it some time, these special releases might be better than I was lead to believe by the internet. Maybe you got to work them a little, and since you are reading this, you as an experienced taster, are very able to do so, so please do.

People can be so judgemental these days, living fast, judging fast, too self confident. That’s human nature in the 21th century Whisky world or maybe even the world in general. I’m actually amazed how negative some people are and how vocal about it as well, and a lot of less experienced people just run with this and claim the same, unsure about their abilities to smell and taste. I see around me that even experienced aficionados fall into this abyss. If this is you, maybe you should learn to relax a bit, sit back some more, take some more time to smell the roses, (or Ardbeg in this case). Don’t be biased that Ardbeg is trying to pull one over your eyes and dupe you, because they probably aren’t. Not from the Whisky makers perspective anyway. Marketing may be another story entirely. Bill may be a mad scientist who tries to explore, often with an idea and sometimes by trial and error. This is definitely not a bad Ardbeg and don’t believe anyone telling you this. I feel this is a decent malt if you only let it. Don’t fool yourself and don’t let yourself be fooled, make up your own mind, and if after this you don’t like it, it must be true. Only then.

Points: 87

Lagavulin 2002/2018 “Distillers Edition” (43%, OB, lgv.4/507)

Lagavulin is a great distillery with great people and has a great output of very high quality, although, my firm Lagavulin-faith was rocked a bit with the more recent releases of the 8yo (@ 48% ABV) and the 10yo (@ 43% ABV). I still have to review the 9yo Game of Thrones Edition (@ 46% ABV) and the 11yo Offerman Edition (@ 46 % ABV). Before we get to those, I have this modern classic on my lectern, yes @ 43% ABV, this is a bit of yesteryear’s ABV, but The Distillers Edition has always been good and and already tried by many. I would be surprised if you were reading this and never had tried a Lagavulin Distillers Edition before.

In 2016, I already had an earlier edition of a Lagavulin Distillers Edition on these pages. The 1996/2002 lgv. 4/490. That is most certainly an oldie compared to the one I’m about to review. In fact, this one was distilled when the earlier one was bottled. Just like all the other Lagavulin Distillers Editions, this was finished in Pedro Ximénez (PX) casks. PX is a sweet fortified Wine, so expect some sweetness, although in general, this isn’t necessarily always the case. Also, this Whisky has been coloured with Caramel, why? The 1996 edition was bottled in clear glass, but this 2002 was bottled in smoke coloured glass, so why still alter the Whisky with E150? This is something that was on my mind reviewing the Lagavulin 12yo for the friends of the Classic Malts as well.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Nice warming peat, with quite a lot of iodine. Bonfire in winter. Fire place at Christmas. Smoked vanilla and toffee. Cold outside, quite hot inside the log cabin. PX is recognizable, giving off a sweet raisiny, meaty and fruity aroma. Wood, burnt wood, scorched wood. Tarry. Licorice. More smoky than peaty, but warm peat is certainly here as well. Wonderful balanced nose. After a while breathing in my glass, the rougher notes of smoke and, to a lesser extent, peat, dissipate a bit, leaving more room for a sweeter more syrupy note. Syrupy is not always a good note, mind you, and here it offers a cloak of sweetness masking some of the wonderful notes from the beginning. Apart from the iodine laden smoke a more perfumy note emerges as well. Big and smoky not light and fruity. This is essentially what one might call a winter dram. Wonderful nose. Amazing at this price point.

Taste: Initially lighter and thinner than the nose promised. Lacking a bit in the oomph department and with it killing a bit of the depth this probably had. Here bitter smoke and quite a lot licorice seems to be upfront, something, if present, that seemed masked in the nose. Sweet sugar-coated anise-like licorice. The sweetness kicks in now. It works wonders with the bitter notes of smoke (fire place!) and peat. Crushed beetle and vanilla. Still a very tasty Islay dram different from the rest, a potential masterpiece. Again more smoky than peaty. By now I really wish I could have had the chance to try this before it gets diluted, that version must be surely stellar. Salty lips, very dark chocolate bitterness. Is it me or does this really have notes of red fruit syrup, not much, but detectable. Way to easily drinkable @ this ABV. I’m actually amazed this bottle is already so far gone, when did that happen? Every time I want to take another sip to expand on these notes, the glass is also empty. This is also a Malt the works better with bigger sips. A Malt to be drunk. The sweetness even makes it into the finish, with chocolaty bitterness in the aftertaste. Again, like the nose, well balanced. Good stuff, more please. I have to refill my glass. Nom, nom, nom.

Really dear readers, If you can get a 16yo, which is utterly wonderful, and/or this Distillers Edition, of which I almost forgot how good it really is, there is absolutely no need to buy the 8yo and/or the 10yo, both are so much less of a Whisky than these two and offer nothing more or new, they seem unfinished and come across as an afterthought. It absolutely pains me to say this about these two offerings from one of my most beloved distilleries, but please do yourself a favour and avoid both the 8yo and the 10yo, and if you know them and feel one of both are very good, are you sure you have tried the 12yo Cask Strength, the 16yo or one of these Distillers Editions? Are you sure? Because for me the difference is amazing. Just like Ardbeg with their Uigeadail and Corryvreckan, Lagavulin also has truly great Whiskies in their core line-up with the 16yo and the Distiller Editions. So really good Islay Whiskies can still be had at a very reasonable price point. All four belong on a bang-for-your-buck list.

Points: 88

Glentauchers 13yo 2002/2015 (55.6%, Five Lions, Private Collection, 2nd Fill Bourbon Barrel)

Within the realm of Whisky one can find a lot of different tastes and smells. But hey, that is also true for Rum and many other aged distillates. This is one of the reasons one can never really stop talking or writing about it, because there is always a lot more to say. Whisky isn’t dead, there is a lot of evolution in Whisky as well. Once only Blended Whiskies were the ” thing” and most distilleries owe their life to being part of a big selling blend. There was also a big move towards ageing Whiskies in Spanish Sherry casks, butts and puncheons. Who doesn’t like those excellent 60’s and 70’s Sherry driven Malts like the Macallan, Glendronach, Longmorn and Strathisla to name but a few.

More recent and more evolved are Whiskies in less traditional casks like Red and White Wine casks. Today everything goes. Casks after Rum, Cognac, Calvados, Sweet Dessert Wines, or Sherry’s put on American Oak casks rather than the traditional European Oak. The Sherry drinking public finds these Sherry’s more friendly and accessible. The art being how to use all those different casks, and for how long. A fine example turned out to be this recently reviewed Deanston finished in Bordeaux casks. When talking to people who… well the world knows them as anoraks, aficionado’s or connoisseurs, when talking about the different styles of Whisky, these people always seem have a soft spot for Whiskies that have been aged for a good while in refill Bourbon barrels and Hogsheads. These casks tend to less dominate the distillate and add more creamy and vanilla flavours (coming from American Oak). Whiskies that have been aged this way always leave some room for the quality of the distillate, which differs from distillery to distillery, making these Whiskies extremely interesting.

Here we have an example of this. A Glentauchers, aged for 13 years in a second fill Bourbon barrel, nothing more. So what we have here is the distillate and a previously used cask, nothing more. I bought this one at auction and it didn’t break the bank, and I felt this would do just fine. Glentauchers makes a nice distillate, the cask is a second refill, so not worn out, not tampered with, recharred or something and always a plus, the Whisky was bottled at cask strength, giving it enough power to bring all those lovely flavours forth. Lets dig in!

Color: White Wine

Nose: Starts nutty and waxy. Dried out yellow fruits with a little bit of honey. Big breaths of fresh air and a citrussy acidic note as well. An ever so slight edge of smokiness. A huge layer of perfumed paper and a slight burnt note as well. Soft wood bordering on cardboard and the skins of almonds. Initially not as fruity as expected. So it seems not fruity nor woody at first. However, having said that, there is definitely some fruit here, but it is all fresh citrus notes. Oils from the skins. Hidden fruits. Thus the cask might have been less active, making this an excellent example of a malt where only time and the quality of the spirit determine the outcome, and the cask did do something as well obviously, but to a lesser extent than in most other cases. Still, this is a giving Malt, it is quite big on the nose, very fragrant and aromatic. Soft blend of licorice and spices in cold dishwater (a wee bit soapy), which isn’t as horrible as it sounds. This is a very laid-back Malt were nothing really stands out. A soft and quiet spoken Malt. The one that sits in the back at a birthday party, aptly dressed for a party and wearing fine floral cologne. It is more than happy to observe in stead of taking part in idle and utter boring conversation, biding his time until it’s time to finally go home again. Slightly (saw)dusty and the fresh air just keeps coming. Hints of cold gravy. After a while the floral note becomes clearer. Jasmine. not so much the fresh flower itself, but more like the scented rice or the tea. I’m actually still struggling a bit to distinguish the other fruits. Some unripe pineapple and unripe waxy mango skin. The malt is friendly and accessible, which often spells: “fruit”, but no, that doesn’t seem to be the dominant aroma this time (apart from the citrussy top note, and maybe some unripe fruits). Good one this though. Balanced, I like it.

Taste: Sweet and wood-spicy on entry. Hints of mocha cream on a cake. A friendly, and citrussy fresh, entry. Wood and wax and definitely more fruit than in the nose, the sweetness helps that along. Yet still not a very fruity Whisky though. The wood adds some restrained bitterness. Licorice all sorts, including the anise. Wow, remarkable. Quite hot going down. Lightly smoked toffee with some cumin and minty toothpaste. Light honey aroma’s make up the rest of the sweetness. Hints of wood, cardboard and a leafy note. Some smoke, pineapple and lemon hard candy. In the end the woody bitterness stays behind in the aftertaste. Sometimes it even tastes a bit soapy. Alcohol definitely there. Sweet, nice, and a very tasty Whisky indeed.

Even though one might consider this less interesting because of the cask used, and therefore one may find it even a bit boring. If you do, you might be missing the point. For me, this is a well made Whisky which does have a lot to offer. All is good and all is in its place. It’s a Malt of integrity and honesty and to be honest, this one pleased me a lot more than the dark coloured and Sherried Glenallachie 15yo I reviewed recently.

Points: 86

Longrow 10yo 1992 (46%, OB, 2002)

Back in the summer of 2016, I reviewed the 1993 10yo, the successor to the 1992 I’m about to review now. The 1993 stayed on the back of my mind, since I really liked that one, giving it 88 points. When, last year (2018), a local shop had a sale, this 1992 showed up for a very nice price, so at first I bought two, and a while later, at yet another sale at the same shop, I bought the two that remained on the shelves. That was 2018 and this was bottled in 2002, So not a very popular dram, it seems, in these neck of the woods.

Between 2001 and 2006, six similar looking annual release were bottled as a 10yo vintage, where the 1992 (from 2002) was the first one in the Springbank bottle we all know so well by now. (The 1991 was in the tall bottle).

Lets find out if this 1992 vintage is as good as the 1993 and lets find out if buying four bottles of this wasn’t a mistake. And yes, also with this one, the cork broke on me when first opened. Luckily I have my trusted brown bag with many corks in them, a life-saver in many occasions, especially when handling bottles with old corks.

Color: Light gold. Slightly more color to it compared to the 1993 vintage.

Nose: Fragrant meaty (light) peat, fatty and oily (olive), with a slight winey acidity. Freshening the whole up. In no way, this comes across as a heavily peated Whisky. Sugary barley and quite fruity. Buttery pop-corn and quite creamy. Well balanced, very appetizing and quite some depth to it. All works very well in this one. Soft and more meaty peat notes. Still light and soft. No smoke at all. Slightly fatty and it smells a bit sweet as well. Hey, apart from the nuttiness I almost missed, here also comes a burnt and smoky note, I always miss in the evening. Yes, I’m trying it now before breakfast. You should try it. Sugared and dried yellow fruits, but also a small hint of oranges. Yes, distant citrus fruits in the back. A very friendly and accessible Longrow. Longrow sees more peat than Springbank, but still Longrow can be very soft, and this one is no exception.

Taste: Starts with a short attack of smoke, quickly followed by the fruity bits and the soft peat. Butter. Toast with warm butter. Lots of fruity bits, some slightly acidic, and some sweet. Again light and soft and dangerously drinkable. Slightly salty as well when I lick my lips. Nice. Also a heavier note emerges. Fatty and caramel-like. Licorice. After a while more smoky, burnt and peaty notes emerge in the body of this Whisky. Time release? Fresh butter now. More creamy elements emerge from the Whisky. The lightness shows itself best towards the finish. Quite short and light, leaving only a warming note behind, without me being able to tell which of the notes mentioned above stays behind. One of the fruits probably, a nutty note, and some peat. If you wait a bit longer, it’s definitely the peat which has the staying power to make it well into the after taste. Nice stuff altogether, the only beef I have with it, this morning, is that it finishes a bit too sweet. It may be a daily drinker type of Whisky in the evening, but less so in the morning when I think of the sweetness. On another mornings the sweetness seemed less predominant and the buttery notes (with the toast as well), do make this a breakfast Whisky. Go figure, taste is a peculiar thing and we as humans are subjective as tasters beyond belief, so please take that into account.

Now lets see how the 1992 compares to the 1993 I reviewed earlier. Well just in case you thought all the vintages are alike. I can safely say that the noses of te 1992 and the 1993 are different. The 1993 is a tad more medicinal and lacks the creamy and buttery notes of the 1992. Somewhat more predominant in the wood department, but not by much. The fruit is similar, but toned down a lot of notches. The 1993 is smokier and reminds me of a sea breeze. It’s also cleaner and more oak is noticeable. Yes even some unlit cuban cigar tobacco. I guess that wasn’t in the original review of the 1993. I guess the relative sweetness of the 1992 hides the wood and all the other notes (if present). Where the 1993 is cleaner, the 1992 seems to be the bigger (sweeter and creamier) Malt. Taste wise, both are closer to each other with the same “lightness”. The 1993 is sweeter then I remembered, and also shows the fruit and the softness and even more of the nutty bits with milk chocolate. Variations on a theme I guess. Trying the 1992 directly after the 1993, shows some youth in the 1992. Both score the same and are definitely twins, but if I had to choose I’d pick the 1993. It is ever so slightly better. Does this mean I’m regretting getting four of the 1992? No, of course not. I love it!

Points: 88

The Balvenie 21yo “Portwood” (40%, OB, Circa 2002)

Just like some of the previous reviews, here is another bottle from my lectern. I bought this one way back in 2002 after I sampled it at a friend’s house. I have very fond memories of this one, so in my case the disappointment was humongous when I tried the freshly opened bottle. Almost a year has passed since then, so I believe it is time to have another go. Truth be told, In the passing year I have sampled it several times and found it to be better every time I tried it, so for the second time around I again have high hopes for this one. Oxidation rules! Often, not every time, but often.

Color: Copper gold, with a pinkish hue.

Nose: Winey and sweaty. Nice old, soft and wet, wood and warm wax. Underneath some old vanilla lingering, mixed in with a winey note, sweetish Port. After the initial wet wood, the note shifts into old dry oak. So the original Whisky matured in American oak alright to be finished in Port casks. Very perfumy. Very distinguished. It feels like a member (not a Whisky) of a members only gentleman’s club. Fresh homemade pot-pourri, not the soapy dried hideous stuff, that smells of grannies closet. This bottling oozes the sense of a Whisky from yesteryear, something that can’t be repeated. It also gives me the feeling the whole has worn out a bit, again adding to the note af antiquities. If there is a beef to be had with this Whisky it’s that even with this many years under its belt, it does lack development. The Whisky establishes itself big time, only to not change much in your glass. So breathing in the glass doesn’t do much whereas breathing in the bottle did bring a lot of balance since opening. Oxidation can be a strange phenomenon.

Taste: Not as big as I’ve expected from the nose alone. A bit simple on entry. Sweet and nutty. Yes moving into fortified Wine territory now, complete with a raw and bity (and a soft bitter) effect right after the start (typical for Port finishes). Red fruits and more nuts and wax. The red fruits form a very nice layer on top of the nutty bit. If you’re familiar with tasting Wines, this Balvenie gets richer when you take in some air while you sip this (the more the better actually). Since is so low in ABV. take big gulps! Vanilla, raisins. yeah, now we’re talking. Sure raisins, but in no way does this taste like a Sherried Whisky, no its raisins, but different from a Sherried Whisky. The low ABV. isn’t capable of carrying the finish for a long time, nor does this Whisky have a noticeable aftertaste. After the finish it gets weak quickly and you wait for an aftertaste that doesn’t come. When its gone, its gone. So, in the end, this is very, very nice, all aroma’s fit together nicely, but also (and I hate the word but) I still expect a bit more form a Whisky with a reputation like this one. It’s very nice, highly drinkable, but lacks complexity, development and a bit of oomph. On the other side, after extensive breathing this is a balanced whisky with nice aroma’s and no off notes whatsoever.

Just like the Kilkerran I reviewed last, both are examples of Whiskies that weren’t all that great right after opening. I took this bottle with me when I was invited by Nico to sample some odd Balvenie 12yo from 2016, alongside many other Balvenies. We both had high hopes for this one, since it is an oldie, and everything was better some decades ago, wasn’t it? Yet all we could muster was “is this it?” Again rightfully disappointed with a freshly opened bottle. Did it get better? Yes it did, is it as great as memory serves me? No not really, so this goes to show, that oxidation isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and that tasting Whisky can be a very subjective matter to boot.

Points: 88

For fun, I unearthed a Port finished Imperial, but both are remarkably different so there is no sense in comparing. Where one seems old and distinguished, the other is more modern and even bigger on the nuttiness. Both are quite sweet and they share the need to be had in big gulps. Maybe 81 Points for the Imperial was a bit on the conservative side though (but not by much).

 

Glenturret 2002/2015 (43%, Gordon & MacPhial, The MacPhail’s Collection, First Fill Sherry Puncheons)

After all these years time for another first on these pages. This is the first review of Glenturret. Glenturret is the oldest still working distillery of Scotland. It started operation in 1775 and was originally called Hosh. Like most others, never working throughout all these years. Todays owners are the Edrington Group. A group formed in 1996, that knows how to market Whisky and make money of it. Just have a look at some other distilleries owned by the Edrington Group: Names like Macallan and Highland Park. Both are (very) highly marketed and very much in the spotlight. Edrington is also the brand owner of Scotland’s favourite blend Famous Grouse, and that has to be marketed well, so in comes the Famous Grouse Experience built at…the Glenturret Distillery, since Glenturret finds its way into this blend. So Glenturret is considered the spiritual home of Famous Grouse and therefore has a raison d’être. Finally Glenrothes is a distillery owned by The Edrington Group, although the brand “Glenrothes” is owned by Berry Bros. & Rudd (as is Cutty Sark, another Blended Whisky). Finally, The Edrington Group is also 50% owner of the North British grain distillery, the other 50% is owned by Diageo.

In the recent past Bunnahabhain, Glenglassaugh, Glengoyne and Tamdhu were also a distilleries owned by the Edrington Group, but probably considered to hard to build up these brands to the extend of the other brands, so all were sold off. Glengoyne (2003) and Tamdhu (2011) to Ian MacLeod. Bunnahabhain, together with the Black Bottle Blended Whisky brand to Burn Stewart in 2003, and Glenglassaugh (2008) to a private group of investors, who subsequently sold it to Billy Walker of Benriach in 2013. Billy then sold all of his distilleries (Benriach, Glendronach and Glenglassaugh) to Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel’s) in 2016. Can you hear the Carousel Waltz?

glenturret-gm-2002Color: Full gold.

Nose: Yup, this is from Sherry casks alright. Quite different from the usual young Whisky drawn from Bourbon casks. Nice, creamy and dusty. Fruity, fresh ripe fruits and lots of candied fruits as well. Sweet peach yoghurt mixed in with the smell of new tires. Although no promise of any real sweetness yet, it does come across as syrupy. Vanilla, cloves with some pencil shavings and a nice (this time) fruity acidity even though it isn’t completely integrated with the rest of the aroma’s. Smells quite good actually. Apart from all this, it is quite perfumy as well. A slight burning note. Not really burned wood or toasted cask, no, the burned note seems to be integrated into the smell of new tires I mentioned above. I wouldn’t say unusual, but quite interesting, and I don’t mean interesting in a way to not say it isn’t any good, because it is, it’s very appealing and complex. I like it very much, it smells really good. I hope it tastes even better, if so, where can I order a case of this? But, lets not get ahead of ourselves, lets taste it first…

Taste: Wow, very sweet on entry. Syrupy and creamy all right. Butter candy and vanilla. The burning note and the tire note are in here as well, and I have to say right from the start, this doesn’t disappoint at all. Burned toast. Next a sugary and nutty note, alas a bit of a watery, sugary nutty note. Maybe this has seen a little bit too much reduction? Distant banana with creamy vanilla. Sweet fruity yoghurt again. This aromatic part is so big, that the more astringent woody notes you should almost always pick up, since Whisky is matured in wood, only shows in the finish. You can feel it in the back of your mouth. No bitterness whatsoever though and the finish itself has more than enough staying power, but when its gone, its gone, you’ll need to take another sip.

Sure Ferrari’s are amongst the nicest cars to drive, but sometimes you can have a lot of fun with a small cheap car as well. It’s the same with Whisky, Sure I get a lot, and I mean a lot, from a 1972 Brora, but sometimes you can have an equal lot of fun with an inexpensive Whisky from a distillery that doesn’t have a big name like Macallan of Highland Park, so in comes this Glenturret.

I’m wondering if, somewhere in the future, we will see a cask strength version of a similar 2002 Sherried Glenturret. That would be really interesting, I mean, good!

After writing this review I did a direct H2H comparison with the Gordon & MacPhail Teaninich I reviewed last. When tasting both Whiskies on different days you will remember them differently as in a direct comparison. H2H allows you to find differences and sometimes even aroma’s you would never get otherwise. For instance, when smelling the Teaninich right after the Glenturret, I’m amazed the Teaninich almost smells like a Rum at first. Waxy and thick. Something I never got when tasting it solo. Tasting it, it is definitely a Whisky, although big, bold and waxy. The Glenturret is much more refined and elegant.

Points: 85

Glenrothes 1987/2002 (43%, OB)

Here is another vintage Glenrothes. After the 1992,  the 1989 and the 1979, this 1987 is the fourth of these vintage bottlings on Master Quill. All were nice, but never scoring very high. All were nice, with enough difference to warrant buying more than one, but also none of them blew me out of the water. Just look at both other Glenrothes I reviewed earlier. One bottled by Wilson & Morgan and one by Douglas Laing. Both managed to score higher than the official bottlings. By now I can say that I expect this one to be nice, but again I don’t think it will blow me out of the water.

Glenrothes 1987/2002 (43%, OB)Color: Gold.

Nose: Dusty, definitely Sherried. Spicy and tickles the nose. Also some burnt elements. Next some aroma’s you get from an old (dry) cellar or attic. Funky but not the funky damp notes you sometimes get from cellars. More like the odours of stored old stuff. Old paper, old cardboard and old wood. Old, worn out vanilla pods. Later a breath of rural fresh air, coming to you over water. Let it breathe some more, and it becomes more like a “normal” Whisky. Vanilla, wood, fruity Sherry notes and spicy oak and cask toast. Hints of butter and dry grass (not hay), and even some toffee.

Taste: Short attack of (fresh) oak and a more waxy note, quickly succeeded by cherries and sugared yellow fruits. Fruity sweet toffee, alas a bit diluted. Über-fruity sugar-water. Warming. Apart from the initial wood, this is quite a fruity expression of Glenrothes. Hints of soap and paper from the nose and a growing aroma of burnt wood. At best a medium finish with a note of Beer and burnt wood. Yes, a bit bitter, which adds to the character of the Whisky after the initial sweetness and fruitiness. The aftertaste matches the nose exactly.

Although the nose isn’t one of the most balanced expressions of Glenrothes, the taste is way better that way, helped along by the sweetness it has. It’s all right this one. It may be a bit simple, diluted and lacking complexity. It does some across as balanced and tastes nice. Maybe it’s time to up the strength a bit?

Points: 83

Talisker 1989/2002 “Distillers Edition” (45.8%, OB, TD-S: 5DP)

Since the 2002 Distillers Edition of Lagavulin was such a success, I managed to unearth the 2002 Distillers Edition of Talisker as well. This 2002 version is the direct successor of the 2001 I reviewed a few years ago. This is only the fourth Distillers Edition since with there wasn’t a Talisker DE released in 1999. Both the Talisker and the Lagavulin DE’s were first released in 1997. In 1999 the Second Lagavulin was released and since 2000 both were released annually.

Talisker DE 2002Color: Light copper orange.

Nose: Compared to the Lagavulin this can be called elegant, which is obvious, since Talisker is peated to a lower level and the Whisky itself is much younger. Lightly peated, more fruity and fresh. Fresher, younger and livelier. Slightly grassy. Creamy overall feel. Hints of pudding and vanilla. Nice soft wood. Although this has been finished in a Sherry cask, the finish is quite sparse. It’s typical peatiness is recognizable as a Talisker. Slightly oily and waxy, like an elegant distant relative of Springbank. Hints of old herbs from an old wooden grocery shop. Tiny hint of Islay-esk tarry rope. Hints of yellow fruits even. Sometimes this reminds me of white peach in sweet yoghurt, with some soft, slightly burnt wood added to it. Where the Lagavulin was very in-your-face, this Talisker is not. It’s even less so than the 10yo (from 2002).

Taste: Here the wood comes first after which a toned down little peppery attack announces it’s a Talisker all right. Fatty soft peat. Lovely. Cute almost. With some air, quite nutty. Again a slightly burnt note, which must be from the inside of the Sherry casks. Towards the finish a more smooth and sweet note appears, which I feel is not completely right for Talisker. Creamy towards the finish. Sure the peat is here, but most if it seems hidden by the unexpected sweetness. Medium finish with indeed a fishy part, and alas not much going on in the aftertaste…

Where Whisky buffs will almost always prefer Oloroso Sherry casks over PX Sherry casks. Just look how quickly the Oloroso versions of the vintage Glendronach’s sell out before the PX-versions. In the wine world, Oloroso is not considered the best of Sherries. The PX finish for Lagavulin seems to be a perfect match and nobody would even wonder, at least I didn’t, how a Oloroso finished Lagavulin would be. (Alright, plenty of them around), but for the DE-version at least, I didn’t wonder. For this Talisker however, I’m less happy about the choice of Sherry cask. For me it’s slightly off, so I’m wondering now how other finishes would have worked for Talisker in the DE-series.

Points: 85

Same score as “Neist Point” and a quick comparison between the two warrants the score of both. If offered at the same price, I would go for the Distillers Edition.

Lagavulin 1986/2002 “Distillers Edition” (43%, OB, lgv. 4/490)

Lagavulin is one of my all time favorite distilleries. It’s almost impossible to encounter a bad Lagavulin. I can’t believe this is just the third review of Lagavulin on these pages the other two being the other two from the current standard range. The 16yo and the 12yo. The 16yo is the modern classic (It used to be the 12yo with the cream label) and right at the time there was a rumour the 16yo would be quite scarce, the new cask strength 12yo was released. As I said, the current standard range is the 16yo, this distillers edition I’m about to review, and the 12yo cask strength version. The latter two come to us as “annual releases”. Just like Springbank, this means that there is some batch variation. A wanted batch variation, to buy more of the same and compare them to other releases, identified by  bottling year.

Just like NAS today, batch variation was always a dirty phrase, it’s not a word isn’t it. But marketing turned that around, just as they are trying with NAS. For me NAS means younger, less matured Whisky, so less contact with wood and as Gordon & MacPhail so aptly put it: “The wood makes the Whisky”. I’m not really happy about NAS, but I never disliked batch variations (again, look at Springbank), unless if the only way seemed to be down. There always has been a lot of discussion about our very Lagavulin 16yo, losing power, balance and character, but I hear the latest batches are becoming better and better again. Today Laphroaig seems to suffer from that…

This is the fifth Lagavulin Distillers Edition (DE). The first was distilled in 1979, the second in 1980, the third in 1981, and the fourth in 1984. Just like all the other distillers Editions, this Lagavulin has undergone a second maturation (a finish) in Pedro Ximénez (PX) casks.

Lagavulin DE 2002Color: Copper orange.

Nose: Fantastic peat. Lagavulins from the eighties can have this excellent peat, I never get tired of. Peat, tar, seashore, you name anything maritime and its in here. Sure the more recent DE’s are still pretty good, but they don’t smell like this. That’s why Whisky lovers still pay a great deal of money for these older bottlings. Smoke comes next and it smells a bit electrical. It has vanilla and a slight fruity nose. You know it’s there, but so hard to distinguish what it is. Ahhh lots of smoked (dry) sausage and slightly dried out onions and pear. Excellent, what a combination. Where have you smelled that last in a Whisky? This Lagavulin is all about balance (again some kind of dirty word for some). The whole is so fantastic, and goes on and on. Wonderful. Hard to put down. With time the fruit, still distant, finds it’s place in the whole and adds a more fresh and fruity part to the whole. Just smelling it is quite the experience, and still getting better. Lagavulin is such a big aroma, that even the thick and sweet PX can’t overpower it, just add a little something. I guess the finish was done intelligently. I’m putting off tasting it for just a while longer to put on my fisherman’s sweater…

Taste: …in the end it would be a shame not to taste this, so here goes. Well somewhat less special than the nose is the first thing that comes to mind. The PX is more upfront as well. It starts out chewy. Nice licorice, black and white powder and a thick sweet Sherry without most of its sweetness. Does that even make sense? Waxy and again very coastal and raw. Masculine. Puffer’s smoke. Burning hay. Fishy, as it should be. Smoked fish of course. Smearing tar on the hull of a boat. Get yourself something like this, because modern peated Whiskies are nowhere near this profile. I wouldn’t add water to it, because reducing it to 43% shortened the finish already. Big body, with only a medium finish. In the aftertaste the balance is slightly gone. It could have been even better than it already is! Wow.

It’s been a while, but I do understand why Whisky lovers in general pay lots of money for Whiskies like this. This is great and they sure can’t make them like this anymore. Drinking this put you in a different place and time altogether. It changes you as a person (for a while). Sure it puts you back a few hundred euro’s pounds or dollars, but try to imagine what a trip to Islay in 1986 would cost you now. It’s a time-machine and time-bomb in one. A must have.

Points: 91

Clément 9yo 2002/2012 Trés Vieux Rhum Agricole (46.8%, Bourbon Cask #20070077, 100% Canne Bleue, 587 bottles, 50 cl, Martinique)

After the excellent offerings from J.M it would be a blasphemy not to recognize Homère Clément, the godfather of Rhum Agricole on Martinique. In 1917 Homère started his distillery on the domaine he acquired in 1887. With the death 0f Homère in 1923, the property with its distillery is taken over by Charles Clément. Charles started making Rhum under the Clément Brand in 1940. The Cléments were already making Rhum for about ten years but under the brand name of the domaine itself: Rhum du Domaine d’Acajou. Charles died in 1973 and the next generation Clément is taking over. It is the generation of George and Jean-Louis-José Clément who saved J.M from bankruptcy but don’t interfere with its Rhum making and management. Investing in the property and distillery, to allow the people behind J.M to make the best Rhum possible.

From Clément’s prestige range comes this single barrel. This “100% Canne Bleue”, non filtré is the first of two single barrel releases. Canne bleue is a cane variety that, apart for its blue color, is known to be the best sugar cane variety for producing Rhum Agricole. Not so long ago a second version in this series saw the light of day, called “Vanille Intense”. Not to be mistaken for a spiced Rhum. No vanilla and/or vanillin was added. Only casks were selected that had the natural potential of releasing slightly more than usual amounts of vanillin from the American oak, as opposed to European oak, which tends to release more tannins.

Clément 9yo 2002/2012 Trés Vieux Rhum Agricole (46.8%, OB, Bourbon Cask #20070077, 100% Canne Bleue, 587 bottles, Martinique)Color: Dark orange brown.

Nose: Fresh and smells of new wood. Also a leafy, plant-like quality. Caramel. Big, hefty aroma, sometimes a whiff of this reminds me of Jamaican high ester Rum, although the whole profile is quite different from that. In the distance even a red fruity aroma. Mostly berries. Burnt sugar with hints of spicy White Wine. Gewürztraminer. Sweet spices. Oregano and to a lesser extent thyme. Toned down vanilla ice-cream.

Taste: A very nice subdued sweetness. It’s like the sweetness has depth in part because its burnt sugar. Milk chocolate, some vanilla and a hint of a paper-like quality, cardboard, cola and lots of cask toast. Just like a great wine, this Rhum Agricole has perfect balance between the sweetness and acidity. The sweet is obvious, the acidity is from the oak. Just like the nose it has this great woody flavour, without it being too sappy or bitter, although the bitterness that is there stays on well into the finish, and even the hoppy aftertaste. The finish is long and has a tiny amount of soapiness to it as well as a bit of red berries and the burnt sugar. The burnt sugar retreats and lets a more creamy and toffeed layer take over for the aftertaste.

It’s really amazing how much color this Rhum Agricole got from only nine years in a Bourbon barrel. It looks like a stunning dark brown Rhum. That must have been very active casks. This is good stuff. Big aroma, big body, long finish. For some a bit too much of the burnt wood and sugar notes, but it comes with the territory. Good ‘un this is. Usually more is more, but I somehow do like the 50 cl size of this. It’s easier that way to get another “100% Canne Bleue” single cask, from a different cask naturally, for comparison. This is a big one. The J.M 2002 shouldn’t be tasted right after this.

Points: 87