Tag Archives: 2005

J.M Cognac Cask Finish 9yo 2005/2015 (40.5%, OB, Cognac Delamain Cask #04 10 156, 800 bottles, 50cl

This is the fourth review of a Rhum J.M from Martinique on these pages. After the other three I tasted and reviewed here: Cuvée 1845, Millésime 2002 and XO, I more than happily bought a set of three special cask finishes, the Cognac finish at hand but there was also a Calvados finish as well as an Armagnac finish. For popping the cork on one of these three, I chose this Cognac finish first, because around the time of opening I also had this Port Charlotte CC:01 open (CC = Cognac Cask), and I wanted to see if the Cognac bit would be a common thread between the two. I never actually really got to comparing the two back then, it would have made no sense anyway, comparing a Rhum Agricole to a Peated Whisky (higher in ABV as well). The CC:01 is now long gone, and remembering the taste of it and comparing it, from memory, to this J.M, nope, not really clear in any of them that it had to do with Cognac. Not really sure what markers to look for to be honest, because both do not taste like a Cognac whatsoever. The label states that the Rhum aged for 8 years in Ex-Bourbon casks and was finished for several months in 350 litre Cognac casks. Less than 5 full months in this case, since this was distilled on 03/10/2005 and bottled 02/03/2015.

Color: Full gold, just shy of orange gold.

Nose: I haven’t tried the Calvados finish yet, but if I had gotten this blind, I would say this would be the Calvados version, because it smells of apples and…well, Calvados. There is something Calvados-y about a Rhum Agricole anyway. So this one is fruity, slightly sugary as well and overall very pleasant. Definitely a sunny expression. Well balanced yet on the nose not very complex. Nice soft wood, with nice soft ripe yellow exotic fruits and thus apples. No citrus and not acidic, not sweet either. Lots of fruit and it keeps on coming, overpowering the wood entirely now, yet leaving room for a more creamy and vanilla-like aroma, giving it some more body. Also, a more earthen and dusty note pops up, as well as some sunshine after rain and now, after sipping, some licorice, runny caramel and chewy toffee comes forth. A wonderful, friendly and positive nose, bringing the Caribbean to my home on this grey March day. I needed to work this nose a bit, but now that it is there, I very much like the J.M character in this again. It is a special spirit. Smells great. After a while in my glass some (sweet) licorice notes pop up, giving it slightly more backbone.

Taste: Aiii, 40.5% ABV was a mistake. Quite dull on entry. However, it starts most definitely again with the apply and/or the Calvados-y note I also got from the nose. Medium sweet and definitely fruity. The wood exerts itself some more here and also shows some bitterness, adding some spices to the whole. It is waxy and slightly nutty. By the way, the bitterness depends a bit on the day and, as always, depends very much too on you as a taster, because the second time around I found it less bitter then the first time. Simpler than the nose was, and simple is the right word here. It is less balanced as well. I’m missing a part of the big fruit that came from the nose, where is that? So less fruit is noticeable, probably because there is more soft wet wood and spicy wood on the palate that sticks to the roof of my mouth. The palate is definitely closer to a Cognac than a Calvados, and differs quite a lot from the nose. Now I would give it more than 9yo. The body is alright, a bit of a mediocre, yet nice, Rhum Agricole to be honest. However, I liked all three J.M’s I reviewed earlier more. This one seems to be not quite sure about its identity. It’s a bit thin and after the sunny nose a bit too bitter as well. Nope, not a fan of this particular one. A great R(h)um is never great by the nose alone.

When sipping this casually, I never cared too much for it, but I always thought that was because of my carelessness when sipping, so when analysing it I was really surprised how great the nose really is. I must have been wrong all this time. However now that I have tasted it again, I know exactly why I didn’t care for it all that much. It falls really short on the palate, at least it doesn’t gel with me. Seems to be lacking some balance, and the less interesting note on the palate seem to dominate over the more pleasant ones. It reminds me a bit of a Whisky that has seen a wee bit to much air in its lifetime. Maybe this J.M doesn’t like air all too much. Ah well, you can’t win them all.

Points: 80

Ledaig 9yo 2005/2015 (56.8%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, 1st Fill Sherry Butt #900146, 664 bottles)

After Caol Ila and two cask strength Laphroaig’s, lets stay with peat for a while (winter is coming) and check out this peated offering from Ledaig. Yes I know, Ledaig isn’t from Islay. Why should it? You can distil with peat anywhere on the planet, or in this case, Scotland. There is already a lot happening on Islay, lots of distilleries, and isn’t Mull more unique? Not a lot of distilleries on Mull. Ledaig as we all know by now, is the peated Whisky made at Tobermory Distillery. You did read all my previous reviews on Ledaig, in preparation to this one, now did you? So you should know by now, yes? Tobermory distillery also releases unpeated Whisky, calling it…well…Tobermory, how did they come up with that! You could fool me sometimes with this statement though. Seems to me some Tobermory’s are peated as well, maybe less so than Ledaig, yet peated. Maybe they’re just not as good at line clearance as they are in making Whisky? Who knows, and who cares if the output can be this good. By the way, not even that long ago Tobermory did have some sort of a wonky reputation concerning the quality of their Whisky.

Earlier I reviewed a fantastic 11yo Cadenheads offering distilled in 2005 which has matured in a Sherry Butt. This time around I went for this 9yo 2005 Signatory Vintage offering, that also matured in a Sherry Butt, expecting and hoping for more of the same and wanting that all 2005’s are somewhat created equal. I just wonder why Cadenheads only managed to draw 450 bottles at cask strength from a Butt and Signatory 664 bottles. That’s quite a considerable difference. By the way, Cadenheads bottled two other casks from 2005, yielding 510 and 516 bottles. Still no 664 bottles though. Different oak with more evaporation or different warehousing conditions? Who knows.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Fatty, fragrant and delicious peat. Slightly Sherry sweetness. Full on sweet smoke with some toffee. A little dirty yet sexy. Licorice smoke. Salty and smoked licorice candy. Prickly smoke, with a minty side to it. Smoked menthos. Nom, nom, nom. I have to say, a peated spirit like this, aged in a Sherry butt, what a combination. The start was peat which morphs slowly into smoke. Hints of anise seeds and cumin. In the background dried beef, gravy and salty smoked fish. This has also an underlying fruity side to it, but again, just as in the Caol Ila I just reviewed, this is masked by the usual suspects of peat and smoke. What a wonderful smelling Ledaig again. Utterly amazing smelling Malt and it’s only 9 years old. Glowing embers, warm glowing charred wood. Hot barbecue before anything is put on it, burning off the last spots of fat left behind from the previous session, right before putting something on it again. Or imagine sipping this near the fireplace high up in the mountains. This nose never stops giving. Warm oil emanating from a steam locomotive (a fresh experience from two months ago in Quedlinburg, Germany).

Taste: Starts sweet and peaty, yet also somewhat unbalanced. The peat and the smoke have a bitter edge here right from the start, but also something fresh like a cola has. Nutty and some burnt fat from the barbecue. This note smells better than it tastes, by the way. Very warming and hot going down. Now I do notice quite some dry wood underneath, tucked away neatly between the peat and the smoke. So it might be a bit hidden, but the cask is quite active as well. More towards burning plastic now and again the minty note. The peat note is more bitter and together with the smoke, also less dominant. The Sherry comes trough some more. Dried salty fish. This one needs some time to breathe, but not too much. When standing around in my glass for a long time, the taste deteriorates a bit (the bottle is also nearly empty by the way, so I notice the air did play its part). This will be of no concern with a freshly opened bottle, because then, this Malt still does need a lot of air. Crushed beetle in the finish, and overall still warming. Also some caramel comes forth.

Are all Sherry Butt matured Ledaig’s from 2005 created equal? Nope they aren’t. The Cadenheads rose to the occasion much more than this Signatory initially, but, oh boy, when this got enough time to breathe in an open bottle, yeah man! The nose is up to par with the Cadenheads, alas on the palate, the Signatory falls apart a bit and the Cadenhead is the clear winner. Sure it’s different from the Cadenheads offering as well. That one was tasty from the first poured dram until the last, and this Signatory one did need some time to find its place, which luckily it did, although it never reached those highs of the Cadenheads, and deteriorated a bit when nearly empty. Nevertheless two big peated hits in a row from Tobermory. I’m suspecting an album of greatest hits now, so for the time being, I will be replacing every emptied Ledaig with another one. Can’t wait to open up the next one now. I have to look in my stash for one matured in a Bourbon cask after these two Sherried ones.

Points: 86

Ledaig 11yo 2005/2017 (61.8%, Cadenhead, Authentic Collection, Butt, 450 bottles)

As already mentioned in the last review of a Ledaig; Springbank is one of my favourite distilleries. I love the output of it, Springbank, Longrow and Hazelburn, all very good. However, the last few years Springbank has become excessively popular, and apart from the 10yo expression, I can’t really buy any of the other expressions normally in my country. Some shops also mark up according to demand, and thus are asking silly money, so my only chance is the secondary market, which is also a pretty expensive these days. When looking at alternatives, Ledaig comes to mind. In the previous review of Ledaig, a 12yo G&M bottling, which was finished for three years in a Wine cask, so may not hove been the best of expressions to check out if this would be a contender to reach out for when Springbank is not available. Ledaig is not really more of the same, it is quite different, however, when you have a craving for something Springbank-y and you don’t have it, or can’t have it, this might come in handy. Tobermory (the distillery that produces a peated expression calling it Ledaig) used to have quite a wonky reputation, and I do have tasted some dodgy Tobermory’s and Ledaigs in the past. But the last two decades or so, they seem to have bumped into their muse and are making some pretty good stuff. Just have a look this official 18yo or the G&M Reserve and G&M Cask Strength I reviewed earlier.

In 2017 Cadenhead had it’s 175th Anniversary, and I believe, Mark W. bottled some of their best stock at the time, recognizable by the extra added copper plate hanging from the neck of the bottle. A thing to look out for IMHO. Just like the 10th Anniversary Port Askaig, this is an almost empty bottle. Low level, because it is just so damn good, and drams like these just don’t stay around on my lectern for all too long…

Color: Gold.

Nose: Ashy peat yet more smoky and sooty than peaty alone. Distant smoked fruits and medicinal, lots of iodine, just perfect. Nice sweet spicy and chewy warm wood note, as well as a faint industrial rubbery and oily note. It’s like the smell of an old steam locomotive, or any other old well-oiled (steam) machine, standing around for ages in a museum. Paint (sometimes borderline polyester), old Martinique Rhum, perfumy (at times fresh and soapy, in a good way) and floral as well. Salty? Dry garden waste, including grass (dry as well) so not the wet or moist rotting stuff. December bonfire and crushed beetle, nutty and milk chocolate. A blend of dried kitchen spices and pencil shavings. No way to contain this. I just put the glass far away from me and still this reaches my nose easily. A nice fruity acidity combines with bold fruity notes. Hints of ripe and sweet black berries. Bassett’s Liquorice Allsorts. Clean, chewy and big. After some breathing, hints of oak emerge, as well as some hot oil emanating from a sowing machine. A much cleaner smelling oil than the oil coming from old machines. This one has it all. One of the best balanced noses I’ve come to smell in a long time. This is special stuff with seemingly endless layers of aroma’s. As said earlier, just perfect if you are into this kind of stuff. And this one also works very well smelling it outside in clean fresh air. Amazing stuff.

Taste: Prickly smoke and peat upfront. Dry. Wow. Sweet nutty wax, crushed beetle again, with a rather strange red fruit acidity bubbling up, in part artificial, yet soon to be overpowered by the soot and ashes. Some plastics and polyester pop up, aiding the artificial red fruit feel, or maybe causing it? Medium red fruits and again quite some soot and ashes. Hints of latex paint. Toffee sweetness and chewy as well. The peat and smoke combo remain omnipresent throughout this dram. Simpler than the amazing nose, yet with a nice long and lingering finish and warm bonfiery aftertaste. Wonderful dram. Amazing 11yo. Tobermory distillery is killing it with Ledaig recently.

Yup, here we have an another Ledaig-belter on our hands. The nose is perfect, and the palate, and even though this is somewhat simpler, it is most definitely “not bad” as well, just not in the same league, close though, don’t you worry. In the end, this is pure joy (especially when combined with some great avant-garde live performances of Frank Zappa and the Mothers from the sixties). Big and busy band, big and busy Whisky.

Points: 91

Tomatin “Water” (46%, OB, Five Virtues #5, Sherry Butts & Second Fill Bourbon Barrels, 6.000 bottles, 2018)

Alas, we’ve come to the last of the five virtues. The four previous editions were all good, for me personally, especially “Metal” was very nice, but I love well aged seemingly simple ex-Bourbon casked Whiskies. All four are definitely interesting and different from one another. No duds between them. So now the time has come to put the series to bed with “Water”. Water is made with distillate from the winter of 2005, which doesn’t make things any clearer, since the year starts and ends in winter… Half of the Whisky was matured in second fill Bourbon Barrels and the other half in Sherry Butts. Although in some communications, Tomatin does mention Sherry Hogsheads as well (just not on the packaging). If memory serves me correctly, I really liked this one as well in London, and after the very nice Metal I have high hopes for this Water as well.

Color: Copper gold, like a Bourbon, definitely not the colour of water.

Nose: Spicy wood right upfront, with sweet smelling red fruits, hints of tar, an old warehouse with a stone floor, and toasted oak. Notes of wood and fresh air. Nutty, dusty and somewhat sharp and spicy. A take on modern Sherry casks, somewhat similar to the Sherry notes, (not the peat notes), of Benromach Peat Smoke 2010 I reviewed just recently. Old warehouse with old paper and pepper with hints of a more (smelly) organic note. Wet earth and a wee bit of virgin oak. Again a quiet and balanced expression from Tomatin with lavas and gravy and some more indistinct organics. Leafy with hints of old dried out leather and a garden bonfire. Nice (dried) kitchen herbs. The Sherry makes this smell “chewy”. More whiffs of paper are flying by. A Whisky for a sunny day.

Taste: Sweet and syrupy. Fruity. Jam-like. Red fruits. Thick. The Whisky sticks to my glass. This thick, fruity, (half) sweetness, somewhat masks the big note of wood this has as well, including the also masked bitterness. Paper again. Slightly tarry, as if tarry toffee was used for this one. Well balanced as expected. Raisins and ever so slightly soapy and definitely a bit smoky, must be the toasted oak. Vanilla and pudding are here as well, so these second fill barrels still worked their expected magic too, even though the Sherry bit turned out stronger in the mix. I noticed it in Metal, but Water is also a (designed or constructed) Malt which shows what its got, right from the start, lacking a bit in complexity and evolution. This is a minor gripe however, since the balance is there and it is a delicious (red) fruit-driven Whisky with enough back-bone to it. This is not a Sherry monster, but it still is all about the Sherry in this one. Classy stuff.

This is a great companion to Metal. Both are very good and quite different from one-another, but somehow fit together. Both are fruity, but with the Bourbon casks alone that were used for Metal, that shows us an entirely different yet classic Tomatin tropical fruitiness, whereas this Water edition shows us more the Sherry-linked red fruits, in this case, the thick jam-like red fruits. Amazing contrast. At first I thought, well lets review these last two samples I have, so I can open something else, but both are so nice I’m now wondering if I shouldn’t be opening both full bottles at once, after finishing off Earth. With the Metal-edition I was wondering how it would compare to the 15yo American oak. Here with Water I’m wondering how it would compare to the 18yo Oloroso version. Both the 15yo and the 18yo are from the standard range and widely available. “Wood”, “Fire” and “Earth” are all Whiskies which are good, but you have to work them a bit, all three aren’t really for careless sipping, or you’ll miss out on the best bits they have on offer. Metal and Water are good right from the start, more like instant gratification Malts, and in my opinion the best of the bunch.

Points: 88

Caol Ila 10yo 2005/2017 (54.0%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, 1st Fill Bourbon Barrel #301553, for Vinotek Massen Luxembourg, 210 bottles, 170927)

Funny how things can go. When I posted the review of Caol Ila #301535 a month ago, I didn’t even have this #301553. I have posted two Tamdhu’s, and I already was well underway with the next tandem of Malts, why not write some reviews in pairs, adding the possibility of comparison one to the other? Nope no spoiler alert needed, you’ll just have to wait and see what comes next. I can only reveal that the next tandem will make for a very interesting comparison. Next, the sound of the doorbell ringing…twice…because the postman always rings twice*, and she brings me my latest auction winnings. One of which is the sister cask of #301535: #301553. So with some further ado, I present you the Caol Ila that went to Luxembourg. Thus, here’s the final ado: Just like the other one, we know the exact distillation date: 21-02-2005 (back label), which is the same day as this one, so the distillate is exactly the same, but, (spoiler alert), the outcome isn’t ! We also know the exact bottling date: 07-08-2017 (printed on the glass), so this Malt is almost 12.5 years old, and aged for almost 25% longer than the previous one. Onwards with the review now Quill, stop your ado-ing!

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Soft peat. Very perfumy, distant hint of coffee and plastics (only when freshly poured, the plastics will be gone soon). Big. Wood, mocha and milk chocolate. Warm. Underneath quite fruity and on top a breath of fresh cold air (after the rain). Moderate fatty peat, crushed beetles and some really nice smoky characteristics, almost not Caol Ila-like and to me this smells like an exceptional cask. Everything is in its right place, and it hits all the right spots. It is really wonderful already, complex and already shows some nice development in my glass. Initially quite sharp. Wood, but not your usual oak, but more like wood lying in a forest. Mild yellow fruits with a promise of fruity sweetness. Apples, mint and meat. In this version of Caol Ila there is this soft layer of smoke that always hangs over it, like smoke or clouds in the sky. Well balanced Malt. Smells more adult than the aforementioned sister cask, and that one already had a stunning nose. Since this is exactly the same distillate, did the 2.5 years more make such a difference or is there more to it? As Gordon & MacPhail already tried to tell us earlier, does the wood make the Whisky? I’m smelling this for a while now, without tasting it, and this really develops in my glass big time! If this is as good to taste as the nose is right now, than we’re in for a real treat. I’m giving this one much time, since this is a freshly opened bottle. What a wonderful, well aged nose this is. One might expected this to be from a similar barrel as its sister cask, but it doesn’t have to be. If so, these must have been some well selected staves then. A cooper with a keen eye, knowing what to pick? This one really smells a lot better, it really is remarkable. More details, better defined and better development. Where #301535 dulled down when smelling for a while, and remember, it was a good one to boot, this #301553 just never stops performing. Amazing!

Taste: Wow, initially very soft on entry (the other one was softer and definitely soapier, here most, not all, of the soapy bit is replaced by a sweet fruity bit). Peppery and spicy smoke and strong going down, and then turning soft again, and again sweet. Sweet cardboard and paper notes. White pepper and yellow fruits. Sweetish and cold ashes from the fireplace come first. Nutty and fruity, but as I said, lots of ashes. I have to give it some more time, but it seems to me to be different from its sister cask, it is also a bit different than I expected considering the nose. Surely this must be from another line of Barrels? The middle part is fruity and accessible, but towards the finish more ashes, paper and a wood-bitter note. Although the finish is of medium length. It is warming, somewhat soapy (at times) and leaves for a nice, nutty and woody aftertaste. Much better balanced than its sister cask if you ask me. Benefits from the warmth of your hand when breathing, but never really lives up to the amazing level of the nose, but it is still better than its aforementioned sister cask. Especially if you warm this one up in your hands.

When this was sold in Luxembourg it was quite cheap especially considering the quality this Malt possesses. I paid a bit more than the initial price at auction, but still feel I got a good deal. Later I found out that the quality of this particular example is well known in circles of anoraks and aficionado’s and bids can be even (much) higher than my final bid. First of all, this Luxembourg edition surpasses the already good nose of the Belgium edition. It is quite amazing in fact, look how the nose changes and even unlocks another dimension after a few sips. In the taste Luxembourg seems a bit sharper and more complex, less soapy with even more ripe fruits. After #301535, I was not sure about getting a similar bottling, 84 points is good, but not that good. I read somewhere, this one was better and in the end I couldn’t help myself. If given the chance, I bid on two, and that way often securing just one or none even, because one or more of you often overbids me in the last minute, but this time no one did and I got both. In hindsight: Yey!

Amazing how medicinal the empty glass smells the next day. Extreme. The empty glass of the other one smells different. Both seem to have some pine resin, which wasn’t there before. The empty Luxembourg one smells more like a sauna now. How’s that for complexity.

Points: 88 (the nose, if scored by itself, would score well into the 90’s)

* Final ado: I was lying earlier, from where I’m sitting, I can’t even hear the doorbell, the sound is too soft.

Caol Ila 10yo 2005/2015 (55.9%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, 1st Fill Bourbon Barrel #301535,for Whisky Warehouse Belgium, 233 bottles, AE/JACE)

Another bottling for Belgium, what’s up, Belgium! Not all that long ago, not a lot of Caol Ila was available, and look at it now. With every turn of your head, if you are in the right place that is, there is a bottle of Caol Ila of some sorts available. Lots of OB’s to choose from, an even more IB’s. So when Caol Ila is this easy to get, with so much variation, and often fairly priced, and with nice quality, I made a deal with myself to always have a Caol Ila open on my lectern. When the “Milano” bottling was finished, I quickly replaced it with this “Belgium” one and opened it immediately. Both examples were bottled by Gordon & Macphail, but where the “Milano” was reduced, to keep the price down I guess, this “Belgium” is not. (Cask Strength hurray!) The last time I checked, Belgium is also a slightly bigger place than Milano…

Color: White wine, a bit pale though, for a first fill after 10 years.

Nose: More fruity than peaty. Lovely and elegant nose. Very fruity (initially more acidic than sweet), and fresh. Excellent. Mixed in with the fruit is a nice woody and light smoky note, but where is the peat? In a way, this is soapy and floral. Nothing bad though, there won’t be any foam to come out of your nose. Ripe yellow fruits and some smoke. Hints of vanilla from the American oak. Also a slightly spicy and this light woody note. Wonderful stuff. The smell carries a promise of a sweetish Malt. I did already mention ripe fruit, didn’t I, but there is also this note of overripe fruit, the kind that attracts insects, just before it turns bad and rots. Again, in this case, this is not a bad thing. More soft powdery vanilla from the oak. It exerts itself some more. Hidden away in the fruit and smoke, there is this floral type of peat. I recognize it now. In comes this meaty note as well. Nice development in the glass. Whiskies like this fly a bit under the radar, but are actually a lot of fun. Just a Bourbon barrel or hoggie, ten years of time, and there is a lot of beauty to behold in the details of such a Malt. It doesn’t always have to be a big Sherried Malt. Good stuff, this Caol Ila.

Taste: Sweet on entry, and here it starts out with peat. Go figure. It’s big, sweet, fruity and peaty. Warming and spicy going down. Spicy wood and dust. Cardboard and dry vanilla powder. Much peatier and smokier than the nose was. The nose and taste might differ, but work together well. Lets call it well balanced. Less balanced though is the rest of the body and the finish. The entry and the first half of the body are great, big bold, very aromatic. Second half is a bit less interesting. The balance starts suffering, and the initially well integrated aromas come undone. Turns a bit ashy, which also highlights the cardboard aroma mentioned earlier. When the finish starts, I feel this is the right time to take another sip. Something a bit off there. The wood starts to show some acidity (and more bitterness), that doesn’t fit the peaty fruit that is so wonderful in the start. It feels like the roof of my mouth contracts. So, first half of the Malt, excellent, second half, the “players” seem to lose their synergy a bit. Bugger.

The label states the distilling date to be 21/02/2005 yet only mentions a bottling month: February 2015. However, the glass bottle itself carries the bottling code AE/JACE, and, how convenient, a date: 23/02/2015, so yes, 10 years old (barely). Way less peaty then the previously reviewed Belgian offering though.

Points: 84

Tomatin “Fire” (46%, OB, Five Virtues #2, Heavily Charred Oak, 6.000 bottles, 2017)

Where “Wood” is #1 in the Five Virtues series, here is #2, which is called “Fire”. It is called “Fire” because of the char and toast of the wood, and char and toast come about through the ways of fire. Tomatin “Fire” comes solely from a batch of stripped and (heavily) recharred oak casks. It is said that the distillate is from 2005, one year only this time, making this a Single Malt which is 11yo or 12yo, which these days is quite old for a NAS. “Wood” was blended from distillates between 1999 and 2006, and since 2006 is more recent than 2005, “Fire” is officially an older Malt than “Wood”  even though much older Malts were used for it.

What this bottling also might want to prove is: should you buy a new (or used) American oak cask, when you can also scrape out the insides, hopefully without losing the soul, of your old, dead tired and worn out cask and set it on fire to rejuvenate it? Boys do like to set things on fire don’t they? After this, one might have a reusable cask again. Recycled and good for the environment, maybe apart from the burning that is. Maybe very responsible and certainly sustainable. One less tree to cut down. This should be certified green!

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Again, a woody Whisky, but this time a more vanilla driven Malt. American oak alright. Sweet, fragrant, slightly floral and right from the start this slightly acidic and creamy strawberry aroma. Sometimes a bit dusty even. Not as much char as I expected from something called “Fire” or “heavily charred”. Hardly any char really. Quite fresh, fruity and milky. The milky notes scared me for a while, but dissipate after a while in my glass and these milky notes disappear completely when the bottle cbecomes emptier. Paper and woody notes and initially not all that different from “Wood”, but after enough time to breathe the difference is bigger than I imagined possible. The “Fire” I do get from this Malt is the aroma of a burning wood fire in winter, minus the sharp smoke. Just like “Wood” this essentially is again about (recharred) Wood, and the woods in “Wood” are charred as well. To me it is more like a sequel to “Wood” so they might have called it “Wood II” just the same, but this probably would not have worked inside the Five Virtues framework.

Where “Wood” was about the blend of different kinds of wood, this is a little bit closer to a virgin oak type of bottling, just a bit more refined, especially after some breathing. This really needs to open up, because it really was disappointing when freshly opened. Where “Wood” was creamy, this is even more creamy. Again no new make aromas, but it is slightly closer to new make than “Wood”. Lots of fresh oak notes, creamy and yes, lets call it green. Fresh plants and garden notes. Breaths of fresh air and some burned toast notes, but not a lot. Initially quite simple, it seems much simpler than the “Wood”. Reminds me sometimes of Bruichladdich Islay Barley. That sort of simple, yet lovely, stuff. Only, Bruichladdich reaches that already after 5 to 6 years, Tomatin takes twice the time. Maybe simple, but especially after a while in the glass, it becomes quite nice. In the end a nice example of an honest Malt matured in American oak. Good smelling stuff, just not right from the very start, be warned.

Taste: Again, it starts fairly simple. Tea with a dash of sugar. Latex wall paint, sweet custard and definitely sweet malt. Mid-palate a cloying burnt note. Sometimes a slight hint of cigarettes being smoked in the distance, an aroma blown over by cold wind. I also pick up on some minty notes and some tasty ripe red fruits. Quite a short finish at first and a fairly non-existent and unexciting aftertaste. But buyer beware, don’t get fooled, this Malt also has a trick upon it sleeve. Yes it is more than a bit unbalanced when poured from a freshly opened bottle, but responds extremely well to some air, gaining lots of depth and some very nice black fruits suddenly emerge from nowhere. Wow, first we had the ripe red fruits and now these black ones. The return of fruity Tomatin, something absent from “Wood”. See how some Malts need to breathe? Quite some evolution. However, even after some breathing, the finish is still quite short and malty again and dare I say it, it remains a bit unbalanced.

It started out a bit really disappointing (not more than 82 points), but by now it is definitely on par with “Wood”, but I have to admit, you have to work at it a bit, and maybe have some experience (and patience) as a Whisky drinker, to see the beauty in this one. So “Fire”, in the end, turns out to have a nice, fragrant start and beautiful body, better than “Wood”, but it keeps struggling towards the end, the finish stays short, with hints of Beer, strange enough, and a thin, slightly woody and bitter aftertaste, and some creamy notes as well, which by now aren’t creamy. fatty or big enough to make the finish better. The second half of the experience therefore is definitely won by “Wood”. This is surely a flawed Malt on the outside, but with hidden beauty inside. Personally I find it very tasty right from the start with an additional fruity and appetizing body, just be very careful with it when freshly opened. I kept the cork off for at least a day after the initial disappointment. Did it lots of good. Interesting stuff and certainly an education.

Points: 85

Glencadam 15yo 1989/2005 (58%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, Sherry Butt #6014, 578 bottles)

Another one I found in the attic. Although this hasn’t been bottled ages ago, this time around I have a Signatory Glencadam bottled back in 2005. That’s already 11 years ago. Time flies. This is just the second Glencadam on these pages and it seems not to be a Malt with a big reputation. Having said that, the “new” 10yo I reviewed last time around, was something of a nice surprise for me. Quite impressive for an officially bottled 10yo. However, I have seen it before that the first release of something is better than most subsequent releases. Just sayin’…

Glencadam 15yo SigVColor: Copper gold.

Nose: Creamy and strictly Sherry. Smells like a Red Wine cask actually. Whiffs of stale Beer. Wow, where is this going? Hints of caramel and licorice. Creamy and perfumy. Definitely more floral than most Whiskies I recently tried. Floral pudding. Sure some dried apricots underneath, but not enough to call this fruity as well, although the fruit aroma becomes stronger with prolonged breathing, so it may be more fruity then I initially thought. Hardly any wood. Fruity and floral it is and dry warm wind blowing over the top. After even some more time the floral part seems to have disappeared. Interesting effect. It’s all about what evaporates the first. It becomes nicer over time, and better balanced as well.

Taste: On entry again the feeling this comes from a Wine cask. Apart from the slightly harsh winey note, a lot of paper and cardboard notes. A Beer-like carbonation taste (not saying there are bubbles in this one, an effect I know from a certain Teaninich, also bottled by Signatory (not reviewed yet, but I do have a bottle of that somewhere). Lots of pronounced Italian laurel licorice. Cumin and slightly minty. Hidden sweetness and a nice bitter (hoppy?), and slightly soapy, edge well into the finish. Well this one seems to have it all doesn’t it?

If you work on this a bit it is quite nice and wonderfully complex. For some it may be an acquired taste. You need to let this breathe for quite some time though, although seeing it change with time is quite nice as well. Interesting Malt. Recommended for aficionado’s. I liked the feel of the 10yo I reviewed earlier, and this one doesn’t disappoint as well. However, I’m not that positive about some of the other regular releases by the owners themselves, so be careful with buying those without trying.

Points: 85

 

Caol Ila 11yo 1994/2005 (58.2%, Gordon & MacPhail, Cask Strength, First Fill Sherry Butts #12423 & #12424)

I actually picked the 1990 Caol Ila and this 1994 Caol Ila, to compare Bourbon cask matured and Sherry cask matured young Caol Ila’s. However I don’t think the 1990 was aged in a Bourbon cask, but rather in a Fino or similar type of Sherry cask. However, American oak is probably the wood of choice for the 1990, and maybe the comparison with the two types of Sherry is maybe even a more interesting one. I’m a bit on thin ice here, since nowhere it is said in what kind of cask the 1990 has matured, nor is there any mention for both of what type of Sherry previously inhabited the casks.

Caol Ila 11yo 1994/2005 (58.2%, Gordon & MacPhail, Cask Strength, First Fill Sherry Butts #12423 & #12424)Color: Slightly orangey gold.

Nose: Fatty and funky Sherry. Raisins and wax. Stale rainwater and some muddy peat. Peaty clay, not very fatty or round, as some might say. The raisins do remind me a bit of a Highland Park bottled by Gordon & MacPhail as well. Although that one is much, much darker, it is the same raisiny aroma. Probably the same kind of Sherry. Wood spice and salty smoke. Nice creamy wood, smoky licorice. Perfumy sandalwood and a buttery acidity. Creamy and slightly meaty. Burning candles. Enough happening in this one. Vanilla comes late, it is just overpowered by so many other elements in the nose. A nose from an old house at christmas.

Taste: Initial sweetness with some toffee. Lots of wood, slightly dry, but it is soothing and not harsh nor sour. Some sweet licorice again, with some dusty spice and Cappuccino. After the dusty part comes a woody and slightly acidic wine-note. A fruity acidity that doesn’t fit this Whisky. It makes all the tastes up ’till now, fight each other, instead of becoming a band of brothers. It is obvious that this Sherry didn’t integrate that well. Dries the lips. Finish has only a medium length and quite bit of an unbalanced aftertaste, an apply acidity, which is not entirely tasty if you ask me. The aftertaste ruins it a bit for me. I definitely prefer the previous Caol Ila.

It almost seems as if you can’t go wrong with Caol Ila. Let’s say this is from a Oloroso Sherry or even a PX, both are considered somewhat “normal” Sherries, by wine-people, and considered of a lesser quality then a Sherry that has matured under flor, a “hat” of fungus that grows on the surface of the Sherry. The hat prevents contact with air. The G&M Caol Ila I reviewed the day before yesterday, I believe came form such a Sherry. For me that is the superior one of the two. I do usually prefer Oloroso ageing, especially when it is a Whisky that was aged a while back. Good Oloroso Sherry matured in European oak, instead of the American oak preferred by the Sherry industry these days. Vanilla, people, Sherry drinkers prefer a more creamy Sherry these days. European oak also seems to need longer ageing, to deal with the tannins, and that is time we don’t seem to have…

Points: 80

Grappa Week – Day 5: Marolo Moscato (42%, 70 cl, 2005)

Grappa Week LogoAfter the Villa Isa Moscato which showed us what a Moscato Grappa is, I still feel it can be done better. The Villa Isa is a very accessible Grappa made from Moscato grapes. It’s friendly, fruity and easily drinkable. Today’s Marolo is a Grappa company with quite a reputation, so lets see if this Marolo can beat the Villa Isa (as if it were a competition).

Marolo is all about Paolo Marolo and his successor, and son, Lorenzo. Paulo started in 1977 because he wanted to turn the rustic product into art! Anybody still wondering if Paolo is Italian?

Grappa Moscato MaroloColor: Colorless.

Nose: Hay and dry grass. But not so heavy and over the top. Soft. Small hints of fresh-cut grass or the smell you get when pruning a tree. More sappy and “wet”. From the start some more nice fruit, in part citrussy. Lemon (not lime). This is a more toned down version and cleaner, since this wasn’t aged in oak. Slow and laid back. No hurry, we’ll get there. Besides some spiciness, there is a vegetal and powdery note as well, which seems a very watered down mixture of lavas, licorice and toffee. When I nose it with some more vigour, the Moscato grape variety pops out in a dry and dusty way.

Taste: Fruity and sugary. Sugar water. Not thick, syrupy, fruity and heavy on the Moscato as I expected. In fact this matches the nose better. It is again laid back in style, soft and toned down. Very young, clean and clear, just like the look of the Grappa. In the background there is a more heavy note, something like diluted burnt caramel. Mixing with the heavy note, is a short stint of fruity acidity quickly overtaken by spice (white pepper, thyme and maybe some others). Lovely fruity finish and the more time passes after swallowing the better the finish gets, (it gets more spicier). Of course, when you wait too long, its gone. Making it the right moment for another sip.

A very quiet and elegant Moscato. It has its sweetness and in part it even is sugary. But this time, it’s all right. Easily drinkable and it seems to be the right distillate for some good introspection. I like the Marolo better than the Villa Isa, but they are also quite different from each other. One a bit loud and fruity, the other more introvert. One with ageing in wood the other young and clean. Even though the Marolo is also quite accessible, it still is a Grappa you have to get to know, to get the most out of it.

Points: 83