Tag Archives: 2006

Bowmore 16yo 1989/2006 (45%, Gordon & MacPhail, Secret Stills 4.1, Sherry Hogsheads #7049 & 7050, 650 bottles)

To be honest, there is no Bowmore on the label, but it’s somewhat like the SMWS bottles with codes, everyone knows that in this case, distillery number four is Bowmore and this is the first Bowmore released in this series. Probably a way to market the Whisky or as usual, they weren’t allowed to use the distillery name. This year, the seventeenth Bowmore was released in this series.

Like with many Gordon & MacPhail bottlings, it is reduced, this time to 45% ABV. I am a fan of cask strength Whiskies, but I learned to appreciate these reduced Whiskies more. Is it age? I’m a bit held back only by the fact that not every Whisky likes to be reduced. Let’s hope it’s not the case with this one.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Nice peat. Spicy and rather perfumy. Malty and fresh. Almonds and clay, and for such a ‘young’ whisky, the peat smells rather old. Hints of smoke. There’s also some strange ‘smelly meaty sweetness’ happening here, I can’t quite put my finger on. Not bad actually.

Taste: Sweet with cardboard and some peat. No smoke? Tar, sweet licorice and some sour wood. Anis seeds and ash. Not in your face and even milder than the nose predicted. It’s quite sweet actually. It lacks a bit of complexity, that would have fitted the nose.

A decent sherried Islay Whisky, that probably suffered from reduction. Again one I would have loved to taste before reduction, because it is always interesting to try the combination of an Islay Whisky from Sherry casks. It’s also a bit too sweet

Points: 86

Springbank 36yo 1970/2006 (53.1%, Signatory Vintage, First Fill Oloroso Sherry Butt #1629, 461 bottles)

After reviewing one of the most popular official releases by Springbank, the 10yo at Cask Strength, this time a Single cask bottled by Signatory Vintage in their heavy glass decanter series that are hard to handle (the Cask Strength Collection). The fourth already on these pages. Hard to handle maybe, but so pretty. This time it isn’t in one of those clumsy tins, but in a beautiful, probably fake mahogany box. Even if the whisky is mediocre, the packaging is stunning. Let’s hope the contents measures up, because that’s what you’re paying for.

Color: Radiant Orange Brown, with powdery sediment.

Nose: Wow. Buttery. Very old wood with lots of spices. Nutmeg and ginger. Dusty toffee. Sherry as in raisins. Deep sugary raisins, not fruity. After some breathing it gets some lovely spicyness to it. Toasted wood and warming. Really great nose, with a developement to it. So packaging great, nose great, high hopes for the taste now.

Taste: Woody and dry. But there is some chewy sweetness to it. Roundness is maybe a good word. Also some bitterness from the wood. Coffee (Espresso), Warming chocolate. It really is a hot brandy spiked cupa coco. Also some cough bonbons. Not especially as complex as the nose is. What you see is what you get. Later some mint and furniture wax. Nice throat coating finish.

This definitively got way better when the bottle got time to breathe. Both the nose and taste got better. It shifts its focus from the wood and nice bitterness to something more rounded out and lets you see more of what’s underneath. Not the best old Springbank around but still a very nice one if you give it time and an open mind. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Points: 91

Glenlivet 1975/2006 (54%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Cask #10846)

Well here is an example of the mother of all Single Malts. No it’s not the oldest distillery in Scotland, nor is it the first in anything. The oldest being Ferintosh at Ryefield (from 1689). The oldest still working distillery is Glenturret (1775). But once there was a time a lot of others added the “Glenlivet” to their own name to benefit from the success, and the known quality of Glenlivet, and who doesn’t know Glenlivet? Started in 1817 and ‘founded’ in 1824 when George Smith was one of the first to obtain a licence for his distilling. All of his illicit distilling neighbours, wanted him dead for it. Traitor! In 1845 George leased Minmore farm, which he bought in 1858. Minmore was renamed Glenlivet a year later and is the site of the current distillery. Funnily enough, Cadenheads also state the name “Minmore” on their Glenlivet offerings. George died in 1871. Long live George and to his health we raise the glass with this Berry Brothers & Rudd Glenlivet. Slainthe George.

Color: Orange Brown.

Nose: Fresh and spicy. Lots to smell here. Sour oak and honey, very “Bourboney”. Later on more elegant, refined, not very bold, even though there is a lot coming out of the glass. Distant smoke with powdery dryness. Apples and cloves. And something meaty, steak, gravy.

Taste: Initially, thick and spicy, minty and sweet. Later some tar, acetone with cookies (dough and baked chocolate chip cookies together). Medium wood, with its bitterness in place. Fine and elegant. Applesauce, almonds and cherried rubber tyres. Finishes dry.

A grand old whisky with a lot of quality to it and with a woody punch. This is unique for me since it is bold and chewy at first but quickly transforms into something more fine, refined and elegant. Just a wee bit too bitter for me, hence no score into the 90’s. probably was aged for too long.

Points: 89

Caol Ila 21yo 1984/2006 (58.5%, Dewar Rattray, for The Nectar, Belgium, Refill Bourbon, Cask #6266, 251 bottles)

Caol Ila was founded in 1846 and rebuilt in 1879 and 1972, and in 1974 six new stills were installed. As of 1999 also unpeated whisky is made, which is nice, but also makes you wonder about single casks sold to independents since that date. Mainly used for the Johnnie Walker blends, but more and more used as a single malt due to the popularity of Islay malts. If I’m not mistaken the first official bottlings were the Flora & Fauna 15yo and a few Rare Malt editions. In 2002 the 12yo, 18yo and a cask strength were released and a few years later a Moscatel finish Distillers Edition and Moch were released. During that time also three versions of a 25yo were released, I know were pretty good.

This whisky was distilled on December 12th 1984 and bottled 21 years later on September 6th, 2006, and was bottled for Belgian outfit, The Nectar.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Fat Peat with ash. Very leafy, as in fresh, non-musty wet leaves and crushed dried leaves. Sweet and balanced. Green apple skin. Sweaty, tarry and with distant flowery perfume. Hints of wood. Crushed beetles, (not Beatles). Sea with some smoke and late (dare I say unexpected) fruitiness.

Taste: Sweet and chewy, with elegant peat. Nutty, almonds and some walnut. Some white pepper and plants. Also the sweat returns which fits the profile. Nice balance. It has some unexpected fresh sourness in the warming finish. No wood to speak of, but it has the wood spice. Finally, some salt on the lips, during the yellow fruity finish (apricots and peaches obviously). Astonishing.

I quite like this. Due to its perfect sweetness this is dangerously drinkable. Not as complex as I might have hoped, but hey, it’s not a super old Islay, and we don’t drink those for their finesse do we? Caol Ila in al its guises is a very nice alternative to all the other (increasingly expensive) brothers from Islay.

Points: 90

Rosebank 15yo 1990/2006 (61.1%, Gordon & MacPhail, Cask, Refill Sherry Butts #1605 & 1606)

Time for another Lowlander. Rosebank this time. I reviewed a Glenkinchie recently. The Distillery Diageo chose to be in their Classic Malts range. The obvious choice for the whisky drinker would have been Rosebank, but Rosebank didn’t make it, got closed and in part, turned into a restaurant. Just like with Brora, a lot of people keep hoping for a resurrection. Who knows. For the time being, lets see if this Rosebank is any better than the Glenkinchie reviewed earlier.

Color: Gold

Nose: Extremely fresh with lemons, lemongrass and apple skin in the summer. Leafy, powdery and woody with some caramel thrown into the mix. A sort of garden of Eden. Given some time a more meaty part starts to play a role. And is it the toast from the butts or dare I say that it has a slight hint of peat?

Taste: Sweet (clay) and leafy, woody and powdery. Fits the nose perfectly. Great balance here. Finish stays well constructed, because it doesn’t break down into sour wood, as with a lot of other whiskies like this. It does show some bitterness from the wood though, and vanilla, especially after some breathing.

It’s very good, and very typical for a Lowlander ánd Rosebank, a good Rosebank that is. Compared to the Glenkinchie, I think the jury is in favor of the Glenkinchie…just. Both bottles are good, just a tad different from one another and the Rosebank being the more typical Lowlander and the Glenkinchie having a more interesting composition.

Points: 88

Bowmore 37yo 1968/2006 (43.4%, OB, Bourbon, 708 bottles)

It’s Islay time! oops, maybe that was from Ardbeg. Well Bowmore is also from Islay and both are in the same time-zone. I see it’s the first Bowmore here, so I choose a potentially good one. Obviously not from a single cask, since no Bourbon Cask (Barrel or Hogshead) can yield 708 bottles.

 

Color: Full Gold.

Nose: Wow, wow, wait for it, gathering words for this…wow. Clay, noble peat. Thick, unbelievable great nose, but you’ve guessed that already. it’s from Bourbon casks, but this has so much great red fruit in it. Strawberries, blackberries, red currant hard candies. Butterscotch. Distant waves breaking on the beach in the night. Bonfire that has almost gone out. I can’t even remember a Whisky that smelled as good as this. (Well, that’s not completely true). I sincerely hope this will taste as good as this and I will even consider its price to be fair. This is a 100 points nose, this smells perfect!

Taste: Fruity, peat merged with sea clay and the body’s actually a bit thin. All those fruits from the nose are there again. Kippers and tar, remember this is not a big body, so this is all very elegantly proportioned. There is some wood in there, and that gives the body a slightly spicy toasty, Bourbony edge, but in no way does it play even a big role. It’s there to underline the rest, it stands in service. The finish is great though.

Still available for around £999.00

Points: 93

Thanks Serge for handing me this sample.

Port Ellen 23yo 1983/2006 (50%, Douglas Laing, Old Malt Cask, Refill Butt, DL REF 2790, 716 bottles)

Instead of expanding into unchartered territory, let’s do something oppositional and do yet another Port Ellen, and another bottle by Douglas Laing. This time from the old series in the normal scotch whisky bottle and not from the new tall bottle. People tend to think this older look contains better whisky. Let’s see if that’s true. By the way ,I read somewhere that in the few months Port Ellen operated during 1983, there weren’t a lot of good casks around, and they filled almost anything they could get their hands on. This Port Ellen looks quite light in color. Is this from a tired butt or a normal refill Fino butt?

Color: Light gold, almost white wine.

Nose: This leaps out of the glass and can be smelled from a mile away. That’s good! Fruity, musty, animalesk and malty. Salty sea spray, fresh air. Apples with elegant peat and cardboard. Nice distant spice and no wood (tired cask?). Milk chocolate. Yes, this has the kind of orange air tube rubber I like so much in Port Ellen. Actually quite good, I like this nose very much. Does this show how the Port Ellen-spirit actually was? (because of the tired cask)

Taste: Peat and rhubarb. Sweet, big, leafy and chewy. Black tea with clean refined sugar. No rubber here and it’s no monster either. The peat is very mild here and the finish is quite simple. Still it seems to be very balanced, just not very complex. It has the dryness and a bit of the spiciness of the oak, but not the bitterness, and that’s a big plus (not a Chevrolet). It has citrus with cardboard in the finish. If tasted blind, I would have thought it to be some odd ten years younger.

It’s an end of an era, even if it was a tired cask, this is still very typical and good. Really a shame this got closed. In a way it resembles Talisker in it always being decent. This may be no high flyer, but is has a lot of fine moments to give. No I’m not sentimental, this is good in itself. A very nice Islay Whisky. As I’m sipping the last few drops: “Here’s looking at you kid…”

Points: 88

Glen Grant 1972/2006 (46%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Cask #1982)

Glen Grant came to life in 1840, and is being famous for being the first distillery with electric lights! (in 1861 already). But after that it’s very quiet. Apart from distilling not much happening here. In 1961 a descendant of the original founder made a deal with Armando Giovinetti which made Glen Grant the most sold Single Malt in Italy and as far as I know that maybe even true today. Half of what Glen Grant makes went to Italy. Since 2006 Campari is the owner of Glen Grant, so its even became Italian! The Italians love their whiskies young and the Glen Grant 5yo seems to be very popular over there, together with a version without an age statement.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: At first fresh and sea like, but that quickly transforms into wax, wood and spice. A dab of dried yellow fruits, but not much. Definitively a 70’s nose, a bit like Caperdonichs from 1972. Probably no coincidence that Caperdonich was founded as Glen Grant 2. Altogether dryer and more cold tea like. Yep, more spicy and some light mocha and raisins. Also a slightly floral and perfumy side to it (and some tar). So after some time in the glass, it distances itself from the typical Caperdonich nose.

Taste: Initially full-bodied, spicy yet not overly woody. Some wax and ash, but that’s also gone very soon. Also some distant tar and a little bit of coal. Yeah that’s the stuff you get from an old malt. Some sourness from the oak. You wouldn’t have said that it was reduced. In the middle and in the finish though, it ís a bit thin, and reducing probably wasn’t a good idea. The wood comes very late and is the main part of the finish.

It’s a decent Glen Grant, but nothing stellar. When I come to think of it I don’t even think its very balanced. I see this going for up to 250 Euro’s at Whiskyauction, and I can think of hundreds of other bottles for that kind of cash, that would outperform this Glen Grant. A nice piece of history from the seventies, but nothing more.

Points: 86

The Benriach 37yo 1968/2006 (52%, OB, Batch 3, Hogshead #2712, 157 bottles)

Benriach, also known as The BenRiach. Founded in 1897, sold to Longmorn Distilleries Co. two years later and mothballed from 1903 to 1965. Wow, that’s a long time! Interesting about Benriach is that a lot of experiments were done there during the seventies (and eighties). Tests with peat, new oak etc. Lot’s of those experiments are released today.

Benriach issue several different vintages in batches. The first batch was released in 2004, the year Billy Walker bought the distillery along with Intra Trading. (These guys also bought Glendronach in 2008). Not a lot of experimenting with the bottle to be reviewed now. A bottle from the third batch released in 2006. Just a nice little hogshead filled in 1968 yielding only 157 bottles, quite the angels share, but still 52% ABV.

Color: Full gold, almost orange.

Nose: Waxy, elegant and promising body. Fruity, apple sauce, peaches and dried apricots. Dare I say waxy? Some dry powder and paper. Hint of banana. Creamy light vanilla. Crème brûlée and custard. Also some almonds and a slight hint of licorice are thrown in for good measure. Very balanced. Also it has a promising sweetness you would expect from a Bourbon. Very likeable nose, can’t go wrong with this. If you like fruity, you’ll love this!

Taste: Very elegant wood and a great creamy sweetness. Chewy mild banana and peach yoghurt and a hint of red or black fruit (candylike). A pinch of smoke in the back, and obviously some wood, but that’s ok, it hardly gives off some bitterness. A bit short and light finish with a slight inbalance.

Enjoyable, recommendable and very fruity. It could have gained triple A status if it would have some added bits that would counterpart the fruit. It is good/great, but lacks some complexity you would have expected of such an old malt.

Points: 89

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

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

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

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

Color: Gold

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

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

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

Points: 91

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