Tag Archives: 2009

Glen Elgin 11yo 2009/2021 (58.8%, Elixir Distillers, The Single Malts of Scotland, Hogshead #807777, 238 bottles)

Actually, Glen Elgin is one of my favourite lesser known Whiskies. Being somewhat partial to the stuff, mostly from independent bottlers, I’m actually amazed this is only the second review on these pages. The only other review of Glen Elgin I did, was in 2017, being a 19yo Signatory Vintage bottling, that wasn’t as special as I expected, especially for its age. Hmmmm, never mind, I still stand with what I just said. Building started in 1898 just months before the Pattison Crash and it was also the last Distillery designed by Charles Doig (the foremost distillery architect of the time).

After the Pattison Crash, Whisky found itself in a sort of 50 year long slump, that more or less ended in around 1949 when William Delme Evans built the first distillery after Glen Elgin: Tullibardine. Fast forward a bit and cutting this history lesson short; Glen Elgin is now owned by Diageo and mainly used for its White Horse blend and currently is investing heavily in it by rejuvenating it. Back to the Whisky at hand, since this time around we have a bottling from Sukhinder’s outfit Elixir Distillers. Being a independent bottler foremost, I wonder what they actually distil. Elixir distillers is mostly known for their Single Malts of Scotland range of independent bottlings but also for their Port Askaig bottlings of undisclosed Islay bottlings (often Caol Ila).

Color: Pale White Wine.

Nose: Barley and biscuity. Cereal, crackers and bread. Dusty with hints of cardboard. Starts big and in your face. Good and honest Whisky, no frills, no funny business. The next wave is more fruity (dry citrus skins), with the tiniest hint of cask toast and pencil shavings. Warm wind in summer, slightly grassy and vegetal. Hints of rainwater. The third wave adds a more perfumy note as well as grandma’s old soap note, never losing sight of the fruits though. Quite fresh overall due to a slight minty and green nose. Well balanced and straightforward. A very effective and highly drinkable Glen Elgin. It may be somewhat simple, but don’t be fooled by this, since there is quite a lot happening in this one, and as said earlier, its also quite big. It’s layered, so it might be even more complex than I initially thought. I always liked Glen Elgin and this is definitely an example why. The fruity note becomes sweeter, not only ripe fruit sweetness yet also a more honey-like aroma. I know sweetness is something for the palate to discern, but I hope you know what I mean here. In the end this is quite a nice (not modern) nose. I like it a lot.

Taste: On entry half-sweet but easily overpowered by a spicy and woody note. Prickly oak, only ever so slightly bitter and soapy. Maybe an odd red chilli pepper found its way into the cask? Nah. Warming going down. After the first sip, the soapy note on the nose becomes more like cold dishwater. Second sip shows a more complex sweetness, fruity and honeyed. (The nose is now more old-skool and melancholic). Less syrupy than expected. Some peach emerges as well, retaining the relative hotness from the first sip. Lots of paper and cardboard comes next which does get in the way a bit of the fruity notes. Where this is a miss on the palate, the nose, even now, keeps developing further still. Hold on now, after a while it does become slightly more bitter and slightly acidic as well, which in the case of the paper and cardboard do less for the palate than it sometimes can do. It also shows some new make spirit notes now (that fit the colour of this Whisky well if I might say so). Next some sun-tan lotion, you didn’t see that one coming now didn’t you? Although not a biggy, this part of the palate is not the best. By the way, I get some cheese on the nose now, how is that? This turns out to be quite a surprising Glen Elgin. Definitely not boring this one. Still, this one has much nice things going for it, so the score is warranted. Peach yoghurt in the finish as well as a peppery note, some might call hot. The finish as a whole is of medium length and especially the minty bit seems to have some staying power here. It’s alright, it’s good, but the nose was better.

Yes the Mortlach I reviewed just before scores slightly higher, but in comparison this Glen Elgin is slightly more drinkable. Even though this one has a very diverse, unusual and layered nose it is even more accessible than the Mortlach. Mortlach has always been a more anorak-y kind of Whisky anyway. Still, I wouldn’t recommend this one either if you are a novice, just like the 19yo Glen Elgin I reviewed in 2017.

Points: 86

Damoiseau Rhum Vieux 7yo “Millesime 2009” (66.9%, OB, Recharred Bourbon Barrels, Guadeloupe)

Guadeloupe is an overseas department and region of France and it consists of threes. It has three main islands and has three Bellevue distilleries. From west to east we first have the island of Basse-Terre, easy to recognize because of its mountains and an active stratovolcano called “La Grande Soufrière”. Last eruption: 1977 (phreatic eruption, steam). The last magmatic eruption was in 1580 (give or take 50 years, sice nothing was recorded). The soil of Basse-Terre, and this probably doesn’t come as a surprise any more, is volcanic and thus fertile, very suitable to grow many variants of sugarcane. More to the east lies the island of Grande-Terre, separated from Basse-Terre by a narrow body of water called Rivière Salée. Grande-terre is flat and has a limestone soil. A bit farther away to the east and more to the south lies Marie-Galante. Also flat with a limestone soil and thus akin to Grande-Terre.

As said above, then there are three Bellevue distilleries. Don’t worry, there are many more distilleries on the three islands that are not called Bellevue. The first Bellevue is Bellevue au Moule better known under it’s Rum-brand name: Damoiseau, located on Grande-Terre. The second Bellevue is Bellevue Sainte Rose, better known under it’s Rum-brand name: Reimonenq, located on Basse-Terre. And finally Bellevue Marie-Galante located on…do you really want me to spell it out for you? So we have three islands and all three have their own Bellevue Rhum Distillery. How’s that for order in the universe?

As is often the case with R(h)um, some sort of estate comes into play. The Bellevue au Moule estate, sugar refinery and distillery was founded somewhere near the end of the 19th Century by the Rimbaud family, (although 1914 is also mentioned somewhere). So history is a bit unclear here. All Rhum from these early days was Molasses based. In 1942 Roger Damoiseau bought the, by then abandoned and dilapidated, estate and distillery and rebuilt it. My guess now would be leaning more towards late 19th Century, because if founded in 1914 and already dilapidated and abandoned by 1942, well that’s rather quick now doesn’t it? Also, it must have been run down rather badly since the price of rebuilding was quite steep. Nevermind, usually when a new (or extensively rebuilt) distillery sees the light of day, owners tend to make some quick money by selling unaged spirit like, Wodka and/or Gin. So Roger rebuilt the sugar estate and the distillery and he decided to make some quick bucks by selling, wait for it, candies and jam, both made at the site. Luckily Rhum quickly followed suit and of course soon became the main business. The whole output is Rhum Agricole now (based on sugarcane juice), but in the old days, in the sugarcane off-season, also Rhum Industriel (based on molasses) was produced. This was the schtick of Roger Jr, who took over from his father in 1968, to pay off the debts made by Roger Sr. when buying and rebuilding the site. Roger Jr. had to do that for a long, long time. To finish the story of Damoiseau, today the children of Roger Jr. are now running the show. Herve as chairman of the company, Jean-Luc overseeing production as master-distiller and Sandrine promoting the brand.

Last but not least, the distillery has three column stills allowing for a continuous distillation regime. The first one was bought second hand from a closed Micro-Distillery called Bonne Mere. Both others were newly bought. The distillery processes circa 30.000 tonnes of sugar cane and producing circa 1.64 million litres of absolute alcohol per annum.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: First thing that comes to mind when smelling this is that it doesn’t remind me of a Rhum Agricole from Martinique, or any Agricole for that matter. Don’t really know right now if this is because the Agricoles from Guadeloupe are much different or because this example is very high in ABV. Light acetone (glue-like) with thin toffee and caramel aromas. Chewy. Artificial orange as in Sinaspril tablets, some wood and some more toffee. Dusty and somewhat herbal desert wind. Slightly perfumy or soapy even, yet this dissipates quickly. Licorice pencil shavings with a nice ripe yellow fruit and vanilla note on top of it. If snorted vigorously, a minty sensation settles in my nose. No, this is not because of alcohol fumes from the high ABV this time. A layer of green and leafy aroma’s emerge next, well mixed in with a more sweet and chewy licorice note now. Some cigarette smoke. The whole smells rather elegant if I may say so, especially since I imagined this might be some sort of a brute, since the number of the ABV on the label is rather impressive. Some of the emerging aroma’s remind me of a Red Italian Wine. A fruity Amarone before settling back into toffee, caramel and almonds again. This must be its natural idle state I guess. Well balanced and very pleasing. The next day the empty glass smells a bit oaky, oily and industrial.

Taste: Yup, toffee, and caramel, and licorice, and some bitter sun toasted oak are right upfront here, what a treat! More oak and definitely a bit sharper and hotter than the nose. Spicy. The taste is not far away from how this Rhum smells. No mistake now to be made, this is definitely a Rhum Agricole, yet definitely not in the style of Martinique. The high ABV is in no way a problem and I don’t feel any need to let this swim for a bit. I usually don’t use water much, even with high ABV, although there are definitely some spirits out there that really improve by adding some water. I prefer to use a hypodermic needle even, as opposed to the plastic pipette so common to tasters of spirits. The needle ensures me to have the smallest droplets I can get. I know, I’m quite strange that way. A slightly soapy feel and a floral note emerges, I didn’t pick up on when smelling it. Still don’t actually, so it most likely isn’t there. The minty bit mentioned above, emerges here as well in the finish. Nice tasty and herbal oak. For me this is a hit. It might not be highly complex, but it is very rewarding nevertheless. Towards the end though, it is less outspoken of an Agricole than most Martinique Agricoles I know (and reviewed earlier).

This profile suits me, I have to get me some more Guadeloupe Rhum, if only to find out for myself how Guadeloupe Rhum differs from the Martinique ones and if I prefer, in general, one over the other.

Points: 88

Tamnavulin 8yo 2009/2017 (59%, A.D. Rattray, Cask Collection, Bourbon Barrel #700628, Finished in a First Fill Bourbon Barrel for 16 months, 229 bottles)

This will be an interesting bottle. After the Dalmore I reviewed last, here is another example from a distillery from the portfolio of Whyte and Mackay, and yet another independent bottling. This is the first review of a Tamnavulin on these pages and to be honest, I never ran out of the house to fetch me a Tamnavulin. Tamnavulin just doesn’t have such a reputation. I did buy a nice, and very old, example from Duncan Taylor once, in the USA many years ago, but that’s about it. A few years back I visited the stand of A.D. Rattray at the Whisky Show in London, and tasted this Tamnavulin, I though it was rather nice and being a Tamnavulin, I bought it at the show shop. I couldn’t have been very expensive then.

Apart from the taste, I really liked the idea of maturing a Whisky in a Bourbon Barrel and then finishing it in another first fill Bourbon Barrel. This may imply the first cask it matured in wasn’t a first fill, but I might be wrong. The other thing that grabbed me was the mention of the number of the first cask it matured in (#700628), yet not the number of the cask it was finished in. But wait, there is even more. The label claims this was first matured for “over” 7 years and then received a finish of 16 months, so 100 months or more. Distilled on 10.05.2009 and bottled on 31.08.2017 equals less than 100 months. Being a Tamnavulin and all this wonky information on the label, and having tasted it, I just needed to have it, especially since Tamnavulin is rather a scarcity on my lectern.

Color: Medium gold (and seemingly not filtered to death).

Nose: Vanilla and soft oak. Malty and biscuity. Pleasant and fruity. Quite floral and perfumy. Classy. Underneath a more sweetish and fruity bit. Big and bold, with lots of aroma’s and an open character. Even though it is quite a young Whisky, there are no traces of new make and it smells quite mature. The oak gives off some spicy notes, but not much. Seems to me the initial cask wasn’t all that active and the second maturation wasn’t long enough for that cask to dominate the strong oaky notes. Interesting finish this is. Notes of yellow fruits are a bit overshadowed by this perfumy and soap-like aroma. The more I nose this, the more spices are noticeable, but all under this floral cloak. Smelling harder pulls out the yellow fruity bits, as well as some mint and a wee hint of horseradish and rainwater. The fruit turns slightly acidic. Maybe this makes the balance department suffer a bit, but it’s not a big problem though. After a while it turns a bit dusty and the mint vapor has some staying power in my nose. The sweetness picks up some licorice as well. This is an autumn Whisky (based on the nose alone at his point). Given more time, notes of cold dish water, bad breath and honey, these are adding to the complexity, but again making the balance suffer some more. Still this is still not a big issue though. I know “interesting” often has a negative ring to it, but without implying any negativity, this one just is interesting, due to the complexity and the oddness of the aroma’s this Whisky gives off.

Taste: Ahhh, nice. Spicy, slightly bitter and sweetish. Vanilla, nutty and some nice wood, that seemed not to be there in the nose. Warming and highly drinkable. Meaty as well. The vanilla bit grows slightly stronger when you hold this in your mouth. The first sip sort of repairs the nose, focusing it on the more lovely floral bit. Very appetizing and much better balanced than the nose was. Sweet and nutty, honeyed nuts. However the wood gave off plenty of spiciness to counterbalance the sweetness, which is definitely here, yet masked by the wood. Tasty example this is, and seems definitely more mature than the 8 years it (only) has. Apart from the sweetish yellow fruits on the palate, this Tamnavulin also has some zesty citrussy notes. Here it works well, in the nose the acidity isn’t helping the balance of it, however, on the palate this Tamnavulin is well balanced and the slightly bitter notes, this shows towards the finish, can put off some tasters, who don’t like bitterness altogether, but it does add to the balance. The dishwater and soapy bit in the nose, does play an unexpected role here in the aftertaste as well. Unexpected because it arrives late and I didn’t expect it at all to be honest. Along with this bitter note the nose shows us some licorice to go with it, changing the Whisky a bit. Nice complexity thus. Still an autumn Whisky I would say.

I like this Tamnavulin. The two casks worked quite well together. It’s mature and tastes great. The first cask must have been a refill cask, not giving off too much woody and bitter notes from the cask for the stated 7 years. The second cask, a more active one, did have enough time to impair its creamy and vanilla notes, but after 16 months, it didn’t have enough time to give off a lot of woody aroma’s, making for a reasonable well balanced young Whisky without the wood dominating the palate, nope the wood is just about right.

Points: 85

Bruichladdich 8yo The Organic 2009 (50%, OB, Bourbon and Tennessee Whisky casks, Mid Coul Farms, Dalcross, 18.000 bottles, 17/333, 2017)

The last Bruichladdich on these pages was the 2007 Islay Barley, and I suspect this Organic 2009 should be somewhat comparable to it. These two (Islay Barley and Organic), together with the Bere Barley expressions, seem to be Bruichladdich’s answer to Springbank’s Local Barley series. Both distilleries are sure that terroir matters, and you lovers of good food already know to use local, seasonal and fresh products. Where on every Local Barley bottle there is a statement of the Barley variety used, in this case Bruichladdich only mentions the use of 100% organically grown Scottish Barley. The Barley was sourced from Mid Coul Farms, Dalcross which is just to the north of Inverness and has Inverness airport as its closest neighbour, quite an odd place to grow organically. So no pesticides, but jet exhaust instead? Odd. As we already know, distillation took place in 2009 and the Barley used was from the 2008 Harvest.

Lets make it ourselves easy this time and finish off this introduction with the official introduction to the organic 2009 by Bruichladdich themselves: “The whisky we distil from the organic barley of Mid Coul reflects the complex natural flavours of the landscape. Just as our stillmen refuse to abandon the traditional crafts of distillation in favour of automation or industrialisation, so farmer William Rose rejects the use of herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertilisers. Crop rotation is key. Our barley must take its turn in a seven year farm cycle that also produces organic cattle, sheep, oats, beans, grass, carrots, market gardening and a megawatt of green electricity. Respecting the land, the soil and the climate nourishes a genuine and thorough understanding of terroir and the results are pure Bruichladdich”.

Color: White Wine

Nose: Initially cereal and biscuits, very clean. Briefly the aroma of cherries on syrup and almonds, but when air hits this Malt, this is soon gone, never to return again. Powdery and some vanilla, yet still fresh and clean. Warming mocha, creamy latex paint and a hint of light chocolate powder. No sign of new make spirit though, even though this is a pretty young Malt. Sure, I’m probably somewhat biassed by the organic name, but this smells like a honest Malt an “integrity” Malt and I’m happy to report no jet-exhaust at all! Next, some development letting a citrussy and more fruity bit through. Sweeter and slightly more floral now, whiffs of perfume whizz by. Soft wood, very soft wood. A breath of fresh air and this brings me back to the days in the noughties of many Cadenhead hogsheads, bottled in their Authentic Collection. Ahhh, memories… More milk chocolate, wood, also some fresh mud now. Instant coffee powder and also these half-sweet yellow fruits. After a long while the woody bit gets some more room and smells a bit like pencil shavings (and a wee bit of ear-wax) and a wee-er bit of Spanish cedar as well. Sometimes I even get the original Nivea cream. It may be young, but it smells impressively balanced already, sure it lacks the depth of a well aged Malt, but you already knew what to expect, when buying this didn’t you? (I did).

Taste: Sweet, just the right amount, and not really the oomph of 50% ABV. I did let it sit in a glass for a while, maybe the oomph evaporated? Just kidding, or aren’t I? It’s most definitely not harsh now and actually quite soft. Sweet barley and more wood than initially showed up in the nose, and after a while, some bitterness emerges. Vanilla and the wee bit of ear-wax from the nose is present on the palate as well. Quite nutty. Sweet floral lemon balm on my lips. Runny caramel which fits perfectly with the fruity acidic notes. This may not be a very complex Malt, but I wouldn’t make the mistake of calling this simple. This is a well made Whisky, with a lot on offer.

I’m writing this review from a bottle that has about one third left, and the Whisky is more mellow now and better balanced than it was when freshly opened. It might have even been a bit harsh on opening. Many of you know the difference between tasting a malt in an controlled environment, (no I don’t mean a laboratory), like your living room or man cave for instance, a place you know well. Tasting a Malt outside, with it’s constant flow of fresh air, I often don’t pick up on certain markers from a Malt, I most definitely do pick up on inside. The tasting experience outside, therefore differs for me, from inside. Having said all that, this Organic 2009 actually works wonderfully well outside. This malt just needs some more fresh air, and with this, it shows you more, as if amplified. At least today it does, and it is quite a grey and windy day. Not a dull day, mind you, hard wind and rolling clouds are fun to watch, as well as the stuff blowing by my window. Circumstances not unknown to Bruichladdich. Just pour it and leave it there for a while, again a Malt that needs your attention (like the Ben Nevis I just reviewed). This may very well be an anoraky Whisky. Personally I like it a lot and have a lot of fun with. Somewhat of a hidden gem if you let it. Good stuff, just like Islay Barley 2007, scoring the same.

Points: 86

P.S. I found this Whisky works best in a larger Whisky glass, my favourite glass for this Whisky was the Holmegaard Perfection Spirit Glass.

Amrut 4yo 2009/2013 (59%, OB, Single Cask, for Europe, Charred American Virgin Oak & Port Pipe #2712, Peated Barley, 357 bottles)

What again? Yes here is another tandem Malt. After last weeks Amrut here is another one. This time not a direct comparison, there was no reason for that, but I did compare both behind the scenes, to assess which one is better and for the height of the scores. I do love Amrut. Most Amruts I have tasted are at least good, and some are better than that. Lovely stuff and definitely a different and exotic take on Single Malt Whisky. Maybe the people at Amrut don’t even know how to produce a bad Whisky, or maybe they are out there, but I haven’t encountered them yet? Who knows. Amrut is most welcome to the world of Single Malt Whisky, since they do bring something new into the fold.

In 2013 a few single cask bottlings emerged, especially bottled for Europe, but there should be versions for other markets as well, even bottled in a different year. Earlier, I already reviewed a virgin oak and first fill Bourbon barrel version and a charred American virgin oak and PX Sherry butt version. All good things come in threes, so the third version they released that year is this Charred American Virgin Oak and Port Pipe. This time the barley was peated. Amruts standard is so high, that even the “simple” and affordable peated and especially the unpeated cask strength versions turned out to be very tasty, and in hindsight the charred American virgin oak and PX Sherry butt version may have been somewhat less than perfect, still it was slightly better than the peated cask strength version. The peated cask strength version is my lowest scoring Amrut on these pages, and it still was a Whisky I liked. I will probably buy it again sometimes, just to see how it fares.

Color: Orange-brown gold. Bourbon.

Nose: Initially fruity and milky. I often have this Malt right after the Kadhambam, and it definitely has this milky quality to it. Even some expressions of Paul John tasted right before or right after this one makes that evident. Don’t worry though, in the nose the milky bit mostly wears off. I’m guessing this is from the Virgin oak. Fruity and very PX-like. Nosed blind I would have guessed PX instead of Port. Dusty, deep, dark and brooding. Some underlying heavy sweetness, like warm syrup and tarred wood. Treacle. No Indian spiciness, so for me the cask overpowered the original Malt. Mind you, this wasn’t initially matured in Bourbon casks, but rather in virgin oak casks. Red fruit lemonade. Strawberry and raspberry syrup, with still this tarry and treacle note underneath. Fire place smoke, yet hardly peaty. Not peaty at all actually. Pencil shavings and crushed dry leaves from trees. A more fresher citrussy note emerges next, as well as some faint mackerel in oil aroma. Since this was matured in a hot climate, the virgin oak works differently, compared to its Scottish counterparts. No harsh, creamy or sappy wood, we can pick up from Scottish Single Malts matured (in part) in virgin oak. Maybe here the milky bit is the way the virgin oak exerts itself? Also a floral bit now. Soft and delicate rose notes combined with sharper whiffs of smoke from the fire place. This is a winter Malt, bordering on Christmas. Certainly brings you in the mood. It’s a big Malt this. The aroma’s are big and bold and never stop giving…

Taste: Tarry wood. Spicy autumn leaves. Quite sweet and prickly (smoke). Treacle and cookies. Black coal. Carbon powder, gun powder. Big, very big. Almost a bit like Rhum Agricole mixed with a heavy Demerara Rum. Steampunk locomotive. Yes Port, but again, it is also not that far away from a heavy PX cask. Well balanced. Chocolate and Brownies. Candied cherries. Licorice and smoke, but also a green note. Oak, but not like the virgin oak we know. No vanilla notes to be honest. Red fruit syrup towards the finish, warming log fires as well. Some residual bitterness, from burnt down logs of wood. Since I got this heavy Rum note, its hard to picture it without it. This has a very long finish, very warming and a perfect aftertaste of everything mentioned before. All is here and all stays with you for a long time. Very good stuff.

Here a lot of the aroma’s are quite big and overpowering, so it is near impossible to make out the Spicy Indian Spirit. So for me maybe less typical than other expressions, but nevertheless a very tasty piece of work again. The beauty lies in the details, but here the details are masked. Luckily the result is still quite nice. There were more casks bottled like this. I bought cask #2714 as well. I’m especially curious now if that one will have this milky note as well as this one. Something we’ll find out in the future…or not…

Points: 89

Amrut 4yo 2009/2013 (62.8%, OB, Single Cask, for Europe, Charred American Virgin Oak & PX Sherry Butt #2701, 301 bottles)

After the long overdue reviews of Port, even two of them, from Kopke and Warre and to a lesser extent, a Bourbon, Evan Williams, let’s stay away a little bit longer from Single Malt Whiskies from Scotland. Yes let’s look at some Single Malt Whisky from India! OK, so not completely different, it’s still Whisky, but don’t you worry, I plan to review some other non-Scottish stuff as well. Nevertheless, lets start with this Amrut.

In 2013, (and other years as well), some single casks were bottled for Europe, in three varieties. The Bourbon version I reviewed earlier, this Virgin Oak/PX-Sherry combination we are going to look at right now, and last but hopefully not (the) least (of the three), a peated Whisky matured in a Port pipe. I’ll open this last one soon, right after I finish the Whisky I’m about to review now, and there isn’t much left in the bottle I can tell you. Amruts never stay long on my lectern…

Color: Bright gold with a pinkish hue.

Nose: Highly aromatic. Dry, Indian, exotic (cinnamon) and winey. Lots of dusty barley notes, somewhat enhanced by funky PX. Caramel and toffee notes without the sweetness. Reminds me a bit of Port finished Whisky. Sometimes its like the smell of blood up my nose. Meaty notes as well. Fatty gravy. Soft wood now, a bit cardboard-like. Even if I wouldn’t know it, it is easily recognizable as Virgin oak. Nose-wise not the most balanced of Amruts. Like PX and the Indian Barley/Virgin Oak really don’t like to work together and don’t see each other out of the office. This Amrut needs a team-building session. Funny how up front this sensation is, because I get this instantaneously. Still dusty and drying, with hints of dry clay. Yes Wine, Port, PX. That’s it. If I’m honest, I would say that the virgin oak even overpowers the PX-finish. I’m sure this would have worked better if it started life in a nice American barrel, used before, so not virgin. Maybe then the PX finish would have worked better. I like the use of virgin oak in some Whiskies like Ardbeg Corryvreckan and Glen Garioch Virgin oak as well, but this time in my beloved Amrut, not so much. Nevertheless, still a good Whisky, just not so good as Amrut can be.

Taste: Very hot and stingy. An explosion of flavour. Bitter wood. Cherry liqueur, dark chocolate and even more oak. Unsweet caramel again, mixed with alcohol. Wait a minute, unsweet? There is also this sugary sweetness to it. Warming going down, well, hot going down might be a better way to describe it. Just like the nose, it lacks balance. Everybody was put on this team, but they really just don’t want to work together. Even before I can start to take in the aroma’s, the lack of balance and the apparent simpleness of the Whisky comes to the fore. Lots of wood, overpowering and ruining the balance a bit. Again this is still a pretty good Whisky, it’s just not quite there. After some breathing, the first sips become somewhat sweeter. Lots of virgin oak in the body too. Short, bitter-ish and very hot finish. Wood for sure. Virgin oak in the aftertaste as well. I think we all got a bit surprised by the activity of this wood. What about the PX in this bottling then? not so sure, because this Whisky is so wood-driven. Maybe it’s not the Virgin oak and yet the PX-cask gave off a lot of tannins, or maybe both?

Nope, I can tell you already that for me the Amrut distillate works better with the previously reviewed ex-Bourbon casks, like the Single Cask (with Virgin oak as well, just less of it, apparently) and the regular (or so you would think) unpeated Cask Strength version. Sherried versions like the Intermediate are also pretty good.

Points: 84

And with that this is the “worst” Amrut I ever had. It’s not bad, but there are a lot more of better Amruts to be found. nope, this one is not my favourite expression…

Bunnahabhain 30yo 1979/2009 (45.5%, Ian MacLeod, Chieftain’s, European Oak Sherry Butt #9622, 612 bottles)

Back to some wonderfully Sherried Bunnahabhain. Most of the last few bottles of Bunnahabhain I reviewed were younger and much paler (and peatier) than the bottle I’m about to review. Here we have an independently bottled Bunnahabhain from a highly active European oak Sherry butt. Even though this has aged for a respectable 30yo, and was bottled 10 years ago, I still feel 1979 is not that long ago. If you try this particular expression, it seems to come from another century, or another dimension altogether. I’ll keep it short here, because I feel a lot of words will be needed th describe the complexity of this Malt.

Color: Dark Brown.

Nose: Fresh sea air. We didn’t see that one coming now didn’t we? Remarkably fresh, mint, yup mint. The mint you get from those hard mint sweets, not freshly cut mint, you make tea of. I did think it would be a cloying heavily Sherried Malt, but it’s not. Hints of toasted oak, charcoal and tar. Creamy vanilla powder, milk-chocolate, or better, plums in chocolate and a little bit of honey as well. Old distinguished wood. Wood polish without the petroleum smell, although very far back this does seem to have some petrol fumes going on. Caramel, tar, and some bits from an ashtray. Lots of Sherried notes obviously. Soft burnt sugar and a whiff of french cheese. Sherry and tobacco. It smells like it’s from another century altogether. Doesn’t really smell like a Whisky anymore. This must have been a very active cask. Still, nicely balanced and very chic. Fruity and coal, reminding me of early seventies Longmorn mixed with well aged calvados, since it has this apply feel to it as well. Just this bit though, not the whole experience, reminds me of Longmorn. Lots and lots of aroma’s and quite complex. Log fire and hints of fatty soft smoke. You can smell this one for hours before even thinking of taking a sip. You need to be alone for this one, and certainly not rushing it. If you smell it vigorously, it becomes meaty (gravy) for a brief moment, and some unexpected citrussy notes emerge as well. Beautiful wood notes re-emerge. Hints of old warehouse with old cardboard boxes in it. Dusty, quickly masked by the toffeed fruit. Although it doesn’t seem like it at first, this is a very high quality nose, which is immensely complex and has a lot to give. Wonderful.

Taste: Quite dry and woody, but also very tasty. Slightly soapy on entry. With lots of spices and borderline bitterness. Again you’re in for a treat. I have smelled this for quite a bit now, and doing so, I warmed the glass up in my hand. Fruity, but not much. I couldn’t even tell you what kind of fruit it would be. This has been a long time in cask. Tar and tobacco and maybe some leather. Not very heavy due to the relatively low ABV. Dusty and deep. So definitely a Malt that shows the Whisky can be about the wood it matured in. The creamy vanilla from the nose is lacking here, but definitely here, is the dry tannic wood and slight bitterness. Definitely not a chewy Whisky. Old and distinguished. Like an old mens club. Phileas Fogg style. The body falls back a bit. Finishes great, which makes up for the dry start, with a nice warming aftertaste. I like it. It’s a choice. Sure this could have been bottled (much) earlier. I don’t know if it was chance or choice, this has been allowed to age further, drying out considerably, yet picking up in “style”. It will be remembered for its great finish and the fabulous nose.

If you just pick this up and drink it, and don’t give it the attention it needs, you won’t pick up half of what its got to offer. If you do give it attention and time, wow! The more air it gets though, makes this Whisky less fruity and more about the wood, so know what you’re in for when allowing it to breathe for a while. Still, this is a wonderful malt either way, that develops enormously in the glass, so I can forgive its dryness with ease.

Points: 91

Paul John 2009/2015 (58.4%, Malts of Scotland, Peated, Bourbon Barrel, MoS 15068, 156 bottles)

Paul John already had some Whiskies reviewed on these pages, but up ’till now they all have been the official deal, and making up the standard range. Brilliance, Edited and Bold, are the trinity of entry-level Malts from Paul John, where the peat level rises gradually from left to right.

Sometimes a malt is so good, I finish it before I even get the chance to review it, or sometimes I think I reviewed it, remembering the words, and it turns out that I haven’t. This is a bottle I got because the owner wasn’t all that fond of it, even though it was half empty (or half full, depends how you look at it), and thought the stuff he got in return was better. Right now I can’t remember with what I traded it. This bottle is soon to be empty, meaning it’s good! I give you that already. Before moving on to more of the official stuff, here is the first independently bottled Paul John on these pages. This is one of four casks bottled by Malts of Scotland. Three casks from 2009 (#15065, #15067, peated and #15068, also peated) and one from 2011 (#15066).

The officially released Single Cask bottlings of Paul John, were all very nicely priced, and people picked up on them, as well as the more available bottlings. When the independent bottlers started to release Single Cask bottlings of Paul John, they upped the game asking a (much) higher price than Paul John did themselves. Luckily the casks that went to the independents all turned out to be very good casks as well, so they are worth your money. Having said that, all the official Single Casks released were pretty good as well.

When independents started asking higher prices, Paul John followed suit and new releases are more expensive than they were before. I understand Paul John asks a bit more from independents as well, so if my information is right, Malts of Scotland won’t be releasing more Single Cask bottlings of Paul John for a while. Never say never again ‘eh.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Soft peat and meaty. A little bit of barley and a tiny hint of dry orange skin and varnished wood. We’re talking luxury department here. Already this smells like near perfection. This is bottle is empty so soon, because I have fallen in love with how this smells. Luckily I was able to replace it another bottle from the same cask. Deep fruits and spicy warm air. A slightly sweet edge. Big nose altogether. Hints of black fruits from old Islay bottlings, salty. Fresh mint and unlit tobacco. Licorice and warm butter. The wood adds notes of pencil shavings and smoke now, adding to the spiciness of the Whisky. Stunning nose. Not a lot of development though, so maybe even in India (almost) six years is (almost) six years. Reluctantly I have to move on, but to be Frank (Not John) I can’t stop smelling this, and have a hard time moving on to taste it. (If I would score noses by itself this would get 95 Points, maybe more, utterly wonderful stuff).

Taste: Sweetish, syrupy and woody. Slightly waxy even. Not even the peat comes first, but rather the big and bold body. Wood, pencil shavings but not exclusively, and various yellow fruit marmalades, bitter orange marmalade first, followed by dried apricots. Several different bitters coming from wood and smoke. That’s about it first time around. The end of the body well into the finish seems a bit thin, but the aftertaste gets the big body back and has a lot of length, keeping you warm and giving you subliminal images of warmer places. Give it time and air to breathe folks. It doesn’t taste like 58.4% ABV. Again, this might not be the most complex stuff around, but what’s there is very good, albeit not as good as the nose though. But when you’ve swallowed this, and enjoying the long lingering aftertaste and thén smell the glass, Ahhhhh, bliss. This hits the right spots with me.

This was the deal breaker, after this one, I had to make more room for Indian Malts on my lectern. What an experience! A word of caution. I have ready and spoken to enough people to know that this might not be for everybody. Indian Malts are not Scottish, Six-row barley gives a lot of exotic spiciness compared to the barley’s used in Scotland, as well as the conditions of maturation on this continent. As I said before, the previous owner of this bottles wasn’t such a big fan of this as I am, so proceed with caution, but keep an open mind.

Points: 91

This one is finished now, and took a while to write, since I couldn’t stop smelling this. I replaced this stunning MoS bottling with another independent bottling of Paul John, a 6yo Cadenheads bottling released this year. Can’t wait to open that one.

Caroni 12yo 1996/2009 (69%, Krugers Whiskygalerie, Rendsburger Bürgermeister, Cask #1107, Trinidad & Tobago)

October always starts out with the best Whisky Festival in the world, The Whisky Show in London (UK). I visited it so many times already it stopped being about the Whiskies, although I tasted many of them. It’s a festival about people. Meeting the makers, the owners, the writers, the bloggers and its about meeting the friends I made along the way, your old buddies, so to speak. Missing those who could not be there this year. It’s always nice to meet some new people as well. I’ve just returned and it always takes me a while to adjust back to normal life. Many Whisky reviews were written before The Whisky Show and many were tasted at the show. So why not go cold turkey and do some Rums for a while, another passion of mine?

The Kruger in Krugers Whiskygalerie is Thomas Kruger, probably best known for his auction site. I actually don’t know if he auctions Rums somewhere, but he does bottle Whiskies and the occasional Rum. From Thomas’ bottling business, here is a Caroni! My heart always skips a beat when hearing that name, especially when it is un-diluted.

Caroni #1107Color: Orange brown.

Nose: Right from the start you get this utter balanced smell. It smells fairly dry, herbal and industrial, with a nice dose of heated oak (when sawing) and sawdust, just like a Caroni should. It’s also easily recognizable as a Caroni, leaning towards Rhum Agricole, with a splash of petrol in it, but not as much as other Caroni’s have. In and out come some whiffs of tar, burnt sugar, leather, Italian laurel licorice and again the wood of the cask. Past the usual suspects, this one boasts also some nice (red) fruitiness. The fruit, ripe raspberries, sugared pineapple (which I know are not red) and unripe wild strawberries. These fruits merge as a second layer and when that layer settles in, you get a more creamy, vanilla-like, toffee-sweet smell. It still is a Rum y’know. If I was presented with this blind, I would have argued it was an aged, rather dry, Rhum Agricole. Love this profile. Once you get the hang of it, there is no going back.

Taste: Starts out dry with a woody aroma, aided by the high ABV. Nevertheless very drinkable (for me) at this strength. I no way does it feel as 69% ABV. A little bit dirty, as Caroni should be. Petrol, exhaust gasses and licorice. Exhaust gasses, wow, never had that before! Not an aroma for the masses. Since the world prefers the flavour profile of Angostura, no wonder Caroni got closed, a fact that makes Rum aficionados break out in tears once in a while. It is so dirty I could also call this animalesk. It does resemble the nose, but seems a bit less complex. Powdery dryness. The high strength is duly noted when my lips start burning a bit and some heat clings to the roof of my mouth. Is it a problem? No it’s not. Blood comes out my nose. Just kidding. It does taste dryer than the nose lead me to believe. But when the dry spell passes, there is some residual toffee sweetness noticeable. In the taste, it is less of a “Rhum Agricole” than the nose promised. Not all returns for the finish. The finish is made up of the wood and (thin) licorice, but has lots of staying power with some very late, yet diluted, warm caramel to it.

I tried to compare this one to the Bristol 1998, but that is impossible, the difference in ABV is too big. From memory I know the Bristol has the petrol but is even more fruity. This Kruger expression is woodier. But I have another ace up my sleeve. The Kintra 1999 expression. Both seem remarkably similar at first. Lots of wood going on in both, but more of that in the Kruger. The Kintra has some whiffs of (clear) glue that can’t be found in the Kruger expression, and the Kruger shows some honey and even hints of Bourbon Whiskey (Buffalo Trace to be exact). On the taste, the Kintra is woodier and Kruger has more licorice and sawdust, but again they are pretty similar. Even the fruit profile matches. Always a good idea to do direct head to head (H2H) comparisons.

Points: 88

Thanks go out to Nico!

Bolívar Petit Belicosos Edición Limitada 2009

Bolívar LogoAhhh, finally a Bolívar. This is a first one on these pages. Bolívar isn’t a big global brand for Habanos, but it is available in a lot of markets nevertheless. Not a big brand, but it has a specific and fanatical following under seasoned Cigar smokers. Bolívar is known for heavy and strong Cigars.

This 2009 is the first of two Edición Limitadas there are. In 2014 the second and last was released, which was a Super Corona. Don’t think that this means there aren’t a lot of special releases around, because there are. A lot of Edición Regional versions were made. These are limited editions, released in specific countries or markets. In 2006 the first was released for the German market only, and since then 25 more saw the light of day.

This Petit Belicosos is just like its bigger brother the Belicosos, just 15mm shorter. Another difference is that just like other Edicíon Limitadas the tobacco was aged for two years. As far as I know this Petit Belicoso is made in three different factories and thus boxes exist with three different codes: STA MAY 09, OMA JUL 09 and LRE AGO 09.

Bolívar Petit Belicosos EL 2009

Bolívar Petit Belicosos Edición Limitada 2009 (52 x 125mm, Petit Belicosos, Petit Pyramid, Box code unknown).

Color & Looks: Oscuro. Dark brown. No veins, quite stiff to the touch. When it warms up it becomes more flexible.

A cru: Strong leather smell. Cigarette ashes, mocha coffee and dark chocolate. Sawdust and (old) wood in general. Promising power.

Taste: Good smoke and the draw is good as well. Dark taste with hints of petrol. Stong mahogany wood. The whole is also quite on the woody side. It lacks the creaminess we know from Hoyo de Monterrey, but both brands couldn’t be further apart. This Bolívar is dry and sharp. Heavy indeed. Maximum strength dark chocolate. No stuff for beginners. This definitely isn’t one to start the smoking season with, so to speak. Strong powerful stuff, but by now I believe you get the picture. Extremely dry and woody, almost hard to smoke by itself. I wonder with what to combine this to balance the strength out a bit.

To be honest this doesn’t show a lot of development, even after six years in my humidor. Over halfway through some soapyness appears. The dryness is aided by some herbal notes like cumin and some restrained basil. These are all mere hints since the whole is wood, even more wood and some paper. I don’t know if my palate was anesthetized by this Cigar, but even given its power it doesn’t even have a long-lasting aftertaste, like I had with some Partagás from the past, which I could still taste the next day.

Well built and smokes very easily, but it does burn unevenly. It has a thick wrapper. Luckily the uneven burn is easily corrected. In the end I expected more of this. Ashes is darkest grey, black and brown. No white ashes at all. All the way through I had a craving for apple pie with lots of cinnamon, which I don’t even eat that often, so what does that mean? Will it go nicely with pie? I can tell you it went well with very strong coffee, two hammers, hammer as one.

What can I say. This is a heavy Cigar, and for me it was too much. Did I recognize the quality then? No, not really. I found it harsh, lacking development and it didn’t have a long and lasting aftertaste. Having said that, people who like these heavy Cigars do like this one very much, so I won’t argue with that. It probably is not for me. I have still a few of these lying around, so I’ll let them age more, and see what will happen. Maybe the Cigar will change or maybe I will.

Points: 77