Tag Archives: 2014

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

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

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

Color: Light gold, not pale.

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

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

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

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

Points: 87

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 006 (58%, OB, 2014)

So in 2019 I reviewed some Laphroaig’s meant for travellers. “Lore”, “The 1815 Edition” and “Brodir”. So with this, we have now a small part of that retail channel covered. Laphroaig also has/had some entry level Malts for the general public like the 10yo, “Select”, “Quarter Cask”, and to a lesser extent, (due to price), the 15yo and 18yo. There are also bottles for collectors, criminals, presidents and owners of luxury yachts, like the 27yo, 28yo and 30yo. All in fancy white coffins for your hamster. Luckily those Whiskies are very good, so when you spend a lot of “hard earned” cash on those, and decided to open them en drink them, at least you won’t be buying a dud.

Now, what if you are a Whisky enthusiast, connoisseur, aficionado or anorak, and somewhat shorter on funds, yet still a canoe in the backyard. What do you do? Yes, I do admit I am one of them, I have been infected. In stead of only drinking the stuff, I also spend some time writing about it, how anorak-y or insane can you get? So what do we do? We, for instance, are interested in lots of independent bottlings of Laphroaig and are more than happy to pay a somewhat higher price for them. Usually they are also less expensive than the Laphroaig’s in the coffins mentioned above. Don’t we buy official releases then? Isn’t there a reasonably priced, very, very good official Laphroaig on the market then? Yes there is! We anorak-y and insane people are going for the 10yo Original Cask Strength, a bottling John Campbell makes just for us. He said so himself! It is usually sold only online, at the distillery and not our usual watering hole, so the general public doesn’t know about them and therefore this is our little secret.

Since batch 011 however, it does seem to surface in some shops as well. It’s, obviously, cask strength, so not for everyone, It still is love it or hate it, so again not for everyone, and as said above, a bit hard to get. It is released in numbered batches. All things we aficionado’s like. Why do we like this one so bad? Because it is seriously good, it has batch variation, so we buy all different batches and it does remind us of the Laphroaig’s of the good old days, days when even the standard 10yo was a belter, less so today alas. The 10yo is made for a different audience altogether. Now, do you understand why the “Lore” and the “1815” were bought as bottle shares?

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Soft peat, nutty and sweet, almost perfumy. Wet earth after heavy rain (remember how fresh the air is after that?). DAS pronto (clay), paint and meaty. Quite some clay notes to be honest. Smoked and dried meat. Very, very fragrant. Hidden away, very well hidden are some red fruity notes (half ripe forest strawberries. You can sometimes smell the ripe aroma’s of the fruit, the sweeter bits that is, not the promise of fruity acidity. Hints of cola. Black and white powder, Licorice and iodine. Cold gravy. A hot aroma, like almost melting plastic cable. The initial smell, not when it is already melting, that could be a foul smell. Warming and animalesk. Sometimes even whiffs of sweet pickle water. Dried out plants in full sun and some sweetish spices. Sweet, dusty, balanced and complex. Dried fish. Smells much older than 10yo. No strong in your face peat and certainly no harsh and sharp smoky notes. A sort of Cask Strength “Lore” if you ask me, only way better. It adopts a bit of the gentleman-like qualities of the “Lore”. Quite different from other expressions from this series, I have tried before. Softer and maybe a tad more complex? Hints of old wood. Furniture-grade. Distant roadside dry grass fire, and then the perfumy bit returns. Yes this is a damn complex Malt.

Taste: Wonderfully sweet and fruity, black and white powder, lots of licorice, and I mean a lot of it. Cold ashes and liquid smoke. Amazing balance. Sometimes I get slightly sweet White Wine notes. Animalesk again. More licorice and ashes (and some cola again), this time mixed with crushed beetle (I already smelled the beetle before tasting it). Sweet peppermint, like Menthos (combined with licorice), and an acidic top note intertwined with the minty note. Can’t call the acidity fruity though, it’s different. Very earthy peat, sweet and earthy, and therefore less peaty. Masked by the plethora of aroma’s is some woody bitterness. The nose gets better, than it already is, when you sip this Whisky, the warm oral cavity does its work wonderfully. What an amazing Whisky this is, especially the nose is super-complex for what is considered a heavy hitting, heavily peated Malt. So much better than most other affordable Laphroaig’s. John Campbell, thank you, top stuff!

Man, one just can’t have enough of these 10yo’s.

Points: 92

Craigellachie 1997/2014 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill American Hoghead & Refill Bourbon Barrels, AD/JIIG, 01/07/2014)

Craigellachie is no stranger to Master Quill. Funky and meaty, with often some hints of sulphur. Seize the day people, time flies like never before! Last time I reviewed a Craigellachie was almost 10 years ago, yes you heard that right, almost TEN years ago. Just sayin’. Craigellachie is now bottled officially by John Dewar & Sons Ltd. which are part of the Bacardi – Martini drinks giant since 1998. With plenty of stock they decided to put out lots of Whiskies from their newly acquired Distilleries, all with age statements. That’s not very 21st century now isn’t it. Fun fact: this only happened in 2014, so it took them a while think up of this plan of bottling their own Whiskies.

Apart from the officially released Craigellachies, also some casks manage to find their way into the welcoming arms of independent bottlers. Nevertheless, most of the output of this distillery ends up in several blends, but primarily end up in Dewar’s White Label. The bottling for this review isn’t a blend, but a (reduced) independent Single Malt offering from Gordon & MacPhail. After the Glenallachie I reviewed last week, I thought why not, why not do another of those 46% ABV bottlings from the previous iteration of the Connoisseurs Choice range before it got revamped a few years ago.

Color: Light White Wine.

Nose: Waxy, woody and warming. Hints of paper and somewhat sweet smelling. The first thing to do is to keep an eye (or rather a nose) out for sulphur. Craigellachie is so associated with sulphur, one must be careful not to fool oneself and smell it when it’s not there. Still, I’m happy to report, at the moment there are only mere hints right at the start during the first nosing. Soft mocha and soft milk chocolate with an ever so slightly acidic fruity note, something in the vicinity of unripe pear. Next the nose turns sharper, fine by me, but yes this has a tad of sulphur, which is also somewhat peppery. A sharp, and specific deep smell. Personally I never had problems with hints of sulphur, only when it becomes more dominant I start to dislike it. Most often that kind of sulphur can be found in Whiskies matured in ex-Sherry casks. This fine example hasn’t seen Sherry and this sulphury bit that must be present in the Spirit is fine by me. In this form it suits the sprit, it’s a part of the distillery character. I believe Bacardi, who are the current owners, even mentioned sulphur when they introduced their new official offerings, like the 13yo in 2014. The nose if fine, really soft overall.

Taste: Hints of paper, some indistinct ripe fruit and some cannabis, similar to the cannabis notes I get in some older Bunnahabhains. All of this seem to fit together well, however at times it also comes across as a bit of an unbalance, here a really minor gripe, hardly worth the mention. Next sip, more of the same really, paper and cannabis, sugar water. Not complex, nor layered, yet tasty. I actually expected more after some 16 or 17 odd years this has been in a cask. Where the Glenallachie wasn’t simple, this one sort of is. More fruity sweetness comes through. This is actually a pleasant and soft Malt, where Craigellachies can be more beefy and meaty, bigger and sharper. Again, I guess that the reduction might have had something to do with this. The Cannabis note is omni-present. It defines this dram. I like it for it, I was tempted to up the score with one point for the cannabis note, but I won’t. As a daily drinker however, it might be just a tad too sweet. Medium finish, with a pleasant and friendly aftertaste.

This one is really different from the G&M Glenallachie I reviewed before. This is actually a nice Whisky from an independent bottler when you’re a novice. I actually has no off notes unless you are really allergic to sulphur and can’t even handle minute amounts. For the rest of us, the hint of sulphur is OK. Where both the Glenallachie and the Craigellachie are good, I would buy the Glenallachie if spotted in the wild, and this Craigellachie I would pass up on. The Glenallachie is also hands down better and the Craigellachie is nice, but also somewhat less challenging, therefore a Whisky more for a novice. Across the years, some cask strength Craigellachies from 1997 were bottled by G&M, maybe I’ll come across one of those to compare it to this one, one day, although I won’t be especially looking out for one.

Points: 84.

Arran 16yo 1997/2014 “The Un-Official almost 17th” (52.1%, OB, Private Cask, Sherry Hogshead #1997/525, 270 bottles)

Some 10 years ago, I reviewed the official 16yo (bottled at 46% ABV) and quite liked it. Back then it scored 87 points which is quite a good score. Here we have another 16yo from the distillery itself. The Un-Official almost 17th? Surely they mean The Un-Official almost 17yo? Nevermind. Since the 2013 review, I also came across some reasonable Arran’s but nothing really cached my eye and for me personally Arran slipped into the darkness of oblivion a bit. Fast forward some years and in comes this Arran Batch 3, I reviewed a year ago. That one did the trick of bringing Arran back into the (lime)light again. Batch 3 made me look into Arran again, and in stead of going to the shops, I went for some single cask versions at my favourite German auction. Sherry Hogshead #1997/525 is one of those auction lots…

Color: Copper gold, slightly hazy.

Nose: Nutty Sherry. Freshly made alcoholic toffee or runny caramel used for ice-cream. Toffee backed up by super ripe yellow fruits and still green, starting to become yellow, banana’s. So not really unripe banana’s then. Peaches also come to mind a lot. Dusty. Fresh oak. Well balanced, It may be simple (is it?), yet all these aroma’s go together quite well. Also, it smells like it will taste quite sweet and fruity. We’ll see about that later. Hints of polished furniture. Again fruity and sweet smelling. Cocktail cherries. Diluted red fruit syrup. Sometimes a whiff of a more fresh and minty aroma passes by. Come to think of it, this one does have an aura of old skool Sherried Whisky about it, which I quite like. Hmmm, I also got some old skool in Batch 4. More soft, actually very soft wood and some cardboard. Almost no cask toast, I mention this because there can be a lot of this in Sherried Whiskies. More syrup and now a fresh butter note, adding to the balance, because this is a pleasant smelling Whisky. Sometimes a whiff of sea-air and after some extensive sipping, a more friendly and nice floral detergent note pops up, not a really soapy note, which usually is somewhat more negatively perceived (by me). Yup, nice stuff. Very nice indeed.

Taste: Sweet Sherry and vanilla. Apple pastry, very much so. This surprises me a bit, since I didn’t pick up on apples in the nose (and still don’t). Apple compote. Apple beignets, including the dough. Luckily not to sweet. Nutty and waxy. Some wood in the beginning, but only the more astringent bit of it stays behind on my tongue, the rest of the woody notes are soon overpowered by the vanilla and the toffee ice-cream note, as well as the aforementioned fruit and some freshly baked cookies. After a while the astringent bit I just mentioned, turns into something somewhat bitter. Medium bitterness from wood, as well as from some licorice notes. After some proper tasting, and smelling, this does remind me of old skool (making me feel melancholic) Whisky. In the review of Arran 16yo I mentioned the potential Arran has and that I hope it would someday really show it, well here it is. What a wonderful Arran this turned out to be.

Arran seems to me to be a Malt that shows what it’s got right out of the gate. Well balanced and nice, yet less of a layered kind of malt or one with a substantial development in your glass. This one is no exception. It shows you what its got and thus lacking some development and complexity. Nevertheless, what it does have is very good. So I’m not complaining. There is definitely room for instant gratification Malts on my lectern. It might be me again, but for me, the second half of the bottle seemed better than the first half, so again one that needs to breathe a lot. Usually I review a Whisky I own myself halfway through, this is again a Whisky that went quicker than I thought, so I had to review it before it’s gone. Ain’t that a recommendation for ya!?

This Arran, in a way, seems to be a companion to the Highland Park 14yo I just reviewed. The Highland Park is almost overly complex, whereas this Arran is not. They differ a lot yet also have quite some similarities. Due to the complexity, the Highland Parks scores slightly better, but Arran isn’t any worse. The Highland Park you have to work, this one is as laid back and easy as they come. This Arran will always welcome you with open arms, where the Highland Park is essentially a grumpy git. Arran by now has gained yet another fan. I love the melancholy around this one, reminding me of Whiskies I tasted a long time ago…

Points: 89

Paul John (59.7%, OB, Single Cask #1444, 2014)

While we’re at it, why not continue with yet another Paul John. In the previous two reviews we first had an Amrut finished in cask that previously held peated Whisky and the second Whisky, a Cadenhead Paul John, consists for 40% of Peated Whisky. This time around, we’ll be looking into a single cask of Paul John, a totally unpeated one. Personally I believe Paul John in its peated variant is often at its best. However, like I claimed in the review of the Cadenhead Paul John, there are very good unpeated expressions as well, so lets see if #1444 is one of them.

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: Very nice entry, with Paul John’s trademark horseradish. A good Springbank has cocos, and a good Paul John has horseradish. Dusty horseradish in this case, like dried out horseradish cream (from a jar). Prickly and spicy, with trace amounts of smoke and floral soap. Appetizing. Cola flavoured wood, and a zesty oak flavour. Appealing in this zesty soda kind of way. Maybe they should carbonate this particular expression of Paul John? The wood now turns a bit vegetal, somewhat virgin, although it is highly unlikely this came from a virgin oak cask. Cold tea. Complex. This has pencil shavings which is also quite normal for a Paul John, but much less than other unpeated expressions, which is a good thing in my book, since that aroma can often dominate the Whisky, masking the complexity it might have and thus resulting in a lower score. So it seems this is a better balanced unpeated single cask than the ones reviewed earlier. The nose benefits hugely from sipping, showing yet more layers. Wow. Sometimes I smell some creamy fruits from an Alsatian Gewürztraminer (not the lychee by the way). How is that for complexity.

Taste: Wood, mocha, ashes and horseradish toffee. Prickly (white pepper?) and somewhat sweet. Again showing great balance. The next wave concentrates more around the sweet bit, now showing a ripe fruitiness. Yet also quite some wood without ever getting bitter. Hints of virgin oak again, but also some dusty old dried out leather books. Classy. A slight lemony acidity (lemon meringue) at the end of the body and well into the finish, which is nice, nutty and long. Walnuts without the bitter skin, the flesh of walnuts only, so to speak. Warming finish and thus this nutty and woody aftertaste with again quite some length.

I have to say this is a very nice dram, and may very well be the best of the unpeated Paul John’s I tried up ’till now. Just compare this one to the other unpeated official single casks: #1906 (87 points) and #1051 (84 points). Great balance and it all works together quite nicely. The aromas in the nose are nice, as well as on the palate, and both the nose and the taste fit together well. Nice finish and a good lengthy aftertaste. Very good example this one, definitely my favourite of the unpeated ones. Funny really, all these single casks look alike especially because a lot of information is lacking. What kind of cask it is, how many bottles, distillation year and so on. So they all look the same, they seem to come all from Bourbon barrels, but the difference between the different casks can still be really great.

Points: 89

Ardmore 1996/2014 (43%, Gordon & MacPhail, Distillery Label, Refill Sherry Hogsheads)

Why review one Ardmore, when you can review two? Hidden far away in a wooden box, where I keep my odd-shaped sample bottles, I found this more recent Ardmore. All Ardmores I reviewed up ’till now, were somewhat older bottlings, and this one is more recent. 2014 is not that long ago isn’t it? Gordon & MacPhail released 1996 Ardmores in 2013 and 2014, and both are still available, so I guess they hold off a new release, untill both of these sell out. Where on one side we have official bottlings (OB’s), in this case the range released by Beam Suntory (the owners of Ardmore), on the other side we have independent bottlers (IB’s). Usually, firms that buy casks of Whisky and bottle them as a single cask (usually).

However, this particular Gordon & MacPhail bottling lies somewhere in between. This series is known as the licensed bottlings, but are also known as the distillery labels. This comes from the time the owners of certain distilleries allow Gordon & MacPhail to bottle a Whisky and market it as the “official” release, since back then the owners didn’t release an official bottling themselves, probably using the output from that distillery for blends.

Gordon & MacPhail do their own wood management (The wood makes the whisky). They bring in their own casks and fill them at a distillery. Sometimes they leave the cask to mature at the distillery, but more often they take it with them to their own warehouses.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Creamy, vanilla and ice-cream, oh and Sherried as well. On top some smoke. Right from the start this is very well-balanced. Everything is where it’s supposed to be. Sherry casks from American oak. Very sweet, big and thick smelling. Nutty. Almonds, with hints of clay. Add to this a fruity cloying sweetness with an edge of perfect peat, with sometimes some burnt match-stick aroma’s, with only a tiny hint of the sulphur. The sulphur is a mere trace, and I don’t pick it up every time I try this. Next to this the Sherry gives off a funky note which should be an off-note, but here, it works well in the construct of the nose. Almost like artificial orange powder (Sinaspril). Fire-place in the middle of winter. Almost christmas. Lots of vanilla comes next and the smoky note stays. Works very nice together. As I said, very well-balanced indeed. Medium complexity though, and it shows its hand quite quickly. After that, not a lot of development is happening.

Taste: Ahhh, yes. Nice (simple) sweet, creamy, nutty and (red) fruity Sherry nose, mixed in with vanilla and big toffee. Cold black tea. It’s big on the Sherry, the almonds and the cream this is. Also a slightly bitter oaky edge. Peat, but it’s aroma is different from the nose. Stricter and more modern. The fruit evolves in acidity. Excellent smoky note. Come to think of it, where is the wood influence? The wood may have made this Whisky (imho, the Sherry did), but where is the wood itself? Sure it has a lot of vanilla and creamy notes, so American oak was used, I believe, this one would have been better in European oak. A similar thing happens as it did with the nose. Everything is there right from the start and hardly any evolution happens after that. Balanced, yes, sure, but not as much as the nose. Lacks even more complexity than the nose.

Right from the start I thought it was nice, and it is. The journey, however, I was about to take with this Ardmore didn’t happen. Alas. A good Whisky, but it is what it is. The start was promising, and it started with a nice statement from the nose. After that it all went a bit downhill and simple. The Ardmore I reviewed last, also has its flaws, and I can’t say this one is better, hence the similar score. Both are good, but I expected a bit more, especially since in this one, the Ardmore distillery character is obvious in the nose, but not on the palate.

Points: 85

Bowmore 1996/2014 “Aniseed Pastille” (46%, Wemyss Malts, Single Cask Release, Hogshead, 344 bottles)

This is not the first Wemyss bottling on Master Quill, but it is definitely the second and most certainly not the last. In the previous review I mentioned something about William Wemyss, so I won’t repeat that here.

Wemyss Malts (Edinburgh) was established in 2005 by William, who previously made a name for the Wemyss family in the wine business, producing Fonty’s Pool (Western Australia) and Rimauresq (Provence, France). Wemyss is Scottish and owns land where in the early 19th century John Haig’s first distillery, Cameronbridge, was built. Wemyss also grows barley there, that is used by several Scottish Malt Whisky distilleries, so historically the interest in Whisky has always been there.

Wemyss Malts releases vintage single cask Whiskies from many different distilleries as well as a few Blended Malts (since 2005), a Blended Whisky called Lord Elcho (since 2012) and through another company, a Gin (Darnley’s View, since 2010). The single cask bottlings are reduced to 46% and get a “name” in a similar way SMWS uses a flavour descriptor on their Whiskies. In 2013 William entered a new phase in their Whisky-adventure by purchasing the Kingsbarns distillery project at East Newhall Farm in Fife from Douglas Clement, who had problems raising money to fund the building of the distillery. The distillery is managed under Wemyss Distillery Ltd. which is a separate company from Wemyss Malts. Kingsbarns produces spirit since January 2015, so maybe we can expect their first Single Malt very soon. Since it is supposed to be a light and fruity Whisky, I expect it during summer. At first Douglas stayed on as founding director and as manager of the visitor centre. However, Douglas eventually left the distillery by the end of 2016 to ‘pursue other projects’.

Color: Light citrussy gold.

Nose: Big and fresh. This jumps out of my glass, like a young dog, full of life, wanting to lick you in the face. I hope this makes you understand, that this doesn’t smell like a heavy hitting Islay Malt, but a more friendly one. Nice soft peat, with a spiral of smoke rising from our bonfire. Fresh almonds, but it’s not a nutty Whisky. Apart from that, it’s quite citrussy, fresh and thus fruity, hence the friendliness of this Malt. Salty smoked fish with hints of sea-spray. Yes a bit of creamy vanilla, but no real woody notes. Only a tiny bit of wood and an even tinier hint of liquorice. Cigarette ashes? Proper refill hogshead. If smelled longer and more vigorously, I also get some more soft red fruits, ripe raspberry’s come to mind mixed in with some mud and a black pepper edge. Dirty friendly stuff. Smells excellent!

Taste: Sweet on entry. Toffee and runny caramel. Here comes sticky sweetness. Waxy and quite some soft peat. Ashes and slightly tarry. Already suffers a bit from reduction. Orange skins (bitter) and a bit of paper. Nutty notes again, not much though, followed by more smoky notes embedded in the sticky sweetness, giving some sharpness. Paper-like note keeps coming back to me. On the sides of my tongue there is this slight bitter note of aniseed. The power of suggestion? Yes I do get aniseed, but the sweetness is different. Not the dry, hard sugar of the pastilles, but rather soft toffee. Otherwise, I find this Bowmore a wee bit too simple in the taste department. Lacks development as well. It doesn’t have a long finish, nor a lot of aftertaste, which is built around sweetness and smoke (and secretly some black fruits I love in Bowmore), but where is the wood? Again, easy to drink, but a bit too simple. Depending on your day, because you, the taster, are far from being objective, the bitterness shifts in or out of focus. The second time around I tasted this for this review, on another day, I found it to be more bitter than the first time around (more fruity). Isn’t that complexity?

Comparing this Wemyss version of Bowmore, to Bowmore’s own take on Bowmore, I decided to do a head-2-head with “White Sands” an official 17yo travel retail Bowmore reduced to an even more un-modern 43% ABV. This bottling comes with the special recommendation of Eddie MacAffer, and yes, the “White Sands” is a bit more special, read: different. First of all it has development on the nose and more depth. More industrial, oily, smoky and burning notes. Brooding and more woody. However, if I had both bottles open at the same time, the Wemyss would be finished sooner…

Points: 85

Cotswolds Single Malt Whisky “Inaugural Release” 2014/2017 (46%, OB, First Fill Bourbon Barrels, 4000 bottles)

Every year our team attends the Whisky Show in London, and every year we come across something that surprises us. Usually it is a particular distiller. One time it was the range of Tomatin, and more recently we really liked the stuff of Indian Distiller Paul John. For example, last year, the only bottle I bought was a single cask Paul John. This year we found that the crux of the festival seemed not to be a particular distiller or brand, rather than the high quality of young Whiskies and/or new distilleries. Sure, there was a plethora of amazing old Whiskies on the Gordon & MacPhail stand and there is always nice super-premium stuff at the Diageo stand, but for us this year was about very nice young Whiskies. And guess what, they all came with age statements! Yes, it can be done! Funny enough, also young Whiskies coming from distilleries, people, (including me), tend to ignore. So, this year, I returned home with an 8 year old Tamnavulin, an 8 year old Glen Moray, a 10 year old Glenlivet and finally a 12 year old Tormore. All young, age stated, single casks and all from independent bottlers. Highly affordable as well. Before I forget, equally amazing was the Ailsa Bay and the man behind it. Today we are going to look at another young Whisky. The first release of an English Single Malt Whisky from the Cotswolds.

In my mind when a new distillery opens, it’s the brain child of two blokes who think they can do things better and try to conquer the world. Yes, I’m a romantic. Not true here, the two blokes thing, that is. This Whisky isn’t made in a shed in the Cotswolds. No, the Cotswolds distillery is the brain-child of Daniel Szor. A New York banker from Polish descent. Unfortunately his parents never learned him the language. Believe me, I tried, nope, Cotswolds is definitely not a shed. It’s a full fled distillery with tours and everything and a lot of staff, a lot, so I guess mr. Szor has some big plans, and is here to stay!

Color: Gold.

Nose: Floral, zesty, young and very perfumy. Big aroma. Cinnamon, cinnamon (again), more cinnamon and bread, cereal, sawdust and lots of notes from first fill Bourbon casks. Vanilla pods and Sinaspril pills. So yes, a nice acidic note as well. Insence sticks. No off-notes whatsoever and hardly any trace of new-made spirit. Nice wood, beautiful wood actually. Dry leaves and toasted toffee. Hints of candied yellow fruits in the distance. Spicy like an Indian Malt. Not sure this comes from the wood or are they using indian six-row barley at Cotswolds? The florality reminds me of Indian Whisky as well. Very appetizing. Well balanced and again a very big nose. Wonderful aroma’s coming together nicely. Still young and it already shows a lot of potential, which doesn’t mean this inaugural release isn’t worth it, because it is! Well done team!

Taste: On entry a wee bit thinner than expected and after that, an elegant and mouth coating young Malt emerges. Slightly sweet, slightly bitter, with toffee and caramel notes, and a lot of aromas coming from the first fill Bourbon casks. Making the body “bigger” than the entry was. Not as sweet as the nose promised. Already some nice yellow fruits though, as well as a hint of latex paint and machine oil? Wow. A desert in itself. Sweetish. Vanilla with a spicy note added to it. Just like the nose, quite Indian in style. Very appetizing stuff. The wood is almost virgin now, with a sharp spicy edge to it. Oats and crackers. Cigarette ash and toasted oak mixed with light fruity acidity. Again, lots of balance for such a young malt from a new distillery. Nice aftertaste.

Amazing inaugural release of Cotswolds. I’m told this is three years old plus one day, (some mentioned four days, but who is counting days in Whisky?). Amazing Indian style nose reminding me of some Paul John releases but foremost of this Amrut.

As mentioned in the introduction. Distilleries these days, are able to put out some very nice young Whiskies, even the ugly ducklings of yesteryear, you know, those anonimous distilleries distilling for blends only, like the aforementioned Tamnavulin. Amazing stuff, but on the other hand, we the consumer, we also had some time, by way of NAS-Whiskies, to get used to the taste of younger Whiskies. Maybe we just needed some time to adjust, and accept the times they are a-changing? Really old Whiskies these days cost the same amount of money as a new car, and something a bit younger still costs about the same as a nice vacation. So yes, we did get used to the taste of younger Whiskies, but nevertheless, there is much good stuff going around, just different from the stuff we bought 10 or 20 years ago…

Points: 84

Plantation St. Lucia 2003 (43%, Old Reserve, 2014, St. Lucia)

Last year I reviewed two other Plantation Old Reserves. One from Guyana, and one from Jamaica. Both were quite good, and very well priced. Both were quite sweet as well, since both have some sugar added. Plantation calls it dosage, enhancing Rum with sugar, in the same way you use salt for your food. Cane sugar (syrup) is added to the Rum before ageing. They do it because they really believe it makes for a better Rum.

Most of the Rum-world lacks regulations, although efforts are being made, but on the other hand, Rum also has a history based on the production of sugar. Rum in a way is a by-product of sugar, so why shouldn’t a little bit of sugar be allowed to use?. In my early days, getting to know Rum, I somehow assumed Rum should be sweet, must be sweet, at least half-sweet. Only when I encountered high quality Rums, and single casks Rums, preferably bottled at cask strength, which obviously aren’t laced with added sugar, that I really came to know about Rum! So some believe Rum has a particular sugar-history, and some believe Rum gets better with adding some sugar in the early stages of production. Others are more militant and will kill you if you add sugar anywhere in the production of Rum. Rum should be pure. No mention though of Rums being to dry or to woody.

Looking back on its history, and its use in cocktails, I’m not against adding sugar to Rums in general, as long as it enhances the final product, making it really better. There is a market for it, just like there is a market for Spiced Rums. There is a market for mixers and there is a market for sippers. Nothing wrong with Spiced Rums, it is a subdivision of Rum. As an aficionado though, a Rum sipper, I would like to know upfront, from the label on the bottle, not by searching the internet that a particular Rum contains added sugar, and especially how much was added. I have experience enough to know how much sugar I can “handle”. Because, dear reader, too much added sugar in Rum can taste really bad! (It reminds me of the discussion around caramel coloring in Whisky, which I found makes the final product not only darker, but also taste rounder, more mono, more flat. Too much sugar will flatten your Rum). I won’t kill you, but for me, many Rums are too damn sweet. On the other hand if used sparsely and with taste, why not?

Since the intro is already quite lengthy, I never got around to say much about this bottle. So in a nutshell, if you want to know more about Plantation, I invite you to read my other reviews of Plantation Rums. It is no secret this Rum comes from the St. Lucia Distillery located on the St. Lucia island. It is a distillery with a few different stills. For this Plantation expression, 80% John Dore Pot Still, 15% Vendome Pot Still and finally 5% Column Still rum was blended together. Initial ageing took place in American oak casks on St. Lucia, shipped to France where the Rum was transferred into Ex-Cognac casks made from French oak for a secondary maturation for, I believe, 18 months.

Color: Full gold.

Nose: An explosion of aroma, almost like a Jamaican high ester Rum, but with many differences as well. Rummy and very fruity. Rum-raisins. A lot of sugared yellow fruits as well as some ripe banana skins, aided by some wood, paper and a fantastic burnt note. Vegetal oak mixed with sweet black tea. Creamy dried apricots with powdered coffee creamer and a slightly acidic note on top. Toffee with something extra. Chocolate with caramel. Nutty. Unripe red berries, old ginger and ripe plums. Grape seeds with some wood and rubber. Hints of smoke. Herbal and grassy. Next, a nice floral part emerges, sweet perfume with hints of rose and juniper. Cold black tea with a slightly smoky edge. Bonfire combined with burning cables. Almonds and butter. Fresh air after rain. Wonderfully complex, it never ends. I adore this one, a wonderful (tamed) beast. Perfect nose.

Taste: The slightly burnt note comes first. Big Rum. Fruity and floral, almost Gin-like. Sweetish but in no way cloying and hardly disturbing due to the humongous body this has, however this might very well be a bit too sweet. Luckily a minor problem this time, but a problem nevertheless. Next, an aroma of sugar-water. Big. big Rum. Nutty and leafy. Burning newspapers with hints of sweet peppermint and sweet chlorine. Medium bitter wax. I know this sounds weird, but it works. Medium, slightly bitter, finish, but with a long aftertaste. Very nice. Not as complex as the nose, but still top-notch. This may very well have some added sugar, but I don’t care, I love this one to death. Easily the best of the Old Reserves. I wonder how a good cask strength St. Lucia tastes like…

This Rum is a labour of love. In 2003 the master distiller of St. Lucia Laurie Bernard, who sadly passed away in 2012, challenged Alexandre Gabriel to blend a St. Lucia Rum choosing from the many Rums produced with the many stills on site, making it the best of the Old Reserve range. The result of that challenge is this very bottle, and I have to say. Job well done! This Rum is great in many ways. When placed in a Rum line-up, it doesn’t matter where you fit it in, it can cope with anything put before it, even heavy hitting Jamaican or Demerara Rums. Amazing. Second, it is really good, it is delicious and smells fantastic. Where the aforementioned Plantation Guyana and Jamaica were ok, or even good, this one is wow!

Points: 86

Epris 15yo 1999/2014 (45.4%, Cadenhead, Column Still, BMC, Brazil)

So Brazilian Rum eh? Is there such a thing? Sure, Rum made in Brazil, or is this maybe a Cachaça? What is Cachaça? Cachaça is made from fresh sugarcane juice that is fermented and distilled. Hmmm, isn’t that the same as Rhum Agricole? Yes it is similar, just made in a different part of the world. There is a major difference though. When Rhum Agricole is aged it is aged in Oak. Cachaça can be aged in any type of (native) wood allowing for more diverse aroma’s. Adding even more difference to the aromas of Cachaça, is that fermentation is done with wild yeast cells as opposed to single, highly controlled yeast strains used elsewhere in the Rum industry. Every Rum producer has their own specific strains, so to me there seems to be more adventure to Cachaça.

The (huge) Epris distillery is located in São Roque near São Paulo, Brazil. Back in 1999 the distillery made Rum for Bacardi and other types of alcoholic beverages. Well informed sources tell me Epris never made a true Cachaça, nor does the label mention the word. So the Epris distillate we have here is a Rum made from fresh cane juice, probably not adhering completely to the production methods and rules for Cachaça. So maybe close to, but not a true Cachaça. We also know this distillate is made in a column still. Today Epris doesn’t do “Rum” anymore. Today they focus on making fermented rice and Sake! Who would have thought. Brazil!

Color: White Wine.

Nose: Clean and elegant. Grass and hay. Powdery and green, mixed in with some vanilla. Some sweetness with nice wood influences. Distant red fruits, yet well in the back. Hints of pencil shavings and bamboo. Cane juice. Vegetal. Slightly perfumy but also whiffs of a more sweaty kind, pass by. Mocha and vanilla. Medium fresh on top. I’m sure I’m not objective here, but I think I smell some cooked brown rice now! Tea with sugar. Clean and very soft. Spicy with a tiny hint of smoke (toasted cask). yes, cold black tea. Leafy. Smelling this, it seems to me this isn’t made from molasses. In a way it is a bit simple. I have this in my glass for a while now, but I don’t get a lot of development (yet). I guess this may very well need a whole lot of air, and this is a freshly opened bottle I have here. Already quite appealing though.

Taste: Semi sweet, sugar, caramel and toffee. Very friendly and soft. A bit light, thin and simple. Small bitter edge, with some yellow sugared fruits. Greenish, vegetal and grassy, but in no way does this resemble a Rhum Agricole. Maybe it is somewhat closer to a diluted Rum or Arrack (we’ll get to that quite soon actually, stay tuned). Flavoured tea with some sugar-water. Medium finish with sometimes some peppermint. Alcoholic at times. Whiffs of (vanilla) Wodka. Not very active casks if you ask me. Not a lot stays around for the aftertaste, but also no off-notes. Easy to drink, and definitely growing on me.

I love this series of Cadenheads Rums, but in a way this particular one starts out a bit as a disappointment. I’ve tasted many others from this series that were stellar, this one just is too simple, and sligtly too sweet. In no way would I have thought this has aged for 15 years. Not very adventurous, so probably not a Cachaça made with wild (boys) yeast and aged in a funky wood type cask. Here the beauty lies in the details. Enjoyable and definitely worth my money. I wouldn’t buy a second one just yet, but you should buy your first one, just like me, because it is different from the rest and it’s definitely enjoyable. Having said all this, the Epris does start to grow on me, so it may very well get better with time, air and some care.

Points: 83