Tag Archives: 2015

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

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

Color: Full gold, just shy of orange gold.

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

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

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

Points: 80

Springbank 12yo 2003/2015 (58.3%, OB, Port Pipe, for UK Customers, 696 bottles, 15/177)

When the fifth release of Springbank Local Barley 10yo (2019) hit the shelf, I was offered a generous sample by Nico. In stead of money exchanging hands, it is always nicer and more adventurous to exchange it for a sample that hopefully can stand up to the Local Barley. Looking through my stock, I decided upon this single cask bottling for UK customers. I opened it, filled a sample bottle for Nico and when he got it, we had contact whilst he was trying it. Sort of an online tasting. I poured myself a wee dram as well. Well, what can I say, we both liked it. At first Nico liked it big time and appreciated it even more than I did, and I already did like it. Some time has passed since then, and with some air, and maybe even some more balance to it, it is time to have this more “official” look at this full time Port cask matured Whisky from the stills of Springbank Distillery.

Color: Orange gold. No red hue.

Nose: Funky Wine. Fresh and fruity smelling. Cherries (fresh and sour ones), sweet licorice, waxy and oily. Traces of peat, hints of dust and cardboard. Warm electricity cable and sometimes a whiff of hospital (ether). Funky organics and animalesk. Fruity and slightly sweet smelling. Nice warm wood notes with almonds and after a while a soapy note emerges, at times more resembling a lemon based dishwater soap. Sounds bad, I know, but it’s not, giving it a fresher, more zesty phase. If this soapy note comes back in the taste though, than it’ll be a problem! The winey bit is very present and almost overpowering, and it doesn’t remind me necessarily of Port. It was bottled just in time for it be be nice smelling and balanced in the nose as well. At times floral and perfumy. This is a nice smelling and highly complex Springbank, showing its provenance because of the oils and fats, not dissimilar to a (very) good batch of the 10yo. I see this as a Springbank “+”. It still is clearly a Springbank with just another layer added. Some light and subdued mixture of kitchen spices and sometimes some notes of hay and dry grass. Amazing balance and complexity in the nose. After a while a more fresh oak note emerges, and more grass, especially after sipping it. The nose becomes even better and more balanced after sipping.

Taste: Nice big entry. Again fatty, fruity and nutty, yet much less so than on the nose. Waxy and ever so slightly peaty, with a peppery and spicy attack (not yet from the wood it was aged in). Deep note of peat and red ripe fruit (and some plastic?). Big, big, big, yet somewhat less complex than the nose is. Black coal, maybe some tar and warm machine oil. More hints of wood, just like smelling fresh dried staves. Dried grass and definitely licorice. Honey-licorice with a slight bitterness and spiciness to it. Definitely more wood in here (eventually) than in the nose. Where the nose was almost overpowered by the fruity Port cask, here it is the other way ’round. The Springbank spirit overpowers the Port. Unmistakable Springbank here. Still enough fruit and sweetness now. You can’t call this sweet in any way, but there is some of it giving it even more balance, although I feel this is also less balanced than the nose was. More fruity wax, and the tiniest hint of clay. Fruity Port and some black coal in the finish. For this particular Malt, balance is very important. If the balance of the taste and the mouthfeel were just as good as the nose, than this would have scored (close to) 90 points.

A very good expression, yet not in the style of a daily drinker. A bit too demanding for that. Complex and big. In a way this doesn’t resemble a modern Malt. It has a rarely seen profile, that oozes the times of yesteryear. Also, to finish things off, if you want to catch some annoying fruit flies in your home, than this is your liquid of choice, even now that we’re well into autumn/fall.

Points: 88

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

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

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

Color: Orange gold.

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

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

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

Points: 86

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 007 (56.3%, OB, 2015)

I have to admit, I bailed on Laphroaig for a long time when the first signs of considerable quality loss were visible in the regular 10yo. A marketing person would mention that it has been made with an “improved recipe”. Change of ownership and the decision to sell out the brand a bit, with issuing lots of mediocre bottlings. Some luckily turn out to be a bit less mediocre than I initially thought. Assumptions, assumptions. The mother of all…thanks Jane!

The 1815 Edition, Brodir and Lore, weren’t as bad as others led me to believe. So after the 10 Cask Strength “Red Stripe”, I somehow “forgot” about newly released bottlings of Laphroaig and turned my attention elsewhere. Little did I know, because, forgetting about Laphroaig made me also pass on all these wonderful 10yo Cask Strength batches for a long time. So rather late, I started to backtrack. At the time of writing, batches #006 through #015 are still “reasonably priced” and batches #001 through #005 are already quite expensive (at auctions). Nevertheless, I was also able to get some Batch #006 and used that one as a starting point and work my way up from there. I still have to figure out a plan for batches #001 through #005 though. I’ll probably have to throw some money at these or hopefully score me some samples of those. As could be read earlier, batch #006 was very good indeed, now let’s move on to batch #007 a.k.a. the “James Bond” batch, I wonder why…

Color: Light orange gold. Batch 006 is ever so slightly darker.

Nose: Top notch peat, prickly smoke, briny and sweet. Starts big, but after some breathing it softens up a bit. Gaining even more balance. Yes, this needs some air. Very, very nice. In the plethora of Laphroaig’s slightly less fantastic (travel retail) bottlings, this shines like a big sun! Chalk and paper and some warm asphalt. Tarred rope, dried fish. Sweet and creamy. Fireplace on a chilly evening. Hints of Christmas spices and even a cold sea breeze whiff by. Man, this smells so good. Brings back memories. Hidden away between all these hard hitting aroma’s is some nice fruitiness and the tiniest hint of chlorine, hidden away in a breath of fresh air. This bottling is a testament that Laphroaig still has what it takes and for me it also functions a bit as an apology for the rest of the aforementioned bottlings, which aren’t all that bad to boot, but still… This one is definitely for Islay aficionado’s. If you are a novice please turn to “Lore”, get a bottle of this as well, but open it only of you feel you can appreciate something like this.

Taste: Licorice and sweet black and white powder. Nice soft peat hinting at a higher age than the 10 years claimed. Soft cream and again some hints of acidic red fruits. The smoke and sweetness perform a delicate dance. Warming going down. Take this as a nightcap and you’ll sleep like a baby, or so I imagine. Don’t taste this carelessly or a lot might go unnoticed, This needs your attention like a faithful dog. This Laphroaig will love you back in the same way. Licking the insides of your face. Come to think of it, this does have a animalesk note, wet dog maybe too? Nice balanced finish, but the aftertaste doesn’t seem very long. It does leave a minty feel on my tongue though.

Amazing this is so much better than a lot of the Laphroaig’s I reviewed last. Considering the price, I have not really a use for a “Lore”, a “1815”, a “An Cuan Mor”, or even a “Brodir”. Sorry, but this one here, this is the one for me, I like it even way more than the 18yo, which is no “dog” as well. If I need Laphroaig-variation, I’m getting several different batches of the 10yo Cask Strength. that sounds like a sound plan! I really like Ardbeg Uigeadail and Ardbeg Corryvreckan, but these Original Cask Strength’s trumps both, it also costs a bit more, don’t forget about that. Luckily these three are different from one another, so this warrants me (and you) getting all of them. Yey!

Both #006 and #007 smell quite similar, and the difference, as well as the beauty, lies in the details. Batch #006 seems a bit more raw, more sea, minty, fresh salty air and less sweet, but also has a more perfumy note. Meatier even maybe and some more clay. Batch #007 has a meaty note as well, but it differs. Batch #006 has a black tea note that is absent from batch #007. Batch #007 is slightly sweeter smelling and has a herbal and spicy note which batch #006 doesn’t have. Batch #007 has a slightly more classic Bourbon cask note, and even hints of a fruity Sherry note. Batch 006 is dirtier and slightly “bigger”. I couldn’t say one nose is better than the other. As said above, similar quality, just some differences in the details. One moment I prefer a detail from one batch, and the next from the other…

Where the noses of batch #006 and #007 were quite similar, there is a slightly bigger difference taste-wise. Batch #006 is nicely sweet and very ashy, more raw and somewhat simpler maybe. Batch #007 tastes sweeter and more mellow, softer and fruitier, and slightly more polished and balanced as well, so I’m sure this taste profile would suit me better on other days. Batch #006 is more of a fisherman’s dram. Ashy, tarry and minty. Bigger, with more length and also slightly hotter, more powerful. Both are equally good and therefore score the same. But if I had to choose at gunpoint, today, I would prefer Batch 006 (the empty glass even smells bigger). If you aren’t an anorak or a completist, you don’t need both and either one of them will do, if you are an anorak you most definitely need both. Lots of them, for future reference!

Points: 92

Glenallachie 1999/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill Bourbon Barrels, AE/JJCG, 23/01/2015)

So in earlier reviews I found out that Glenallachie probably isn’t one of my lesser known distilleries that really click with me. Some bottlings I tried were good, some a bit mediocre and some quite forgettable. Up ’till now nothing really stood out. I have a feeling though the newer Whiskies might prove to be better than ever, so Glenallachie might be on the way up again (for me). Nevertheless, Glenallachie is making quite a name for itself the last few years. Lots of official bottlings but also a lot of independent bottlings are coming to the marketplace, with quite a few people who like the output very much, so who am I to argue.

I have already reviewed some independently bottled Glenallachies: Dewar Rattray, Kintra, Beinn a’Cheo, Mo Òr and Cadenhead. Missing from this list is “the biggest and the baddest” of them all: Gordon & MacPhail. Here we have a 1999 distillate reduced to 46% ABV. Alas the only Cask Strength 1999 Gordon & MacPhail ever bottled was sent to Binny’s in the U.S. of A. Not really my neck of the woods. It was bottled way back in 2011. Hard to come across one of those now, since it doesn’t have a lot of collector value, so I can imagine the good people of the U.S. of A. drank most of them, an d rightly so! So without further ado, lets just dig into this reduced one from 2015, shall we?

Color: White Wine

Nose: Wow, very malty and sweet. Cookies, dusty oats and breakfast cereals. Dry grass and hay like. A brekkie Whisky. Sweet smelling cookie dough, with a green note, a fruity note and a cold dishwater note and thus quite appetizing and pleasant. Marzipan and ever so slightly nutty. After a while a tiny hint of licorice. This nuttiness is the closest it gets to wood, because the wood itself is hardly noticeable. It has quite an interesting and appealing perfume to it as well, which emerges somewhat later from my glass. This is real and honest stuff and maybe a bit back to basics, although it isn’t really basic nor simple for that matter. Just a very nice smelling Whisky. Excellent example what a spirit in some “basic and simple” Bourbon barrels can achieve, also proving that the Glenallachie spirit is a good one. Based on the nose alone this could be a very good Whisky, and based on the nose alone I would definitely buy it. Let’s move on.

Taste: Hmmm, quite different here on the palate. Starts fruity, with a surprising and definite bitter note. How strong this bitterness is perceived by the taster depends upon the taster. The first time around, I found this to be more better than the second time around. Runny, thin toffee, wood and thus its bitterness, yet also spicy with some black pepper. Dark chocolate, wood and an alcoholic note you get with those bonbons that contain alcohol. Based on the nose I didn’t expect this bitter note. I expected fruity caramel to be honest. Let’s take another sip. After a while I guess my palate just got used to the bitterness and it isn’t so dominant anymore. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but just like the nose, this palate has something really appealing and interesting which intrigues me. In this case the 46% ABV seems very soft. I may be used to, and prefer cask strength Whiskies to be honest, but this example seems very do-able in the alcohol department. Its neither harsh nor hot.

This will do very well as a daily drinker, or as an aperitif. However, do not make the mistake believing this is merely a simple, entry level Whisky. It is quirky, it is able to surprise you and I definitely like this one (especially after leaving it in my glass for a while to settle some more). Still, this has some bitter notes here and there, so buyer beware. Definitely noticeable is the reduction to 46%, sure quite a high ABV, but it is definitely different from a cask strength offering.

To me this smells and tastes like a classic ex-Bourbon casked Whisky, not modern at all. Would never have thought this was from 1999, which feels like yesterday to me. Maybe today it is a classic Whisky though. Personally I’m shifting my interest in Glenallachie. Where Mr. Walker puts out a lot of different casks, I will be, for the time being, sticking to ex-Bourbon Glenallachie. Again personally: I like this stuff way more than the heavily Sherried 15yo. Yeah, this is a nice surprise, have to find me one now somewhere.

Points: 86

Speyburn 1991/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill American Hogsheads)

Speyburn is a distillery that is owned by Inver House which also owns Balblair, Knockdhu, Pulteney and Balmenach. This is the first time a Speyburn features on these pages, and the last one of these five that lacked a penned down review from me. Speyburn distillery was founded by John Hopkins in 1897. John was a Whisky Merchant keen to have his own distillery to make Whisky. So this distillery is 125 years old now and managed to fly under my radar for a very long time. Personally I had so little to do with the output of this distillery, in all honesty, I thought this must be a rather new distillery. So in the world of Whisky aficionado’s, this Whisky never popped up. I’m a member of a Whisky club, that exists for 21 years now, and I believe Speyburn popped up only once. Why is that? Sometimes distilleries just have a bad reputation or no reputation at all (which may be even worse). Just look at Tobermory, which for a while had a bad reputation, and look at them now! Deanston (had a bad reputation for a while, not any more! Glen Moray and Fettercairn are still not very popular, but definitely on the way up. Some distilleries somehow just stay under the radar, without a reputation, in all anonymity, like Speyburn. Glen Spey is another one of which I’m not even sure if it had/has a bad reputation or it is just anonymous, since I never tried a lot of it. Never mind. Let’s introduce to us: Speyburn!

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Malty, half sweet and pretty nice. Fruity and dusty. The dusty bit has to do with soft (wet) wood, paper and cardboard (and some distant dried apricots manage to trickle down as well). Creamy and somewhat unpleasantly organic at first (which is short lived), somewhere in between dishwater and someone’s bad breath, or evenmy own. Otherwise a typical (fruity) hogshead nose, hogsheads made from American oak (ex-Bourbon) that is. The whole nose seems initially quite restraint, yet manages to open up quite nicely eventually. This one isn’t leaping out of my glass (maybe the reduction to 46% ABV was at fault). When given some time the balance will be better and the slight off note mostly disappears. The bad breath note has now more to do with the wood. It integrates with it. After a while the yellow, sugared fruit pop up some more, they were hidden behind a paper-like note. Dried papaya, dried peach and apricots, retaining thus the sweetness of it. But still there is this funky breath/wood bit behind it all, mixing in with a faint liquid licorice note. The wood is slightly losing its innocence as well, becoming more spicy and assertive. Good for you wood! Actually not a lot more is happening nose-wise, even after I give it some time to breathe. Fruity rainwater. The more this breathes the weaker it gets.

Taste: Well, nice entry, with a short-lived acidic note right from the start. Yes fruity and lively. Nicely so. Appetizing and friendly. Highly drinkable, especially at this ABV. In our modern times, 46% seems to be an ideal drinking strength (and also the bare minimum, since 43% isn’t really accepted any more), whereas 30 years ago, 40% did suffice. Just try some Connoisseurs Choices from that era. Wood and nuts. Creamy, sweet (artificial sugar like aspartame) and fruity. And the paper bit from the nose is here as well. Not a lot of bitterness from the wood, yet it manages to grow a bit over time. It is very “nice”, yet it also lacks a bit of complexity and evolution, although it does gain a bit on the palate if you let this stand for a while, becoming bigger and better. It is what it is, and it won’t change much. Paper and fruit in the finish.

Yes likeable and no, it doesn’t make up for the lack of complexity and evolution. Although nice at first, I guess I would get bored a bit, if I had to drink the whole bottle over a period of time. Good stuff for a bottle-share or a sample though, but the whole bottle I would pass on. It just isn’t exciting enough to warrant a buy. On the other hand, if you are new to Whisky, this might be an instant pleaser for you, so it has earned a spot for itself under the sun, and rightly so. Having said all that, I still did like it.

Points: 84

Paul John (59.5%, Single Cask #1906, 210 bottles, 2015)

In the previous review we delved into Paul John single cask #1051, although that particular one turned out to be a tad wonky. So I just had to compare it to another Paul John unpeated single cask. I still have some samples lying around from the golden Shilton Almeida era, probably the most passionate brand ambassador out there, and amongst others, certainly one of the best. Still baffled Paul John let him go, and since Shilton left the company, I don’t see a lot happening on-line yet at Paul John headquarters. Shilton moved on from the Goan sun to the sun that bakes Tel Aviv. One of Shilton’s samples is of cask #1906, like #1051, hailing from the same glorious year that was 2015. For most people certainly a better year than the virus infested, war ridden years we are living through these days.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Super fruity at first, and different from cask #1051. This just leaps out of my glass, with a nice sweet, fruity and surprisingly, flinty toasted cask notes, reminding me a bit of Pouilly Fumé. This cask also has more complexity to it, with a nice floral note as well as some lemon detergent, giving it more cleanliness, dûh, and freshness, even though it might sound horrible to some. Waxy and paper-like, meaty even, dry meat, beef jerky. No, this one is definitely more appetizing than #1051. More complex as well. The pencil shavings are here too, but much more toned down. The pencil shavings are overshadowed by the fruitiness, which is nice. Very nice spicy wood, just the right amount. Fresh butter. Well balanced stuff. This is from a 75% full sample, so this had a lot of time to interact with some air. To be honest, the cold dishwater is also recognizable, just less heavy handed and it has less of it than cask #1051 had. After some more air in my glass, the pencil shavings component does become more apparent, but it never gets to the same level as it does in #1051. The woody bit is more spicy, and evolves a little. More herbal and green. With this one, all seems to fall right in its place, much more balanced. Nice fruity nose, something that is lacking from #1051. A pleasant experience, as well as a pleasant surprise (after #1051). The Pouilly Fumé bit in the nose, makes this one extra special, since that flinty note works so well for this Malt.

Taste: sweet and waxy, (including a distinct paper or cardboard note), with an even bigger (red pepper?) sting to it. Distant mocha and milk chocolate. Quite some ripe yellow fruits. Wow, excellent. #1051 seems gloomy compared to this. #1051 is more like a winter Whisky, and shows nothing of the tropical shores of Goa. Quite some wax in this one again, as well as some soapy detergent. More wax than I expected and the woody bitterness is helped along by the wax. Less bitter than #1051. Appetizing stuff this one, with again quite a lot of influence from the wood. Next some more fruit, fresh, not over-ripe yellow fruit and some fresh citrus for zestiness and likeability. Also the acidity of red berries. Giving it an extra layer over #1051. In the finish some soft notes of anise and sweet licorice. Again not a big aftertaste, more like a lingering warmth, with a wee soft bitterness.

Well, in this review I compared this #1906 all the time to #1051 which I reviewed right before this one, so there isn’t a lot more to comment about here really. To sum things up: #1906 is a way more friendly example, more fruity, and the gloomy bits that overpower #1051 are here as well, just less of it. #1906 is also better balanced, and just better overall. Having tasted quite some Paul John single cask offerings, I would recommend you to pass on #1051, because there are a lot of better examples around, #1906 is just one of them, and #1906 isn’t even one of the very best, close, but not quite. Final observation: personally, I like the peated single cask offerings of Paul John even more than the unpeated ones. The peating levels are not very high, but highly effective and very tasty.

Points: 87

Paul John (58%, Single Cask #1051, for The Nectar Belgium, 2015)

Last year I wrote a review of the Malts of Scotland Paul John #15066, another unpeated example of a Paul John single cask Whisky. When I emptied that bottle, it got replaced by this official bottling from single cask #1051 picked by Mario G., and bottled for The Nectar in Belgium. I normally write my reviews of a half full/half empty bottle. You know the drill about optimists and pessimists. Most of the time, Whiskies need some time or air to reach their best, so it is actually a big no-no to review a freshly opened bottle. However, this time around, I’m writing this review from a nearly empty bottle, but I have been following the development of this bottle very sharply, and I do remember all the stages this Whisky went through over time. All this, because in this particular case, this actually was at its best right after the bottle was freshly opened. I was really happy with it, let’s say the first half of the bottle, and when I brought it with me for a tasting of my whisky club, the comments were not all that positive. Yes, it may have suffered a bit by the preceding Whiskies in the line-up, but when tasting it back a few days later, I also thought it wasn’t as good as it was earlier. I left a few drams in the bottle and let it sit for a while before reviewing it now. I will make an honest review, based on all its stages and not only about the last bit I have left at this point. I haven’t tasted it yet, this last bit, so let’s see what time did to it this time.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Buttery, woody and waxy. Quite nutty as well. The wood is fresh and lively at first with a nice spicy feel to it. Sweet smelling, fruity, with big notes of pencil shavings. Pencil shavings is what this Whisky always had over time, big time. Barley notes with cold dish water and dry grass. Do I detect the tiniest hint of clear glue? It still is quite simple in its approach, but what you get, smells good, yet also for some, maybe a bit dull. Dusty, now turning a bit meaty (gravy actually) and glue like, before the pencil shavings come back. Still overall a good nose, with the fruity bit taking a back seat. It’s still there but not really overpowering. Simple yet appetizing. It’s simpleness is also evident in the lack of development, over the course of time in my glass there isn’t really anything changing. This is one for first impressions and not one that must grow on you. Even though these are the last drops of the bottle, it smells nice and seems to have kept its quality. It’s good, but not a stellar smelling expression, with the main focus on cold dishwater (and barley) and especially the pencil shavings.

Taste: Sweet and very nutty on entry, with a nice (red pepper?) sting to it. After the first sweet wave comes a more fresh and acidic wave. Here is the cold dishwater again. All this is quickly surpassed by medium bitter and spicy oak and pencil shavings. Slightly minty as well, since it has a slight cooling effect on the middle of my tongue. I don’t remember from earlier tastings, the amount of bitterness it is showing now. The bitterness is somewhere in-between oak and the oils from the skin of oranges, without really being all that orange-y. You know what I mean. Luckily the bitterness is smack in the middle of the body and less pronounced in the finish. Warming going down with a more toffee-like and friendly finish, yet still a lot of wood of the pencil shavings kind. Finish and aftertaste have less staying power than expected, although quite warming. It just fades away.

When freshly opened this really was a very promising unpeated Paul John. Time and air however, didn’t do this Malt a lot of good. The freshly opened bottle showed a pleasant nose and rounded out taste, balanced and tasty. Over time the Malt got ripped apart a bit, thus showing less balance. This never has been a very complex Malt to boot. Based on the freshly opened bottle, I understand and support Mario for selecting it. I just learned over time, this wasn’t Paul John’s best offering. I understand the comments it got from the guys from the club, because in a way this is a delicate expression, even though it has a big body. This won’t do well in a flight, sandwiched between other Malts, also because it is different from most others. It doesn’t know too well how to mingle. When having only this one and focussing on it and analysing it, it is clear to me, that this is more than a decent Malt, even though I feel it was better when the bottle was freshly opened. It did suffer in the balance department over time and with air.

Points: 84

Dalmore 2001/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill American Hogsheads, AE/JBAC, 05/03/2015)

So here’s Dalmore. Dalmore isn’t a Whisky I have many bottles of, if any. It was also a long time ago Dalmore’s were featured on these pages. This is now the third review, after the two reviews I did back in 2014. Obviously one from the distillery itself, the 12yo from around 2004 (so also a while back) and one 11yo independent offering from Kintra Whisky from The Netherlands. Both a bit under my radar to be honest, not spurring a lot of interest in buying more Dalmore’s, (which I didn’t). Dalmore also seems known for some affordable middle-of-the-road bottles, as well as quite some super rare, super premium, super old bottlings, giving Macallan a run for its money. How odd. After all those years, yet another Dalmore managed to emerged on top of the heap of samples. After many of my own bottles, here is sample for a change. As often happens with distilleries and their owners, they tend to change hands more often than they used to back in the day. In the year of both other Dalmore reviews, namely 2014, the company that holds Dalmore, Whyte and Mackay, was bought by Philippines’ largest liquor company called Emperador. Just to refresh your memory, Whyte and Mackay doesn’t only operate Dalmore distillery, but also in their portfolio are: Fettercairn, Tamnavulin, Jura and Invergordon (grain).

Color: White Wine.

Nose: Fruity and Malty, with a tiny hint of smoke in the back. When freshly poured this is big on fruit, candied fruit, but a lot of this is just blown away rather quickly. Smells of toffee, caramel and apple, caramelized apple to be precise, but also fresh apple flesh and hints of apple skin. Warm cookie dough. Apple pie, but most definitely without the cinnamon, no cinnamon in this apple pie whatsoever. Fresh air and an even sharper breath of air, probably because of the smoky note this Whisky has. Maybe this comes from the toasted oak. Not sure right now. The Malty notes are getting more of a say and seem to introduce some more waxy notes, like the wax from the skin a red apple. With this waxy note comes the promise of some bitterness in the taste, we’ll see if that is the case here. By now, more wood as well. Sawdust from plywood. Dusty altogether. Hints of lemon peel and some remarkable horseradish notes, I didn’t expect here. Smells like a modern Whisky, although tasted blind, I wouldn’t have been surprised if this was coming from some sort of refill Sherry cask (as well). For me this doesn’t have (only) the classic refill Bourbon notes we all know so well by now. No, this one has something else as well, something I also picked up on in the Dalmore 12yo, being different from others.

Taste: Soft, spicy, slightly woody and creamy. Sugar water. Wood, paper and a nice sweet chewiness. Waxy and indeed slightly bitter. Having this in your mouth makes the nose expand a bit. Not really fruity though, but it is vegetal. Highly drinkable, but not easily drinkable, it seems to have a taste profile more cut out for aficionado’s or connoisseurs. It has too much fresh oak notes and it might be a bit too bitter for the general public I guess. It’s also rather simple and thin, although it does have good balance. However, after tasting this, the nose expands, more and more is showed there. I’m wondering if this effect of the nose evolving and the taste being rather simple, comes from too much reduction of this particular example. Medium finish at best, disintegrating a bit, but the aftertaste is nice and warming, shows some of the sweetness and paper-like bitterness this Whisky possesses.

Definitely different from both other reviewed Dalmore’s, and it is not as bad as it seems. It has to be worked a bit and personally, I wouldn’t like to try this as a novice. I like the vegetal notes it shows, but it needed a very long time in my glass to show this. More than 30 minutes for sure…

Points: 85

An Cnoc “Rascan” (46%, OB, Bourbon Barrels, Peated (11.1 ppm), 18.000 bottles, L15/188, 2015)

The distillery is Knockdhu (est. 1894) and a while back the Whisky itself bore that name as well. Not to further confuse the public, the name of the Whisky was changed to An Cnoc, since there already is a distillery, a village, a house and a Whisky, called Knockando (est. 1898). Knockando today is owned by Diageo (humongous conglomerate with even a headquarters in the L.A. of Blade Runner 2048), and Knockdhu by Inver House Distillers (small conglomerette), so guess who changed the name of their Whisky. Inver House owns five Scottish Whisky Distilleries in total: Balblair, Knockdhu, Pulteney, Speyburn and Balmenach distillery. All, apart from Balmenach, are also marketed as a Single Malt Whisky. I don’t know why, but An Cnoc is highly underrated, almost never heard of so not a lot of people visit them at Whisky shows. This makes me wanting to root for this underdog, wishing all of their output being nothing short of great, showing all those people who haven’t been taking an interest, what they are missing. So when a few of these peated versions popped up in a local store, I picked out two different ones, to see what it’s like. Rascan (yes, a NAS Whisky) is the first one of those two to grace my lectern, and the first An Cnoc on these pages. Under the radar? Check!

Color: Very light, lightly coloured water, not even White Wine.

Nose: More perfumy and creamy than peaty, but there is certainly some peat in this. This starts out with a whiff of mustiness, but this also dissipates rather quickly, maybe still a shadow of the huge off-note from the freshly opened bottle? When this was freshly opened, I was really disappointed. Young, milky, new make-like and definitely not done yet, highly unfinished and unbalanced. Lagavulin 10yo all over again. Still, that shouldn’t put us off, because we are experienced, so we know that 90% to 95% of all Whiskies get better over time. When the level of liquid becomes lower, more air gets in the bottle and reacts with the Whisky, allowing the spirit to open up and reach a better balance. When writing this review, already over half of the Whisky is gone, and it is a totally different Whisky now than it was earlier. If there was ever an example to show you that a Whisky needs to breathe, this is it. Now it is friendly, lightly peaty and citrus fresh, with a wee spicy and gingery note to it. Appetizing and quite appealing. Creamy biscuits, cookies, and fresh air. Lemon skins in fine pastry, complete with powdered sugar. The milky new make has gone to the place behind the rainbow, the eternal hunting fields, which is a big, big bonus for us. Medium strength dried kitchen spices. Light bonfire resembling that of the Lagavulin Distillers Edition I reviewed last, just more perfumy. A snuff of black pepper, unlit tobacco and some mint, adding to the light spiciness, whilst still remaining friendly and citrussy. As it has become, I quite like it, no, actually, I like it a lot. It’s a solid performer now. I don’t regret getting this for a minute now. Sure, it maybe light and maybe even a bit simple and easy going, but it still has a lot to offer and seems to have some power as well, because it can change te perception of the Whisky tasted following this one. I like it very much, and I’m glad I do.

Taste: Here it starts rather young and biscuity, with and excellent amount of sweetness (toffee). A light creamy sweetness with prickly smoke and a hint of sweet licorice and some other soft spices. Some bitterness from oak, (but it’s not woody, nor has it much American oak vanilla), and again, nice, crisp lemon sherbet freshness. Lemon curd. Next, a peaty aroma somewhere in between plastic, tar, wax and licorice. You can feel it going down. Yeah. Mucho salty lips. It’s a NAS bottling and definitely young, and sure, not very complex, but still this is a well made, balanced and really nice Whisky. I hoped for it and I’m happy it delivers in the end, after maybe a wonky start, that is. A heed of warning for some of you. Yes, this may very well be a peaty Whisky, but please don’t expect a heavy hitting Islay style Whisky. It isn’t, it contains peat alright, 11.1 ppm, but it’s only lightly peaty, with some sweetness and some more nice citrussy elements. This is almost a nice summery peaty Whisky so to speak, with high drinkability. It seems to me the longer this gets to breathe, the better it gets, as often the case. I even left a dram overnight (with a lid without a 100% seal), and the next day it was even better still. How is that for a hidden strength. Quality stuff for sure.

By now, every bottle I open, I leave the cork off for at least a day, as said before, almost every Whisky benefits from it, and especially full bottles. The nose showed some unfinished (off)notes when freshly opened, but this Malt reacts excellently to air. It gets better and better after breathing. By now, it shows no off notes whatsoever, and what became an enjoyable dram, now even shows the high quality it possesses. If you work on it a bit, this what might seem to be anonymous Whisky at first, might surprise you whit what it has on offer. An Cnoc is now definitely on my radar. I’m going to look for a cask strength expression from a refill hogshead which will tell me more about the distillate.

Points: 85