Tag Archives: Barrel

Tormore 14yo 1998/2013 (50%, Gordon & MacPhail, Exclusive for the Whisky Mercenary, First Fill Bourbon Barrel #1586, 277 bottles)

Easily the longest title for any of my blog posts. Finally summer is over, and the urge to drink some Whisky is back with a vengeance. Not that I’m happy about summer being over, especially when the last five years we hardly had a summer over here…

Next up to warm us up is a Gordon & MacPhail bottling of a 1998 Tormore, they bottled for The Whisky Mercenary a.k.a. Jürgen Vromans. Jürgen tries to pick some great casks for his own hobby-brand of Whiskies. Up ’till now Scottish and Irish products have been bottled under his own label. This time he picked a cask from Gordon & MacPhail. Gordon & MacPhail take their own casks to various distilleries and after they are filled, take them to their own warehouses for ageing. Gordon & MacPhail never sell a cask without it being bottled in one of their series.

Color: Light Gold

Nose: Floral, fresh and sweet, easily recognizable for a Tormore from a Bourbon Cask. They’re always a bit metallic, but in a way I like it. Just have a look here. It’s great to see, ehhh, smell the consistency, or distillery character. There are a lot of similarities between the Cadenhead 1984 and this 1998 Tormore. Nice balance between the sweetness of the nose and the wood spice from the cask. Quite perfumy, with a touch of smoke from the toasted cask, and floral (which is not soapy). Under this all some ginger and sugared yellow fruits, like dried apricots, which add to the complexity of the sweetness. This is how Tormore’s are and this is another fine example.

Taste: Less sweet than the nose let on to believe. Nice darkness with ginger, vanilla, paper and wood. The spiciness in combination with the brooding half-sweetness doesn’t let the finish become sour (from the oak). There is a fruitiness to it, and it seems to me to be from the black fruit department, blackberries? A little bit of mocha, toffee and/or unburnt caramel to round the Whisky off. Long nutty finish with a hint of mint. Pretty well-balanced stuff. I like it and I most definitely want it.

Nice Tormore by Gordon & MacPhail and for sure a great pick by Jürgen. A connoisseurs Whisky, otherwise Gordon & MacPhail wouldn’t have Jürgen take this away.  If you like the profile, this is a very nice Tormore, ánd I have to stress that I am a fan of whiskies @ 50% ABV. Excellent! I really love the Cadenhead but this is equally as good.

Points: 86

Ben Nevis 1986/2012 (58.2%, The House of MacDuff, The Golden Cask, CM 188, 111 bottles)

Here are a few firsts, and on paper a quite interesting one to boot. This is the first Ben Nevis on these pages. It’s also the first time I’m reviewing a Whisky that was bottled by The House of MacDuff. Now for the interesting part. Some of you might have read “Wort, worms & washbacks” The memoirs of John McDougall written by Gavin D. Smith. By the way, Gavin was “reviewed” once before, so he’s no first. The House of MacDuff is a venture of Jane MacDuff ánd John McDougall. John also picks the casks for bottling under the Golden Cask brand. For those of you who haven’t read this book, well it’s utterly entertaining and very funny. Recommended. John has worked at a lot of very interesting distilleries in all Scottish regions, so I’m assuming that all picks by John just have to be great. I got a few samples from the series, and I’ll start with this Ben Nevis from 1986.

Color: Pinkish gold

Nose: Fresh, sharp and fruity sweet. Black tea (dry leaves). Nice bourbon cask not dissimilar from the Cadenhead offerings (Bourbon Barrels). Warm apple sauce and quite thick. Condensed sweet apple. Not a lot of wood, but there seems to be enough vanillin going around in this. Sawdust. Slightly vegetal too. Hints only of ethanol.

Taste: Sweet, vegetal and slightly woody (multiplex). Quite full and round (sweet) mouthfeel. This is not bad, not very complex but very likeable. Taste is pretty balanced, for me it just goes a bit wrong in the finish. Slightly acidic and the vegetal part (fern) starts to play a larger role. Also, but very late, comes in some bitterness from the wood. Fern with the sweetness, and the slight bitterness, is maybe a strange combination, but hey it’s only part of the finish, so don’t worry.

The Golden Cask don’t disclose all the facts of the cask, but this is probably a Bourbon Barrel. This bottling has yielded 111 bottles, so I’m guessing the cask was shared and this is only half the output from the cask. The second half was probably bottled for the Whiskymesse Rüsselsheim. That bottling yielded 100 bottles. 100 bottles of whisky on the wall, was probably the original order with The Golden Cask buying the rest of barrel #133. Therefore this Ben Nevis should also be 26yo.

Points: 84

Lochside 18yo 1991/2009 (56.7%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Refill Bourbon Barrel #15220, 106 bottles)

Yet again we have one of the many 1991 Lochsides, and one of the many that were issued as a Gordon & MacPhail Reserve. This one was picked by Dutch retailer Van Wees. Gordon & MacPhail code for this one is JI/ACAC. The spirit was distilled on September 18th, 1991 and eventually bottled on October 15th, 2009. Picked by Van Wees in July 2009. Those of you that meticulously read this blog probably had a Deja Vu experience. We know this bottle, we know this lay-out. Well yes and no. February 4th 2013, I published a review of quite a similar Lochside, opened by Master Quill’s Apprentice (like this one). That was Cask #15217, here we have sister cask #15220, distilled and filled on the same day. This one was bottled some five months earlier, so here we have a chance to compare the two, to see what the effects are of another, but similar cask, and almost half a year of maturation…

Color: Gold (ever so slightly fuller in color)

Nose: Clean and fruity. Distant wood. Clay and organic. Dusty with smoked ham. All in good balance, but nothing pops out. A very quiet Lochside. The esters I remember from the “other” Barrel, are here too. Vanilla from the wood. The yeast is way down in this one, and there is no peat, rubber or petrol. It’s easier on the nose (more balanced), more rounded out, but also less complex. When nosing this a long time, slightly more (sour) oak comes along, but still not a lot, and it gets fresher, but in a mint and menthol kind of way. Also cherry liquor bonbons. The chocolate from them are in this Whisky too.

Taste: Sweet and farmy, with a great sweetish attack. Definitely less woody, at first, than the other Barrel. A nice peppery bite, next to the sweetness and the fruity, farmy notes. Again a nice big body, aided by the ABV. Honey and a great balance. Here too a chocolate liqueur bon-bon. Big body with a matching long and balanced finish. The wood is a lot more contained within this Lochside. Less vanilla though, so the wood reacted differently, it gave slightly more color, but less wood and vanilla. If you let it breathe for some time, the wood does play a larger role, and overall this is less “deep”.

You can’t go wrong with these kinds of Lochsides. There are a lot of 1991 bottles around, but they all are slightly different. sure the family resemblance is there, but I’ve tasted more of the 1991 G&M Reserve, and they all are variations of a theme. I feel it’s safe to say that some four or five months of extra maturation has a smaller effect on the maturation of a whisky, than te particular staves that were used making the barrel. Maybe I’m wrong. I just can’t imagine that the differences between cask #15217 and #15220, come from the small difference in maturation time. Here the “younger” one is more balanced but also less complex. For me I prefer the nose of barrel #15220 over #15217. Considering the taste, this one is easier, and less complex, but it has a better balance. All in all it’s definitely the same family, but the easiness, better balance and containment of the wood, the added farmyness and the difference in fruityness, makes me score this even two points higher. I just like this one better!

Points: 88

Thanks go out to Erik for providing yet another Lochside sample.

Glen Keith 19yo 1990/2010 (52.1%, Malts of Scotland, Bourbon Barrel #13678, 232 bottles)

Last time around we had a stellar but also antique 1967 Glen Keith bottled by Gordon & MacPhail. This time around we have a more modern expression distilled in 1990 bottled in 2010 by german outfit Malts of Scotland, in a more modern type bottle. Let’s see if a more modern Glen Keith is up to par. We’re now in April 2013 and this should be the month the distillery would be reopened. I have looked around in the media but haven’t found a word about it, so I guess the distillery hasn’t opened yet. I hope I can inform you on the reopening in the next Glen Keith review.

Color: Straw

Nose: Clean wood, overall clean, spicy naked wood or virgin oak as they like to call it. Not a lot of character for something that was 19 years in a barrel. Definitely a refill. a slight hint of vanilla, which can’t be a surprise. Cloves, not very ripe pears and a little bit creamy. Well considering all, clean is the word here, you could almost call this sterile, but I won’t because it isn’t. No faults too. I guess the spirit’s great, but the barrel didn’t do a lot for this Whisky. When warmed up a little, some grassy or hay-like notes appear and it gets slightly perfumy (like soap), mind you it’s not soapy! Maybe we should call this profile ‘honest’.

Taste: Sweet and creamy and actually very drinkable, Small hints of wood which gives the whole some character. Overall creamy, with vanilla and mocha and some ice-cream and clotted cream as well. It has a very confectionery feel to it. The sweetness is sugary, but again there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It’s quite nice, it’s very simple because there isn’t much to it, but easy drinkable likeable. An easy sipper, and I can imagine people having a lot of fun with this.

Let it breathe to open up. Well its incomparable to the oldies from the sixties and seventies. Those were mostly sherry bottlings to boot. Still this is from a cheap Bourbon Barrel, but it shows us that the spirit is rather good. For a simple refill cask. still it did nothing wrong and makes this a nice sippin’ Whisky. Nice.

Points: 84

The Balvenie 25yo “Single Barrel” 1974/2002 (46.9%, OB, Cask #13285)

Well, actually the Balvenie 25yo I reviewed earlier, was quite a disappointment. I have another single barrel here, so let’s see if this one is any better… By the way, again I couldn’t find a picture of a Balvenie 25yo Cask #13285, so here is a picture of the similar looking cask #10139

Color: Gold.

Nose: Waxy, sweet white sherry. A nice old, dried leaves and wood combination in the nose. Again you sense this is an old bottle. Vanilla and lemon freshness. This nose is less complex than cask #13282. The vanilla that’s in here is similar to the vanilla notes I got from Angostura rum 1919. I guess cask #13282 has a more refined nose, but this is equally exciting. More raw and different from the other one. I think this one is better, it is less complex, but has more to it. Wood and almonds come out when you sniff this vigorously, still it is not bad wood. Hot butter and some funky farminess, how’s that for a Balvenie! Lovely oldness to it all.

Taste: Sweet and even slightly acidic, and no heavy wood attack like cask #13282, hurrah. Fatty and mouth coating wax. This one is immediately a lot better. The wood is here and very noticeable. The dry leaves are here too, but this doesn’t attack you with that unrelenting bitterness. This cask has also a lot of wood to it, but the bitterness is held in check. It does lack a bit of complexity though. There isn’t a lot more to it than this. Nice old Balvenie.

Great to try these Balvenies so close together. These are sister casks, but do show quite some difference. It’s not only the bitterness that is obvious. Comparing these two there is infinitely more. That goes to show, how big the differences can be between two similar bottles, and how buying without tasting is so tricky. I would also like to point out that the reduction that obviously took place here isn’t a problem, this Whisky holds the fort. Actually it’s the best Balvenie I had in a very long time. Still no 90’s score though…

Points: 88

The Balvenie 25yo “Single Barrel” 1974/2002 (46.9%, OB, Cask #13282)

A long time ago, between 2000 and 2004, The Balvenie issued a series of single barrel bottlings similar to the 15yo, these bottlings however were much older, these were matured a further 10 years to become the 25yo single casks. All from 1974 (most of them) or 1978. And all at the convenient strength of 46.9% ABV. Who came up with this number anyway? By the way, I couldn’t find a picture of a Balvenie 25yo Cask #13282, so here is a picture of the similar looking cask #10141, that was bottled two years earlier. Most of these 25yo’s were bottled in 2000.

Color: Gold

Nose: Light, buttery, and very accessible. A little old bottle waxiness, but not a lot. Let’s say it’s not a 1972 Caperdonich. Some sugared yellow fruits and hints of banana. Still it does smell like something they don’t make anymore. Also some seaside freshness to this. After some breathing, it does come around a bit, it opens up. More fruit and more dusty ol’ wood. Almost an old Alsatian Gewürztraminer. Nope, this doesn’t lack complexity. Some hints of vanilla (ice-cream). Quite good, but very restraint. This one would have been great to nose at a higher strength. I have to say, that the longer you wait, the better the nose develops and gets more and more character.

Taste: Fruity and old wood again. It has a small initial bite that comes mostly from the oak. Finish is medium body with enough saying power. Vanilla and creamy texture. The fattiness dissipates quickly and the whisky breaks down in towards the finish. Wood attack! put this in your mouth and you think is pretty good (not great alas), but the vanilla fat is stripped, and you get hit by more bitterness than expected. The palate does lack complexity and balance. Aiii.

This starts out pretty good, great nose (eventually) and a great initial taste, but it all turns on you a bit, when the bitterness hits you, and leaves you with an unbalanced finish. To be frank, let this slip and try to locate an old 15yo (50.4% ABV, you’ll get a better deal).

Points: 84

Lochside 18yo 1991/2010 (59.7%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Refill Bourbon Barrel #15217, 149 bottles)

Here we have one of the many 1991 Lochsides, and one of the many that were issued as a Gordon & MacPhail Reserve. This one was picked by Dutch retailer Van Wees. Gordon & MacPhail code for this one is AJ/JBEC. The spirit was distilled on September 18th, 1991 and eventually bottled on March 8th, 2010. Alas we don’t know exactly the date when Han van Wees tasted it and picked this ;-). Kudos to Gordon & MacPhail for all the information on the bottle and back label.

Color: Gold

Nose: Clean and farmy or organic. The wood is upfront too. Slightly yeasty and estery, which makes it a bit fruity. But the fruit isn’t here in abundance. Actually it is pretty dusty and comes across as dry. Do I detect some fatty peat in here? Small hints of rubber and smoke. This definitively is one to work with, and then the best things are in the details. There are some hidden treasures in this. Some vanilla, cream and petrol. Complex and nicely balanced. The longer I nose this the better it gets. Definitively peat and clay in here. Salty too. I’ve got to stop nosing this, otherwise this will never end…

Taste: Sweet and woody. On the precipice of bitterness. Still the bitterness is controlled by the sweetness. Nice big body, and the ABV helps with this. Creamy vanilla again, but with a bite from the wood. In the depth there is some sugared dried yellow fruits, Apricots are the most recognizable. The sweetness is also aided by some late acidity, that transports the hint of yellow fruit. It seems to me as if someone squeezed some lemon into this. peppery, woody attack. The finish is slightly off-balance, but overall this is a very good malt.

It seems to me you can’t go wrong with these kinds of Lochsides. There are a lot of 1991 bottles around, but they are all different. sure the family resemblance is there, but I’ve tasted more of the 1991 G&M Reserve, and they all are variations of a theme. Even the reduced Connoisseurs Choice are very drinkable summer whiskies. If that is the case I would say that these 1991 Reserve’s are more of your winter dram. Recommended.

Points: 86

Thanks go out to Erik for providing yet another sample.

Glen Moray 13yo 1996/2009 (43%, Ian MacLeod, Dun Bheagan, Sauternes Barrel Finish, Cask #91981/91984, 1419 bottles)

Second Dun Bhaegan on these pages, after the Brora 1981. But the first Glen Moray. For a while Glen Moray was owned by the people behind Glenmorangie, you know the distillery with the long-necked stills and the 16 men of Tain? In that period Glenmorangie saw the shortage is good casks and started to experiment a lot with wine-finishes. The ones they did not dare to use, they bestowed onto Glen Moray. So there are quite a lot of official Wine finishes by Glen Moray themselves. Now Ian MacLeod decided to add their wine finish of their own, or maybe bought it straight from the distillery.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Malty and sweet. Vanilla and quite spirity. A slightly winy smell comes in, along with some glue, cardboard and sawdust. Toffee adds to the vanilla. Gypsum. I cannot say this is very balanced. The longer you keep this the more is smells of a combination of solvents. Wait, now some plants come into the mix, just hard to say which ones. Given even some more time, the nose keeps developing. I like that in a malt, just the things you smell aren’t so special in this one. Clean wood and lavas now, and an overpowering kind of toffee.

Taste: Wood, paper, cardboard, but mostly wood. Spicy wood with some detached sweetness. (so not very balanced again). Quite hard and a bit bitter. Urine? After this straight into a finish of almost stale beer, cream and wood again. Sour.

Very simple, not a lot going on, and what is going on is not great for a whisky. It would have a lot of character if it were a Wodka. Still this very nice Wodka scores into the seventies. In a few words: Bitter-sweet wood toffee.

Points: 76

Ardmore 17yo 1993/2010 (56.2%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, First Fill Bourbon Barrel #5747, 244 bottles)

Let’s do another Ardmore and compare it to the day before yesterday’s offering by The Whiskyman. We all know that 1992 is somewhat of a good vintage for Ardmore. So let’s see what happened in the distillery a year later. This 1993 was bottled by Gordon & MacPhail and they were so kind to do that for Van Wees of The Netherlands.

Color: Gold

Nose: The same meaty, slightly peaty nose as The Whiskyman’s offering. Nice soap with green apples and other fruits. Leather. Dryer and more powdery. A little more wood too.

Taste: Great fruity sweet start, more ashy. Somewhat less complex and a tad more sourness from the wood. Same kind of peat. The peat itself is more chewy and more farmy. Toffee. Some mint in this one too. Rare black fruits in the drier and warming finish, but overall, a little less impressive than yesterday’s Ardmore.

This is an Ardmore, no doubt about it. Just nose it and you’ll smell the family resemblance to The Ardmore bottled by the Whiskyman. It’s from another year, but the nose is quite similar. In the taste department it’s a bit less balanced, but still has a lot going for it. I’m always a sucker for those black fruits in the finish. Like old style Bowmore for instance.

These 90’s Ardmore’s seem to me to be the Brora’s of the modern age. Great stuff. Recommended. I definitively have to look into Ardmore some more. So hopefully to be continued.

Points: 87

Ladyburn ‘Rare Ayrshire’ 36yo 1974/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, Bourbon Barrel #2608, 261 bottles, 500 ml)

As said before this distillery was briefly opened between 1966 and 1975. As far as vintages go not a lot were released. Officially a lot of 1973’s were released. This vintage was also released by Blackadder and Duncan Taylor. Signatory Vintage released a lot of 1975’s (and one 1974). Two of these 1975’s I have reviewed on these pages earlier. Last but not least in this case, Cadenheads had some releases from the opening year 1966, but that was a long time ago in 1979 and 1980. Besides these few ‘players” not a lot of Ladyburns are to be found. Now here pops up a 1974. As far as I know, there are three 1974’s released. Cask 2607 by Signatory @ 53.9% ABV (in 2011). Cask 2604 by Dutch bottler Van Wees @ 52.1% ABV, (also in 2011), and from 2010, Cask 2608 by fellow Dutch bottler Mo Òr @ 46% ABV. It’s not hard to guess how much (or how little) this got reduced. Rumour has it, these 1974 are pretty good.

Color: Light Gold

Nose: Very aromatic. Sweet and clean. Pops out of the glass. Fruity and lively. Great combination of farmyness and fruity sweetness. On the nose it’s already a lot better than the 1975 Ladyburns I tried before. Nice wood too. Great greenish notes with gravy. If the taste will be anything like the nose, we’ll have a winner on our hands. When this get’s time to breathe the lively fruits make room for something more dark and broody. Meaty and some perfume. Very interesting.

Taste: Fresh, fruity (pineapple) and in nothing you would say this is such an old malt. Not as complex as the nose is. The initial fruits are very quickly replaced by caramelized wood. Finish is good and slightly woody. But considering it’s age you would definitively expect more wood in this.

Very likeable Ladyburn. The nose is very much better than the 1975 Signatories I tried before. Taste wise, maybe not so complex, but less woody than the Signatories. Very nice Ladyburn, one of the best that’s still around, ánd reasonably priced as well!

Points: 86

Thanks again to Henk for this sample.