Tag Archives: Highland

Royal Lochnagar 28yo 1977/2005 (58.5%, Blackadder, Raw Cask, Hogshead #310, 260 bottles)

New Lochnagar was founded in 1845. New Lochnagar? Yes. First Lochnagar was built in 1823, and burnt down by “the competition” just three years later. The distillery was rebuilt, only to burn down again in 1841. So the distillery was rebuilt again in 1845 as New Lochnagar. Lochnagar became Royal in 1848 (it lies very close to Balmoral Castle). No more fires burning down the house, but still a lot of construction going on. In 1906 the distillery was rebuilt yet again and in 1963 completely renewed.

Here we will try an independent Lochnagar, again a Blackadder Raw Cask with cask sediment in the bottle. This time no powdered char, but only small chunks of charred wood.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Fresh, sea spray wich changes quickly into a damp wine cellar. Very spicy wood and vanilla. Resembles the sweet smell of a bourbon, high on rye. Mocha with a hint of ground coffee. Varnish and fresh mint leaves (not bruised). This smells like it will be very sweet. Very nice nose.

Taste: Strong and sweet, but luckily not as sweet the nose predicted. Butter caramels and the varnish is here again. The whole is very full bodied. Wood with Aspirin (wow, that’s a first). Nutty and ashy. The finish is drier than in the beginning, but still sweet enough to mask a lot of the wood. It doesn’t taste like it, but underneath it’s pretty woody. The dry finish ends in a little bitterness that reveals this woodyness.

In the end a quite nice Lochnagar. The finish is dryer and has some bitterness that seems a bit off compared with the sweetness from the beginning. Maybe not a 90+ scoring malt, but definitively a very interesting Lochnagar if you want a complete collection. Still, with these flaws in the finish I have a little soft spot for this Lochnagar, since the nose and the initial taste are really great.

Points: 88

p.s. This one is at the time of writing still available in Russia for 534 Euro’s

Teaninich 1983/2003 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice)

Teaninich isn’t amongst those superstars of Single Malt Whiskies around, but it has a fanatical following with certain enthusiasts. Well I’m one of them. Almost every time I taste a Teaninich, blind or not, this always tickles my fancy. I connect with it. It suits my palate. Dare we say: “For reasons not even science can wholly explain…”

Teaninich was founded in 1817. In 1970, yes a small jump in time, a whole new six still ‘distillery’ was built alongside the current one, consisting of four stills. The new one was called the A-side (The old stuff was therefore called the B-Side). They worked together as one distillery. In 1984 the old distillery was mothballed, and 15 years later, demolished.

Not a lot of officials around. A 10yo Flora & Fauna bottling, three and a half Rare Malts editions, one 17yo Manager’s Dram, and one 1996 Manager’s Choice. That’s it. Luckily there are a lot more independents, which brings us to our whisky of the day: A Gordon & MacPhail Teaninich from 1983, which can be from The A or B-side.

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Fresh, citrussy, and toffee. Vegetal, woody spiciness. Perfumy and hints of smoke and licorice. Great balance. The nose has body. I’m bonding with my Teaninich again.

Taste: Sweet, fruity, cherries and apricots. Nice body, luckily not reduced to death. Fantastic, that in 2003 it’s already 46% ABV and not less. It has wood, but without the sourness. Lots of esters. Great!

A long time ago I gave this 88 points. Not being a fan of ‘modern’ Connoisseurs Choice bottlings, since they could be all the same, and having the same color, and so on, but this one is great and deserves at least 88 points.

Points: 88

P.S. the picture is for the 2004 version. I tasted the 2003 version, but both look the same.

Glenmorangie 30yo 1972/2004 (44.3%, OB, Oloroso Cask Finish, 4548 bottles)

Founded in 1843 by William Mathesen, but whisky was distilled on site as early as 1703 (or 1738). Glenmorangie is now known for their stills with very tall necks that ensure a very light and clean spirit that had to reach incredible heights. Glenmorangie are also known for their Dr. Bill Lumsden, a man who doesn’t fear innovation and experimentation with his grains and woods.

This particular bottling consists of whisky that aged from 1972 to 1989 in Bourbon Barrels and was finished from 1989 to 2004 in Oloroso Casks. We only don’t know what casks they were. Butts or Puncheons, American of European oak.

Color: Orange Gold.

Nose: Waxy and cherry liqueur and black fruits. Nice old whisky smell, old wood. The combination of casks worked quite well for the nose. Perfumy. Butter on toast. Bakery shop. Hints of mint. Fades into something plant like, sweet rhubarb with raisins. Great nose.

Taste: Wood and spice, with clay and chocolate. The taste of clean white sugar. Sourness from the oak. Tastes thin. cappuccino, mocha with cream. Toast from the cask in the finish, and again some light esters and sourness. Pastry, hint of tar and dry altogether. Red lemonade and almonds.

The whole is pretty balanced. It’s easy noticeable that this is from light spirit. The nose is great, and the taste is very nice. The only two things that let this down is its lightness. And a Glenmorangie should be light, that’s one of their pillars. Personally I like a bit of body to it, like yesterdays Glenkinchie which also has a higher proof. The second thing that lets this whisky down is it’s slightly unbalanced finish. It breaks down a bit.

Points: 86

P.S. This comes in a very nice wooden box.

Clynelish 11yo 1994/2005 (58.9%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Sherry Butt #4011, 367 bottles)

Clynelish is a very popular dram. There are several reasons why. First of all it’s a sister of Brora, which maybe the best malt of all. Second. Clynelish has a unique waxy personality and it’s spirit is always of high quality. It’s very hard to find one that is not up to par.

Color: Full Gold, almost Orange.

Nose: Clean. Paper and wood. Spice and white pepper. Oranges with almonds and toffee. Leafy, waxy and coastal fresh with some added sherry mustiness. Later on some vanilla ice cream, cardboard and dust. It stays spicy throughout. Perfumy and a beautiful balance.

Taste: Spicy and definitively from a sherry cask. Wood, beer and spice again. Sweet and tarry. Shortbread and gingerlike. Turkish delight and has some traits of a Riesling wine. Full bodied. Slight sour wood and licorice on the finish.

I think it’s a bit of a shame this got bottled so soon. It’s good now, but what would this have been when it wood be several years older. Nothing here suggests its over the top or even near the full potential it could have reached. Nice Clynelish, always worth checking out.

Points: 86

Glengoyne 12yo ‘100 Proof’ (57.2%, OB, American Oak, Circa 2007)

There’s also ‘Cask Strength’ on the label, but wouldn’t that be really convenient that it’s precisely 100 Proof. What luck! And American Oak, what is it, a barrel, a hogshead, an American white oak butt or puncheon even? Just a little bit too much nonsense on the label.

Glengoyne then. Glengoyne got my interest because they were one of the first to specifically state, ‘unpeated malt’ on their labels. Also, I like the looks of the bottle ánd for still using Golden Promise amongst other barley’s of course. Golden Promise is somewhat of the holy grail of grains, because it is supposed to be very flavoursome. But the yield is not so good, compared to the favorites of today (which make all whiskies taste the same, to come out bluntly). So lets see if this one, and remember this is a fairly priced bottle, makes a golden promise.

Color: Very full gold, almost orange.

Nose: Malty and chocolaty, absolutely high-proof. Also quite a musty smell, heavy on yeast. Meaty even. The American Oak statement leads me to believe this is from Bourbon Casks, but the musty smell is very resemblant of Sherry and or First Fill Bourbon. Raisins. Very un-clean for a Glengoyne (which almost sounds like a complement doesn’t it?). Spicy and quite a good balance. This could well be a bang-for-your-buck type of malt.

Taste: Toasted wood, but still a lot of yeast. Can’t shake the Sherry here. High proof, so it makes an impression. Although this has bold flavours, the quality of the spirit shines through. Very Ahorn syrupy sweet, and corn sweetness, that’s totally different from the Ahorn. It almost tastes like a wheater! This could be a Weller, with some sherry musty and creamy yeastyness. It’s a picture with thick broad strokes. It is thick.

I know that Glengoyne is the perfect spirit to mature in refill casks. This is the way they make their casks “refill” for the next batch. But isn’t this first fill Glengoyne great? Simple, and with a style of its own. Very un-typical for Glengoyne, but still very nice. Maybe a bit too sweet? This I would drink playing cards. Lovely.

Points: 86

Brora 30yo (56.6%, OB, 2004, 3000 bottles)

This one is Priceless. I remember the times these came onto the market since 2002, and I heard people boycotting these bottles for their price, then around 250 Euro’s. Well in the mean time, these are still around but only just. When the moment comes these are really sold out, those boycotters will shoot themselves in the foot, especially when looking at whiskies issued today and what you can get these days for 250 Euro’s.

Unlike Talisker, Brora was a frequent visitor of the Rare Malt series, and we all know the 1972’s to be spectacular. People are starting to pay almost 2000 Euro’s for a 1972 Brora from The Douglas Laing Platinum Series. And just have a look at the 1972 Rare Malts. yes these Brora’s are that good. But I will never pay such money for Whisky, but I did pay 250 Euro’s for this one. I tasted a few of these 1972’s and most of the 30yo’s from Diageo. I even did head to head tastings with Platinum 72’s and 30yo’s. This version from 2004 must be filled with a lot, if not all of 1972 casks! And it is unbelievable. Anyone telling you that the Platinums are way better, well its a matter of taste isn’t it, but you catch my drift. I’ll stop the rambling now, and let the Whisky do the talking…

Color: Full gold

Nose: Very good,no, perfect nose. Perfect elegant peat. Gravy, clay, tea and mint. This nose isn’t actually that far away from the equally legendary Brora 29yo 1972/2002 (59.5%, Douglas Laing, Platinum, 240 bottles), just more subtle and rounded out (and that could be the difference between a single cask and a whisky made up of multiple casks). Yes, the nose is (near) perfect.

Taste: Sweet and ashy and endless depth. Great latent sweetness. Burnt toast. Very nice peat. Clay and milk chocolate. Cow dung (Yummie). Licorice, black and white powder. Just fantastic. Slightly sour wood in the finish but that fazes out, and the fantastic Brora returns to keep on lingering in your mouth. The taste it leaves in your mouth is very nice. Long finish.

Well, if there is any perfection possible, than in the top ten of those whiskies will be absolutely some Brora’s. It seems to me that there’s (and never will be) anything like it. It’s just that you think there must be the odd bottle of even better whisky around. A Springbank maybe, or a Port Ellen. Only this thought doesn’t allow you to give a 100 points score. So, the nose is perfect and yes there is some room for a better taste, therefore I score this Brora a measly…

Points: 97

Pulteney 8yo 1990/1998 (63.1%, Cadenhead, 222 bottles, 750 ml)

My good friend Christoph asked me to have a look at a clean bourbon cask whisky and look for mint. As it happens, I have just such a thing on my lectern, so let’s have an adventurous search for mint in this whisky. This whisky was opened on November, 27 2010 at a tasting session with my Whisky club “Het Genietschap” where the theme was “Whiskies younger than 10yo”. This was one of my entries (together with the Kilkerran). I remember I found it very closed when freshly opened. Just have a look at the picture from june 5, 2012. How full it still is.

Color: White wine, light gold.

Nose: Very clean bourbon nose, clean ethanol, some chocolaty wood and musty. Fresh sea air and powdery. Very typical for high cask strength young Cadenhead bourbon barrel whiskies. I’ve smelled everything there is now, no evolution, so we can move on to the taste. Beware it’s 63.1% ABV.

Taste: Strong and spicy, but not woody (just a bit). There’s also some smoke ánd a freshness resembling menthol a bit, but not mint. Everything is in the details. It’s great to taste something that’s spicy, not from the wood. It’s obviously sweet at this high strength, maybe a tad too sweet for my tastes. High alcohol with a lot of sugar can be a bit nauseating. This one’s on the precipice, but didn’t fall in.

As I said this is very typical for those high strength Cadenhead bottlings. They are very clean and reveal quite some information about how the cleanly distilled spirit from a distillery is. This is as honest as it can get, so it’s quite interesting to taste a few head to head. I guess this is a connoisseurs whisky. Not made for your gulping pleasure at a card game. And it can only be ‘enjoyed’ with caution. If you don’t give it enough attention, it will give you very little. The fun is maybe more in analyzing and discovery. The fun is also for those people (like me) who occasionally like their whiskies strong and utterly clean.

I once had a similar bottle of Tormore that was even stronger and older (13yo, 63.9%, 85 Points). There were many things wrong with it, like a very metallic taste, but still I had a lot of fun with it, when ‘enjoyed’ at the right moment. I found myself another bottle before it completely vanished of the face of the earth.

Sorry C. No mint, I’ll have to look further, or you have to taste this for yourself this summer 😉

Points: 84

Lochside 28yo 1981/2009 (56%, Blackadder, Raw Cask, Cask #617, 202 bottles)

One from the (in)famous Raw Cask series. A lot of ‘stories’ are told about this one. For instance that Blackadder just throw any toasted cask trash they can get their hands on in there during bottling.  That would be a shame wouldn’t it? Blackadder are also the people who bring us bottlings from the Aberdeen Distillers series and the Clydesdale series in the dumpy bottles.

The whisky in the bottles was distilled on the 23rd of February 1981 and was bottled in june 2009. Why do we know the day of distilling, but not the day of bottling? And why does anyone bother to put ‘Oak Cask’ on the label? What else is there? Plastic, Japanese Fig? Still, Blackadder gives us more information than a lot of others…

Lochside Distillery commenced as a Whisky Distillery in 1957, but before that is was a brewery. The side was mothballed in 1992 and demolished twelve years later. Most bottles that are around today are from 1981 and 1991 and come from all kinds of casks, no, not plastic and Japanese Fig, but Bourbon and Sherry. Barrels, hogsheads and butts.

Color: Gold with a slight greenish hue.

Nose: Fresh, spicy, but not very woody. Fat make-up powder. Vanilla with old paint. Licorice. Hints of a damp cellar. Flowery and you would expect it to be dry in the taste. After a while it develops in the glass. Sweat and dry construction wood or sawdust. If you give it some time and work it a bit, than it can be a very rewarding smell. In a laid back or introvert way. Again vanilla ice cream. Nice balance.

Taste: Wow, full body and spicy, Vanilla with apricot sauce. Nice! Yeah, this is it. Slightly beer like bitterness in the finish ánd black pepper. Alcoholic cherry bon-bon. Blueberry juice and creamy vanilla. Yes this has it all. When the bottle was opened at the Genietschap Lochside tasting, this was very closed and hard to score, but it has now opened shop. Very good. Like the nose, you have to work it a bit and give it a chance, but when you focus on the details, this is a gem!

Points: 91

Glen Ord 25yo (58.3%, OB, 2004)

Now a Special Release from Diageo. After the Rare Malts releases, came three annual releases. The first was a 28yo in 2003. The 25yo was the second in 2004, and was followed by a 30yo in 2005. As I’m writing this I don’t have a clue what to score this. The bottle is almost half empty (or half full?) and I have no clue yet. I remember the night vividly when I opened the bottle at a tasting of ‘The Genietschap‘ and we all didn’t like it that much. It was very closed and hard to score. After a while I tried it again and really loved it! It was full bodied and so very full of life. Never a dull moment with this one. It’s not that closed now, but still is hard to score (or is it?). I’ve never encountered a whisky that was so dependent on the mood of the taster. Well let’s see how I’m feeling today.

Color: Full Gold with a hint of copper.

Nose: Farmy ánd elegant, wow, how’s that possible? Sherried and dusty. Hey, again a hint of lemon grass, but this is no Balvenie! Now some clay and cream. The clay merges with some old furniture wood, let’s say mahogany. Well there you have it: Clay (farmy), and a mahogany cabinet (elegance). Well this nose is fabulous. I adore this. I can only hope this nose is in balance with an equally great taste.

Taste: Hot and spicy. Nutty. The wood comes through in a sour way (that’s “old” oak). This definitively needs water. Now it gives way to the sweetness, honey, not sugar. The nutty part reveals itself as being almond. Do I detect some paint? (don’t be alarmed). Wood is still here and gives just the right amount of bitterness. I don’t like bitter finishes, but this is something different. A 25yo whisky should have a woody part, for it’s balance and the balance is great here. Yes I feel good, better than James Brown! This shure is a great Ord. Nice half-sweet amber in combination with the wood makes for a great finish. This time it’s in top form. Gave this a lot of time to develop and you’ll be rewarded. It needs a lot of air and the whisky will benefit a lot from oxidation.

Can you imagine this was dumped on the market in 2010/2011 for almost half price? The package is great. Nice box with an even better decanter bottle. Feel’s nice in the hand.

To finish off, here is a link to Whiskybase, where you can find another take on this whisky by my “mate” alectron.

Points: 90