Longrow 10yo 1992 (46%, OB, 2002)

Back in the summer of 2016, I reviewed the 1993 10yo, the successor to the 1992 I’m about to review now. The 1993 stayed on the back of my mind, since I really liked that one, giving it 88 points. When, last year (2018), a local shop had a sale, this 1992 showed up for a very nice price, so at first I bought two, and a while later, at yet another sale at the same shop, I bought the two that remained on the shelves. That was 2018 and this was bottled in 2002, So not a very popular dram, it seems, in these neck of the woods.

Between 2001 and 2006, six similar looking annual release were bottled as a 10yo vintage, where the 1992 (from 2002) was the first one in the Springbank bottle we all know so well by now. (The 1991 was in the tall bottle).

Lets find out if this 1992 vintage is as good as the 1993 and lets find out if buying four bottles of this wasn’t a mistake. And yes, also with this one, the cork broke on me when first opened. Luckily I have my trusted brown bag with many corks in them, a life-saver in many occasions, especially when handling bottles with old corks.

Color: Light gold. Slightly more color to it compared to the 1993 vintage.

Nose: Fragrant meaty (light) peat, fatty and oily (olive), with a slight winey acidity. Freshening the whole up. In no way, this comes across as a heavily peated Whisky. Sugary barley and quite fruity. Buttery pop-corn and quite creamy. Well balanced, very appetizing and quite some depth to it. All works very well in this one. Soft and more meaty peat notes. Still light and soft. No smoke at all. Slightly fatty and it smells a bit sweet as well. Hey, apart from the nuttiness I almost missed, here also comes a burnt and smoky note, I always miss in the evening. Yes, I’m trying it now before breakfast. You should try it. Sugared and dried yellow fruits, but also a small hint of oranges. Yes, distant citrus fruits in the back. A very friendly and accessible Longrow. Longrow sees more peat than Springbank, but still Longrow can be very soft, and this one is no exception.

Taste: Starts with a short attack of smoke, quickly followed by the fruity bits and the soft peat. Butter. Toast with warm butter. Lots of fruity bits, some slightly acidic, and some sweet. Again light and soft and dangerously drinkable. Slightly salty as well when I lick my lips. Nice. Also a heavier note emerges. Fatty and caramel-like. Licorice. After a while more smoky, burnt and peaty notes emerge in the body of this Whisky. Time release? Fresh butter now. More creamy elements emerge from the Whisky. The lightness shows itself best towards the finish. Quite short and light, leaving only a warming note behind, without me being able to tell which of the notes mentioned above stays behind. One of the fruits probably, a nutty note, and some peat. If you wait a bit longer, it’s definitely the peat which has the staying power to make it well into the after taste. Nice stuff altogether, the only beef I have with it, this morning, is that it finishes a bit too sweet. It may be a daily drinker type of Whisky in the evening, but less so in the morning when I think of the sweetness. On another mornings the sweetness seemed less predominant and the buttery notes (with the toast as well), do make this a breakfast Whisky. Go figure, taste is a peculiar thing and we as humans are subjective as tasters beyond belief, so please take that into account.

Now lets see how the 1992 compares to the 1993 I reviewed earlier. Well just in case you thought all the vintages are alike. I can safely say that the noses of te 1992 and the 1993 are different. The 1993 is a tad more medicinal and lacks the creamy and buttery notes of the 1992. Somewhat more predominant in the wood department, but not by much. The fruit is similar, but toned down a lot of notches. The 1993 is smokier and reminds me of a sea breeze. It’s also cleaner and more oak is noticeable. Yes even some unlit cuban cigar tobacco. I guess that wasn’t in the original review of the 1993. I guess the relative sweetness of the 1992 hides the wood and all the other notes (if present). Where the 1993 is cleaner, the 1992 seems to be the bigger (sweeter and creamier) Malt. Taste wise, both are closer to each other with the same “lightness”. The 1993 is sweeter then I remembered, and also shows the fruit and the softness and even more of the nutty bits with milk chocolate. Variations on a theme I guess. Trying the 1992 directly after the 1993, shows some youth in the 1992. Both score the same and are definitely twins, but if I had to choose I’d pick the 1993. It is ever so slightly better. Does this mean I’m regretting getting four of the 1992? No, of course not. I love it!

Points: 88

Advertisements

Longrow 10yo 1993 (46%, OB, 2003)

Another peated whisky in the summer? Has Master Quill gone completely crazy? Yes, because who wants to be “normal”! If you feel like it, just do it… By the way, it’s raining like crazy outside, so it only seems fitting.

2001 saw the first release of a 10 year old, with a vintage. Remember the classic brown paper Longrow label on the tall bottle? The first two releases, both in 2001 and both distilled in 1991 were a “normal one” said to be only from Bourbon, but also, for one time only, a Sherrywood. The series was short-lived, and was discontinued in 2006 after the 1996 vintage, in favour of the 10yo without a vintage statement. Throughout the series I don’t believe all normal ones were from Bourbon casks only, if any. You know Springbank, they tend not to repeat themselves. Just compare the last two releases of the Longrow 18yo (with the white labels), since the 2016 release contains Rum casks. Never a dull moment with Springbank and all of their other brands. Today we’ll have a look at the 1993 vintage of the 10yo, that was released in 2003.

Longrow 10yo 1993Color: Light gold.

Nose: Nice fresh peat. Fatty and smoky. The peat is smelling three-dimensional. It’s not only just there, it goes deep, and seems without end in complexity. Peat mixed with hints of lemon, waxy apple skins and vanilla. Cookie dough. Whiffs of warm apple pie. Burning leaves, sugared yellow fruits and even hints of sweet-smelling sweat, crushed beetle and slightly burned herbs and even has a quaint nuttiness about it. Very balanced stuff, with only a mere hint of wood. All seems to fit in together nicely. This is the best peat I’ve smelled in quite some time. I must admit, it had plenty of air to work with. Love it.

Taste: Quite sweet on entry. Heavy on licorice and the peat is shoved into the background, by the sweetness. The sweetness dissipates and leaves more room for a sort of herbal fruitiness. Prickly licorice and the nuttiness from the nose. Alas the peat never really makes it to the top and the wonderful depth it has on the nose doesn’t really blossom tasting it. Long finish, built around the caramel sweetness and with a larger role for sour oak. Coffee and chocolate in the aftertaste. It still is a wonderful Malt. Just if the complexity of the nose would have shone through in the taste, it would have been a truly exceptional Whisky.

Well this might not be a Whisky from the seventies, but it does remind me of the quality of that decade. I’m actually amazed a bit that many of the vintages are still available, although somewhat more expensive than the new 10yo.

Points: 88

Longrow 13yo 1993/2006 (57.1%, OB, Private Bottling, for MacMhuirich, Currie & Wilkinson, Cask #635)

This is a sample I have lying around for a very long time. I last tasted it last some ten years ago, and there was definitely something wrong with this. Just have a look at the review posted by Serge. yes, he’s a big fan of this one! Ten years ago I found it pretty odd as well, but come to think of it, Springbank make such good Whisky, what must have happened for it to be so “strange”, and for it to be bottled? Today I’m becoming more and more a fan of Springbank, feeling they can’t do anything wrong. In these days of NAS (some bad, some good), Springbank are able to churn out one good bottling after another. NAS or no NAS. So this less than half full sample got plenty of time to balance itself out with some air, so let’s see how this private cask of MacMhuirich, Currie & Wilkinson will do in 2016. Sounds like a law firm, doesn’t it?

Longrow 1993 Private Bottling Cask #635Color: Light gold.

Nose: Light peat, but not much and some burning plastic. Herbal lemon. Deeper down a more buttery note. Fatty with hidden sweetness. Slightly burnt wood (toasted cask), fresh dried oak and an acidic off-note. Bread, butter, paper, cardboard (they all go together) and caramel. Toffee even. Next some crushed beetle. In my case an accident, because I’m not cruel to animals, but once I’ve gained the experience, I’ll never forget the smell. Well, it’s in this Whisky. (Tobacco) smoke and cold charcoal. Hints of menthol. It is a nose that wants to be dry and spicy, not fruity. It’s not floral, but may very well have been. Add to that a creamy, butter and toffee and you have this in a nutshell. Very well hidden is the aroma of new make spirit, a sweetish Vodka aroma. Sure, this is (still) lacking in balance a bit, but it’s not as bad as it was ten years ago. It did get better with “some” air. I actually like how it smells now.

Taste: Sweet, but with a lot of bread and paper notes. Floral plastics and vegetal. The initial sweetness works well with the relatively high ABV. Sweet sugared yellow fruits. Sugared apricots. the body itself is not so sweet. Interesting. Damn, this is really about vegetal paper. Paper, cardboard, wet paper, pulp. It’s hard to impossible to get past this. The paper notes overwhelm the entry and the better part of the body. When this dissipates, an acidic note shows itself which just is wrong. Towards the end of the body, the Whisky also becomes slightly soapy. Yeah, lets add to the plastic pleasure. Hey, now I get some smoked eel skin as well as the aroma of an ash-tray and sweet jasmine powder. What a Whisky. This has quite a few flaws, so maybe it’s good the finish is not very long (and hardly an aftertaste).

If after Serge’s review (and mine) you still want to buy it, be advised that you should let this breathe extensively. And I do mean extensively this time. It will help the nose along, the taste however is beyond repair. I wonder what went wrong here. It probably wasn’t the spirit going into the cask, but was the cask somehow contaminated? Rotting bung cloth? A fungus maybe? In the end not a complete dud, so I won’t be scoring this 55 Points like Serge, but for a Longrow this is not a good score either…

Points: 80

Longrow 14yo 1990/2005 (56.9%, SMWS, 114.5, “Smoked Sausages and Curry”)

So how was your Christmas? Here at Master Quill we are getting ready for the end of the year. Christmas is hardly over and in a few days’ time we’re seeing off 2014 and welcoming 2015. But we’re not there yet. Lets have a look first at a very nice Longrow. Two firsts on these pages. After two and a half years of writing still hardly any ground covered! Here is the first Longrow, or “Distillery #114” and the first review of a bottling that was released by The Scotch Malt Whisky Society (SMWS).

Longrow 14yo 1990/2005 '114.5'(56.9%, SMWS, Smoked Sausages and Curry)Color: Full gold.

Nose: Nice fatty, sweet and truly perfect dirty peat, with malt shining through (if you let it breathe for a while). Oranges and animalesk. A breath of fresh air. Sherry, toffee and lots of clay. Does it smell meaty or is the title forcing me to smell it? Smoked sausages? I don’t know. I smell a lot of clay. Just died down bonfire, right before it gets cold. The sweet spiciness might as well be curry, hot (temperature) and mild (in spices, ginger foremost). Very high quality. Coastal with smoke, Sherry and clay. No wood. Wonderful!

Taste: Sweet and smoky, yes bonfire again, a hearth in a stately old house with mohogany furniture (without the wax, that is). Peppery, earthy peat and licorice, bordering on bitter licorice. Fruity, red and black fruits, with fruity sweetness under the hints of ashes and mint. Also sometimes a fruity acidity wanders through the spirit. Chewy smoked toffee and nutty. Highly aromatic, almost thick. Nice thick Sherry and caramel. Sometimes soapy. Nicely peated in the finish. Excellent and warming stuff this! A cracker. The finish is big and ashy, with tiny hints of red fruit sweets. The hard ones.

This bottle was used in the Campbeltown tasting I did with my Whisky club ‘Het Genietschap‘, together with the Kintra Glen Scotia I reviewed earlier. I really liked that one, but this one is much, much better! What a wonderful malt to share with friends. This really is a stunner. Excellent Longrow. For this review I’ve tasted this Malt two times. Once in the morning, before breakfast, and one time late in the evening. The difference is unmistakable. It is remarkable how much more tiny notes, or details, if you prefer, one can pick up in the morning. The score is from the morning session.

Points: 91