Tag Archives: NAS

Paul John (57.67%, OB, Single Cask #1615, for Germany, 216 bottles, 2016)

As said in the previous review, I tend to have a pair of open bottles of Paul John on my lectern. At the moment cask #4914 (peated) as well as this unpeated #1615 are on there. Both bottled for the German market. After the peated expression, lets mow turn our attention to the unpeated expression. In the previous review I have remarked that the peated expressions seem to be better and thus score higher. Unpeated cask #1051 scored relatively low with 84 points and low and behold, now the peated cask #4914 from the previous review scores mid eighties as well. 85 points is lower than its predecessors. This is how the universe tends to work. I’m now betting on this cask #1615 getting a score, very high in the eighties, to bring balance in said universe. Not much more to add to the intro at this point, all has been said, so why not cut this intro short for once and dive right into this unpeated Paul John.

Color: Slightly orange gold.

Nose: Fruity and very appetizing. Right out of the gate a fruity, nutty and friendly dram. Malts, sweet malt actually. Lots of unexpected fruit notes, still have to wrap my head around all these fruits. All yellow fruits. Now I get hints of grapes and Alsatian über aromatic Gewurztraminer. Wow, how’s that for yet another take on a single cask Paul John. Ripe yellow fruits, bananas from Jamaican Rum. Cask #1615 turns out to be quite the funky puppy. Wet cardboard and dust. Quite a change is happening now to the body of this Malt. Dry wood with more fruit and vanilla. Fruity ice-cream. Instant gratification, not a lot of layering or complexity. This one puts all its wonderful smelling cards on the table right away.

Taste: Very tasty right out of the gate. Fruity like the nose with nice, slightly prickly oak. Nutty, somewhat vegetal and with a slightly sweet deepness. Warming. Very well balanced. Amazing actually how all these Paul John single casks can differ so much, and remember all are coming from first fill Bourbon casks. Unpeated yes, but there is something about this one. Maybe toasted oak, maybe the oak had lots of residual sugars, like a hint of smoky, sugary oak. Although the fruit dominates this Malt, the wood definitely plays a wonderful role as well. Paul John always claim to be tropical, well if you want a tropical Paul John, this is it. It’s the most tropical I’ve had to date. Very fruity but with a paper or cardboard edge to it, turning into a more bitter wood note, as well as some pencil shavings in the finish. Quite dry. This would have benefited if some of the fruity sweetness would have made it into the finish more, as well as into the aftertaste. In no way is this young smelling or unfinished. Maybe if this had aged some more, it might have gained somewhat more complexity, but it might also have picked up some more wood and bitterness and it also has more than enough of this, so maybe it is at its best as it is.

Points: 88

As a casual sipper I definitely preferred this unpeated cask #1615 to the peated cask #4914. With other sets of open Paul Johns I had in the past, it is often the other way around. Also I’d like to mention that casual sipping is much different from analyzing, because in the case of the latter, the Whisky is getting much much more attention. When analyzing, the Whisky is the focal point whereas with casual sipping the center of attention might be a film, a book or an interesting conversation, to name but a few distractions. This shift in attention also changes your perception of the Whisky at hand more than you might think.

Since this turns out to be yet another high scoring Paul John, and since I still have a wee dram of peated cask #745 left, lets compare these two for a moment. Wow, smelling cask #745 (again, the darker of the two) after cask #1615 makes it truly amazing. Holy moly what a winner cask #745 truly is on the nose. And what a nice pair to smell. The peated one has the Paul John plastic note, and this unpeated one does not. cask #745 has peat, clay, rubber and plastic, all traits cask #1615 does not have (obviously). cask #745 is a way more fuller and aromatic Whisky, more industrial and much bigger (and it has horseradish in the aftertaste). It unhinges slightly in the finish though, and that is probably why cask #777 scored a point more than cask #745. Both cask #1615 and cask #745 taste entirely different. So again, 89 points for cask #745 still stands (again) and the way cask #1615 finishes and all things considered, 88 points is correct amount of points for this one as well. Mind you, all this scoring stuff is highly personal, so I urge you all to make up your own mind if you get the chance to taste the Whiskies you read about, and don’t follow what anybody says blindly. Over and out for now!

Paul John (59.2%, OB, Single Cask #4914, for Germany, Peated, 138 bottles, 2017)

For a long time now I have been opening two Paul John bottles at once. One peated and one unpeated, once a mix of both. Very often single cask offerings, simply because they interest me the most and beauty lies in the details. As far as know, all the single cask offerings I came across are ex-Bourbon casks, so no Sherry or Port stuff here. As many aficionados or anoraks know, Paul John appeared on my radar because of the wonderful tornado that is Shilton Alameida, currently of Tel Aviv outfit Milk & Honey. If you ever visit a good Whisky Festival go over and visit Shilton! Paul John does not seem to bottle a lot of single casks anymore, so most of the reviews that will appear on these pages in the future are bottles from my stash. These older single cask offerings will disappear more and more from retail shelves although they still do appear in auctions with decent hammer prices. Decent from the buyers perspective that is.

I’ve had plenty of Paul Johns open, and thus Paul John is no scarcity on these pages, with even several independent offerings from Malts of Scotland and Cadenheads. However the focus now lies on Officially released Single Casks and as has been the case earlier, I will review one peated and one unpeated expression. Until now, three unpeated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier (scores between brackets): cask #1444 (89), cask #1906 (87) and cask #1051 (84). Two peated OB expressions have been reviewed earlier: cask #745 (89) and cask #777 (90). As can be seen the peated expressions right now seem to be “better” than the unpeated ones. So lets see how the next pair will turn out. Let’s start with the peated expression: cask #4914.

Color: light, middle gold.

Nose: Initially quite malty, with fatty, smoky vegetal notes of peat. Clean and smoky, bonfire style. Light (and deep), yet also very balanced, fragrant and laid back. Ever so slightly meaty, more gravy-like actually. Slightly fruity with hints of warm plastic and distant vanilla. Soft wood and fresh almonds. Pencil shavings later on in the mix, and I might add, these are the shavings of a very old pencil. Its warming, fresh and clean at the same time. The nose has a pudding-like quality to it and is actually very nice, not raw or harsh in any way, nor is the smoke sharp. If the taste is anything like the nose is we’ll have yet another peated winner from Paul John. Its almost like a breath of fresh air. Seaside, a strong and windy day kind-a fresh air, mixed in with some minty notes and horse radish, that’s how fresh this smells. This smells different from all other Paul Johns I had before. Much cleaner, and this time around, when sniffed “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have guessed this is Indian Whisky. I struggle to find the six-row barley in this one, its there, but less apparent than in most other ones. Still an amazing Whisky considering it still must be a young spirit, although we know by now how ageing works in the Goan climate.

Taste: Quite an unexpected start after smelling this one for a while. It starts sweet and nothing in the nose prepared me for that. Sweet and fruity and the almonds from the nose are present as well. First sip is very warming going down. Sweet with vanilla and slightly bitter wood. Very tasty, yet also a bit thin and a lot less complex than the nose was. The balance seems slightly off towards the finish, since not everything you taste seems to fit together perfectly. The wood becomes more paper-like, as well as slightly acidic, but not in a fruity way at all. It’s the acid you get from oak. You can almost smell this acidity in freshly cut oak. So the start and most of the body are more than OK, it’s the finish and especially the aftertaste where things start to go slightly wrong. It is layered, but in this case the layers won’t stick to each other. A sort of unpleasant tension is happening between the layers. I have plastic in the finish, and if I smell it right after that, the nose shows this plastic edge as well. Plastic is not uncommon for Paul John, but it usually isn’t a problem. It is actually a bit of a shame the palate can’t keep up with the nose, especially since the nose promised so much, and this is not even a heavy hitter, so go figure. Hey don’t get me wrong, this is still a tasty Whisky, but it certainly does have its flaws. The wood is slightly too bitter, and it goes downhill in the finish and the aftertaste. It loses its sweetness and fruitiness, to be replaced by acidic wood. Easy to pick up on when one’s somewhat experienced with Paul John.

As luck would have it, I still had a sample lying around from cask #745, the liquid of which is quite a bit darker, way more creamy and pleasant and way more balanced. Yeah, cask #745 is really good stuff. Based an a quick comparison on the nose, cask #745 is the clear winner. It has a lot more going on for it. It’s quite a big difference as well for two bottles you would expect to be similar. To sum things up, not all single casks are created equal. If you come across one, you might want to pass up on unpeated cask #1051 and thus this peated cask #4914, both are sub-par compared to the rest, yet still not bad. On the palate, cask #745 is also much better, bigger and way more balanced. The peat is different and more special as well. It also has some off-notes, but these work well with in stead of working against the Whisky, and only adds to the experience.

Do I regret getting #4914? No, not at all. After a few of those single casks, one might think all are quite similar and also might get a bit boring. However cask #4914 is still a good one, and trying it is still a great experience because of the different feel it has, and it also shows me how good #745 really is. By the way, cask #745 also has the same plastic note as cask #4914, and is much better. See, off-notes aren’t necessarily bad, they can work. This review has again been quite educational, and when these two bottles are gone, I will more than happily replace them with two other single casks, one peated and one unpeated. I guess the 89 points for cask #745 still stand, although 90 points would feel good as well.

Points: 85

Bimber “France Edition” 2021 (58.9%, OB, Port Cask #30, for La Maison Du Whisky, 290 bottles)

This is the fifth review of Bimber on these pages, After cask #194 (Rye cask), cask #224 (Bourbon cask), cask #94 (virgin oak cask) and cask #41 (Pedro Ximénez cask), we now turn our attention to cask #30, which was a cask that previously held Port. This is another chance to see yet another side of Bimber. Until now the scores ranged between 86 and 88, which is quite a narrow range of scores, well see if this Port expression will broaden this narrow range somewhat, although I suspect it might not, and is so, not by a lot anyway, since the quality has been there all the time. A score lower than 86 is probably unlikely, especially since, for the time being, the Spirit seems to work well in any cask, and on the other hand, the Whisky might be just too young to propel the score way past 88 Points, but hey, you never know and if the Whisky turns out stellar, it will definitely score higher than 88, and if the Whisky is (badly) flawed it will definitely score lower than 86.

Color: Orange Brown, no red hue.

Nose: Warming, elegant. Spicy, one of the markers that many Bimbers have is cinnamon. It’s a signature aroma. Vanillin, raisins, licorice, leather, dust and old mahogany. Lots happening right from the beginning. The wood especially smells really good, very classy. Hints of Rhum Agricole and an old hardened out floral bar of soap. I said: hints, so this nose is not particularly soapy. No, cinnamon, licorice and wood are the main markers, other than that, this smells quite fresh and lively. It has some fruity acidity to it, as well as a breath of fresh air. Apple pie and cookie dough. This one ticks a lot of nice boxes. Toffee. Not very red-fruity though. In the Whisky business Port is Port, they really don’t seem to care a lot that there are a lot of different kinds of Port in existence. So I wonder what kind of Port was in the cask before the Bimber spirit, assuming it is a first fill. Again a very pleasant nose. The Bourbon, Rye, Virgin, Pedro Ximénez and now this Port are all very good on the nose, yet this one especially. This Port version smells really really good, it might not be the most complex of the ones I have smelled and tasted until now, but very good nevertheless. The aged spirit already smells nice, but the Port definitely adds another layer.

Taste: Definitely leather first this time. Hints of black coal and old style red fruits, initially like a Whisky from the seventies in a good Sherry cask. This old-style effect only shows itself now that the Whisky had some time to breathe in the bottle as well as in my glass. The freshly opened bottle didn’t have this. Some toffee and sweet fruity Wine notes at first. Cinnamon propels it forward. Again a very elegant taste. Wood, cinnamon and leather. Slightly burnt sugar and hits of tarry licorice. A tad of woody bitterness as well now. Sweetish with again the hints of red fruit we know from Old Bowmores and good old Redbreasts. Sweet and fruity not unlike strawberry jam. Next some vanilla powder seems to be mixed into the cinnamon. More typical fresh oak, with a neat little bitter edge, giving it some more backbone. Pencil shavings adds another wood-note. This is also the moment, the initial sweetness wears off. On the palate it even has more traits of Rhum Agricole than the nose had. I even pick up on some cola now. Tasty. This is a very balanced Bimber. Initially I thought Bimber works best with Bourbon, Rye and Virgin oak casks, and I might have mentioned that earlier, in hindsight, I guess it will work in almost everything, since the Pedro Ximénez turned out better than I thought and this Port also works very, very well for me. With 86 Points, the Pedro Ximénez version is the lowest scoring Bimber, and my least favorite of the lot. But come on, 86 points, that’s quite impressive for the worst Bimber on these pages. Taste-wise this Port version might not be the most complex of the lot, yet comes close though. It does have a better drinkability than the Pedro Ximénez version I just reviewed, still not one for casual sipping though, but if you do, you’ll be alright nevertheless. I totally get why La Maison Du Whisky (LMDW) picked this particular cask, excellent choice!

This one has a lot to offer. After all the Bimbers I’ve tasted, not all have been reviewed though, I’m sure the beauty lies in the details and therefore Bimber still needs to have my full attention. This one is not a casual sipper. If you give it the time it rightfully deserves, you’ll definitely will get rewarded big time. Personally, Bimber is maybe my favorite of all the new distilleries. High quality and very mature for the age of the liquid.

Points: 89

The window of scores did become a little bit wider now with 89 Points. Very good Bimber once again. If the Sweetness would have more staying power towards the finish and into the aftertaste, this would have scored 90 points.

Bimber “Pedro Ximenez” 2020 (50.9%, OB, Pedro Ximénez Sherry Cask #41, 335 bottles)

So earlier I reviewed three Bimbers, all matured in American Oak casks, one that previously held Rye, one that previously held Bourbon and one that previously held nothing. In those reviews I already told you that I felt those three types of casks worked best for the Bimber spirit, mostly quite similar but also at the same time quite different. I also mentioned that it would become clear in another review why those type of casks work best. Well here it is, this is that other review. This example was fully matured in an Ex-Pedro Ximenez Sherry Cask. Pedro Ximénez is a (very) sweet fortified Wine made from very ripe grapes of the same name. The grapes dry in the sun to obtain a must with a high concentration of sugar. Pedro Ximénez-casks are also very well known in the Whisky-world. Usually not for full maturation, but more for a finish. People do still feel that an ex-Oloroso Sherry casks works better for Whisky than a Pedro Ximénez cask. I understand the feeling, but this is no always true.

I once brought three Bimbers to a meet of my Whisky club. The Virgin Oak cask I reviewed earlier was somehow accepted, bust this Pedro Ximénez not so much. So proceed with caution. I might think Bimber is great, but that might not be true for you.

Color: Copper gold.

Nose: Very spicy. I know now this is quite common for Bimber. Smells like a pre-war shop selling spices. Hints of Pedro Ximénez, yet not fruity. An old leather bag. The whole is more dark and brooding. Also a thin veneer of lactic acid, acetone and a wee hint of horseradish, distant smoke and petrol. All in minute quantities (I didn’t pick upon these yesterday). Somewhat sweet smelling. Chocolate chip cookie dough. After a while in my glass, the aforementioned shop becomes somewhat more of a candy shop. Cinnamon sticks (lots of it) as well as the pink, raspberry flavoured ones? Still not fruity. The nose is quite raw and dry, like drawing in a breath of ice-cold air, yet the whole seems to be more warming, as can be expected from cookie dough and cinnamon. More of the old shop and an old book show up now as well. To be honest this is an amazing nose, with a small lactic acid fault, but the whole is pretty amazing smelling, amazing and classical. Quite a feat for yet another NAS. How do they do it? Dust and licorice powder, still this aura of sweetness in the smell. Smells like Christmas. Good balance, I like it.

Taste: Sweetish, spicy and woody on entry. Something prickly. Lots of licorice in many guises. The powdered stuff as well as the black bit of Licorice Allsorts. Sweetish and slightly sticky. Sweet wood and some raisins. The dry and the sweet work together well, not exactly cancelling each other out, thus reaching a nice synergy. Every new sip starts with wood, sometimes somewhat harsh maybe, but next comes this ever growing fruity sour note. Although Pedro Ximénez is very sweet, the Wine works well because of the underlying sour notes. Just like Laphroaigh is heavily peated, but quite sweet underneath, that makes it work wonderfully. The acidic fruit note is authentic for a Whisky that was (fully) matured in Pedro Ximénez, yet some might find it off-putting, as I found out the hard way. There is slightly less balance on the palate than there was in the nose. By the way, especially after sipping, the nose becomes even more beautiful, even after the first sip. The taste does show a slightly burnt character. Still pleasing stuff nevertheless. This bottle, more than others, got a lot of slack from some people, but now properly analyzing it, I don’t concur. Sure these are some small issues with it, as there always are (have you ever encountered an perfect Whisky, and if so did you score it a 100 points?). The whole is very tasty, elegant and pleasing. Or is it just me with a liking or fondness of Bimber? So the only faults I could find, if I’m looking for them, are the lactic acid right at the start I mentioned above, and the aftertaste being rather sticky, with sawdust and a slightly burnt note as well. The body of this Whisky is very good.

A lot is happening behind the scenes with Bimber these days, and the stories I hear, one even more crazy than the other. Still I hope they can sort it out and for things to fall into place. It would be a shame to lose Bimber. It’s a young distillery, and a young, well looking brand, yet the whisky, still all NAS is nothing short of amazing. This Pedro Ximénez one is not a casual sipper, but one for an armchair, a good book and a nice warming fire in the fireplace. A winter warmer. I can forgive it the few flaws it has, because the rest is more than making up for it. For a long time I believed that clean American oak was the way to go for Bimber. Bourbon, Rye and virgin oak, but this Pedro Ximénez is working for me as well, even though of the four mentioned it does scores the lowest. Maybe Bimber has such a nice spirit it will work well in anything. No don’t you break out the herring of Tabasco casks just yet, people. We’ll see what the next reviews of Bimber will show, but up ’till now I’m quite happy with Bimber, and I’m looking forward to the next one.

Points: 86

Bladnoch Vinaya (46.7%, OB, Classic Collection, 1st Fill Sherry & 1st Fill Bourbon casks, 2021)

Only the third review of a Bladnoch on these pages, I actually thought there would be more. I guess the first review of the 8yo Beltie Label was a true learning experience to get to know Bladnoch. Bladnoch had a bit of a reputation and that particular bottle when freshly opened just confirmed this reputation. If I’m not mistaken the 8yo fully came out of the production when Raymond Armstrong was the owner. He produced mostly between 2000 and 2009. However, the more I tried it and the more air went into the bottle, that’s when the magic started happening.

Fast forward all these years (since 2012) and now Bladnoch is one of those “obscure” Malts that I really like. Between that review and the next, Bladnoch Distillery changed hands, and the second review (in 2021) was the official 10yo bottled in 2018 by the new owner David Prior. David’s Bladnoch started production in 2017. Comparing both reviews you can clearly see I warmed up completely to Bladnoch. When I finished the 10yo I replaced it with the Vinaya, which is a NAS Bladnoch, again from the new owners, to see how I would feel about another young Bladnoch like the 8yo, now that I’ve become fond of Bladnoch. Would the Vinaya have a similar false start like the 8yo Beltie, or is it more like a NAS version of the 10yo I mentioned earlier. First of all the difference, apart from the age statement, is that Vinaya has in part matured in Oloroso Sherry casks, where the 10yo matured solely in Bourbon casks. Vinaya uses older casks from Raymond’s Bladnoch blended together with (probably 4yo) Whisky from David’s Bladnoch.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Malty, pleasant, with slight notes of diluted Red Wine, which is also noticeable as an added acidic note. Also candied lemon seems present. Fruity overall. Fruit syrup. Since we know that this has some young Whisky in the fold, I’m happy to report that there is no sign of new make spirit or anything that resembles that. Creamy notes from American oak also some notes of toasted oak. It has a slight “bite” to it, which is very nice in combination with the thick fruity aromas. Yet again a big smelling Lowland style Malt from Bladnoch. Lowlanders are often grassy and hay like (and so they should, its their heritage), yet Bladnoch in general are pretty creamy and Vanilla-like, and all of this in a big way. Maybe that’s why I always liked St. Magdalene (Closed) en thus Bladnoch (Very much alive again). So the nose is big, big on the traits of a Whisky matured in Bourbon casks. Bourbon definitely plays a larger part in the profile of this Whisky than the Sherry does. Quite surprising, since the Sherry casks are first fill as well. Candied pineapple, (yellow) fruity aroma’s emerge. Hints of paper as well as traces of burning paper, Wine again and warm butter. Dust and the wood of an old dried out cask. Pretty mature smelling for a NAS-Whisky. Very good nose this NAS-er has. Hints of old style Malt, which is a surprise considering the composition of this NAS. I foresee great potential in Bladnoch’s new production, which as mentioned above, started just in 2017.

Taste: Just like the nose this starts Malty. Warm super-ripe fruit mixed in with a lot of cardboard (Malt) and some young wood. Here the wood provides a “bite”. Warm apple compote in a soggy cardboard box. Yes, definitely a fruity Malt, just with this wood/cardboard edge to it, probably from the Malt of the younger production. Next sip, more of the cream and vanilla, as well as some sweetness, astringent wood and distant nuttiness. In a way dull, in a sort of basic Malt kind of way that is. Simple, without a lot of development (by the way, the nose does develop more than you would expect). Present also, luckily, this acidic note from the nose, only less so. The whole is definitely a lot simpler than the nose promised. Not very expressive to be honest, yet what you do get is nice. Dull is a fitting word, not to be confused with boring, although I can imagine some of you aficionados that are not (yet) into “back-to-basics” (again) would call this boring. Still, it is fatty, creamy. Not entirely sure this Whisky is 100% balanced though. I get the Sherry influence, but it doesn’t seem to be perfectly integrated. Medium to short finish (hey, it’s a NAS), again with this slight unbalance to it, somewhat paper-like. The aftertaste is slightly creamy with wood and warming, with something new: hints of gout de petrol. I wonder how much of the new production is in this and how it is on its own. By the way, don’t let this sit in your glass for too long, a fresh pour tastes the best.

An excellent nose for an NAS-Whisky, yet somewhat less thrilling to taste. It’s good, yet not spectacular. But hey, it isn’t very expensive now isn’t it? Definitely worth a go, I would say. Daily drinker kind of stuff. Personally I’m not a daily drinker, far from it, but if I would be, this will definitely be on the list, especially amongst others with a different profile. Sometimes one doesn’t feel like getting a peated Whisky or a Sherry-bomb, but something like this (lets call this a Bourbon+ profile, “+” for the added Sherry influence), is always good. I never grow tired of this back-to basics profile. I’m not sure the 10yo and 11yo Bourbon versions still are available, but I would recommend both over this one. The score might not reflect it entirely, but this is a fun Whisky nevertheless, so no regrets, worth the price of admission for sure.

Points: 84

Ailsa Bay Release 1.2 Sweet Smoke (48.9%, OB, 022 PPPM, 019 SPPM, 2018)

“No other Malt is made with this much science” as said by Stuart Watts, Distillery Manager. Well that’s a first. Single Malt Whisky used to surround itself with romanticism, traditionality and age statements, with people making the stuff, oozing with skills passed on from generation to generation to generation. In the old days it was all handy work and thus skill, so if a Whisky was good it was really excellent, yet also some absolute misses occurred. Today, all seems to be computer controlled and science driven. Good for overall quality, and obviously not forgetting about getting the highest yield from the barley as possible. It also seems that the highs of yesteryear aren’t really there anymore, and I haven’t really encountered any terrible misses as well. So, we now live in a different, flattened out, era, or so it seems.

Ailsa Bay opened with 8 stills in 2007 and is owned by William Grant & Sons, a company we better know as the owners of Glenfiddich and The Balvenie, as well as Kininvie and the Girvan grain distillery. Already in 2013 the distillery was expanded greatly with another 8 stills, all 16 stills similar to that of The Balvenie. The condensers of one pair of stills are made of stainless steel, to make it possible to have more sulfur in the spirit. Usually distillers want to avoid sulfur, that’s why copper is used. Just like Kininvie before it, Ailsa Bay was needed to provide Single Malt Whisky for the many Blends of William Grant & Sons, since the output of Glenfiddich and especially The Balvenie is more and more used for Single Malt alone. Hence commissioning stills in the style of The Balvenie. In 2016 the original Ailsa Bay was released as a Single Malt (021 PPPM and 011 SPPM) and the one we are about to review was the second release from 2018 and that’s more or less it, nothing more has been released as Ailsa Bay. Sure William Grant & Sons also released Ailsa Bay Whisky as Aerstone in 2018 (a land cask version and a sea cask version), dirt cheap and bottled at 40%. Not particularly in a hurry to buy those though, and there are also a few independents that have some Ailsa Bay, often tea-spooned, hence some fantasy names as Ardmillan, Dalrymple and Drumblade. Maybe not entirely fantasy, probably names of hill, water sources etc. etc.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Sweet, funky, perfumy, vegetal peat. Wood fire in winter. Cozy and appetizing peat combined with an acidic (almost fruity) note. Quite some smoke as well. Tiny hint of lemon dishwater liquid. This is a good and rather modern smelling peat smell due to the combination of peat with wood fire. Very clean and of medium sharpness, due to the smoky bit. For me peat is usually a more rounded out and earthy smell, and smoke is usually a bit sharper. Nice fresh oak and sandalwood smell come next, as well as a more fire-like a garden bonfire. More vegetal and on the nose definitely more about peat and smoke than it is sweet. If you smell this one carefully, there is also a floral bit (and in my mind also a salty bit), yet not like fresh flowers, more like flowers in peat, if this was possible obviously, without them rotting away to be a part of peat. This is the first Ailsa Bay I’ve had, but based on the nose alone, I’m impressed. It feels like A.I. managed to produce this Whisky, a feeling based on the “science” statement on the label. After a while the peat is still here, softer and more earthy, and the slight sharpness of the smoke dissipated to leave room for a more, sweeter apple compote-like smell as well as some dry, salty and smoked meat. Hints of plastic anyone? Yes even though peaty, this is an elegant and well made Whisky, at least the nose is great, lets have a taste to confirm my suspicion.

Taste: It starts sweet and chewy, but the sweetness, combined right out of the gate with peat, and definitely also with some smoke and acidic fruit. Not apples though as on the nose. Chewy at first (toffee and caramel, check), yet also turning a bit thin. Warming going down. Sappy woody bitterness, wood and smoke. However the perception of this bitterness depends on the moment, and the taster. The second time around, tasting this for this review, I wasn’t picking up as much bitterness as I did the first time. Alas we people are faulty, subjective. I expected the sweetness to be more fruit-like, but it resembled sugar diluted in warm water more. That one wasn’t all that complex as well, but it did show great balance. Hints of mint. Some diluted citrussy and pear-like aromas emerge, hindered a bit by these bitter notes on the side of my tongue. From the wood maybe, but more likely from the peat. F.i. Laphroaig is underneath the peat actually quite a sweet Whisky, but I don’t feel this Ailsa Bay is all that sweet underneath, so 019 SPPM is probably a low number for sweetness. 022 PPPM seems about right for peat, although the whole feel is more peaty than that 022. Peat is definitely what this Whisky is all about. Finally, the taste of this Ailsa Bay is somewhat simpler than the nose, yet I still had a lot of fun with this one. A welcome addition to my lectern. This one most definitely gets a recommendation from me.

So, altogether, this is a true peated Whisky, and a nice one at that to boot. I wonder how this will turn out with some more age to it, when the peat is more sophisticated, leaving more room for the 019-sweetness. Since nothing happened since 2018 I guess William Grant & Sons aren’t really into Ailsa Bay as a Single Malt anymore, probably focusing more on their main brands Glenfiddich and The Balvenie. A shame really, since this is a very nice peated Single Malt as well. I hope there will be a release 1.3 someday, with maybe even more SPPM and maybe slightly less PPPM. The 48.9% ABV works well for me.

Next day, the empty glass feels fatty and slippery (glycerol?), and smells even more peaty than the nose. Still clean and very appetizing though.

Points: 85

Ardbeg BizarreBQ (50.9%, OB, Double Charred Casks, Pedro Ximenez Casks & BBQ Casks, 15/2/2023)

The previous post, which was quite long to be honest, was about a somewhat experimental special release Ardbeg called Auriverdes. Auriverdes was released way back in 2014. More recently though, in 2023, Ardbeg released this BizarreBQ, and I thought, hey, why not do another, preferably shorter, review of a special Ardbeg. I’ll even post a minimalist picture of the bottle without the box, (because there isn’t any). The previous post is about Auriverdes alone and this one will be about BizarreBQ obviously, but also a bit of it in comparison to Auriverdes, since both Whiskies have quite some charring going on. I also thought, when selecting all Ardbeg’s on these pages, what a visually appealing look it is, to have all those beautiful green Ardbeg bottles lined up one after the other. This 2023 Ardbeg is most definitely experimental, because BBQ casks, really? What is that? Pssssst. Yes? These casks underwent yet another super-secret char, making the inside of the cask even more akin to the charcoal you’d use for BBQ-ing. Ahhh, OK. Amazing.

Color: Pale orange gold, with an ever so slight pink hue.

Nose: Thick fat peat with lots of smoke and iodine. More upfront and smells way younger than Auriverdes did. We’re definitely in NAS territory all-right, since a lot of the nose smells like a very young Whisky. Earthy, wet and dry tea-leaves, vegetal and even more iodine now (80’s Laphroaig style). Quite spicy and herbal. Warming and very well balanced. I like this nose a lot already, apart from the initial overtly youthful bit. Smoke from burning newspapers, burnt match sticks, mixed with the smell of a crushed beetle. Somewhat sweet smelling, but couldn’t say if this is the PX speaking, since Auriverdes was on the sweeter side as well. If smelled “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have mentioned PX-casks at all. I guess all the charring that was going on defines this nose, and the “sweetness” might be the newly released vanillin from the oak, especially if it’s American oak. After the bold bits wear off, (it is initially quite fresh and sharp), the nose becomes more friendly, Gin-like, with hints of Rye Whisky and yet it still is quite a balanced endeavour altogether. Slightly more wood now with black coal and licorice coming to the forefront, as you get in modern day Ardbeg. The smell reminds me of old steam trains, more than an actual BBQ, with or without meat on it. Based on the nose alone, a very nice Ardbeg indeed, makes me feel a bit melancholic again, yet less so than Auriverdes managed to do, which in comparison has a more classic nose.

Taste: Sweetness, accessible, likeable. Bigger than Auriverdes. Fattier and even sweeter. Like Auriverdes, again somewhat simpler than the nose, but very drinkable indeed, without losing the freshness and sharpness which is present in the nose. I would say, great balance again. Not really a PX sweetness here too, yet more so than the nose showed. This Sweetness, the feel of it might be somewhat closer to a Whisky from a PX-cask, but still not all that much. All good so far. Some sweet licorice, a whiff of polyester and horseradish. After sipping it now, I get the horseradish on the nose as well, as well as the hint of polyester. If you do your own boat-repairs, you know what I mean. By the way, the polyester bit is not as bad as it might sound. Chewy wet wood. After the big bold entry this Whisky has, it also falls short in the finish a bit and not a lot actually remains for the aftertaste. Maybe herein it shows its youth. Lots of upfront stuff because of the charring, but lacking some depth due to age of the Whisky. Alas this has quite a short finish and only some lonely, left behind, licorice in the aftertaste.

I feel the whole of this Whisky is (much) younger than is the case with Auriverdes. But hey, still not a bad Ardbeg again, fetching a decent score. Yet again it is a special release that scores lower than the batches of Corryvreckan and Uigeadail I reviewed. But it does offer another perspective on the Ardbeg theme. Of course there might be some batch variation with Corryvreckan and Uigeadail, since they are released regularly as opposed to the one-offs that are these specials. If you want to spend your money wisely and don’t mind staying with those two expressions alone, you will be fine. If you are more adventurous and are willing to spend a bit more on a variation of the Ardbeg theme, and mostly with a lower ABV as well, than those special releases are for you. Only if you believe, that since you spent a fair bit more money, you are getting a better Whisky, than those mentioned from the core range, you are likely to get disappointed and get a bit salty. That being said, there are obviously also special releases which are definitely better than the core range. Some of which will be reviewed on these pages in the future and by now are or have become quite pricey.

Points: 86

Bimber “Virgin Cask” 2020 (57.4%, OB, American Virgin Oak Cask #94, 263 bottles)

Earlier we reviewed two Bimbers matured in American oak casks that previously held another Whiskey. One Bourbon and one Rye. Both, together with American oak casks that previously held a Tennessee Whiskey, (like Jack Daniel’s and George Dickel), should be the type of casks that showcases the Bimber spirit best, especially when they are refill casks. This will become even more clear in my next Bimber review. That review is not yet planned, but I promise, you won’t have to wait all to long for it, just not right after this one. Just bear with me on this one.

But wait a minute, what about an American oak cask that previously held nothing more than air and maybe some water? What about a freshly made American oak cask, that has only been toasted, as they all are? Yes virgin oak. Using a new cask is not very popular in the Whisky world, and for a long time it was quite unheard of. Sure there were Whiskies made that in part used new cask, but not a lot per batch. When looking at Bimber, I was quite surprised virgin oak cask editions perform really well in the secondary market. Especially in the home (UK) market people seem to dish out some serious amounts of dough for a virgin oak Bimber. Well, since Master Quill is based in mainland Europe, the secondary market for virgin oak Bimbers has not yet reached the levels like that of the UK, so, as usual I snapped some up at a German auction. Yes I did pay somewhat more than for both the Belgium and The Netherlands editions, but nowhere near the current UK prices.

Color: Full gold, almost orange.

Nose: Creamy, buttery (Werther’s Original), with Bimbers marker: Cinnamon. Very fragrant stuff this is, slightly perfumy. Early on some hints of apple aroma close to Calvados, these are gone or overpowered lateron. Bigger and fatter than the Ex-Bourbon and the Ex-Rye reviewed earlier. Very fresh, pleasant and well balanced. Wood and sawdust. Vanilla ice-cream with a leafy and green note to it. Old cardboard and some pencil shavings. Even when smelling, the Whisky becomes less fatty. It’s dryer now. Less “big”. Still some dust, more cinnamon and some indistinct wood related spices which are easy to spot yet hard to identify. To me this one seems somewhat less complex and layered than both the Ex-Bourbon and the Ex-Rye. It is almost like the fruit wants to come out, but doesn’t manage to make it through the creamy cloak, (the vanilla, the butter and the ice-cream), that stretches over it. So this a pretty straight forward expression. Good again, yet a bit simpler. Sniffing this deeply, beautiful abundant wood notes and in no way does it smell of alcohol, similar with the other two. This is wood perfume (hints of vegetal oil and an old bar of soap). Hints of sandalwood, just less intrusive than the sandalwood coming off some men’s eau de toilette. The nose develops over time, becoming more complex with added notes of licorice combined with fresh butter. So all is good. Whereas in a tasting session with both others, the complexity just seems less, it does show multiple personalities over different sessions, so maybe this is a different way of complexity after all, or is it just me that is different?

Taste: Fruity onset, somewhat sweet. Wood, wax and some bitterness cloaked by the fruit and creaminess. The slight bitter note is paired with some licorice. Next the char and some masked (fruity) sweetness. Hints of cola? I expected it to be more creamy though, but the wood does dominate. Next some cookie dough, with a (fruity?), acidic note on top. Here I notice again that the nose seems more refined and developed after taking the first sip. Strange combination of sappy oak, sweet mint candy and carbon powder (the charred oak). A dishwater like bitterness. Usually it is the florality of dishwater that can be smelled/tasted, here it is the bitterness of soap. Just a hint, just making the whole more interesting rather than disgusting, because really, dishwater? Definitely less creamy and fatty than I’ve come to expect from the nose alone yet still bigger than “the other two”. By now the nose does evolve a lot, and again becoming more than just good.

Virgin oak casks are made of charred American oak, and since no other liquid has been interacting with the (charred) wood, a cask like this will always properly colour the Whisky. Virgin oak is often looked at with some concern, and thus it was never a common practice when it came to producing Single Malt Whisky. But after the Wine casks, the Port casks, the Rum casks and so on, it was just a matter of time to broaden the wood palette, and start experimenting with virgin oak. Why not? The market demands it, it wants choice! It is yet another marriage between spirit and “a wood” which is essentially what Whisky is. Is it better than the others, no it’s not, it’s different and it is yet another take, and often the results are mediocre at best, just like the early Wine casked Whiskies. Sgtill a lot to learn here I guess. For Bimber though, virgin oak seems to work pretty well, the quality and the character of the liquid just work with the virgin oak. Bimber aficionado’s know this, as I said earlier, because virgin oak Bimbers do very well in the secondary market, much better than its Bourbon and Rye counterparts. Is it better than those, no it is not, I say it again, but it is a welcome variant, but for a lot less you can purchase an Ex-Bourbon Bimber or an Ex-Rye one which are also much less scarce and offer at least the same amount of quality, just with a different overall feel.

Final remark. I’ve come to find that to get all out of a Bimber, you need to give it peace and quiet and also give it some time. Comparing the three: Virgin has the more straightforward nose, yet very chewy and likeable. Rye is the most complex, distinct and fragile. The Bourbon is somewhere in between the two, less fragile but much closer to the Rye than the virgin oak, so no surprises there really. The Virgin oak is actually a different puppy, and a big puppy at that. Based on the taste, the Virgin is again a different puppy, way more creamy and sweeter, and more about the cask than the other two, which show more of the (quality of the) spirit. And tasting all three back and forth, it seems to me the Rye seems to have the best balance of the three, as well as its delicate complexity. So If I had to buy just one: The Rye. If I could pick two: The Rye + The Virgin. They are not created equal, where the Rye and the Bourbon almost are. If I could only get the Bourbon, no problem whatsoever. Both the Bourbon and the Rye are quite similar, with enough to set them apart in the details, today I prefer the Rye, but tomorrow might be different. The virgin, however, is a welcome “distraction” or better: a variation on the Bimber theme. Especially after trying the Bourbon and the Rye back an forth to pick a favourite (emptying both bottles in the process), and actually, the Virgin is also a very good dram. All three are definitely worthy of their spot under the sun, and on my lectern.

Points: 87

Bimber “Netherlands Edition” 2021 (58.2%, OB, Rye Cask #224, for Bresser & Timmer, 271 bottles)

Geographically, the transit from The Netherlands to Belgium is a short one. The Belgians, when compared to the Dutch, are known to be more into the taste and smell of food and drink, and thus spend more money on it. So, as the human I am, (I’m no T-1000, although I do love my liquids, nudge nudge, wink wink), I would say, and I know this is a big assumption now, that the Belgian version should be better than the Netherlands one. Also, one doesn’t hear a lot about ex-Rye Whisky casks. However, I do know that in general the Whisky industry in general doesn’t discern between casks that previously held a Bourbon or those that held a Tennessee Whiskey. All are called ex-Bourbon casks, since the two are common in the US of A. I guess the same maybe true for casks that previously held a Rye Whiskey. All three forms of Whiskey are different especially the Rye Whiskey and now we have a chance to find out if Bimber from an ex-Bourbon cask is different from one that matured in an ex-Rye Whiskey cask.

Color: Pale White Wine

Nose: Floral, perfumy. Old worn out dried flower pouch, pot-pourri would be to much, to describe the florality. Maybe it’s even slightly soapy, like an old bar of grandma’s soap in a closet full of linen. Malty and soft. Smells also ever so slightly sweet combined with some pencil shavings and cinnamon. Again a wonderful, friendly nose. Fresh and zesty now. Sometimes slightly farmy yet also clean. Warm mocha and creamy, with a hint of peanut and almonds. occasional whiff (a mere hint) of tea tree oil. Candied warm apple and a mixture of soft kitchen spices. Great balance again. Smells very tasty. Rye Whisky itself is in general more floral than Bourbon, and the same is applicable here as well. All of a sudden a whiff of fresher, almost virgin, oak. Again, when this gets some time to breathe, this one has a killer nose as well. It is slightly closed at first, so it does need some air. I pick up on some licorice notes out of the freshly emptied glass. The nose of the Bourbon expression is bigger, yet this one is similarly complex and wonderful as well, Even with this one being “thinner” it is equally as good. Again here we have yet another example of a Malt that needs to breathe. When it gets this time, it is an amazing nose. The nose of both belong to Whiskies that score in the 90 points range, an amazing feat for such a young Malt.

Taste: Short sweet onset, somewhat thin texture. Less sweet and creamy than the Bourbon expression for Belgium. Right out of the gate this seems to have been a less active cask, somewhat introvert so to speak. It gets leafy, green, paper-like and woody quickly. A bit dryer, spicier and more raw than the Bourbon expression, yet the fruity sweet bit clings on for dear life as well. After the first sip (quite hot going down), the nose shows a lot more cinnamon. Mocha as well, which pairs nicely with the cinnamon notes. After trying quite a few Bimbers over the last year, cinnamon seems to be a marker you can recognize it with. After the wood, fruity lemonade pops up. I’m sure that the nice play on wood masks the fruit a bit, but is it quite fruity (underneath). Even if the Bourbon-expression for Belgium turns out to be “better” than this Netherlands one, I feel this one is more unique. I welcome the different experience the Rye expression offers, and I’m having al lot of fun with this one as well. The finish is yet again a bit thin yet ever so slightly better balanced than the Bourbon one, and it is of medium length. The aftertaste is somewhat sweet and lacks a bit of staying power. No off notes, no bitterness.

I know Hans (Bresser) and Auke (Timmer) and these guys wouldn’t accept a “lesser” cask for a Whisky in their name. But I also know these guys enjoy their live better than the average Belgian, who most definitely enjoy the good things in life better than the average Dutch. Even though initially I found the Bourbon version to be slightly better, this Rye version differs a bit and as such is also a bit more adventurous. The Bourbon is more creamy, the Rye more floral and slightly more special if you ask me. It is nice though to have the two side by side and compare the two. Never ever did I regret to have them both open at the same time. It was definitely worth it. Now that they are nearly gone, I find myself leaning a bit more towards the Rye, yet on other occasions more to the Bourbon. Go figure. Both are actually equally good, so they get the same score. It was a good thing to have them both open at the same time, easier to pick up on the difference. Good stuff.

Points: 88

Bimber “Belgium Edition” 2021 (58.4%, OB, Bourbon Cask #194, for Top Malts, 257 bottles)

Bimber means Moonshine in Polish. You know, alcohol distilled by amateurs under amateuristic conditions. Home distilling is not a strange thing in (rural) Poland, and most distillates are fruit-based. The founders of Bimber, Darius and Ewelina, moved from Poland to London and started distilling. The first casks with Whisky were filled on the 26th of May, 2016. The apple often doesn’t fall far from the tree, so no surprise here that somewhere down Darius’ family tree there were men distilling alcohol under amateuristic conditions. Bimber tries to do as much as they can themselves, with traditional methods and always with the highest quality in mind. They have an on-site cooperage and they have their own yeast. Apart from that, they have a seven day fermentation period which is much longer than is usually the case. This long fermentation produces a light and fruity spirit.

As with any Whisky, I feel you get to know it best when it’s matured in an ex-Bourbon cask, preferably a refill one. So no surprise here that the first Bimber on these pages is matured in a cask like that. I only don’t know if this is from a first fill or a refill cask, although the amount of bottles produced seem to suggest it came from a hogshead, which makes it a refill cask. When the first cask has been filled in 2016 and this was bottled in 2021, this can be no more than five years old, and probably less than that. I came across Bimber for the first time at the Whisky Show in London and liked it very much, and after that, the first purchases, (five in total), were just a formality. This Belgium one is one of those first five.

Color: Pale White Wine

Nose: Holy moly what a wonderful nose. Soft, spicy (also soft), mineral and creamy. Slightly farmy with fresh rain water or water in a fast running stream. Barley, barley sugar, sweet fruits (in candy form) and more cream, clotted cream, powdered pudding. Candied cinnamon, fresh almonds, soft sawdust and somewhat leafy. It’s like being in a dusty mill where spices are being ground on a sunny day. Potent and light at the same time. Full on aroma’s. Hard candy raspberry stick, the ones you buy at a fun fair. More soft spices. Greenish and leafy again, almost like candied sawdust this time around (that’s a first). Sometimes hints of creamy horseradish (Chrzan cremowy). Already this Malt oozes utter quality. What a perfectly balanced blend of aroma’s, and at this age! Nothing short of amazing. I’m an instant fan of Bimber after Whiskies like this. Look, I believe this can’t be more than four years old and it has already nothing to do with new make spirit. Well sparsely the smell of Gin, but we do like the smell of Gin now don’t we? However, when sipping this, I often don’t smell the Gin to be honest, but sometimes I do. Today even Lagavulin, and for some years, some other bottlings from other distilleries in Diageo’s special releases, like the ever so popular smoky Cragganmore, still taste a bit of milky new make. What is that? And why do different Diageo distillates show the same markers. Markers I’m not really fond of, by the way. Point is, that this young Bimber seems to be more mature than some other Whiskies more than twice its age.

Taste: The onset is sweet, but already there are some nice amounts of sweetish wood spices and cardboard to be found. A minty and cola-like sparkle. So some wood, ever so slightly bitter and quite fruity, as well as some acidic lemony notes, which makes the whole more vibrant and less heavy (as in syrupy peaches). Mind you, it isn’t a really sweet Whisky this, but the sweetness does play its role. Mocha with brownie dough. Instant coffee granules. Taste-wise the youth of this Malt is easier to pick up on, because of the lack of complexity when compared to the wonderful nose. Even at this strength this is highly drinkable. I should try it before its gone, but I never found the urge to add water to this. Finally, in the finish some woody bitterness arrives, which, in moderate amounts, is needed by a Whisky, since it is aged in wood, so we want to notice the wood. We don’t like the bitterness to be overpowering though, and here it certainly isn’t. Nevertheless, the nose is better than the taste, but the whole is really good. I wonder what will happen when this becomes of age, I’m not even sure right now if that is going to be a good thing, since this youngster managed to pick up already quite a bit from the cask it was in. We’ll see.

Points: 88