Amrut Peated Cask Strength (62.8%, OB, Batch 38, 2017)

Earlier this year, I reviewed the Amrut Unpeated Cask Strength, which turned out to be quite an excellent Whisky. I wasn’t really surprised, since I’ve come across many nice Amruts. many, but not all of them, because the one I reviewed last was nice, but also a bit unbalanced. A single cask for Europe, matured in virgin oak and finished in a PX-Sherry butt. Nevertheless, it still managed to get 84 points so it wasn’t all bad now was it? The Unpeated Cask Strength batch #87 was definitely better. It might have been a (big) batch, but it still blew the, far more costly, Single Cask out of the loch…ehhh, water. I love my peats as well, so the time has come to review The Unpeated Cask Strength’s supposedly darker brother. Again, I have high expectations for this Peated Cask Strength…

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Just opened the bottle and the soft peat welcomes you already. The first aromas already enter your nostrils even before you pour your first dram. From the glass now: youthful, lively and playful. Nice fresh and fatty peat with hints of clay (Das Pronto) and a greenish edge to it. Fresh and fruity. Wine gums and hints of sweet cherries. Sunny and summery, so definitely not a darker brother, ab-so-lutely-not. Nope, peat is not always about winter storms, twilight or salty sea spray. By the way, this Amrut has another trick up its sleeve. With this one it is possible to momentarily “forget” about the peat and smell what it would be like without the peat, as if you can turn it off. Underneath it is a very fruity, light and bright Whisky. Flip the switch and the peat comes on like a light. Next, more freshness and some smoke, way more balanced than the virgin/PX Amrut. Somewhat late hints of fragrant cedarwood and more meaty components emerge as well. Some floral notes and some Christmassy perfume. Well what a surprise it is, giving this dram some time to breathe. Dusty notes emerge next, as well as some sweeter notes. This one is more complex than its unpeated brother but also less bold, who would have thought comparing a peated version with an unpeated one.

Taste: Spicy, peaty, hot and slightly bitter at first. Slightly sweet, but not much. A lot of wood, with matching medium bitterness. Hmmm, some virgin oak again guys? Caramel with almonds and dead cigarettes in an ashtray. Much simpler than the nose, quite some bitterness as well. I get the feeling this isn’t finished yet, bottled too young, bottled too soon, but on the other hand, ageing this longer on these active casks would have extracted even more wood and bitterness, so no, not bottled too soon after all… The finish is bitter. The aftertaste is, luckily, less bitter and warming. In fact the aftertaste is better than the finish. I suspect virgin oak, too much of it. The taste is a bit of a disappointment after the nice and complex nose, and especially disappointing after the great unpeated cask strength version. It is also a bitt dissapointing aftre the virgin/PX. Its just too woody and bitter.

First of all, the color of this batch was lighter than that of its brother, so please don’t take my remark to literal. After nosing, the peated one is definitely not the darker brother, the contrary actually. Yes these two Whiskies are brothers, but the unpeated version seems to me to be more mature, maybe it’s the older brother? In this one the wood and bitterness are too much, but the peat is lovely, and much more complex than you might think, and makes this Amrut remind me a bit of a peated Paul John, something that has never happened to me before. Yes, Amrut and Paul John are both Indian, but like the place they come from, they are entirely different. Mind you, India is a big place!

Points: 82

I spoke too soon with the virgin/PX version, because now this peated cask strength version is the worst Amrut I ever had, yet still 82 points. If only the taste would match up with the wonderful nose.

Advertisements

Amrut Cask Strength (61.8%, OB, Batch 87, 2017)

Well, it almost seems a bit unfair reviewing a Paul John Whisky and not look at Amrut too, so here it goes… ehhh, ok, ok, ok, it has nothing to do with being fair. I seem to like Indian Whiskies, so I will come up with almost any excuse to review another one. I had to hurry writing this review, (spoiler alert), because this one is going fast! At Amrut they also make entry-level cask strength versions of their Whiskies. We already know NAS is not a terrible problem with Indian Whisky, since maturation in India moves at a pace like trains move in Japan. Apart from this Amrut Cask Strength Single Malt Whisky there is also a Amrut Peated Cask Strength Single Malt Whisky, which will find a place on my lectern right before I finish this unpeated one, and I’m guessing that won’t take long…

Color: Vibrant orange gold.

Nose: Creamy, vanilla and oak, with a hint of orange (the fruit, this time). Vanilla powder and fairly simple initially. Hints of oak, exotic spices on oak and sometimes pencil shavings, fresh air or ozone. Sweetish and full on aroma. Warm, warming and fuzzy, sunny. This has a very positive vibe. Milk chocolate, maybe even some mocha. Creamy with a slightly acidic top note, yet not fruity, so no unripe berries here, although I do get some candied yellow fruits. Dried apricots but well in the back although on some occasions it is more upfront. That’s it really. That’s all there is. Now for something funny, in a Whisky like this, it is also all you might need. It is well-balanced and very tasty, so I have no beef with the relative simplicity here. It’s instantly rewarding, not far behind the single cask reviewed earlier.

Taste: Creamy pencil shavings on steroids. Lots of exotic spices with soft oaky bitterness. Very nice wood notes, and again fruity. A bit hot, like the climate in Bangalore, but definitely all about Indian 6-row barley malt, and American oak. Candied yellow fruits again. Apricots in sweet yoghurt. Very high quality and very, very balanced. No off notes and everything is in the right place. Spicy, with very good wood notes. Tasty stuff. Amazing value! Not for nothing, this is already batch 87, and this was back in 2017! Wonderful aftertaste, maybe even better than the body itself since it seems to reach an even higher level of balance. Good, slightly short, aftertaste with hints of lightly roasted coffee, arriving late.

First of all, this looks the part, simple bar style bottle with a nice label, and packaged in a proper shiny heavy-duty tin.

If Master Quill would be an institute of some sorts, issuing awards, this Malt would most definitely win a category, something like best (Indian, or World, or any) cask strength bang-for-your-buck Whisky. Excellent quality for an excellent price. I’m baffled you’re still reading this. Stop it now, go out and buy one. Wonderful stuff, a definite must-have.

Last but not least, I have to make the same remarks as I did the previous review (Paul John). For me, this might be a no brainer, but I have been informed, and I occasionally witness, that Indian Whisky may not be for everyone. personally, I love this style and I can’t believe someone wouldn’t like it, but the same goes for every style of Whisky. Some don’t like peat, some don’t like heavy sherry, some don’t like grassy Lowlanders and some like Loch Dhu… So be warned. Keep an open mind though, you don’t know what you’re missing otherwise…

Points: 87

Paul John “Christmas Edition 2018” (46%, OB, Batch 1, 3.000 bottles, 2018)

No, you’re dead wrong! I wasn’t hibernating. I know it’s march already, but in my defence, I opened this on december 25th, as it should be. By now, I had plenty of time to try it several times and write something sensible about this stuff. Even when spring is almost upon us, this is still available. How is that even possible with a limited edition of 3.000 bottles worldwide? Don’t say because it’s Indian, because it’s more like; even when it’s Indian. Indian Malts have managed to find their own place upon the world market and expanding on it by the day.

The people of Paul John are busy spreading the gospel about their Whisky, the people in the background are busy working on ideas for new expressions. Where, in the not to distant past, we only had a few standard expressions and some single casks, It wasn’t long before we had the green “Select Casks”, the 7yo Oloroso Sherry Cask Finish, a Kanya and a Mars orbiter. Still in the pipeline are a PX Sherry Cask Finish and the “Nirvana”. A strange move into the world of 40% ABV Whisky. An entry-entry level Malt, placed even before the Brilliance, upping the status of that one in the process. The point I was trying to make is that Paul John is expanding its range, and one of their expansions is this Christmas Edition 2018. My guess would be that it is highly possible, there will be a Christmas Edition 2019. Hopefully, for the fun of it, making it different in composition from the 2018 edition.

Color: Copper gold, cloudy.

Nose: Fruity and waxy, Paul John style. Extremely fruity. Red fruits and sugared yellow fruits. Tiniest hint of peat, no smoke and most definitely no pine cones. Vanilla, but everything comes through this barrier of fruit. Wood comes next, fresh, almost virgin oak, pepper and pencil shavings. Vanilla. Waxy. Sugared mango, sugared pineapple and sugared papaya. However I also pick up on something more like apple, Calvados comes to mind a bit. Sweet mocha and toffee finally pop out as well, after some breathing and swirling. Almonds and Amaretto. Oloroso finish? It seems to be done sparsely and tastefully. It seems to be only there, on the sides of my tongue, right upon entry and in the finish. For me? This one is about wood, wax and almonds, these are the key markers, and balance. Good stuff again from the tropical shores of Goa.

Taste: Sweet. Toffee and caramel. Wood. Fruity with a light bite of peat. And a separate fruity and slightly acidic layer of unripe red fruits. Again no smoke. Lots of the waxy almondy and Amaretto notes I got from the nose. Both fit together nicely. Nutty with definitely almonds in the finish, and a lovely development towards the aftertaste. Both the nose and the taste were not as complex as I might have thought, since this is peated ánd unpeated Paul John distillate married and finished in Oloroso casks. Still no complaints here. I like it.

For me this is the fourth member of Paul Johns entry-level output. This particular expression seems to be a mixture of casks intended for “Brilliance” and “Edited” as well as (unpeated) Whisky that was finished in Oloroso casks for a short period of time. Like “Brilliance”, “Edited” and “Bold”, this “Christmas Edition 2018” lays down a very high standard for a Whisky at very fair price-tag. It’s really amazing stuff. Sure, Indian Whisky is different from Scottish Whisky (for instance), and if you’re hooked on that, and somewhat conservative, I can imagine Indian Whisky is not for you (yet), but otherwise it is great stuff. For me Paul John, as well as Amrut (more about that later), were true eye openers, which changed and expanded my Whisky world. Rampur is a third, worth a mention, which seems to have potential.

Points: 85

Ardbeg “Uigeadail” (54.2%, OB, 2018, L70174)

My Ardbeg Corryvreckan from 2014 is almost empty, and it will be replaced by this Uigeadail from 2018. However, even before the Corryvreckan is finished, I already opened the Uigeadail, so I can taste them both Head-to-head. Well just for fun, because the Corryvreckan is almost empty, so it had time to breathe, and the Uigeadail is freshly opened and full. Not a truly fair comparison. I’ll compensate by taking my time. If you surf the interweb, and read about the standard Ardbegs, the Corryvreckan gets less love than Uigeadail. Uigeadail is some sort of favourite for fans of Ardbeg. Nevertheless, when I reviewed the Corryvreckan I scored it a hefty 89 points, and never regretted that score over time, when emptying the bottle. I love this (batch of) Corryvreckan. Where Corryvreckan is about ex-Bourbon casks and new French oak. Uigeadail is about ex-Bourbon casks and Sherry casks containing older Whisky than the aforementioned ex-Bourbon casks. Or so they say…

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Nice soft and sweet peat and definitely some smoke rising from the bonfire (I found out later, bonfire is mentioned on the label). Bits of coal for good measure. Big aroma, perfectly balanced. In no way does this smell young or immature, remember this is a NAS bottling, right! Citrus and floral notes. Very fresh and working well with the peat ‘n smoke. The peat is fatty and brooding, but especially this peat reaches greater depths by the Sherry influence. I struggled a bit, at first, to “find” the Sherry, as I expected it to be far more upfront, maybe fruity and obvious, but in fact, it hid in plain sight, it hid in the shadows of peat, just shy of the gates of hell… uhmmmm… I got carried away a bit, sorry Auke. Nevermind, lets continue the review, shall we? Hints of forest floor late in autumn. Spicy, decaying wood, soft wood, but add to that a more meaty feel. Bacon is suggested by the label. I hate that. It indoctrinates the consumer, did I get bacon by myself or am I pushed that way? I can’t unsmell the bacon now, can’t I? Get it off the label, please Mickey, pretty please.

Next something that reminds me of crushed beetle (a ladybug actually, and yes, it was an accident). Yet also some licorice, and earwax on a breath of fresh air. Dry cocoa powder and salty, smoked bacon and more bonfire again. By the way, the label mentions treacle, something I don’t get on the nose. This just keeps evolving. Probably the influence of Sherry again. Hey, quite late to the mix some fresh oak, probably not virgin, but very upfront nevertheless. Even later in the mix some minute amounts of sweet ripe red fruit, of which raspberry is the most obvious to me. I say, excellent stuff again, just like the Corryvreckan. I hope all batches are this good, or did I get lucky again?

Taste: Ahhh, here is the treacle, and the peat and the smoke. Luckily the treacle is thin, making the entry not too sweet, although memories of old Demerara Rum, fly in and out of my head now, more than Sherry notes, although I do pick up some sultana’s, raisins. More liquorice and milk chocolate (liqueur). Burnt plastics and liquid bonfire. Luckily the label only uses three words “describing” this Whisky, which I can report are correct. Treacle wouldn’t have been one of my top three words, yet I understand why. Personally I might have gone for “Chocolate”, but it may be another word tomorrow, only human, y’know.

After tasting the Whisky, the smell gets more of those spices you smell around Christmas, as well as some kippers and creamy latex paint. Tastewise the odd plastic note remains, and in come some more youthful aroma’s hinting at young Whisky. Vanilla and salty butter. More smoke, but like an ashtray this time, mixed with liquorice notes. Sometimes some bitter woody notes, but not every time. Less balanced than the nose though. Fatty, but also with some acidity, splitting the Whisky a bit. The finish has medium length, with the return of the ashtray in the aftertaste. Nice long and warming aftertaste, better than the finish itself. Good stuff.

What an odd standard range. A TEN and two NAS bottlings. Beforehand, the difference seems to be the difference between Sherry casks and new French oak casks. Where one might say that one prefers the former, I have to say that in Corryvreckan the latter works very well. I really can’t say if that is true for all the batches that have been released, through the years, but my 2014 batch was very good indeed. If I was less adventurous, or have a shelf somewhere for bottles that I should have around all the time, both these NAS Ardbegs would be on there. Both wonderful Whiskies, well made, tasty and quite affordable as well.

Points: 87

H2H: Which of the two do you think is darker in color? Corryvreckan! Virgin oak is quite different from Sherry oak, and both nose differ as such. Uigeadail is dirtier and smokier, and saltier, and plastic-ier. Corryvreckan is more about American oak. More vanilla, creamier, very appetizing. Nose and taste alike. Both noses are great, but for me Corryvreckan has a very special side to it. I’m finishing the bottle right now (I saved the last bit for this review), but I’m really, really sad to see it go. Great one, and it certainly deserves my high mark, I mentioned above, both of these would get a place on my “always open shelf”, if I had one that is. I would recommend to have them both open at the same time. Both make the other one better, very different and that’s exactly why. One the main course and the other the perfect desert. I really have to look into a shelf like that!

Paul John 2009/2015 (58.4%, Malts of Scotland, Peated, Bourbon Barrel, MoS 15068, 156 bottles)

Paul John already had some Whiskies reviewed on these pages, but up ’till now they all have been the official deal, and making up the standard range. Brilliance, Edited and Bold, are the trinity of entry-level Malts from Paul John, where the peat level rises gradually from left to right.

Sometimes a malt is so good, I finish it before I even get the chance to review it, or sometimes I think I reviewed it, remembering the words, and it turns out that I haven’t. This is a bottle I got because the owner wasn’t all that fond of it, even though it was half empty (or half full, depends how you look at it), and thought the stuff he got in return was better. Right now I can’t remember with what I traded it. This bottle is soon to be empty, meaning it’s good! I give you that already. Before moving on to more of the official stuff, here is the first independently bottled Paul John on these pages. This is one of four casks bottled by Malts of Scotland. Three casks from 2009 (#15065, #15067, peated and #15068, also peated) and one from 2011 (#15066).

The officially released Single Cask bottlings of Paul John, were all very nicely priced, and people picked up on them, as well as the more available bottlings. When the independent bottlers started to release Single Cask bottlings of Paul John, they upped the game asking a (much) higher price than Paul John did themselves. Luckily the casks that went to the independents all turned out to be very good casks as well, so they are worth your money. Having said that, all the official Single Casks released were pretty good as well.

When independents started asking higher prices, Paul John followed suit and new releases are more expensive than they were before. I understand Paul John asks a bit more from independents as well, so if my information is right, Malts of Scotland won’t be releasing more Single Cask bottlings of Paul John for a while. Never say never again ‘eh.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Soft peat and meaty. A little bit of barley and a tiny hint of dry orange skin and varnished wood. We’re talking luxury department here. Already this smells like near perfection. This is bottle is empty so soon, because I have fallen in love with how this smells. Luckily I was able to replace it another bottle from the same cask. Deep fruits and spicy warm air. A slightly sweet edge. Big nose altogether. Hints of black fruits from old Islay bottlings, salty. Fresh mint and unlit tobacco. Licorice and warm butter. The wood adds notes of pencil shavings and smoke now, adding to the spiciness of the Whisky. Stunning nose. Not a lot of development though, so maybe even in India (almost) six years is (almost) six years. Reluctantly I have to move on, but to be Frank (Not John) I can’t stop smelling this, and have a hard time moving on to taste it. (If I would score noses by itself this would get 95 Points, maybe more, utterly wonderful stuff).

Taste: Sweetish, syrupy and woody. Slightly waxy even. Not even the peat comes first, but rather the big and bold body. Wood, pencil shavings but not exclusively, and various yellow fruit marmalades, bitter orange marmalade first, followed by dried apricots. Several different bitters coming from wood and smoke. That’s about it first time around. The end of the body well into the finish seems a bit thin, but the aftertaste gets the big body back and has a lot of length, keeping you warm and giving you subliminal images of warmer places. Give it time and air to breathe folks. It doesn’t taste like 58.4% ABV. Again, this might not be the most complex stuff around, but what’s there is very good, albeit not as good as the nose though. But when you’ve swallowed this, and enjoying the long lingering aftertaste and thén smell the glass, Ahhhhh, bliss. This hits the right spots with me.

This was the deal breaker, after this one, I had to make more room for Indian Malts on my lectern. What an experience! A word of caution. I have ready and spoken to enough people to know that this might not be for everybody. Indian Malts are not Scottish, Six-row barley gives a lot of exotic spiciness compared to the barley’s used in Scotland, as well as the conditions of maturation on this continent. As I said before, the previous owner of this bottles wasn’t such a big fan of this as I am, so proceed with caution, but keep an open mind.

Points: 91

This one is finished now, and took a while to write, since I couldn’t stop smelling this. I replaced this stunning MoS bottling with another independent bottling of Paul John, a 6yo Cadenheads bottling released this year. Can’t wait to open that one.

Talisker “Port Ruighe” (45.8%, OB, 2017)

This is another recent “NAS” Talisker, released in 2013, right after “Storm“. The bottle reviewed here is a newer batch from 2017 (L7317CM015). Back in 2013 when all these NAS Taliskers arrived on the market, a lot of people feared for the classic 10yo to be discontinued or moved to a market different from ours (This happened to the JW Green label), but it didn’t happen. In 2015 the same exercise happened again with the release of “Sky”. We’re in 2018 now and there is still no sign of the 10yo being discontinued or even an “update” of the price. The 10yo is still going strong and usually is still well priced below all these NAS bottlings. And I believe it is also still better than all these new NAS-sers.

Port Ruighe was matured in refill casks (of both American and European oak). It was then transferred to deeply charred casks and yet again transferred to receive a finish from Port Wine (infused) casks. That seems like a lot of ado, to give this, probably young Talisker, its own aroma. Is it an experiment of sorts? Let’s see…

Color: Copper gold, but not the pinkish hue you tend to see with Port finishes.

Nose: Starts with peat. Nice fatty peat. Toned down obviously, since this is not a heavily peated Malt. I mention peat a lot right now, because since this is a NAS bottling, this could also have smelled “young” and it doesn’t. “Storm” had that, but this doesn’t. Thus, nice peat, a little bit of smoke and butter, so a bit of youth is there nevertheless. Since it is a Port finish, it could have smelled winey and sweet, but it doesn’t at first. It starts simply with peat. No storm, just a calm sea. Easy and quiet. The protection of a harbour, or port maybe? Could it be thát designed? Next some soft notes, reminiscent of a claret matured Jenever I have, (the acidity). Nope, still bobbing in the harbour with our soft peat. No dark storm, no storm even, just me and this peaty breeze. Hints of vanilla and honey emerge and some sort of sweet cloaking perfume, yup, we have our Port here. Turns sharper and a bit more warming as well. Hints of Malt and vanilla powder. This is spicy as well. Nice soft wood and the slightly burned cask. It may be NAS, but it shows complexity and I feel everything works well in the nose-department of this Malt. Still no really true Port notes, and maybe that is a good thing, since Ruby Port casks can easily overpower a Whisky. Wonderful nose, I kid you not.

Taste: Already sweet, creamy and quite fruity when it touches my lips. Peated Whisky with some smoke and a big fruity follow-up. Sweet, buttery, yet also young, and strange enough, right beside the sweetness, also a brief watery edge. Where the youth was absent from the nose, it is definitely here, but to a lesser extent than in “Storm”. It is also less complex than the nose. Bolder and more simple with a slight burnt-spicy edge to it. Increasing with air are the winey notes, but still well in check, although there is an overall sweetness and waxiness to it, that gets in the way of drinking more than one dram of this at a time. At the same time the complexity, that already wasn’t great to begin with, decreases. This is a shame because the Whisky takes a turn where you don’t want this to go. The road of NAS, simplicity, lack of complexity and the mismatch with the promising nose. The finish is medium at best, and to be honest, falls flat on its face. It disintegrates when hitting the ground. Aiii. Some peat, but very sweet and winey. Too much. It has been overpowered by the Port, which probably says a little about the quality of the Port, or the wood used, but maybe more about the age of the Whisky itself, because one might expect Talisker to be able to handle a little bit of Port now, don’t we?

It is nice to have had the opportunity of yet another take on Talisker, but this is one I’m not keen on repeating (buying another bottle, that is). “Neist Point” although more expensive in many markets, and too expensive in some, it is definitely a better experiment than this one imho. Neist Points was released right on the heels of “Storm” it is nevertheless different from Storm. This is way more mature. Is it older Whisky (guess not) or did the Port finish hide the “young-Malt experience”? Although criticized by many, I have no real beef with this pair of 2013 NAS-releases from Talisker, but I do understand a lot of the comments made.

So this is young Whisky, in the end overpowered by the Port, however, based on the nose alone, there was a lot of potential, maybe if the Whisky was aged longer and the Port and/or the casks it aged in was slightly better, this might have been a great Whisky, and we may see one like this in the future.

Points: 83

Compass Box “Oak Cross” (43%, OB, Circa 2006)

From the same period as “Asyla” (a blended Whisky), I reviewed back in 2015, comes this Blended Malt called “Oak Cross”. Blended Malt is the new expression for what we once called Vatted Malts. Two or more Single Malts, from different distilleries, blended together (so, without any Grain Whisky). Oak Cross is made from three Highland Single Malt Whiskies, yes, blended together to make this Blended Malt. I’ll let Compass Box themselves explain how they did it, since there is no way I could have put it better myself:

All [three] are aged [10 to 12 years] in [first fill] American oak casks before we place a portion [said to be 40%] into innovative hybrid casks [for up to 2 years] featuring heavily toasted new French oak heads [hence the name Oak Cross]. These give the whisky an added richness and spice-like complexity. By carefully blending back the French oak-aged whisky with its American oak-aged forebear, we are able to create a refined, rich, but well-mannered Malt Whisky, with fruity aspects that will remind you of baked apple or pears, complemented by a rich, toasty oak character.

By the way, the three Malts used for this “Blend” are 60% Clynelish (fruity), 20% Teaninich (for the smell of it) and 20% Dailuaine (the “meat” of it all).

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Young and rather perfumy (Teaninich). Friendly and light. Appetizing. Something works very well here. Fruity (Clynelish). Yellow fruits that is, more of the apples and pears kind of fruit. Very European so to speak as opposed to the exotic Indian spices we get from, well…Indian Whiskies. Cardboard, and paper, dusty notes from oak, almost like an old house. Warm apple compote. More sweet than acidic to be frank. This has a warming quality to it. Notes of vanilla pudding. and soft oak, almost boiled soft oak. Tiniest hint of burned wood (and hay), warm motor oil (Dailuaine) and finally some grassy green hints. Although I am quite familiar with Whiskies from American oak, this does have another twist to it, is it the French oak maybe, or is it the soft fruitiness this shows. Nice, whatever it is.

Taste: Quite sweet on entry and again very friendly but also a bit thin, apart from the sugary feel that is. Nice and very approachable. No off-notes (hint of plastic, and ever so slightly soapy, but these don’t hurt the end-result a bit), and the sweetness never gets to that, annoying, cloying-level. Fruity yes, but harder to analyze than it was from the nose. Not so apply and peary as the nose. Maybe the sweetness is masking it? Fruity appetizing body, with a nice warming finish and enough staying power.

The sweetness makes this approachable and likeable, and is probably marketed towards people who are new to (Single Malt) Whisky. This may have it all, it seems young, but acceptable, therefore also quite inexpensive, well made, soft and friendly.

Points: 80