Tag Archives: NAS

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Ardcore (46%, OB, Black Malt, 2022)

I do have to admit, I really am a sucker for the Ardbeg visuals, and yes, the marketing does play its part in that. Even I am susceptible to that, there is no escaping from it! I just love the classic Ardbeg bottle, its shape, the green glass, and all those many different labels it now comes with. So having a few of those side by side on my lectern makes for a nice look, somewhat akin to me really liking the look of the wall of books in my living room. Also a stunning visual. People are collectors by nature, so gettin g a few of these is quite normal, also I do like the explore the different takes on Ardbeg, however I’m not a completist, I do not necessarily need to have them all, although more is definitely more. If I pass on one or the other it is mostly based on price.

For this fourth instalment in Ardbeg April, lets do even some more recycling shall we: A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones I previously reviewed use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximénez (Spain), Marsala (Sicily, Italy) or Port (Portugal) kind. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks, casks with toasted virgin oak lids (funny business with casks) or using a high density mash (funny business during production). For Ardcore, Ardbeg did a hardcore roasting, ending up with black malt. A process more common in the world of Beer. Just think of Beers like Porters and Stouts. A stage before black malt is called chocolate malt (slightly less roasted). A malt that is used by Dr. Bill for Glenmorangie Signet.

Color: Light straw.

Nose: Initially malty, milky, young. Not particularly the nicest of smells. Barley, barley sugar. Soon after the first sniff a more balanced, less young and more spicy profile emerges. Spicy wood and maybe some a-typical woodsmoke. Roling the Whisky around in my glass brings out this youth again for only (and luckily) a brief moment. Sweet yellow fruits, not ripe per se. Nice fruity notes, like peach and apricots. Fruit balanced with paper and something a bit soapy. Interesting, but not a problem though. So heavy mash was supposed to add more tropical fruit notes to “Smokiverse”, but didn’t, and now barley that has been roasted to (almost) a crisp, does. Amazing. I guess these experiments show us some different results to what we might have expected, (all this obviously based on nose alone). So these experiments supply us with some essential data, another reason why it is pointless to be so highly critical to these bottlings (apart from their pricing maybe). If the price was lower, more people could learn a thing or two from these experiments. Now this NAS-series might be somewhat elitist because of their price and how many there are. That’s why quite a few of these reviews were from bottle shares, mostly done with Nico. Between Smokiverse, Spectacular and Ardcore, and absolutely smelling past the youthy bit mentioned above, I like the nose of Ardcore best. Forget about the first whiff though…

Taste: Sweet entry, initially a bit simple. Smoky and nutty, but it quickly gains momentum and opens op nicely. A very nice effect. The typical Ardbeg liquorice is present again, yet in this one it doesn’t overpower the rest of what you can taste as it did in some others reviewed before. In the others it was maybe a bit mono, here is it quadraphonic, making for a bigger stage (well, at least stereo, let’s settle on that). Ashes, charcoal, soft peat and soft smoke, but with an added bitter/burnt edge to it. Dark chocolate, pencil lead and ear-wax. Not over the top, so it is a nice addition, giving the fruit a bit of a backbone. These notes (not the fruity ones) are amplified if you have this one after dinner or late in the evening when your palate is saturated or tired. Clay (of the artificial kind that children play with). Again, very nice. Very fruity, with all these strict edges. Wonderful combination. Great balance between the more astringent notes, the sweetness and the fruit. Nice balance as well with the nose in  mind. Also worth another mention is this wonderful development. Classy. For those who wonder based on the previous reviews, nope, this one is actually not a big gulper, this one can be sipped just fine. For me it worked best as an aperitif and not an after dinner dram. Combined with the initial whiff, this is a Whisky that needs a bit of an user manual, so its not an easy one. Slightly bitter in its aftertaste (especially with a tired palate), that’s the black malt, dark chocolate bit of this Ardbeg

Well, Ardcore suits me just fine, this is right up my alley, its fruity and offers a lot more. Develops like crazy, development also quick right out of the gate. I can’t wait to get me one of those Committee bottlings, bottled at 50.1%, which can be an ideal drinking strength, like all those Old Malt Casks from the previous two decades, especially since I feel 46% might be slightly too low for this profile. Yes this Ardbeg makes me very enthusiastic! Dr. Bill please consider this experiment a success. What about an addition (also in ABV please) to Uigeadail and Corryvreckan in the core range based on the Ardcore experiment, only slightly longer aged, to get rid of the first whiff? Oh, that would be so nice! Please? This one really seems to work best as an aperitif rather than as a digestif, it loses quite a bit of its magic after dinner. This one is meant for a fresh palate and not a tired one.

Points: 87

By now, and for now, we can identify the following three main groups for the special NAS-sers I have reviewed up until now:

1. (Part) Maturation in non-bourbon casks, easy peasy, not unusual, lots of options here,
2. Experiments with casks, experiments, nice, experiments are definitely a learning experience,
3. Experiments in production, even more experiments, how very nice, excellent!

2022 Ardbeg Ardcore: (Extremely) roasted black malt (3)
2014 Ardbeg Auriverdes: Toasted virgin oak lids (2)
2023 Ardbeg BizarreBQ: Double charred casks, Pedro Ximénez casks & BBQ Casks (1) & (2)
2012 Ardbeg Galileo: Bourbon + Marsala (1)
2015 Ardbeg Perpetuum: Bourbon + Sherry (1)
2025 Ardbeg Smokiverse: High gravity mashing (3)
2023 Ardbeg Spectacular: Bourbon + Port (1)

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Spectacular (46%, OB, Port Wine Casks & Bourbon Barrels, 2023)

For this third instalment of Ardbeg April, we can go green and totally sustainable, because in the previous review there is a sentence that I can recycle and expand upon with every review of an Ardbeg NAS special release, so here is the updated sentence: “A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones (I previously reviewed) use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximénez (Spain) or Marsala (Sicily) kind, probably anything other than Whisky matured in ex-Bourbon casks. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks, casks with toasted virgin oak lids (funny business with casks) or using a high density mash (funny business during production)”. Obviously there are more expressions, and the real list is much longer. All of the above are experiments from the mad professor Dr. B. Lumsden. Ardbeg Spectacular falls into the first category, since it is a blend of Whisky matured in Bourbon barrels as well as Whisky matured in Port casks. Port is a fortified Wine, from, you guessed it, Portugal. Bottled on November 14th 2023 and November 15th & 16th 2023, (for Feis Ile 2024). The back label of the bottling runs on the 15th and 16th have Shorty in the top right corner, whereas those bottled on the 14th have not. Shortie is Ardbeg’s Jack Russel Terrier pictured above, here on his official portrait.

Color: Light gold, without even the slightest pink hue.

Nose: Smoky, dusty and only mere hints of anything Wine like (apart from a hardly noticeable funky sulphur going on, matches). Smoky sharpness with soft and warming bonfire notes along with some minty notes. The sharpness you smell in the streets walking in the snow, and people burning wood in the fireplace. Mocha and milk chocolate. The whole much softer than Smokiverse. It seems to me these recent (modern?) Ardbegs are more based on smoke than peat. Sure the peat is never far away, but it seems to be a bit turned down in the mix. (Remember Lars Ulrich turning down Jason Newsted in the mix. “Turn him down until you can barely hear him, and then turn him down some more”). So, toned down peat, not very earthy and hints of burning newspaper. Still not a lot of Port like candy, yet there is some (I guess). Not a lot of red fruits in general. Funny enough, towards the finish I do pick up on some well dried orange skin. Well dried, so without the acidic bit. Also some fresh oak, slightly more peat and iodine. Should I again mention the marketing department? Why not, so here we go again (briefly). It seems to me they read somewhere that Port casks were used and came up with the “Spectacular” narrative. Based on the nose alone, let’s say, to cut the story short, not a lot of Port-like aromas can be found. But hey, I still have to taste it. I do have some humongous déjà vu right now, there seem to be some similarities in the construction and marketing between Spectacular and Smokiverse. So I now wonder, will this be the another big gulper? I should trademark this, oh great it already is, bummer.

Taste: On entry quite thin with the same liquorice notes Smokiverse has, just somewhat less of it. Barley with a more milky spirit, which makes me believe this is overall a younger Whisky than Smokiverse. Looking at the two initially it’s like both are very similar with the only difference being that spectacular saw one or two Port pipes. If there were more, I’m sure they are refills, and the heavy mash might be a difference, which also didn’t dominate in Smokiverse. The Port didn’t impair a lot of sweetness. The sweetness this has is more of the toffee kind, than it is fruity. However, after some extensive breathing, they start to differ more. Spectacular gains more wood, with a slightly bitter edge, some tar and a more powdery feel and finally some more (thin) red fruity notes, complete with some red fruit acidity. Although hardly noticeable, I’m now pretty sure the Port used must have been of the Vintage kind (red), since the back of my tongue picks up on some tannin’s. Also the smoke in the nose becomes more “tasty” with an added dimension from what seems to be cigarette smoke). A very interesting development. Dare I say it? Can I, can I? Yes, this is yet another big gulper, with bigger gulps this gains in complexity and overall body, remember the thin entry? This has been remedied by the bigger gulp.

Based on the colour (which is a very dangerous assumption), but also on experience (am I experienced?), it seems to me not a lot of Port casks found their way into the final product. A very understandable decision, since Port can easily overpower, giving the Whisky a sweet candy like taste.

I might seem highly critical of these NAS Ardbegs, but again, the nose of this is very good, but the taste stays behind a bit, also it seems to me to be somewhat less balanced. I did like Smokiverse and most of the others more, but the drinkability of Spectacular is a redeeming factor. These NAS-ers are nice additions across the board, but for what they are, maybe somewhat overpriced. The  higher proof standard bottlings Uigeadail an Corryvreckan are very reasonably priced, and maybe therefore the special NAS releases are getting some slack when they are compared to those. And to finish things off, no mention whatsoever about the kind of Port these casks held before. Based on the colour of the Whisky I would say White Port since it totally lacks the pink hue Red Port impairs. Still Red Port seems to be more likely, why would there otherwise be so much red used on the packaging? Confusing.

Points: 85

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg Smokiverse (48.3%, OB, High Gravity Mashing, 2025)

Last week we started off Ardbeg April with the “new” Ardbeg 17yo. This time around we are going to have a look at one of the many Ardbeg NAS bottlings.  This bottling was released to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Ardbeg Committee. A lot of Ardbeg special releases are different in many different ways. For instance, some of the ones I previously reviewed use casks that previously held different kinds of liquids, like several fortified Wines of the Pedro Ximenez or Marsala kind. Some have a more out of the box idea behind them, like BBQ casks (!), double charred casks or casks with toasted virgin oak lids.

This Smokiverse is one of these out of the box ones. No funny business with casks this time, but funny business with mashing. This time we are talking about high gravity mashing, which means that the wort is highly concentrated or more dense and subsequently contains more (acetate) esters, giving flavour, or better, which áre the flavour. Less water, more grain, and to cut a long story short, this would result in a more (tropical) fruity and maybe sweeter Ardbeg. Also no mention at all about the casks used on the box or the label, so lets assume (refill) Bourbon casks before starting off, careful with that assumption, Eugene…

Color: Straw.

Nose: Some smoke, with citrussy yellow fruits, so definitely fruity. Recognizable Ardbeg peat, earthy and funky. Also a little bit of funky organics going on within the peat smell. Fans of Ardbeg will recognize it immediately. Hints of burnt plastic, like melting cables. Luckily a mere hint, because if this would have been a more dominating smell, we would be in for a problematic journey. Hints of sulphur in the smell. Tea and moss. Is it overly fruity? No, I wouldn’t say so. Based on the marketing I expected slightly more fruit. The fruit, by the way, is all citrus, I have a hard time finding any kind of tropical fruit in it, and most definitely no ripe tropical fruit. All in all, the nose is quite restrained and also a bit simple. It doesn’t attack my nose when it nears the glass. It helps to warm the glass inside in your hand for a while, to get more out of it. Warming mocha pastry type of smell, maybe even mocha cake made with cream. For me a well behaved Ardbeg. The focus here lies on the dense mash, and with that the fruit, yet the name focuses on smoke. I have to admit that the smoke has a larger role in this one than even the peat does. For me these two definitely do no define this Ardbeg, both don’t dominate the nose of this Ardbeg, something else almost does. Please read on. I guess the marketing department read a story about it, in stead of tasting it. Personally, I would have used images of alone drinker in an armchair and a fireplace instead of a galaxy. I guess the galaxy came in when someone read the word “gravity”, not bothering to ask someone with a nose how this actually smells. But hey, I might be way ahead of myself here, I’m rambling, ranting almost, without even tasting it, so let’s do that now, shall we?

Taste: Well, “nutty” was the first wordt that sprang to mind when tasting this for the first time. Smoke and liquorice next, liquorice is a main marker, it pops up everywhere, and is especially present in the finish and aftertaste, aided again by some smoke. Slightly sweet, but not in a fruity way, yet more like a sweetness coming from the liquorice. The taste is a bit thin again, so again, I feel this is an Ardbeg that needs a bigger gulp, like the 17yo from the previous review did. By the way, this review is written on a entirely different day than that of the 17 yo’s, in case you might wonder. The next sip was indeed a bigger gulp, and yes that’s it, this brings it out way better! I immediately poured some more in my glass. Proper gulping needs more volume. If you have one open, and you are reading this, please join me. The bigger gulp offers us much more depth, more sweetness and yes more liquorice. The whole comes together way better, also achieving a better balance. Chewy sweetness and yes finally, with more ripe fruits as well, with this tiny smoky backbone holding it al together. Interesting development.

48.3% ABV is slightly higher than most of these NAS bottlings which are bottled at 46% ABV I believe. I also understand why. This well behaved Ardbeg needed a bit of a boost, only, 48.3% ABV is still not enough, it’s still too quiet and maybe too well behaved, or it is what it is and we need to accept that this is its nice character. Letting it stand for a while, more of the Islay traits emerge, smoke, peat and tar. The Ardbeg smoke we all know, but not more or different from other Ardbegs, so to especially use the word “smoke”in the name is in my opinion slightly misplaced. Let it go, it’s not important really.

This almost turned out to be a review of a marketing idea instead of the Whisky. I’m sorry for that. Don’t worry, this is only a minor distraction. This is again most definitely not a bad Ardbeg, like many of the other special NAS releases, that somehow get a lot of negative reviews. Granted, Uigeadail and Corryvreckan are very, very good, high in ABV and cost (much) less. And the Ten is not bad either. Still I like Smokiverse. It’s a contemplative Malt, not one for a (big) group of people to have together, but one for you by yourself in your armchair before a cosy fire. To finish things off, haters will be haters, but for me this “yet another NAS” has more than enough interesting things that I like.

Points: 86

 

Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength (59.6%, OB, L7262CM000, 2007)

After two powerhouses of the love it or hate it Malt, a.k.a. Laphroaig, I felt it might be a good idea to have a go at yet another cask strength peated Malt from Islay, just not a Laphroaig. There seems to be Ardbeg time, but today its Caol Ila time. Caol Ila, by now the not so hidden Malt, because a lot of it is made and a lot of bottles get released as a Single Malt, especially by independent bottlers. I already reviewed a lot of Caol Ila’s and until now, all of them were from independent bottlers. This time around we are going to have a look at an official bottling. Diageo released this NAS Caol Ila named Natural Cask Strength for the first time in 2002. After that a similar looking “Cask Strength” saw the light of day in 2004. Maybe that one was not so natural, since the word itself is missing from the label, but we’ll count it in, because it looks like part of the series. From 2005 until 2009 it was released annually, with even two bottlings in 2007. Also, in 2005, 2006 and 2007 a 20cl version was released in a gift box with the 12yo and the 18yo, all three Natural Cask Strength versions with different ABV’s than their consecutive bigger 70cl brothers. Very interesting! So all in all, Natural Cask Strength was only a short series. I’ll put up a list below. The moniker Natural Cask Strength was used more often by Caol Ila especially for distillery only bottlings.

This review is again from my own bottle, (not from a sample), and once again one that has to be reviewed before it will be gone.

Color: Straw, light White Wine.

Nose: Malty and sweet. Medium peat and quite some nice smelling smoke. Charcoal. Right out of the gate some hidden fruitiness. You just know something is there. Very clean overall, no off notes or funky organics at all. In somewhat dirty Caol Ila’s I often get some coffee on the nose, but not here, so definitely a clean expression. Actually a nice one after both Laphroaigs from the previous two reviews. Different. An islander that behaves. After a while, some nice organics emerge. Smells of cooked food. The smoke sometimes gives way to a more fruity nose, only this time the fruits are of the citrus kind. Almost like the smoke is being turned on and off, like an annoying child playing with the light switch. Nicely balanced Islay Whisky. Nice oak smell as well, slightly acidic (citrus again). The wood smells like it’s freshly cut (adding to the clean overal feel, by the way). Vegetal. Green foliage. Also hints of Aromat, a salty powdery concoction used on cooked vegetables. The smoke and the peat seem to take more of a back seat when this gets time to breathe. It is somewhat moving into the direction of some of the unpeated Caol Ila’s (but not much). The nose gains even more balance after breathing, very likeable indeed, also it shows some layering. Nice development with lots of fresh air throughout, but not coastal in any way. The smoke is slightly herbal. I like this a lot, the nose on this is really wonderful, especially if you give it time to breathe. I now wonder how this would compare to other batches of this short series.

Taste: Sweet, toffee, caramel. Wood liquorice and some crushed beetle and cold dishwater (ever so slightly soapy and citrussy). Both not as bad as it sounds, so don’t worry. Alcohol forward. Wodka drinkers will recognize this bit. Vanilla pods and some custard. Warming and in the taste more smoky than on the nose. Edible smoke. The chewy smoke, gets some added complexity by a little bit of white pepper. If the smoke and the peat were slightly less upfront, I may have considered this, (when tasted blind), as a Talisker. Burnt and toasted wood. All from a bonfire and not so much charred cask aromas. I feel like sitting outside in the woods preparing myself to roast some marshmallows or sausages. Coffee candy, here’s finally the coffee. The thing I have with coffee and Caol Ila is most likely personal, I haven’t heard anybody else mentioning it. What I perceive to be a coffee note, might be different for you. Next some warm light peat and somewhat stingy smoke. Bonfire smoke, and it seems to be a little bit salty as well. Although I don’t pick up upon the salt every time around. Still a clean yet very tasty Islay Whisky, a great pour after the Laphroaigs. Hardly any bitterness. After a while big and aromatic, a fine pour for sure.

Very interesting offering, maybe I should try to get some (more) different batches of the Natural Cask Strength, purely for comparison or science or somebody has to do it. I’ll add it to the archive so I can revisit it when reviewing another bottle. Recommended.

Points: 87

70cl:

J15R02770848 (2002) 55.0% *
L4304CM000 (2004) 55.0% (Cask Strength, without Natural)
L5333CM000 (2005) 59.3%
L6180CM000 (2006) 58.6%
L7033CM000 (2007) 59.2%
L7262CM000 (2007) 59.6% *
L8288CM000 (2008) 61.6% *
L9237CM000 (2009) 61.3%

20cl:

L5 (2005) 60.1%
L6 (2006) 58%
L7 (2007) 59.3%

Hazelburn “CV” (46%, OB, 11/441)

Even after the Springbank and the Longrow, I still didn’t plan to do a Hazelburn next. Actually, even the Longrow wasn’t planned as the follow-up of the Springbank 15yo. (but more on that later, probably the next review, when additional data comes in). However, I didn’t even get to rummaging through the box yet, the box I mentioned in the previous two reviews, to look for a sample for this review, when I opened a closet in my study, my eye fell on a low-level bottle of Hazelburn. The Hazelburn was put there to review it before it would be gone. Sometimes a Whisky is so easy that you tend to reach for it quite often, so it had to be saved from my lectern, before finishing it un-reviewed.

Right at the moment I saw it, only then it hit me like all planets suddenly aligned. The third review had to be Hazelburn of course! Funny enough, I even checked if maybe I already did write this one up, but to my amazement, I haven’t even reviewed a Hazelburn on these pages before. I did actually, but non of those have been published yet. I tasted lots and lots of Hazelburns over the years and I find Hazelburn to be a hidden gem and seriously underrated. Springbank has lots of fans, hence Hazelburn is therefore often a bit overlooked. I get it, nothing better than the original ‘eh? For instance, you can see that at auctions, Prices for Hazelburn and also Longrow are lower compered to a similar Springbank. In the end I somehow got a sign that this should be the next one, and since this is the last of the brands produced at Springbank Distillery, the next review will be of something entirely different, so If you expect the next review to be of Kilkerran, I’m sorry, nope, although it has the same owners and is partially made by the same people, it is from another distillery (Glengyle). The “brand” Glengyle has another owner, so they couldn’t name the Whisky that, so the Whisky from the Glengyle distillery is called Kilkerran. To finish off, Hazelburn is triple distilled, and unpeated, although peat doesn’t seem to be totally absent from many Hazelburns…

Color: Straw gold.

Nose: Clean, sweet and malty. Oily. Fruity and very aromatic, very fragrant. This leaps out of my glass and smells more potent than 46% ABV. Sharp fresh air, and only a tiny hint of wood. Smelling it more, keeps giving me these sweet ripe yellow fruit aromas. Sweet yellow fruit yoghurt, you tend to have after breakfast (at least, I do). Mind you, this is a powerhouse and I’m literally reviewing drops of the last 7 cl of the bottle. Springbank distillates are known to take air very well, almost every time oxidation is a friend, well this is most definitely no exception. Maybe the last few pours from this bottle simply are the best? Dried apricots and sugar cubes. Cold mineral machine oil (you use on a sewing machine), the cleanest you can get. Cold not warm, warm oil is different. Hints of coal and steam. Next some smoke, surely they can’t clean the pipes and the rest of the distilling equipment that well, that this doesn’t come from peat from previous distillations? I do get smoke, like from the bonfire kind. Peat? Not really no. First of all this is a NAS (No Age Statement) bottling so, this can have some young Whisky in it (CV is said to have malts from 6yo up to 12yo old), and still this has a fantastic balance to it, maybe even more so due to extensive oxidation. The Hazelburn distillate must be a magical Spirit. The people at Springbank that thought of distilling three times without peat and thus creating Hazelburn are geniuses. Right from the start, I have been a big fan of Hazelburn in the portfolio of Springbank, it still is sort of a well kept secret. Final remark on the nose: The fruitiness dumbs down a bit after tasting because of the wood slightly dominating (what?) the palate, which then takes over in your oral cavity, pushing the friendly sweet fruit notes away. How rude!

Taste: Malty and creamy. Sweet and nutty (and dare I say, ever so slightly peaty? A tiny bit? Please? Oh come on!). Sugared almonds and some wax. Less of a powerhouse than the nose promised, but not by much. Cereal and barley. Barley sugar. Quite buttery come to think of it (also in the nose). Very tasty! Where wood wasn’t all that prominent in the nose, here in the taste it has a larger role to play. There is some vegetal oak and sometimes even some hay-like notes (which then reminds me a bit of a Grappa), as well as some toasted cask notes, and when you get those, they are here to stay, later on accompanied with some woody bitterness. the bitterness is kept in check, but is definitely present. Yes, greener and less fruity than the nose. Less fruity, because the wood takes over. Less complex, and not as much development as I might have hoped for, but the balance makes up for that. I guess the lesser complexity is because of the younger elements of this Whisky. Mind you, this was intended as an introduction to Hazelburn of sorts. It doesn’t have an age statement and thus allowed for some freedom in the composition of it, (the ages of the Whiskies that went into this bottling), so it could be released for a fair price. If only this had slightly less wood and slightly more of that wonderful sweet yellow fruit…

Hazelburn CV (Curriculum Vitae), which stands for course of live and is mainly used for someone’s resume in which you sum up your live and achievements. Sometimes CV has also been explained to mean Chairman’s Vat. Together with Hazelburn also a Springbank CV and Longrow CV existed, all now discontinued by the way, the three were said to be blended from whiskies from 6yo to 12 yo, and the three would show the consumer the differences between the three. Again, Springbank being 2.5 times distilled and (lightly) peated. (2.5 times, because half the Spirit in Springbank is 2 times distilled and the other half 3 times). Longrow is 2 times distilled and (heavily) peated and Hazelburn, as mentioned already above, is 3 times distilled and unpeated.

Points: 86

For those of you, like me, that are more anoraky (a Whisky nerd of sorts): here are the rotation numbers for Hazelburn CV (the list might not be complete):

20cl bottles: 09/468, 10/422, 11/109 and 12/63 (so end of 2009 to early 2012), I believe all were in a CV-set of the three whiskies, not sure if they were sold separately. There are also bottles without a rotation number, maybe from 2013?

70cl bottles: 10/351, 10/356, 10/429, 10/506, 11/441, 12/251, 13/185 and 13/188 (so end of 2010 through early 2013, no sign (yet) of a 70cl bottle from 2009)

Assumptions, assumptions: Maybe the 09/468 set was intended for Christmas, which would make sense since there doesn’t seem to be a 2009 70cl in existence? Maybe the decision to bottle the 70cl CV was made after the release of the set, since is was bottled almost a year after the first set? Since the 2013 70 cl bottle was bottled in early 2013, it likely no set was made in 2013, also the last set was bottled very early in 2012.

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