Tag Archives: NAS

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

Tormore “Batch 2” (51.4%, That Boutique-y Whisky Company, 103 bottles, 50 cl)

Third Boutique-y bottling on these pages, yet the first one that is not an Arran. Earlier I reviewed Arran batch #3 and Arran batch #4. When writing about batch #3, I completely forgot I earlier had done a review of Batch #4, so when that one popped up whilst scrolling through my own pages, it gave me quite a scare, because both labels are the same. As I mentioned before, I neglected Arran for a long time and especially after tasting batch #3, it brought Arran back for me. This time around however a Boutique-y Tormore. Tormore is a beautiful distillery with a very typical output. The word “metallic” often pops up when people taste Tormore. One of my first encounters with Tormore was a 13yo Cadenheads bottling from 1997 (distilled 1984). It was industrial all right, maybe even metallic, but I also became an immediate fan. It’s quirky and expressive, unique and definitely not for everyone, but I really liked its stand-offish character, so I always look at Tormore with great interest and a smile. In comes this Boutique-y expression I got from an auction site. Love the looks, and 50 cl is a nice volume (unless you really, really like it). The bottle looks cute in my hand. Love the humour and the label, not a fan of the lack of information though.

Colour: White Wine, pale gold.

Nose: Very funky, malty, grassy and fatty American oak. Waxy and also quite sweet smelling, fruity yet at the same time also quite floral. One reads a lot about banana on the nose, which I often don’t get actually, but in this one, there is certainly banana here all right. Very fruity overall, overripe fruit. A lot of peach, but only after the first sip. All the wood influence is quite soft and definitely present. Very waxy now, gravy, very fragrant, it leaps out of my glass. Big one and quite unique alright, that’s Tormore for you! Not aggressive at all though, no, this is actually a friendly and well-balanced Tormore. Excellent American oak, quite active indeed. Vanilla, with dark chocolate, dusty and it smells somewhat organic, almost human, which is quite a surprise after all those “metallic” Tormores. This one smells rather “classic”. Good and unique spirit matured in a good American oak cask. Smells fantastic.

Taste: Same here, very fruity initially and the wax is even slightly more prominent. Some bitterness to the back bone and quite hot going down. Waxy, sweet wood. Green yes, but the mix of herbs are not your favourite most liked herbs and dare I say that some of the overripe fruit may have passed the overripe stage altogether. All of this framed by some bitter wood with quite some staying power. Unique? Yes! Quite nutty with added licorice to the back bone. The licorice-note comes from the wood. Greenish, fresh almonds, yet also some hints of paper and cardboard. Here a more industrial feel pops up which is normal for Tormore, but it doesn’t match the nose entirely. This one strips the throat cavity of any fat, so it is somewhat harsh going down. Not your fatty vanilla, creamy feel when swallowing, so you’d better be prepared for that. The nose is definitely the more likeable of the two. Yet metallic it is not. The bitterness is more prominent in the finish and even more so in the aftertaste.

After the very promising nose, on the palate this is a somewhat more difficult puppy. Definitely not one for casual drinking. Tormore in general is not an easy one. I guess this is one for anoraks as well. But oh boy, is this an unique profile, and if you manage to “click” with it, you’re definitely in for a kick.

Points: 86

Since this is quite an unique offering, I’m sure this is not for everyone. For some of you this might seem to be a high score. For me this is a great trip though. Yet it suits the 50 cl format though.

Torabhaig Allt Gleann (46%, OB, The Legacy Series, First Fill Bourbon & Refill Bourbon Barrels, Batch 001, 2021)

Not too long ago when thinking about Whisky, Skye was Talisker, and Talisker was Skye. Not any more, since a second Distillery came about on the island. Production at Torabhaig started in January 2017 and this particular bottling contains Whisky from the opening year as well as from 2018. The back label is a treasure trove for info: Barleys used for this bottling are Concerto and Laureate. Yeasts used are Pinnacle MG+ and Safspirit M-1. For me a first. I have never seen the yeast being mentioned, nor do I possess any knowledge about yeast strains that are used today. So useful info I’m sure, just not right now. The in-grain phenol content was 77 ppm, off the still, it was around 60 ppm, with a residual peating level of around 17 ppm, so this is then a heavily peated Malt. The Whisky underwent no chill filtration, nor was it coloured. Before the Allt Gleann came the 2017 vintage in the Legacy series, which was also bottled @ 46% ABV. The difference between the two probably the usage of 2018 spirit in the Allt Gleann, and by now there is also a second release of Allt Gleann called Batch 002.

Color: Pale White Wine

Nose: Modern, soft with slightly sweet peat. Very clean, including a breath of fresh air, maybe even slightly Menthos-like minty. Salty smoke (this makes my lips go dry, only by smelling it), tobacco, dust and soft wood (not virgin, yet slightly creamy and vanilla-like). Quite mature actually for such a young Whisky. Nice spicy and green notes. Slightly perfumy. Nicely peated, yet not over the top. Black tea with a slight leather note as well. Distant fruitiness and the smell of baking cookies, an ashtray and cold roasted pork. This is much better smelling than I thought it would be, well made stuff. The smell gets somewhat softer and more malty (and sweeter) after extensive breathing. If this tastes anything like it smells, we have a winner on our hands. Even the Lagavulin 12yo, I recently reviewed, showed more hints towards new make than this. Quite amazing. I only hope the reduction to 46% ABV didn’t harm it in any way.

Taste: Aiii, right from the beginning rather thin. Tastes oily and fatty, but doesn’t have the matching texture. Nice soft peat, wood and some liquid smoke and yes, quite sweet and fruity. Yellow fruits with lots of unforeseen licorice notes. Thin it is yet balanced and tasty. Quite strange and unexpected since the nose is quite big and aromatic. Elements of crushed beetle and maybe some lemonade or cola mixed in with the smoke and the peat. Less salty than the nose predicted. No new make in the taste as well. Not entirely Islay in its approach, but not far from it either. Good stuff, I hope for a bright future for Torabhaig.

I think this is already amazing stuff for a Whisky of three to four years old and definitely better than I though it would be. The quality is there, even at this reduced ABV. I’d like to try a similar product of Torabhaig at cask strength, that should be nice!.

Points: 86

Thanks go out to Auke for his sample.

Paul John (59.7%, OB, Single Cask #1444, 2014)

While we’re at it, why not continue with yet another Paul John. In the previous two reviews we first had an Amrut finished in cask that previously held peated Whisky and the second Whisky, a Cadenhead Paul John, consists for 40% of Peated Whisky. This time around, we’ll be looking into a single cask of Paul John, a totally unpeated one. Personally I believe Paul John in its peated variant is often at its best. However, like I claimed in the review of the Cadenhead Paul John, there are very good unpeated expressions as well, so lets see if #1444 is one of them.

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: Very nice entry, with Paul John’s trademark horseradish. A good Springbank has cocos, and a good Paul John has horseradish. Dusty horseradish in this case, like dried out horseradish cream (from a jar). Prickly and spicy, with trace amounts of smoke and floral soap. Appetizing. Cola flavoured wood, and a zesty oak flavour. Appealing in this zesty soda kind of way. Maybe they should carbonate this particular expression of Paul John? The wood now turns a bit vegetal, somewhat virgin, although it is highly unlikely this came from a virgin oak cask. Cold tea. Complex. This has pencil shavings which is also quite normal for a Paul John, but much less than other unpeated expressions, which is a good thing in my book, since that aroma can often dominate the Whisky, masking the complexity it might have and thus resulting in a lower score. So it seems this is a better balanced unpeated single cask than the ones reviewed earlier. The nose benefits hugely from sipping, showing yet more layers. Wow. Sometimes I smell some creamy fruits from an Alsatian Gewürztraminer (not the lychee by the way). How is that for complexity.

Taste: Wood, mocha, ashes and horseradish toffee. Prickly (white pepper?) and somewhat sweet. Again showing great balance. The next wave concentrates more around the sweet bit, now showing a ripe fruitiness. Yet also quite some wood without ever getting bitter. Hints of virgin oak again, but also some dusty old dried out leather books. Classy. A slight lemony acidity (lemon meringue) at the end of the body and well into the finish, which is nice, nutty and long. Walnuts without the bitter skin, the flesh of walnuts only, so to speak. Warming finish and thus this nutty and woody aftertaste with again quite some length.

I have to say this is a very nice dram, and may very well be the best of the unpeated Paul John’s I tried up ’till now. Just compare this one to the other unpeated official single casks: #1906 (87 points) and #1051 (84 points). Great balance and it all works together quite nicely. The aromas in the nose are nice, as well as on the palate, and both the nose and the taste fit together well. Nice finish and a good lengthy aftertaste. Very good example this one, definitely my favourite of the unpeated ones. Funny really, all these single casks look alike especially because a lot of information is lacking. What kind of cask it is, how many bottles, distillation year and so on. So they all look the same, they seem to come all from Bourbon barrels, but the difference between the different casks can still be really great.

Points: 89

Amrut (61.3%, Blackadder, Raw Cask, Peated Cask Finish, BA26/2016, 165 bottles, 2016)

This isn’t the first Amrut on these pages, (it’s the ninth), nor is it the first Blackadder (it’s the fifth). Looking at Blackadder, this Amrut finds itself in good company with a 26yo Port Ellen, a 28yo Royal Lochnagar, a 28yo Lochside and a 40yo Glenfarclas. All scoring 88 or 91 points. I don’t think this Amrut is as old as these other ones. After 26 years an Amrut cask would probably be empty, all evaporated in the hot and humid local climate. So, this is not the first Amrut on these pages, but it most certainly is the first one bottled by an independent bottler, and somehow this bottler felt the need to finish this Whisky in a peated cask, or did Amrut already do that themselves? Was the original cask a bit tired, the Whisky a bit bland and/or did the Whisky need something of a booster, or did it just seem to be a neat experiment, a great idea? Well there is only one way to find out, and have a go at it ourselves and see if it’s any good. By the way, if you see some black cask sediment on the bottom of your bottle, don’t bring the bottle back to your retailer, it’s supposed to be there, hence the name Raw Cask.

Color: Copper gold (with black dandruff, the bigger chunks of cask sediment are still in the bottle).

Nose: Buttery with vanilla. Creamy, pudding-like, big and bold. Citrus freshness and some nice fresh oak mixed with some fresh air, sometimes even a bit sweet smelling. After the Ledaig, yet another well balanced nose, just much less peated. Green, black tea and somewhat floral with only the tiniest hint of peat, typical Indian barley smell, you can also get from a Paul John, (reminiscent of nutty pencil shavings). Definitely no smoke, but there is a dusty and dry side to it, even though this has this sweetish and chewy cream note. Crème brûlée and some licorice. The green notes are moving into the realm of wood, tree sap with a hint of pencil shavings. Somewhat spicy, as well as spices you get from a nice (oak aged) Chardonnay. Nice whiff of eucalyptus you can smell in a sauna (I only picked up on this after sipping) and unlit Cuban cigar notes. If you put some time into it, it is actually an excellent smelling Malt. It just needs quite some time and air. A nose built around green wood and the many guises of cream. Not a very complex nose at first, but a very nice one indeed, and near perfect after half an hour or so. Works well outside. The fresher the air it gets to breathe, the bigger the reward.

Taste: Sweet, fruity, nutty and somewhat waxy and yes, peaty it is this time. Sweet, wet wood, licorice and white pepper. Cold cigarette ashes and sweet fatty smoke. Menthos and a distant hint of hard red fruit (raspberry) candy. At times quite spicy and almost hot. Still creamy, although masked. Toffee. Behind this is some acidic fruit. Not only citrus, but also some acidity from (red) berries. Some white pepper. Long finish (in the wood realm again) and a nice similar aftertaste, now with a slight bitter (and soapy) edge to it. The perception of bitterness was different from one day to the other. All in all, slightly less balanced than the nose. After a few drams, I managed to anaesthetize the roof of my mouth a bit, so this really is a 60%+ ABV Malt in the end.

Yet another example of a Whisky that needs your attention to “get” everything it has. So maybe this is, in a way, a delicate Malt. For instance, the previously reviewed Ledaig, well, that one doesn’t need your attention. That one will make sure it will get your attention, by leaping out of your glass, and coming after you(r nose). Yup, the beauty of this Amrut lies in the details and the time you are willing to give it. Just leave it in your glass, move it around a bit, take the occasional sip, and only then you will find out what it’s got. I think this is wonderful stuff, but when carelessly sipping it, I didn’t think all that much of it to be honest (and alas I drammed right through most of this bottle that way). So beware how you treat it (and thus yourself). I don’t know why this was finished in a peated cask, but it clearly worked. Kudo’s!

Points: 89