Tag Archives: Single Malt

Ardbeg April: Ardbeg 17yo (40%, OB, Committee Exclusive, 2023)

The first of April is no joke this time. It is the start of Ardbeg April, one month which will be solely dedicated to some more recent bottlings of Ardbeg. Since there are already quite a few Ardbeg’s reviewed on these pages, the history of Ardbeg has already mostly been covered. For this review we first have to go back to 1996 when Ardbeg was put on sale and was bought by Glenmorangie Plc. for £7 million just a year later. Ardbeg distillery was in a bit of a state, so quite some renovations were necessary for which money was dearly needed. Also because of this, the most recent fase of Ardbeg’s modern history starts in 1997. Not only did Glenmorangie buy the distillery in that year (February 27th), with Dr. Bill Lumsden entering the Ardbeg scene, but also production was restarted (June 25th) and to bring in some money Ardbeg 17yo was released quickly thereafter.

Bottled at a mere 40% ABV (for the domestic market?), yet luckily there also was a 43% ABV version (for other markets or travel retail?). I tried several of both, and the extra 3% most definitely made a difference. Other landmarks were the releases of the 10yo (TEN) in 2000, Uigeadail in 2003 and Corryvreckan in 2008. These three form the true current backbone of the range. There are obviously a lot more releases since 1997, but in the day, these three together with the 17yo were “Ardbeg”. Alas the 17yo was discontinued in 2004, most likely, since Ardbeg was distilling intermittently, not a lot of stock for a 17yo was available anymore, hence the move to two NAS bottlings for the core range, though both boasted a higher strength than deemed normal for a core range. But hey, fans of Ardbeg are not normal folk. Then came 2023, the rebirth of the 17yo, return of a legend, bottled again at 40% ABV and commanding a hefty price. Both parameters made me pass up on a bottle of my own, but I did participate in a bottle-share with Nico and also Andy was so kind to provide me with a sample.

On the back of the box it is mentioned that for this release Dr. Bill Lumsden meticulously crafted this new 17yo to mirror the original, that is quite the statement, because the original 17yo has quite a reputation and proved to be highly popular and the available Whiskies at Ardbeg to create the original are very different from the Whiskies available today. I guess the original 17yo is a hard act to follow. For Ardbeg 17yo, Whiskies were used that matured in Bourbon and Sherry casks.

Color: Straw

Nose: Lightly peated, lively and very fruity. Light overall, so I guess the reduction to 40% ABV did its trick here as well, but I maybe getting ahead of myself here. Pour it and keep it under a lid for a moment, and then smell, works wonders. Comparing the old 10yo to the old 17yo. the 10yo was always more raw, peaty, just more of a beast. The old 17yo, was a way more refined and elegant Ardbeg. The smell of this new one is definitely soft, fruity and elegant, ther is a lot coming up from my glass. Pretty pleased with this one so far. Is it the same as the old 17yo? Hard to say without a head to head. Its been a really long time ago I had one full sized bottle open on my lectern. Does it smell like an older bottling? Sure, yes I believe so. So based on the nose alone I would say well done, getting this profile from more modern stock. Very soft and sweet smoke, combined with an almost sweet and citrussy fruitiness. After some breathing Iodine becomes noticeable. Very distant and very soft wood note (slightly salty smelling, yes salt has a smell as well). It is even more dusty than it is woody. Again, still very lively and fresh. The reduction is also noticeable that even after extensive breathing not a lot is happening anymore. No oozing of layers. Well balanced it is though. Extensive breathing also brings out more of a modern feel. Very nice nose. Well done.

Taste: First sip is almost like drinking water, I was prepared for some reduction, but not as much as this. OK, reset my expectations and palate and try again (just in case this is a big gulper, I splashed a little more in my glass for the second sip). Update: it is a big gulper, definitely! (This means, don’t drink this in small sips, this doesn’t work). The nose was quite “big” so this greeting was kind of unexpected. Second sip/gulp, still very thin. Slightly sweet, old peat, crushed beetle, slightly smoky and fruity again, exactly the same as the nose. Hints of cold black tea with yellow marmelade. Also hints of latex paint (minus the solvents) and a nice herbal note. Hot butter on toast. Again well balanced, but so thin. Funny enough the taste is more complex than the nose, especially when you let it sit for a while. Liquorice enters the finish, or better the aftertaste, it becomes apparent right after swallowing. Not a hard one to review.

Releasing this as a committee exclusive makes sense. This is for fans of Ardbeg (count me in). I’m a defender of all the NAS special releases, and believe me, I’ve got a lot of defending to do, even in my own Whisky-club. And just to annoy these people, then next review will be just one of those. The public in general probably haven’t tasted the old version, nor would pay the price. Aficionado’s have and will, and even better we even forgive them the reduction for historical reasons. I really like the experiment and seeing a 17yo again, and am happy I could try this. Will I buy it? Probably not, I guess the bottle-share suffices. No modern stock just doesn’t work at 40% ABV like older stock can, Great to get and older profile on the nose, but taste-wise I probably would have decided against 40% ABV even when the old 17yo was bottled at that strength, and please don’t tell me that is what the public wanted… This commands quite a hefty price, I wonder what an old 17yo bottled at 43% would cost at auction? Also, this new 17yo is a big gulper, as mentioned above, so be prepared you will finish your expensive bottle pretty quickly.

Points: 86 (It might be better than this, but it’s so thin!)

Thanks Andy: this was from your sample! I needed the lot in one sitting, also because I accidentally poured a little bit of it on my keyboard, sorry!

Talisker 8yo 2009/2018 (59.4%, OB, Limited Release, Deep Charred First Fill Bourbon Hogsheads, L8071CM001, 4.680 bottles, )

In the previous review I mentioned that the Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength had some Talisker moments (white pepper), so after looking on my lectern my eye fell on another Diageo Natural Cask Strength release of this 8yo Talisker that needs to be reviewed, for by now, obvious reasons. The Caol Ila is a NAS bottling (No Age Statement) and this Talisker has been stated, proudly I might add, as an 8yo, make for an excellent comparison. Mind you, in 2018 low numbers were more or less scoffed at. The public preferred funny named Whiskies over something with an age statement with a low number. Funny because a funny name allowed for even younger Whiskies to be used. Not a lot is known about the Whiskies that went into the different batches of the Caol Ila Natural Cask Strength, but we can be pretty confident (after tasting) it is made with Whiskies between 5 and 10yo, probably more 8yo to 10yo than 5yo to 7yo or is it?. Back in 2018 this release was quite popular, because even at this young age the Talisker was deemed excellent and it gained momentum. Many friends I have that dabble a bit in Whisky, purchased multiple bottles of this, as did I.

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Funky and deep. Very different from the Islay Whiskies reviewed before. Definitely a breath of fresh island air. A much wider stage. Deep, big and bold. Not quite sure how to describe this deepness, what is it and where is it coming from? Is it the deep char? If it is, it doesn’t smell burnt at all, an aroma one might expect. Lets start out with and old piece of dried out toffee, but don’t think about its sweetness, it’s everything you smell from such an old piece apart from the sweet bit. Old dried out swampy wood. Deep overripe fruit, but again of the dried out kind. No fresh smelling notes apart from the sea air. More wood now, apart from the swamp wood, indeed a charred note now. This smells very mature and in now way I would have guessed this is from an 8yo Whisky. Amazing. Sometimes a whiff of a more farmy note whiffs in and whiffs out again. Definitely not an easy of entry level Whisky. Definitely a special release. Part of the deepness seems to come from an acidic (not ripe) red fruit note. Quite complex 8yo if you ask me. After some breathing, slightly more balance, only slightly since it already started out very well balanced. More dusty now. Some of the yellow fruity notes I called over-ripe, are really borderline ripe, right before its going bad actually (now not dried). So some unique funky organics going on in this one. Throw all these strange aroma’s together and you get something really amazing. The wood emerged late, yet even later comes this earthy and funky peat note, mixed in with the funky fruit. With this also a smoky note which is unique as well to this Whisky since it als smells slightly soapy (not perfumy).

Taste: Aiaiai, this tastes so good right out of the gate. This has Taliskers trademark white pepper, it has also a very nice sweetness going on, and the smoke is upfront, where in the nose it was almost coming in as an afterthought, probably pushed back by the plethora of funky aromatics going on there. Talking about funky aromatics, these yellow very overripe fruits come next, complete with the acidic bits attributed to red fruit above and a more nutty and clay like note. It is almost 60% ABV, but in no way does it show that, where the Caol Ila was pretty alcohol upfront, this most definitely isn’t. I guess the Caol Ila might be younger than this 8yo. This is quite the Whisky. See, “8” is only a number, don’t make assumptions based on that (nor on the colour of Whiskies, as people often tend to do). The fruit in general beautifully rise to the occasion towards, and in, the aftertaste. After comparing this one to the Caol Ila, the nuttiness of this Talisker is amplified, interesting. With extensive breathing this only becomes better and better. Still, not an easy Whisky to “decipher”. It still has some elements in its depth I have a hard time to put my finger on.

I guess since this one turned out so well (also as in becoming popular and selling well), it did carve out a niche for Whiskies with a low age statement as well as convincing Diageo they could issue more Talisker 8yo’s in the annual Special Releases, as they promptly did in 2020, one that has some issues), 2021 and 2024. (2019 was a 15yo, 2022 was an 11yo, 2023 was a NAS and 2025 was a 14yo). Nobody in these modern times of ours was afraid anymore of a 8yo. For me both young Diageo offerings are hits in my book. Compared both head-to-head, Tha Caol Ila is so wonderfully Islay, and very different. Tasting them side by side their difference brings the best out of both of them. Good to have them open at the same time. The Talisker is definitely the more mature and more complex of the two, it very much shows the youth of the Caol Ila, so I guess the Caol Ila maybe does fall into the 5yo to 7yo bracket. I wonder why it got discontinued so quickly, maybe sales weren’t all that good? The Caol Ila emphasized the American oak vanilla of the Talisker. Comparing is always fun and cab show you things you might have missed earlier.

Points: 89

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%

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 009 (58.1%, OB, 2017)

After batch #008, which was reviewed from my own bottle, just like batches #006 and #007, comes batch #009. Batch #009 which will be reviewed from a sample, just like in the future, batch #010. Having two samples provided to me for these two batches, I could skip those, so I opened a bottle of batch #011, for a batch #010/batch #011 review and comparison. Since these Laphroaig Cask Strength reviews are written in pairs, both will be obviously compared to each other. Batch #006 and #007 was quite fun to compare, and I guess batch #008 and #009 will be at least the same amount of fun.

One might think that all these batches would be very much alike, and sure, there are a lot of similarities going on, but quickly comparing batch #008 to a small drop of batch #006, showed quite a difference if you have them head to head. Especially if you are something of an anorak I suppose. Batch #006 was quite elegant as compared to batch #008, But from my notes, batch #007 was even more elegant, so far so good, with batch #008 being the most “raw” of the three. Obviously there are more (subtle) differences, but let’s not get into that here, especially since I can’t compare every batch to every other batch that Laphroaig has released, and there are a lot of them. For now, we are now going to focus on batch #009 and we will be loosely comparing it to batch #008. After that no more batch #008, since that bottle will be empty when we are done comparing batch #009 to it.

Color: Light orange gold.

Nose: Fresh air comes first together with some fresh oak and some fruit. Old bar of soap, and more fruits, yellow fruits initially and red fruit candy later on. Right out of the gate this has a very different character than batch #008. Like a winter storm (#008) and a summer breeze (#009). Smoke from a wood fire emerging from a chimney as smelled on a street on a cold evening, during a healthy stroll. Clay and glowing embers, warm charcoal. Next the fresh air again as well as some sea spray iodine. Warm cloth, yet almost overpowered by this cold fresh air note. It’s not minty or menthol like, just fresh air with a lot of oxygen in it. Warm smoke, the smoke in this one is excellent. This is, for a Laphroaig, a very accessible and also a very well balanced nose. Come to think of it, the smoke is wonderful, and its smoke alright, the earthy peat is very soft and subdued and almost pushed to the background. Hints of caraway seeds and cloves. I like this one very much, makes me a bit melancholic even. When I was little my parents often went to friends, and I came along. I had to sleep there when it was my bed time, only to be woken up again deep in the night (at that age, late in the evening feels like deep in the night), to go home. When driving home (it was strange to get out of a warm bed en be put into a cold car), i really liked the smell of fresh air at night. Also this batch #009 has some layering going on, because the nose changes over time (without adding water or warming it up in my hands). The nose gets deeper, slightly more peat now and maybe even a more nutty note emerges. The balance is great, of the four for me this one has the best nose, with better details than batch #006. Wow.

Taste: Sweet and smoky. Sweet and peat, sweet and ashes. Very nice fruity sweetness. An orchard Laphroaig. Quite a surprise for me. Warming, and ever so slightly bitter (peat, not wood). Seems slightly thin at first, and also the finish seems not to be the longest of the different batches, but not by a lot though. Tiny hint of a minty candy (one that is mainly sugar with a weak minty flavour). Only after tasting it, the nose shows me a meaty aroma, that of a thin slice of cold meatloaf (right out of the fridge). Soft and wet liquorice wood. The bitterness mentioned earlier is like a sharp edge, that somehow distorts the fruit aroma, in a way that it isn’t able to show me its fullest potential. I really like the complexity of this batch, especially since batch #008 isn’t very complex at all, that one has 4 heavy hitting pillars. Batch #008 has a very strong fundament, like a bunker, with nothing built on top. Batch #009 is like this wooden shed, with, stories being added over time. This might be the best of the bunch, but to me it is also the most interesting one. Still the nose changes over time and just keeps giving.

Well, comparing both noses to each other, first shows us that both are Laphroaigs, and not even that dissimilar. Definitely siblings, but not twins. I can’t add a lot more about the differences in the nose, that I haven’t already mentioned above. The head to head comparisons confirms what is written above. Batch #009 is slightly better balanced and more soft spoken, batch #008 is more bold and louder. Batch #009 has more room to show its sweetness and also its fruity sweetness. Batch #009 is in both the nose and the taste more complex than batch #008, actually, batch #008 is the least complex and the least balanced of all the batches mentioned above. Still, all batches are clear winners, but for now, batch #009 is the clear winner of the bunch.

Points:  93

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 008 (59.2%, OB, 2016)

Back in 2023, matching up batches #006 and #007 was quite fun. Both Laphroaigs were stunning and scored the same. Lots of similarities and yet some noticeable differences as well, especially in the taste. As mentioned in the review of #007, I started looking (again) at cask strength Laphroaig 10yo’s at a time batches #001 through #005 were long sold out and fetching hefty prices at auctions, and now even more so. From batches #006 upwards, there was not really a problem finding those at reasonable prices, so I did just that.

I still haven’t got several of the earlier batches, so like star wars starting with episode 4, I’m going to use batch #006 as my starting point and work my way up and maybe I’ll get a chance to review the earlier ones as well some time in the future. If possible, I’ll try to compare one batch to another batch, (it worked for me to do pairings), but my stash is somewhat limited and the number of batches is rapidly growing, so it is impossible to compare each batch to each other batch. Although some people did do verticals of tastings of many different batches. For me: box ticked for comparing #007 to #006. Both batches were reviewed from bottles I had on my lectern. Now let’s do the next two. First off this batch #008 from my own bottle and the next review will be batch #009 from a sample provided by Nico, which comes in handy, so I can skip this one at home and open another batch. That would be batch #011 actually, since Auke already provided me with a sample of batch #010. 2023 is already a few years back so I won’t be comparing batches #008 and/or #009 with the two earlier reviewed batches, however I will compare batch #009 to #008. Lets start with batch #008.

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: I just poured it and it seems the whole room now smells of peat, the longer it stands the “thicker” the air. In my mind this glass stands on my lectern emitting aroma’s like a chimney emitting smoke, you just can’t see it, but you can most definitely smell it. Powerful, earthy peat, with lots of smoke. Meaty, fishy, tarry rope kind of stuff. Medicinal iodine laced peat, with some artificial lemon like aroma (ever did the dishes?) and even a hint of grandma’s old dried out floral bar of soap, both just a hint, so don’t be alarmed. Nice vegetal aroma. Very well balanced batch this one.  Fresh and at the same time very earthy and brooding. Liquorice and sweet liquorice wood sticks. Still also this pleasant smelling soapy edge. Soap on the nose is often good, if the floral bit fits the rest, not so much in the taste. Remember Bowmore’s FWP? (If not and you are proficient with google you might want to look up Serge’s review of Flowermore 38yo on Whiskyfun.com). More smoke and lost of ashes. Smells like a house that once was on fire and was abandoned for a few months. Glowing embers and bonfire notes, but also a sugary sweetness in the smell as well as some accidentally crushed beetle. Childhood memory, though terrible, it comes in handy when reviewing Whiskies. Still smoke is the main ingredient of this nose especially if you allow a glass like this peated candy to stand around for a while. The nose is excellent.

Taste: Initially sweet, with lots of liquorice, even sweeter than the nose promised, like keeping Liquorice Allsorts in your mouth for a long time. This one is like peated candy. Liquid peat and liquid ashes and therefore turns dry quite quickly. The sweetness takes a backseat to even let this slight bitter note some room. This smoky peat has a slightly bitter edge to it, which is slightly different from woody bitterness. Crushed beetle again. I never dit taste the beetle mishap described above, but how it smelled is recognizable in the taste as well. Both the taste and the smell of this batch are about peat, smoke, ashes and liquorice. The sweetness, though present, is overpowered by the aforementioned foursome. Its actually hard to find something more to it than this. Yes what you get is very good again, but I’m definitely not sure of this batch #008 is on par with both #006 and #007, without comparing it to one of those.

I do can recommend having an archive. I have bought a lot of standard 60ml sample bottles, with special inert lids, to keep things like they were, and occasionally it is very useful to be able to go back for some reason or another. Not to dent a particular sample from my archive too much, I poured a little bit of batch #006, not to really compare the nose of the taste, but to compare the scores. I do can say that #006 has more of a classic Laphroaig nose, more old style so to speak, it even has clay, that batch #008 clearly doesn’t have. Batch #008 has some kind of “fire” theme going on. Batch #006, since it is not overpowered, that much seems more elegant, both nose and taste. Not sure if elegance is something that springs to mind when reviewing a 10yo Laphroaig bottled at cask strength. Final remark: batch #008 is raw and in your face and therefore also simpler and also slightly less balanced. I preferred batch #006, but I’m also quite happy that there is quite some difference between the two.

Points: 90

Highland Park 13yo 2005/2018 “Yesnaby” (58.9%, OB, The Keystone Series: Part Four, First Fill Sherry Seasoned American Oak Casks, 1.200 bottles)

After some disappointment in the past due to batch variation in Highland Park standard bottlings (especially the 18yo, since that happened to me twice), I put Highland Park on the back-burner. Quite the decision, since Highland Park always was and still is one of my favourite distilleries. So after laying low for a while, this Highland Park Yesnaby came with a heartfelt recommendation, so I got one or maybe even two. I remember hearing something about this being reminiscent to the legendary wide neck 18yo. So it fits in my character to say; “why get only one if you can get two for twice the price”. Two of these is still considerably cheaper than getting the aforementioned wide neck at auction, or at least it used to be, since 1.200 is not a lot of bottles, prices for this one are rather going up recently.

Fast forward quite a bit. The guy initially recommending Yesnaby to me, recently (so after the initial recommendation), did a quick and small blind tasting of the “Yesnaby”, the 18yo “Viking Pride – Travel Edition” and the old wide neck 12yo, and low and behold (I always wanted to say this somewhere in a review), low and behold, the Yesnaby didn’t come out on top! Even better, it was on par with the wide neck 12yo quality wise. We all know the wide neck 18yo is much better than the wide neck 12yo. The 18yo Viking Pride – Travel Edition actually won it, although some in our outfit preferred one of the two others. All three are still good Whiskies and by now we all know, what my thoughts were about the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition (from the previous review). I don’t have a 12yo wide neck at hand so that one is out for now. Also there is some variation between the batches of that one too. But at least I had the chance of reviewing, in my tightly controlled environment, the two others from that impromptu blind tasting.

Color: Copper Gold, I guess caramel coloured.

Nose: Creamy and fruity. Vanilla pods. Fresh and slightly sharp. Sometimes Sherry, (Oloroso I guess), can have this slightly funky and farmy, bad breath kind of aroma to it. This has it, but don’t you worry, it sounds worse than it actually is. The aroma is somewhat akin to that of cooked vegetables. Hints of slightly burnt caramel, those of you that ever used a torch on Creme Brûlée will know. Diluted red fruit lemonade and slightly nutty as well. Soft wood, fresh oak (both distinct aromas and differ from each other) and a little bit of wet cardboard for good measure. Rainwater, somewhat dirty, because it has this organic, funky element to it which has me baffled a bit. Vanilla pods, but very restrained or masked. In the nose it is clear this is a a rather fresh yet also with this deeper and more brooding element to it. Slightly hot, high ABV Whisky. Less accessible than the aforementioned 18yo. Reasonably complex. This is more a Whisky for more experienced people, wouldn’t recommend this to you if you’re new to Whisky, since the taster has to “work” this one a bit, never a good sign, but can definitely bring in some results if you have the experience. It also smells hot what a beginner would call “sharp”, and nobody likes “sharp”. Finally it doesn’t let the layers out very well initially, but a few drops of water and some extensive breathing in my glass did wonders. Its thus a bit closed, but opens up after some “work”. Finally a nice mineral aroma you get from very good (mineral) White Wines, like Pouilly Fume and to a lesser extent Riesling. Even more organic rainwater now, very interesting Highland Park.

Taste: Sweet and dry at the same time. Lovely entry. Sweet nutty toffee and some sweet peat as well. Right upfront quite alcoholic as well, which doesn’t seem to integrate all that well initially. More sugary sweet than honey at first, (honey comes later on in the mix). Liquorice. Although heather does seem to be present, the dryness of oak and pencil shavings. seem to overpower it a bit. Oak is a main constituent of this flavour profile. Can’t imagine this being very old wood though. No use really to compare this to the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition, both are quite different and the difference in ABV is also too great. Very, very modern Highland Park. Strong as well. I’m often not the fist one to add some water to a Whisky, but this time I’m going to try that later. Without water still, but with some extensive breathing, the taste reaches a balance, which is very nice, but still not accessible and making it definitely not beginner-friendly. I hope travellers chose other bottling from the keystone series that have a much lower ABV than this particular one. This one anaesthetizes the roof of my mouth. I tasted this over the course of some days and where at first the dryness and woodiness did seem to overpower, the next time around (earlier in the day and with some tiny drops of water), the sweetness did stand its ground, making for a more pleasuring experience. So even though this is a Sherry bottling, which often don’t take water very well, this one actually gets beter. Just don’t overdo it. I have to say, this one definitely grew on me. Needs some water and not one for very late at night.

In the end this one stands further away from the wide neck 18yo than the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition. Yesnaby is probably closer to many of the many Single Cask releases of roughly the same age Highland Park is putting out to different outlets, airports and countries. So I guess I maybe misheard the claim and should have gone for the 18yo Viking Pride Travel Edition in stead, oh well… What is actually funny, looking at the previous review, is that I mentioned that a lot of travel retail bottlings come in at 40% ABV. It is actually Highland Park that is releasing lots and lots and lots of single casks all over the world, that are also very high in ABV, something in between 58% ABV up to 66% ABV, in a way I stand corrected. I plan to open one of those as soon as I finish this bottle of Yesnaby… (I’m happy to report the bottle has been emptied whilst I’m dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of this review (its the day after). A replacement has also already been found today: 14 yo (2004/2019) from the Single Cask Series bottled for Norway at 59.7% ABV (Refill Butt #6450). Final note, no clue what a Yesnaby is, sounds like a Yes tribute band. OK, I looked it up, Yesnaby are the dramatic, scenic sandstone cliffs on the west coast of Orkney’s Mainland. There also is a Yesnaby Castle.

Points: 87

The Highland Park “Keystone Series” consists of five limited-edition bottlings released to celebrate the distillery’s five traditional production pillars (1.200 bottles for each of the five expressions):

  • Hobbister, hand-turned floor malting, mix of 6yo heavily peated Whisky mixed with the Whisky intended for the regular 12yo general release, 51.4% ABV (Hobbister Moor is Highland Park’s peat source).
  • Shiel, locally sourced aromatic peat, 100% hand-turned floor malted barley, 48.1% ABV (Shiel is a wooden shovel to turn barley on the malting floor).
  • Quercus, Sherry-seasoned oak casks, First-Fill European Oak Oloroso Sherry Casks, 48.3% ABV (Quercus is latin for oak).
  • Yesnaby, cool maturation, First Fill Sherry Seasoned American Oak Casks, 58.9% ABV (Aged in Highland Parks most northerly and coolest warehouse).
  • Hillhead, Cask harmonization, Mix of Whiskies from: an European oak Sherry cask, an American oak Sherry cask and a Bourbon American Oak cask, 46% ABV (Cask harmonization is marrying Whiskies from a number of casks in a marrying vat).

Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride” (Travel Edition) (46%, OB, L0387A L04 25:07, 2018)

This Highland Park was actually selected to be the follow up review after Springbank 15yo from a few weeks ago, but after looking at the label of the sample, there seemed to be some information missing. This Travel Edition was bottled multiple times annually since 2018 (at least until 2023) and as could be read on these pages earlier, Highland Park can differ a bit from batch to batch. Batches of Highland Park are supposed to be as similar as possible to each other, not to scare the public, and in the pursuit of getting close to the same flavour, not every batch is as good as some others were. Similar in taste yes, but some batches were just better than others. I found this out the hard way, actually with two of the standard expressions of the 18yo (twice!). The first occasion was before Master Quill even happened, but the second time around, both got reviewed on these pages. One batch from 2012 and the other one from 2014. Back to this 18yo from 2018. Luckily, in this case the provider of the sample is again Nico (just like the Springer 15), and Nico is in a way the high priest of Whisky (I have a picture of him fully dressed up as the high priest of Whisky, but I don’t think I would get permission to put it in here). If I ask him a year later after receiving the sample from which particular batch this sample was, he can still unearth the very bottle this Whisky was sampled from and sends pictures of it. Now that we know from which particular batch this is we can continue reviewing it.

Oh goody, goody, a travel edition! Often not a good sign, since big companies (and Highland Park is owned by such a big company) usually use the travel retail outlets to offer, lets say, not their best drop, for more money than necessary. Some of these bottling have even lower ABV than a bottle from their general release. Just have a look at an airport or on a ferry and look for a travel retail bottling, quite a few are bottled at 40% ABV or if you are in luck 43% ABV. Back in the day, lets say the 60’s, the 70’s and the 80’s, 40% ABV was nothing to scoff at. Lots of Gordon & MacPhail’s Connoisseur Choice bottlings were 40% ABV and almost all of them easily held their own. Just have a look at St. Magdalene from this series. I know it is a scarcity now, since these bottlings come from a distillery that was closed in 1983 (a travesty!), but those of my age will now. Over time (Single Malt) Whisky became ever more popular so owners of distilleries sought ways to be more efficient and the search for types of Barley which would yield the most per acre began. The tastiest of barley’s have a lower yield per acre than the ones mostly used today and sometimes the older varieties are even harder to process. One example is bere barley, low yield, hard to manage, but very, very tasty, just take your time with a Springbank Local Barley made with bere barley. For instance, the 2017 11yo is a favourite of mine (and Nico) or a Bruichladdich made with bere barley, a fine dram as well, young (around 6yo) but fine nevertheless. I digress again. On general release there is a Highland Park 18yo “Viking Pride”, which is widely available, bottled in a clear glass bottle and reduced to 43% ABV, where this Viking Pride Travel Edition is in black glass and bottled at 46% ABV. So all signs say this one should be better than the normal one, so lets find out… (we won’t, because I have never tried the 43% version, but at least we will find out if this one is any good).

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: Sherry, very clean. Immediately very appealing. Highland Park heather and some sweet honey as well. Creamy sweet, with the cream masking the fruitiness this unmistakably has. Breath of fresh air whiffs by right from the start. Clean oak, fragrant wood. Orkney is rugged, but this smells summery (present day), maybe because is was bottled in summer? Altogether a very pleasant smelling Highland Park. Creamy custard, caramel and toffee, but also herbal, as well as spicy, not only from the wood, there is more to it. Chocolate chip cookies. Hot chocolate (with Rum). Warming the glass in my hand, helps even more aroma’s out. A warming chocolatey and smoky note come out to play as well as a tiny hint of bacon aroma emerging from the sizzling pan. Yes, dark chocolate as well, but not its bitterness. If the taste matches this very tasty nose, then we’re most definitely in for a treat.

Taste: Oooh yes. Sweet on entry but there is so much more. A smoky and slightly bitter edge to it. Bitter wood, bitter smoke, nothing overpowering though. The heather and the honey from the nose are present here as well, like a carbon copy. It actually tastes exactly like it smells. Modern Sherry notes, slightly tarry. Dark chocolate. Just the right amount of creamy sweetness. The oak delivers vanilla, so this must have been Sherry cask made from American oak. Toasted oak as well. Nice sweetness again. When tasted on another day, the sweetness was less, so dependent on the taster. The whole is very tasty, yet it is what it is, its not a super complex beast, but in this case it’s alright. A smooth, easy and elegant expression. The Springbank 15yo was more a in-your-face type of Whisky. 46% ABV seems to be just about right for this Highland Park, where it seemed to be too low for the Springbank 15yo. Not sure if 43% ABV for the standard edition will be enough. Who in their right mind would like to reduce a 18yo Whisky to 43% ABV? Because the consumer wants it, or because it makes you more money? All blah-blah-blah, but hey what do I know, lets revisit this review if I ever get the chance to compare it to the 43% ABV standard version or try it on its own. Final thoughts: Definitely a very good 18yo again from Highland Park, also quite modern, the wide neck 18yo from yesteryear is most definitely a step up from this one. However today, the price of the wide neck is also a step up from this proud viking.

Points: 88

Again, thanks go out to Nico for providing this sample.

Here we have some room to decipher the code: L0387A L04 25:07 (and a time code):

  • L0387 is the rotation number.
  • A is 2018, B is 2019, C is 2020, D is 2021, E is 2022, and F is 2023. As far as I know no bottlings of this expression were done since 2024.
  • 25:07 is the 25th of July.
  • L04 is probably a number depicting a particular bottling line, I didn’t check this on other Highland Park bottlings yet.
  • Now we also know the Whisky at hand was from the very first release.

A quick search on the ol’ interweb resulted in the following batches, and again, this list might not be complete:

L0387A L04 25:07 (2018)
L0520A L04 04:10 (2018)
L0216B L04 09/05 (2019)
L0449B L04 04/09 (2019)
L0165B L04 03/04 (2019)
L0117C L04 23/03 (2020)
L0117C L04 24/03 (2020)
L0003D L04 13/01 (2021)
L0081D L04 06/04 (2021)
L0355D L04 09/11 (2021)
L0135E L04 27/04 (2022)
L0038F L04 09/02 (2023)
L0124F L04 19/04 (2023)
L0209F L04 20/06 (2023)

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.

Longrow 11yo 1993/2005 (56.8%, Cadenhead, Authentic Collection, Bourbon Hogshead, 270 bottles)

At this point in time, the review of Springbank 15yo (the previous post) was written yesterday, so there is a big chance comparisons will be made between this Longrow and said Springbank. Yesterday’s review was written in one go. Happens often, yet is not a standard practice. Some Whiskies need a lot of time to show all they got and thus whiskies need to be revisited several times to truly “get” them and write up a proper review. These are often the more closed ones or the most complex ones. Yesterday’s Springbank wasn’t really all that complex to be honest. Sure, a lot is to be had from that Springbank, it’s very good, yet it offers it all up at the same time, not a lot of layering or development over time, so it lent itself perfectly for a one-go review. Also, some reviews write themselves and some, well, some just don’t. Sometimes it is actually very hard work, especially if a Whisky is closed and refuses to properly open up, not with warmth and not with water. Sometimes, and this luckily rarely happens, the mind just draws a blank, slowing the creative process. There are also a few reviews on these pages that were finished one or maybe two years after they were started, abandoned due to the mind drawing a blank, and rightfully so, because the subsequent review would have been sub-standard. But I digress.

After rummaging some more in the box mentioned in the previous review, I found another sample of interest, but since some data seems to be missing, that one had to be postponed, whilst I wait for some additional data to come in. After some more rummaging in said box, I found another sample from the Springbank distillery, this time around, not a true Springbank, but a Longrow. Same distillery, just more peat and only distilled twice as compared to a true Springbank which is distilled 2.5 times (as shown to the right). When you follow the flow in the chart, half of the Spirit flows through two low wines stills (#1 and #2), and the other half only through one low wines still (#2). In essence it is a 50/50 mixture of two times distilled Spirit and three times distilled Spirit. Fun fact, this Longrow was bottled by an independent bottler called Cadenhead, which has the same owner as the Springbank distillery. Nevertheless, Cadenhead bottles a lot more than Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn alone and have been doing that for a very, very long time.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Initially sweet and fruity. Nice vegetal peat, ever so slightly floral. Almonds and wax, typical Longrow of this age I would say. Sweet black tea (no milk used over here). Hints of coffee flavoured hard candy. Smells tasty, can’t hardly wait to take a sip. Just like the Springbank 15yo this also has a similar breath of fresh air, yet less so. Hints of cold gravy, this Longrow has a meaty quality to it, that definitely does not come from a Sherry cask, since this matured in a Bourbon hogshead. The meaty bits are right upfront. Leave the glass breathing and the meaty bits dissipate rather quickly. Since this is an ex-Bourbon refill cask, it is able to show more subtleties from within the spirit, where a Sherry cask can easily overpower the Spirit. You never know, but didn’t the colour on the Springbank 15yo give it away a bit? Tread carefully because often a lot of assumptions are made pertaining the colour of a dram. More funky vegetal notes emerge. See? It’s only 11yo and matured in a Bourbon cask, and this shows more complexity than the 15yo Springbank, and don’t get me wrong the Springbank 15yo is still a good Whisky, don’t get me wrong. Hints of white ashes and sweet woody liquorice, both well integrated with the peat. It is a young bottling at 11yo, but still it doesn’t smell heavily peaty, it smells like a peaty whisky that has matured for longer than it actually did. Peat gets softer and more mellow when the Whisky ages. Just compare a 10yo Longrow to an 18yo or a 21yo Longrow. Good Spirit, good cask. This Cadenhead offering is not really an elegant Longrow, and young Longrow’s rarely are, but it is most definitely a very accessible Longrow, it smells well balanced and well integrated, nothing really overpowers and everything adds to the whole. Definitely some development in the nose. The peat is more earthy now, with dry black tea leaves thrown in for good measure. Hints of distant fireworks, organic farmy notes and diluted red fruits, how’s that for complexity? No noticeable sulphur. Develops nicely with only some breathing, oxidizes very nicely, can take a lot of air.

Taste: Almonds, nutty, with a sweetish start. Sweet black tea. The first sip has a bitter tea-like finish to it, a note this Longrow could do without maybe? Second sip is more of the same actually, still nutty and still with a bitter edge to it, which is all right now, no worries. The taste actually matches the nose very well, both match quite good. In the taste, here it also has this vegetal feel to it. Waxy and velvety with a tiny burnt note, not entirely sure this is from toasted oak though. After the Springbank @46% ABV, I welcome this Longrow @56.8% ABV, it has more power, transports the aroma’s better and is more warming, which is nice with a peated Whisky. Next some Menthos, especially when you keep it in your mouth for a while without chewing on it. Very tasty stuff indeed this Longrow, apart from the ABV maybe, this one has a daily drinker quality to it. A fairly easy Longrow, one you will just want to keep pouring.

This is an accessible Longrow, easy going and very well balanced. Definitely not hot, and sure doesn’t taste like an 56.8% ABV Whisky to me. No need to add water. I did try though, sure it changes a bit (it becomes somewhat fresher, slightly less sweet), but it didn’t get any better, stays more or less on par with having it neat. In other words, you could surely add some water, in which case, you would end up with more tasty Whisky, because water also didn’t make it worse!

Points: 87

This time thanks go out to Andre Z. for the sample!

Springbank 15yo (46%, OB, 21/156)

Hello all, long time no see. Just in case you’re wondering, nope not dead yet! Just some busy and some trying times have passed, where reviewing took a bit of a back seat. All good now, so already busy filling this blank page with black words. For this review (Post #901 already), I looked through one of the many boxes I have standing around, filled with samples of mainly Whisky and some Rums. Whilst rummaging my eye fell on this particular sample, of which I thought, well that should be good, so after this long while, here we are with the third official Springbank 15yo on these pages. In 2015 I wrote up a review of a Springbank 15yo from round about 2003 (86 points) and in 2019 one from 2018 (86 points again). This time around, 2026 already, here we go with yet another Springbank 15yo, this time one that was bottled October 5th, 2021, will this one also get 86 points?. Here we go, let’s find out…

Color: Orange brown gold. Quite dark!

Nose: Holy Moly (Mo-99 in my case, nudge nudge Auke). Heavy sherry, black coal, liquorice, tarry, modern and “classic” at the same time. Almost that tarry salty rope you get from Islay Whiskies complete with this breath of fresh air (sea wind). “Classic” yet not old bottle though, but it does remind me a bit of good Whisky I tasted when I started out at the turn of 1999/2000. A nose that also reminds me of the better peated Whisky matured in Oloroso Sherry casks, yet still not old bottle though. Slightly funky, maybe from a tiny amount of Sulphur, but nothing to worry about. A thick jam-like fruitiness in this one and a whiff of sandalwood, unlit cigarette, cardboard and the smell of a sugar cube (yes, a sugar cube has a smell). Toasted oak and a nice vegetal greenness to it. Cold gravy and cold motor oil, as well as a little bit of hot cable (plastic). Tarry raisins. Very nice and interesting nose. You just gotta love Springbank. Don’t expect a lot of elegance in this particular expression though. This is the nose of a big and bold Springbank, yet not the most complex smelling expression. I wonder now of this will taste (somewhat) sweet…

Taste: Nope, not sweet and I also expected it to be thicker to be honest, but it seems quite thin. Well balanced though. Peat and tar again and a more accessible red/black fruitiness than the nose led on. Ever so slightly farmy. Hints of burned newspaper as well as the toasted oak from the nose. Toffee and slightly waxy. No sulphur, and slightly minty. Tasty stuff it is again. Still the thin aura sticks with me a bit. This might have been better at around 50 to 52% ABV to carry the weight a bit better, obviously a higher ABV won’t fix thinness. This is definitely not a sipper, I learned a long time ago (from Olivier, when tasting a 50’s Richebourg), that some Wines just taste the best in big gulps, big meaning not sipping before you call me crazy, although a big gulp sounds about right to me, so call me crazy then! I found this to be true, not only for Wines. This Springbank is thus not a sipper. With a bigger… ehhh, sip, more sweetness and more tar and liquorice emerge, making it even better balanced. Final note, almost every time around Springbank can handle a lot of air/oxygen, it oxidizes well, and gets better over time. This 15yo handles handles air/oxygen quite good, but not as much as other Springbanks. A fresh pour is definitely better than a glass that has been airing for half an hour. In the end this is a medium sized big boy, in your face yet also lacking a bit of complexity that would make it even better. Good Springbank for sure, I like it, could buy it, but it is not as good as some people say it is. It gets a lot of raving reviews, is this because of the colour I wonder?

One of Springbank’s biggest strengths has always been batch variation making Springbank a rather adventurous Whisky. Yet it also needs a word of caution if you don’t really fit the aficionado bill, and expect more of the same goodness you had before. Some batches are good and some batches are just better. If you come across a very good batch and you go out and buy a batch from that same (or another) year, you might be in for a small surprise, because going back from a very good batch to a good one, might result in a minor disappointment. Just look at the Springbank at hand, this one has rotation number 21/156 (bottled October 5th), and its the third time Spingbank bottled the 15yo in that year. There are two more bottle runs for te 15yo in 2015 that I know of: 21/01 (bottled January 4th) and 21/110 (bottled June 14th). Since its highly likely that the other two are different batches (too far apart?), there might be a difference in the composition, different casks used, although this time, word is, all three batches are fully Sherry, but I can’t be sure. Oh, and this one was released without a box.

Points: 86 (yes again, for me, this is what it deserved)

Thanks go out to Nico, the source of this generous sample, and Auke for asking for a new review.