Tag Archives: Single Malt

Tomatin 12yo 2002/2014 “Manzanilla Sherry” (46%, OB, Cuatro Series #2, 3 years Manzanilla Sherry Finish, 1.500 bottles)

On with #2. The second installment is the Manzanilla Finished one. Quite the logical #2, since Manzanilla is also a type of Fino Sherry. Manzanilla is made in the town of Sanlúcar de Barrameda in Andalusia. Just like Fino, it is a very dry and pale kind of Sherry. The region is less hot and more humid, so the flor here is even thicker, giving an even better protection against oxygen. Manzanilla’s are therefore even fresher than their Fino-brothers. Manzanilla’s also have a somewhat salty feel to them. The Sherry ages near the sea, but should that allow for a more salty liquid? In Spain, Manzanilla means camomile tea. The Sherry is named as such, since the aroma’s are thought of resembling camomile. So salt and camomile are the things to look for in a Manzanilla Sherry, but are they also the things to look for in this Whisky?

Tomatin Cuatro II - ManzanillaColor: Gold.

Nose: Starts immediately less funky than the Fino. It also doesn’t need a lot of time to breathe, to settle, its ready for consumption right of the bat. Subtler and more restrained. Hints of burning wood and toasted cask. Dry grass, vegetal and dry warm barley. Easier than the Fino and seems less complex as well. Sweetish and again full on aromatics. Just not as thick and cloying. Smells nice. Fruity, and quite similar to the Fino expression. Tropical, ripe, sweet and aromatic fruit, which is typical for the Tomatin spirit. Dried apricots, but also a hint of bicycle tire. If you ask me, no traces of camomile in the nose. Salty? Nope again.

Taste: Sweet and boasts a fruity start. Chewy toffee. Fruity, yes, but this time slightly fresher and more acidic. Fresh green apple skin and white pepper. Not (as) hoppy as the Fino, but there are some fruity Beer aroma’s to be found towards the end of the body. The wood moves into the realm of pencil shavings. I don’t get the camomile one might expect, nor do I find it salty, although I do have slightly salty lips. Quite a simple expression. Likable, but simple. Maybe next time they should finish this for a while longer, although this finish carries just enough bitterness for me.

Slightly more approachable than the Fino, but with that also slightly less “special”. Sure, you have to work the Fino a bit, and its start can be a bit of a scare, but when it opens up, lots is happening, especially on the nose. Yes the Fino has definitely the better and more complex nose of the two. In the taste both are closer to each other. The Manzanilla expression actually doesn’t show as much development in the glass as the Fino. It is immediately clear what you have in your glass. This one is more of a daily drinker. No faults, but also no ooohs and ahhhs as well. Good, but not as special as the Fino. However, I do feel that these casks that once held Sherries that aged under flor, show a lot of potential for ageing and finishing Whiskies, and especially the tropical fruit spirit of Tomatin.

Points: 84

Tomatin 12yo 2002/2014 “Fino Sherry” (46%, OB, Cuatro Series #1, 3 years Fino Sherry Finish, 1.500 bottles)

It’s Monday, vacation is over, September is already visible at the horizon, so back to “work”. Time to pick up again with a nice box of four Tomatin’s, the highland distillery known for it’s Whisky with tropical aroma’s…

In 2014 Tomatin released a box with four full-sized bottles called the “Cuatro Series”. All four Whiskies were distilled on Tuesday the 15th of January 2002. All four were matured for 9 years in American oak, however, all received a final maturation of three years in four casks that previously held different kinds of Sherry. An excellent way to show the adventurous public the differences between finishing with four different Sherries. A novel idea and the pricing was reasonable as well. Just releasing it as four full-sized bottles in one box made for slow sales. Who wants to buy four more or less similar bottles of Tomatin where the difference lies in the details? Learing from the experience, Tomatin released several similar ideas since, but always in half sized bottles. Nevertheless, the “Cuatro Series” did sell out eventually, although the odd single bottle seem to be still available.

The four Sherries used in this series are, Fino, Manzanilla, Oloroso and Pedro Ximénez. The first expression, as numbered by the distillery, is the Fino expression. Fino Sherries are very dry and very pale. What makes Fino stand out, is the fact that maturation in the cask happens under flor. Flor is a layer of the Saccharomyces yeast strain, that lies on top of the liquid. The layer of yeast prevents the ageing fortified wine from oxidizing too much, making for a fresher Sherry. In the Wine-world Sherries like this are considered the cream of the crop, as opposed to Scotland’s favorite, Oloroso.

Tomatin Cuatro I - FinoColor: Gold.

Nose: Very musty on entry, which is not very pleasant. Luckily the mustiness dissipates rather quickly. So you really need a glass for this one. Underneath a nice note of olives, burning coal, some charcoal and lots of fruit. Yellow fruit, overripe or sometimes even candied. Some pineapple, mango and maybe even some nectarines. This nose is exploding with aroma. Dusty and creamy vanilla and nice soft oak, so the original cask did it’s work well. The Fino cask also seems to be of high quality, since it did impair some wonderful aroma’s to the Whisky. This one is wonderfully balanced and eventually smells rather nice. The fresh oak bit turns floral. More vanilla but this time with a touch of jasmine and, dare I say it, a hint of paracetamol. Wonderful nose for a 12yo. It has the tropical fruit traits Tomatin is known for. Reminds me a bit of a Fino Glenfarclas I once had.

Taste: Sweet and spicy. Beer-like hops, and again lots of fruits carried by the beer-like bitterness. Is it the yeast from the flor that does this? Again, like the nose, wonderfully balanced, but not as complex as the nose. Here the Fino impairs a nice nutty flavour as well as some italian laurel licorice (sweet). Creamy with a note of buttery vanilla. Strange enough there is an acidic top-note now. Finish has some length, with again some bitterness that carries it. And beyond that a nice lingering and fruity/nutty aftertaste. This may not turn out as the easiest of the four, but if you have mastered tasting Fino (finished) Whiskies, this is certainly no dud.

For those of you who also read my Rum-reviews, you’ll know, that I found Rhum Agricole to be wonderful stuff as long as you give yourself the time to grow into. More or less the same goes for finishing in Fino Sherry. There are examples of Whiskies with a Fino finish that work exceptionally well, but I also found Fino finishes, something I had to get used to.

Points: 85

Teaninich 2006/2014 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, First Fill Sherry Hogsheads, AD/JFBG)

More than four years ago I wrote a review about another Teaninich from the Gordon & MacPhail’s Connoisseurs Choice range. That one was distilled in 1983 and bottled in 2003, so that one was bottled before this one was even distilled! Reading back I see the mindset I was in at the time. The first decade I was interested in Single Malt Whisky, I hardly ever bought something that was reduced with water to “drinking strength”. If I bought anything from an independent bottler, it was most certainly bottled at cask strength. Today I still very much like my whiskies at cask strength, but I don’t have a problem anymore buying something reduced, as long as they didn’t reduce it too much. Old malts, distilled in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s seem to have some power left in them, when bottled at 40% ABV, but more modern malts need a higher a ABV. 43% seemed a bit of a compromise, but the 46% we see today, is doing the trick for me. So, two weeks ago I caught myself red-handed with a bag of no less than four of Gordon & MacPhail’s Connoisseurs Choice bottlings! Go figure. As I’m a fan of Teaninich, I hardly could wait opening this one, so finally I didn’t even manage to wait for 24 hours…

Teaninich 2006/2014 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, First Fill Sherry Hogsheads, ADJFBG)Color: Reddish gold.

Nose: Waxy, fruity and with a nice toasted oak aroma as well. Biscuity and a warm smell of lovely barley and cereal. Right now I already want to stop smelling this, and have a sip, but I’ll wait. The toasted aroma becomes more complex since it turns a wee bit into coal and even boasts a slightly tarry note. A breath of fresh air comes next, laced with alcohol. Reminding me of high quality and ultra soft rye Vodka. Hey, give it a break, it’s a very young Whisky. Bread and toasted bread obviously. Grassy and still waxy. Waxy, red blushed, apple skins? Slightly floral notes mixed in with coffee-creamer. Somewhat sweet and a nice note of vanilla. Since these are Sherry hoggies, I’m guessing the hoggies were made from American Oak. This is only a 7 or 8 years old Whisky, so it shouldn’t be too complex, but you don’t hear me complaining. I understand what it is, and I think it is pretty impressive already, at this age. Well balanced and I guess the casks were pretty good as well. They will do just nicely as second fill casks.

Taste: Definitely starts with a Sherry note. First fill casks all right. I guess they bottled this rather quickly, since the Sherry already starts to dominate the Whisky. My guess would be a Sherry matured under flor. Initially sweet (but not for long, because some white pepper comes to the fore). Waxy again and notes of paper and not of wood, although the paper note seems to make way for a more bitter woody note eventually. A tad funky and slightly less balanced than the nose promised. More Sherry (& flor) wood, with even some slight soapy notes. Don’t worry. Even though this is bottled at 46% ABV., it doesn’t even seem that strong. Sure its fruity, but in a more sugared kind of way. Perfumed lemon curd. Hidden behind the waxy and soapy wood. Surprisingly, the finish isn’t very long, giving away its relative youth.

Let me warn you about the new Gordon & MacPhail packaging. I had an open-topped Whisky bag and the experienced salesman, shoved the metal lids into the cartons instead of leaving them on the cartons. I would have lost them otherwise. I tried this at home and he was absolutely right. Just grabbing the carton and the lid already pops off, weakening the structure, with a possibility of dropping the lot on the floor. This is the 21st century isn’t it? Sort it out people. And it’s not only Gordon & MacPhail. Signatory have tins of which the lid comes popping off as well. The folded cardboard stuff some Diageo bottlings come in, can spontaneously unfold under your arm when carrying slightly too much Whisky at a time. That way I saw a bottle of Talisker slowly disappear from under the firm grip of my armpit onto the welcoming tiled floor.

Points: 84

16-3-2017: I just finished this bottle and I have to add that it got gradually better over time. This really needs to breathe to show all of its huge potential, even though its just a reduced young Whisky. A have a soft spot for Teaninich and this one really didn’t dissapoint me again. I Love it. I’ll give it a point more, and maybe I should have given two…

Points: 85

Glen Keith 21yo 1992/2014 (57.5%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, Bourbon Barrels #120566 & #120569, 271 bottles)

Whereas most of the reviews written come from samples accumulated over many years, it doesn’t mean I don’t open any bottles, because I do. Just click on “Whisky from Master Quills Lectern” down below, and in an instant you can see which reviews were written about bottles I have, or had, in my collection. Bottles I believed were worthy of buying, very often without even tasting them. Glen Keith is no stranger on these pages, which is no surprise actually. I rather like my Glen Keiths, and Strathisla, it’s sister distillery. Both reside on the same premises. Pernod Ricard, the owners, aren’t doing very much with Glen Keith (yet), so it is a bit of a hidden treasure, only known to aficionados and connoisseurs (I hate those words). Strathisla’s sister-distillery has been featured already three times before on these pages. One stellar one from the sixties, just as good as the legendary Strathisla’s from that era. Two more were reviewed, both from the nineties: 1990 and even one from 1992, just like this one.

Glen Keith 21yo 1992/2014 (57.5%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, Bourbon Barrels #120566 & #120569, 271 bottles)Color: Full gold.

Nose: Wonderfully creamy and appealing. Only one sniff suffices to let us know we’ll be enjoy this thoroughly. I can’t imagine anything smelling so nice being not enjoyable to taste. Bourbon barrels so yes, nice vanilla and creamy notes, as well as some tension from woody spices partly young wood. Milk chocolate. Next some nice florality emerges as opposed to fruity notes often found in ex-Bourbon barrels. Fresh, not roasted, nuts. Dusty and vibrant at the same time. Not only floral, but also some acidic fruitiness comes to the fore, just don’t smell it too vigorously, the cream overpowers it then and makes it smell sweet. Enough happening in this one, although it may not be the most complex stuff around.

Taste: Fruity and nutty. Almonds. Waxy and chewy. Delayed pepper. Again with nice chocolate sprinkled wood and just like the nose, it tastes sometimes sappy and young. As if new wood staves were added to a rebuilt barrel. This would be highly unlikely though. Sawdust as well. Plywood? People who read everything on Master Quill, know that I dislike not-so-well integrated acidity that lies on top. Abuelo 12yo comes to mind. This Whisky also has an acidic note that lies on top, only this time it works a bit. Amazing. Just like the nose, the Whisky doesn’t seem to be extremely complex. However, the body of the Whisky is so big, that it manages to deal with the acidic high note.

Sure, reduced Whisky is extremely drinkable, but Cask Strength delivers a punch, but also presents flavours to you on a silver platter. The finish has great length and lingers on, seemingly forever, in the aftertaste. Smells nice, tastes even better. Water enhances the nutty creaminess of the nose and at the same time downplaying the woody aromas, making it even bigger and creamier, but also less sophisticated. In the taste, the acidity is given a lager role to play, which in the end alters the balance of the Whisky, making it less balanced in fact. It also adds some complexity with chili pepper and some mint. The finish is more about milk chocolate than it was before adding water. So it might be fun to experiment a bit with water.

For me, something like this is a no brainer. Its more than 20 years old, came from nice active barrels, and gives you heaps of flavour, and a lot of alcohol to boot, so you can play around with it, adding some water with a pipette. If you can’t find this particular bottling, don’t hesitate buying one by another bottler, or one of it sister casks bottled by Signatory Vintage instead, I understand they are all good, and some even better! Some are still available, so what are you waiting for?

Points: 87

Glenfiddich 21yo “Havana Reserve” (40%, OB, Circa 2003)

And here we have an old, and somewhat controversial, Glenfiddich that was totally matured in boxes that once held cigars. Oops, I mean, casks that once held Cuban Rum. Cuban Rums is a light Spanish style Rum which doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a lot of aroma. Rum casks weren’t used much for finishing Whisky, and even today distillers and bottlers tend to prefer the obvious Bourbon and Sherry casks. Especially today, other casks are used as well, from fortified wines like Port and Madeira and red and white, sweet and dry Wines. So a Rum cask you say? Yes, we have had more of those on these pages. A fairly recent Benriach comes to mind, to name but one. Controversial? Yes. Problems arose when Whisky like this was sent to the US of A. They still had an Cuban Embargo, so more cigars for us, as can be read on these pages as well, oops I slipped up again. There still was an Cuban Embargo back then, so no Whisky with the word “Havana” on the label was allowed into the country.

Glenfiddich and The Balvenie have the same owners, William Grant & Sons. Yup, those from Hendrick’s Gin as well. Bad boys down there! Bad boys since they also decided to sue our beloved New Zealand Whisky Company for blatantly stealing the “Double Wood” words and misguiding the poor public, who now must believe that Balvenie Double Wood is the same as the NZWC’s Doublewood, and New Zealand is somewhere in the Speyside region…

William Grant was looking for the perfect Rum casks for their Glenfiddich and considered casks that once held Rums from Venezuela (Spanish style), Guyana (Demerara Rum a heavy English style Rum) and some others. Finally Rum from Sancti Spiritus was chosen to fill up the casks for two years, After two years the Rum was replaced with Whisky for a six month finish.

If I’m not mistaken, the first release was called Havana Reserve and the second was called Gran Reserva. Rumour has it, that for this second release the same casks were re-used, thus explaining reports of the Gran Reserva being lighter than the initial release. A third version was released. Just to be absolutely sure, this Whisky was not finished in Cuban Rum casks, but in casks that once held Dominican Rum. The label now mentions Carribean Rum finish in stead of Cuban Rum finish. Later, subsequent batches simply were called Rum cask finish, so absolutely nothing could be misunderstood and when changing Rums the label can stay the same.

Glenfiddich 21yo Havana ReserveColor: Full gold.

Nose: Very aromatic. Creamy, toffee, nutty, thick and chewy. Next a floral layer which at times is quite perfumy, with great earthy undertones (given by the Rum cask). Vanilla and restrained wood. Half dried grass is noticeable, but covered under a thick semi-sweet layer of aromatics. Fruity, baked banana and dried sweet apricot. In the distance there is even a hint of licorice. But the Rum, is the Rum noticeable? Yes If you know the style of Rum the Cubans make, and you know this Whisky is finished in Cuban Rum cask, than yes, its noticeable, otherwise you must have some experience in tasting to smell and taste it. The Rum upped the aromatics and the chewyness a bit, as well as the sweetness. Great nose.

Taste: Sweet with lots of toffee. Earthy and “green”. Broken off branch and fresh tree sap. The baked banana returns. It’s a big Malt. It is overwhelming in fruit and floral notes. Has some bitter wood and slightly burned edges to it. Wood obviously. Oak, fresh oak and even some pencil. The body of the Whisky already shows it will not be as complex as the nose. However the biggest problem, relatively speaking of course, is the partial disintegration towards the finish. It’s like a band just before breaking up. Some aroma’s don’t want to work with each other anymore, and get separated from each other. Still in the fold though, but more apart. Underneath the woody bitter note and on top some acidity. Short finish, which surprised me since it’s a bigger Glenfiddich than usual, and this has aged for a whopping 21 years, you know. Not a lot happening in the aftertaste. So on entry I was quite happy with the performance of the 40% ABV. but the finish needed some more.

This is a beauty. Excellent smelling Glenfiddich. Tastewise, well, not at the same level of greatness as the nose, then again, it was (since it was bottled some time ago, and since has been discontinued) a mass-produced Whisky aiming at the public already gained by the rest of the Glenfiddich bottlings, without scaring them away. With this in mind, they did what they could, to keep this public and at the same time be a bit more adventurous.

Points: 84

The New Zealand Whisky Collection 18yo 1993/2012 (51.9%, The New Zealand Whisky Company, Cask #21)

After one blend and three reduced bottlings from their standard range, here is finally the first example of an “untouched” New Zealand Whisky. A 1993 expression bottled at cask strength and from single cask #21. That’s more like it. This way we can finally find out what the distiller intended. How did the spirit interact with the wood from the cask. No information about the cask itself has been given so we aren’t handicapped with information this time, and can just dig in…

The New Zealand Whisky Collection 18yo 19932012 (51.9%, The New Zealand Whisky Company, Cask #21)Color: Light gold.

Nose: Fruity and dusty, carried with an undertone of fresh wood. I would say this came from a Bourbon cask. Not hard to tell since the wood impaired quite a lot of vanilla-flavours. One with green fingers too, since it has more traits from the kingdom of plants, than the wood alone. It’s easy to admit, this one is driven by wood. Even the spices are wood related, and what about the whiff of pencil-shavings and the aroma of freshly broken off twig? Does this mean this one is dominated by wood? Not at all. The wood gave of various elements of itself, without overpowering it. All in good measure. It has a promise of sweetness (toffee) and the big wood-vanilla synergy makes this a fruity and creamy nose with some backbone and character given by the wood. Slightly oriental (Indian) and floral. Restrained, elegant and wonderful.

Taste: Nice spicy, prickly and woody entry. It starts out with fresh oak and a quite big, nice vegetal sweetness. Tiny hint of bitterness. Right from the start it is obvious this one is carried by the cask strength. Good this wasn’t reduced. It doesn’t seem to have as many woody traits as the nose. Definitely simpler in design than the nose. The fruity bit I taste is a bit peculiar. To me it seems, the mixture of yellow and red fruits don’t combine perfectly here. More cereals and bread tones towards the end. The finish is shorter than expected and it’s the grainy, bread-like and slightly bitter bit that has the biggest influence on the finish.

The strength of this malt is the wonderful nose, as well as well on entry in the mouth. From there it goes a bit downhill. The body sort of disintegrated in my mouth and although the cask strength is noticeable, it doesn’t carry the aroma’s into the finish in a big way. This is a Malt that needs to be tasted, taking big sips. Good stuff nevertheless, easy drinking Whisky, but probably not the best single cask bottled by the NZWC. We’ll see because I have two more hidden away somewhere.

Points: 85

Longrow 10yo 1993 (46%, OB, 2003)

Another peated whisky in the summer? Has Master Quill gone completely crazy? Yes, because who wants to be “normal”! If you feel like it, just do it… By the way, it’s raining like crazy outside, so it only seems fitting.

2001 saw the first release of a 10 year old, with a vintage. Remember the classic brown paper Longrow label on the tall bottle? The first two releases, both in 2001 and both distilled in 1991 were a “normal one” said to be only from Bourbon, but also, for one time only, a Sherrywood. The series was short-lived, and was discontinued in 2006 after the 1996 vintage, in favour of the 10yo without a vintage statement. Throughout the series I don’t believe all normal ones were from Bourbon casks only, if any. You know Springbank, they tend not to repeat themselves. Just compare the last two releases of the Longrow 18yo (with the white labels), since the 2016 release contains Rum casks. Never a dull moment with Springbank and all of their other brands. Today we’ll have a look at the 1993 vintage of the 10yo, that was released in 2003.

Longrow 10yo 1993Color: Light gold.

Nose: Nice fresh peat. Fatty and smoky. The peat is smelling three-dimensional. It’s not only just there, it goes deep, and seems without end in complexity. Peat mixed with hints of lemon, waxy apple skins and vanilla. Cookie dough. Whiffs of warm apple pie. Burning leaves, sugared yellow fruits and even hints of sweet-smelling sweat, crushed beetle and slightly burned herbs and even has a quaint nuttiness about it. Very balanced stuff, with only a mere hint of wood. All seems to fit in together nicely. This is the best peat I’ve smelled in quite some time. I must admit, it had plenty of air to work with. Love it.

Taste: Quite sweet on entry. Heavy on licorice and the peat is shoved into the background, by the sweetness. The sweetness dissipates and leaves more room for a sort of herbal fruitiness. Prickly licorice and the nuttiness from the nose. Alas the peat never really makes it to the top and the wonderful depth it has on the nose doesn’t really blossom tasting it. Long finish, built around the caramel sweetness and with a larger role for sour oak. Coffee and chocolate in the aftertaste. It still is a wonderful Malt. Just if the complexity of the nose would have shone through in the taste, it would have been a truly exceptional Whisky.

Well this might not be a Whisky from the seventies, but it does remind me of the quality of that decade. I’m actually amazed a bit that many of the vintages are still available, although somewhat more expensive than the new 10yo.

Points: 88

Caol Ila 1991/2000 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, Barrel Selection)

This Caol Ila is one I just cracked open, literally. It is an oldie I bought some 15 years ago. Sure it is a reduced independent bottling, and it didn’t cost much, but its a Caol Ila and its bottled by Wilson & Morgan, who have bottled a lot of good Caol Ila’s, just have a look at this 24yo expression distilled in 1975, to name but one. The cork broke on this one. This time it didn’t only just break off, it seemed to disintegrate completely. Vaporized into thin air, so to speak. Luckily most of the crumbs were easy to fish out of the bottle and hardly anything sank to the bottom. Just a few weeks ago I wrote an ode to the screw cap, now you know why… Karma strikes again.

Caol Ila 1991/2000 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, Barrel Selection)Color: Pale gold.

Nose: Ahhh, right after pouring the room filled with the smell of beautiful peat. Nothing harsh and rough, but smooth and refined. Nice, clean and soft and aromatic peat. Helped along with a citrussy fruitiness. Well-balanced and much nicer to smell than the Kilchoman Spring I reviewed (much) earlier. Smells quite sweet. Leafy and chewy. Dry vanilla powder, maybe even some powdered coffee-creamer. Some hidden tar, but also an expansion on the fruits. We have hints of sweet, ripe pineapple, mango and banana, mixed with vanilla from the wood, and the wood itself somehow didn’t make it. Crushed beetle and some distant dried basil in the background. Remarkable. Ohhh yes, and some bonfire smoke. I nearly forgot to write that down! I have to say it again, well-balanced stuff and remember, this isn’t even ten years old, which today has become standard.

Taste: Quite sweet on entry. Sugar water. Syrup. Very fruity and a little hoppy bitterness. Big and chewy. Sweet, funky and nutty peat. Not at all earthy. Nice touch of smoke, but not much. It’s like all the aromas are fighting over front row seats. As mentioned, there is a lot of sweetness, that exerts itself right from the start, but these is a lot of fruitiness as well. The Whisky is also nuts. I mean, full of nuttiness. All big and all upfront. I always get some coffee in good Caol Ila’s, and this time is no exception. Sweet coffee, with a tad of toffee in the coffee. It’s not stong black coffee but rather a sweet Cappuccino or Latte Macchiato. Underneath a nice, herbal and lightly bitter undertone (from oak). Long finish and similar aftertaste. Leaves me behind with salty lips. Good Whisky! I hope todays young Caol Ila’s are just as good and affordable.

Ohhh these were the days, where young Whisky seemed better than it is these days, or maybe I’m biased.  This is a very tasty Caol Ila, not overly complex and one I’ll come back to again and again. This will not take years to empty, which it usually takes me, since there are lots of open bottles around the place…

Today there is much ado about young Whiskies, especially NAS Whiskies. It seems NAS isn’t really accepted by everybody. It sometimes is viewed as a devilish plan selling us inferior and immature Whisky (sometimes at a premium price). On the other hand, when distilleries and independent bottlers alike, just mention an age statement of a young whisky there doesn’t seem to be much of a problem anymore, since you know what you’re getting. Just look at the recently released Lagavulin 8yo and compare that to the plethora of NAS Taliskers (also owned by Diageo) and NAS Laphroaigs (not owned by Diageo), which seem to be under par and the fantasy names do not help the acceptance process of the (educated) public, or those who have seen different times buying Single Malt Whiskies.

For the fun of it, let’s compare this “9yo” Caol Ila to the NAS Talisker ‘Neist Point’. Smelling the Talisker after the Caol Ila, it is remarkable how much the Talisker smells of grainy immature Whisky and even shows some whiffs of new make! Much more than when smelled by itself alone. Although having new make in the mix is illegal, since Whisky must be at least 3 years old, there must be a big component of very young Whisky in the Talisker. The Caol Ila behaves like a 9yo, nice, well made, good cask, but lacking some of the complexity often brought to a Whisky by extensive maturation. In the taste it is noticeable that the Talisker has some more happening than just the new make, and young Whisky, alone. Thank God almighty. The Talisker needs some air to get the new make out, after that it is not bad, not bad at all. Sweet as well and buttery. The taste of the Talisker grows on you, even though the new make never really leaves the scene. A draw, or is it? Considering the amount of money Diageo wants for the Talisker (in some markets), the jury made a unanimous decision in favour of the Caol Ila. [sound of judge’s hammer on wood]

Points: 85

Lagavulin 12yo 1995/2008 (48%, OB, European Oak, for the Friends of the Classic Malts)

So with the longest day of the year at hand, some would say that this isn’t the time for Peat. Peat needs rugged shores, strong gale force winds and driving rain to be thoroughly enjoyed, doesn’t it? Why not take a light, grassy and lemony Lowlander instead, or even some tropical stuff? Well what can I say, I just felt like it, that’s all.

A week ago I hosted a Whisky-tasting centered around the indie bottler, Signatory Vintage. I opened some bottlings of them, which will feature on these pages soon. Of course a good tasting needs an even better after-tasting, like a good party needs an even better after-party. The after-tasting, yes you’ve guessed it: Lagavulin. The distillery that’s celebrating its 200th anniversary this year, with the release of a 8yo, which will also feature on these pages shortly.

But first this oldie (but goldie). Relatively speaking of course. This Lagavulin was released in 2008 and it took well into 2015 to sell out. It was available in shops for a whopping 7 years! Now that its gone, prices are soaring. It was available for such a long time, because there may have been a lot of bottlings around, but it also gained a bit of a reputation. A lot of people, including fans of Lagavulin weren’t very fond of this particular bottling. I consider myself a fan of Lagavulin, so I just has to open it, and try for myself! But first a thought…

Bottlings like this, baffle me to the max. All this time we hear the industry explaining to us, that colouring is done to ensure consistency in colour from batch to batch. Also, the public, when buying Whisky, or any other brown spirit, may be put off when the aforementioned spirit is too light in colour. So why then is this one-off Lagavulin, bottled in a brown glass bottle, coloured with E150, when we, the public can’t even see the colour of the spirit untill after the purchase? Boggles the mind, and mind you, don’t go around thinking that caramel colouring doesn’t affect the taste, because it does, just read Michel’s article back from the day I used to be in the “Coloured Gang”. Sure, it may be a bit lengthy, but it definitely worth it.

Lagavulin 12yo 1995/2008 FFOTCMColour: Orange brown, just like a Bourbon.

Nose: Excellent smoky nose. It starts with more smoke than peat. Sure peat is next. Earthy, sweet and fatty clay. Ashes. Nice wood, accompanied by red fruity notes and some Italian laurel licorice as well. The fruity bit smells more yellow than red. Funky chewy sweetness. Cream Sherry. Mocha cream, cookie dough and light chocolate powder. Leather. Milk chocolate shavings on vanilla ice-cream held up by the wood. Again a lovely smelling Lagavulin, which always works well when it’s matured in Sherry casks. Hints of tar and also some spices. The creamy Sherry notes overpower the spices a bit, so its hard to tell them apart. If you have read the article I mentioned above, you might remember my comments about mellowing out the aroma’s by E150. I feel that is the case here also. This Lagavulin has a nice, very nice actually, but rounded out smell.

Taste: Quite sweet and creamy on entry, quickly followed by peat and toasted cask. Small vegetal bitter note. Very nice. Lots of sweet licorice, almonds and black and white powder. Pepper & salt and definitely some smoke and nuts. Smoked nuts? Smoked sweet almonds (not the salty ones). Red cocktail cherry and a whiff of artificiality in the fruit department. The sweetness is of the typical sugar-water kind. Its fantastic on entry, but the body is losing it at bit already. Falling apart and being quite simple. In no way, has the finish the length of other Lagavulins, but the one big taste lingers on for a while in the aftertaste. However, it’s more the sweet and fruity bit, with only a hint of smoke, than the peat.

This Lagavulin has matured in first fill Sherry casks, not made with American oak. There was a time when (probably) all Sherry matured in European oak butts and puncheons, which are quite large casks. Today a lot of Sherry casks are made from American oak, impairing vanilla and giving off a more creamy feel. Also the casks made today (hogsheads) are smaller than the butts and puncheons, thus allowing for some quicker maturation.

Let me start by saying this is a good Lagavulin. It drinks easily and there is more than enough happening. I like it a lot. However, if I compare this to other Lagavulins, it isn’t the best one out there. I believe the colouring did its part in mellowing out the aroma’s and blending them together into one big (nice) taste. Nothing sticks out really. Apart from the E150, the casks themselves probably weren’t the best money could buy as well, as well as its previous contents. So for a Lagavulin its good, but nothing more than that, but it’s also a Whisky most others can only dream of producing. Lagavulin has stiff competition from… itself.

Points: 88

 

Glenrothes 1987/2002 (43%, OB)

Here is another vintage Glenrothes. After the 1992,  the 1989 and the 1979, this 1987 is the fourth of these vintage bottlings on Master Quill. All were nice, but never scoring very high. All were nice, with enough difference to warrant buying more than one, but also none of them blew me out of the water. Just look at both other Glenrothes I reviewed earlier. One bottled by Wilson & Morgan and one by Douglas Laing. Both managed to score higher than the official bottlings. By now I can say that I expect this one to be nice, but again I don’t think it will blow me out of the water.

Glenrothes 1987/2002 (43%, OB)Color: Gold.

Nose: Dusty, definitely Sherried. Spicy and tickles the nose. Also some burnt elements. Next some aroma’s you get from an old (dry) cellar or attic. Funky but not the funky damp notes you sometimes get from cellars. More like the odours of stored old stuff. Old paper, old cardboard and old wood. Old, worn out vanilla pods. Later a breath of rural fresh air, coming to you over water. Let it breathe some more, and it becomes more like a “normal” Whisky. Vanilla, wood, fruity Sherry notes and spicy oak and cask toast. Hints of butter and dry grass (not hay), and even some toffee.

Taste: Short attack of (fresh) oak and a more waxy note, quickly succeeded by cherries and sugared yellow fruits. Fruity sweet toffee, alas a bit diluted. Über-fruity sugar-water. Warming. Apart from the initial wood, this is quite a fruity expression of Glenrothes. Hints of soap and paper from the nose and a growing aroma of burnt wood. At best a medium finish with a note of Beer and burnt wood. Yes, a bit bitter, which adds to the character of the Whisky after the initial sweetness and fruitiness. The aftertaste matches the nose exactly.

Although the nose isn’t one of the most balanced expressions of Glenrothes, the taste is way better that way, helped along by the sweetness it has. It’s all right this one. It may be a bit simple, diluted and lacking complexity. It does some across as balanced and tastes nice. Maybe it’s time to up the strength a bit?

Points: 83