Tag Archives: Single Malt

Springbank 12yo 2003/2015 (58.3%, OB, Port Pipe, for UK Customers, 696 bottles, 15/177)

When the fifth release of Springbank Local Barley 10yo (2019) hit the shelf, I was offered a generous sample by Nico. In stead of money exchanging hands, it is always nicer and more adventurous to exchange it for a sample that hopefully can stand up to the Local Barley. Looking through my stock, I decided upon this single cask bottling for UK customers. I opened it, filled a sample bottle for Nico and when he got it, we had contact whilst he was trying it. Sort of an online tasting. I poured myself a wee dram as well. Well, what can I say, we both liked it. At first Nico liked it big time and appreciated it even more than I did, and I already did like it. Some time has passed since then, and with some air, and maybe even some more balance to it, it is time to have this more “official” look at this full time Port cask matured Whisky from the stills of Springbank Distillery.

Color: Orange gold. No red hue.

Nose: Funky Wine. Fresh and fruity smelling. Cherries (fresh and sour ones), sweet licorice, waxy and oily. Traces of peat, hints of dust and cardboard. Warm electricity cable and sometimes a whiff of hospital (ether). Funky organics and animalesk. Fruity and slightly sweet smelling. Nice warm wood notes with almonds and after a while a soapy note emerges, at times more resembling a lemon based dishwater soap. Sounds bad, I know, but it’s not, giving it a fresher, more zesty phase. If this soapy note comes back in the taste though, than it’ll be a problem! The winey bit is very present and almost overpowering, and it doesn’t remind me necessarily of Port. It was bottled just in time for it be be nice smelling and balanced in the nose as well. At times floral and perfumy. This is a nice smelling and highly complex Springbank, showing its provenance because of the oils and fats, not dissimilar to a (very) good batch of the 10yo. I see this as a Springbank “+”. It still is clearly a Springbank with just another layer added. Some light and subdued mixture of kitchen spices and sometimes some notes of hay and dry grass. Amazing balance and complexity in the nose. After a while a more fresh oak note emerges, and more grass, especially after sipping it. The nose becomes even better and more balanced after sipping.

Taste: Nice big entry. Again fatty, fruity and nutty, yet much less so than on the nose. Waxy and ever so slightly peaty, with a peppery and spicy attack (not yet from the wood it was aged in). Deep note of peat and red ripe fruit (and some plastic?). Big, big, big, yet somewhat less complex than the nose is. Black coal, maybe some tar and warm machine oil. More hints of wood, just like smelling fresh dried staves. Dried grass and definitely licorice. Honey-licorice with a slight bitterness and spiciness to it. Definitely more wood in here (eventually) than in the nose. Where the nose was almost overpowered by the fruity Port cask, here it is the other way ’round. The Springbank spirit overpowers the Port. Unmistakable Springbank here. Still enough fruit and sweetness now. You can’t call this sweet in any way, but there is some of it giving it even more balance, although I feel this is also less balanced than the nose was. More fruity wax, and the tiniest hint of clay. Fruity Port and some black coal in the finish. For this particular Malt, balance is very important. If the balance of the taste and the mouthfeel were just as good as the nose, than this would have scored (close to) 90 points.

A very good expression, yet not in the style of a daily drinker. A bit too demanding for that. Complex and big. In a way this doesn’t resemble a modern Malt. It has a rarely seen profile, that oozes the times of yesteryear. Also, to finish things off, if you want to catch some annoying fruit flies in your home, than this is your liquid of choice, even now that we’re well into autumn/fall.

Points: 88

Aberlour 8yo (50%, OB, Unblended all malt, EST. 1845, 75 cl)

So the last Aberlour review posted in October 2022 was of a modern 13yo officially bottled single cask. Modern, since it was distilled in the 21st century. This review of the 8yo was supposed to follow the 13yo right on its heels, but it didn’t. Autumn, or fall, started happening when I started to write the review, and it was suddenly time for peat. Fast forward to Spring. Winter has ended and although the time for peat still hasn’t ended, time has finally come for a nice old skool Sherried Speysider. No, it didn’t. Spring came and went and this review was again further postponed. When I picked up this review again it was summer, yet again the review remained in its draft state. Now finally when looking outside, summer is most definitely over. Maybe we’ll still get some days that look pretty good, but I guess autumn started happening. So no use any more for the desk fan and the air outside is cold. We might as well prepare ourselves, because winter is coming again, and peat already started lurking at me.

Never mind. After the Aberlour 13yo bottled in 2017, here we have an 8yo from the seventies, an oldie and hopefully a goldie, from a different century as well. There are a lot of permutations of this Aberlour bottled in the square bottle, and there can be quite some differences between the Whiskies, or so I’m told. Up ’till now I have only tried one other. Like with so many things in life, not all 8 year old Whiskies are created equal, I guess.

Color: Light orange gold.

Nose: Old skool Sherry nose. Waxy, toffeed, some fresh butter and funky. Like coal fired stills including some petrol fumes and exhaust gases from outside the still house. And like real petrol fumes and exhaust gases, they dissipate in the wind. Cola, cold motor oil and coal dust. Dusty old furniture. It seems as if some sugar sets down in the back of my throat, only from smelling it. Doesn’t smell like an 8yo Whisky at all. Initially some hints of Rhum Agricole, but this dissipates rather quickly and I also don’t pick up on it every time I smell this. We all have our better and worse days you know. Smells nothing like a modern 8yo Whisky as well. Much softer. Very mature for a standard 8yo. Things have changed since then, wasn’t everything better in the old days? Still dusty with this wonderful coal dusty Sherry nose, like we know from all the greats. Whiffs of sweet yellow fruit yoghurt and cookie dough. All is good. It smells nice and comes without any off-notes. After a while quite fresh for an old skool malt. Like a breath of fresh air (in an old earthen floor warehouse) and yet still sweet smelling.

Taste: Nutty and waxy sherry. Also some dry and active wood, slightly bitter as well. Drying my tongue and palate. Slightly spicy (cinnamon), fruity (dry bits of peach and apricot) and definitely old skool. Hints of cola and especially licorice. that wasn’t present in the nose. Besides that it is slightly prickly as well. Is this from the wood or some sort of liquid smoke? Crushed caterpillar (don’t ask). Slightly cloying Sherry,but I wouldn’t say this is all that sweet. I expected it to be way more sweet since this Whisky is so sweet smelling. All the specialness is in the beginning. It shows its age by halting its development halfway through and not being all that complex. Not in my glass nor in my mouth. It is a wonderful old skool Sherried Malt, but it is thus also a bit simple. At this age it was probably aimed at, amongst others, the Italian market, so no surprise here that it is highly and dangerously drinkable. Next some creamy and buttery notes are able to escape, albeit briefly, from the grasp of the Sherry. The bitterness shows some stamina with its staying power. It is not dominant yet quite noticeable. Well balanced though, since the taste matches the nose, and for me, it tastes slightly better than it smells, and don’t get me wrong it smells wonderful. By the way on some days I prefer the nose over the taste. On those days the taste seems a bit thin. Black coal and licorice in the finish and aftertaste. This actually works well, hiding the residual bitterness.

In the end this is a well made old malt, yet also a bit simple and regularly shows some fragility. Highly drinkable, definitely old skool, and there is no reason to keep this around for a long while, just enjoy it, since you never know what oxidation will do (or already did) to such an old Malt. By the way, the roof of my mouth is slightly anaesthetized, so definitely a higher ABV. Empty glass smells very nice by the way! Don’t sip it, bigger gulps are the secret to unlock this Malt to its full potential.

Points: 87

Ledaig 9yo 2005/2015 (56.8%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, 1st Fill Sherry Butt #900146, 664 bottles)

After Caol Ila and two cask strength Laphroaig’s, lets stay with peat for a while (winter is coming) and check out this peated offering from Ledaig. Yes I know, Ledaig isn’t from Islay. Why should it? You can distil with peat anywhere on the planet, or in this case, Scotland. There is already a lot happening on Islay, lots of distilleries, and isn’t Mull more unique? Not a lot of distilleries on Mull. Ledaig as we all know by now, is the peated Whisky made at Tobermory Distillery. You did read all my previous reviews on Ledaig, in preparation to this one, now did you? So you should know by now, yes? Tobermory distillery also releases unpeated Whisky, calling it…well…Tobermory, how did they come up with that! You could fool me sometimes with this statement though. Seems to me some Tobermory’s are peated as well, maybe less so than Ledaig, yet peated. Maybe they’re just not as good at line clearance as they are in making Whisky? Who knows, and who cares if the output can be this good. By the way, not even that long ago Tobermory did have some sort of a wonky reputation concerning the quality of their Whisky.

Earlier I reviewed a fantastic 11yo Cadenheads offering distilled in 2005 which has matured in a Sherry Butt. This time around I went for this 9yo 2005 Signatory Vintage offering, that also matured in a Sherry Butt, expecting and hoping for more of the same and wanting that all 2005’s are somewhat created equal. I just wonder why Cadenheads only managed to draw 450 bottles at cask strength from a Butt and Signatory 664 bottles. That’s quite a considerable difference. By the way, Cadenheads bottled two other casks from 2005, yielding 510 and 516 bottles. Still no 664 bottles though. Different oak with more evaporation or different warehousing conditions? Who knows.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Fatty, fragrant and delicious peat. Slightly Sherry sweetness. Full on sweet smoke with some toffee. A little dirty yet sexy. Licorice smoke. Salty and smoked licorice candy. Prickly smoke, with a minty side to it. Smoked menthos. Nom, nom, nom. I have to say, a peated spirit like this, aged in a Sherry butt, what a combination. The start was peat which morphs slowly into smoke. Hints of anise seeds and cumin. In the background dried beef, gravy and salty smoked fish. This has also an underlying fruity side to it, but again, just as in the Caol Ila I just reviewed, this is masked by the usual suspects of peat and smoke. What a wonderful smelling Ledaig again. Utterly amazing smelling Malt and it’s only 9 years old. Glowing embers, warm glowing charred wood. Hot barbecue before anything is put on it, burning off the last spots of fat left behind from the previous session, right before putting something on it again. Or imagine sipping this near the fireplace high up in the mountains. This nose never stops giving. Warm oil emanating from a steam locomotive (a fresh experience from two months ago in Quedlinburg, Germany).

Taste: Starts sweet and peaty, yet also somewhat unbalanced. The peat and the smoke have a bitter edge here right from the start, but also something fresh like a cola has. Nutty and some burnt fat from the barbecue. This note smells better than it tastes, by the way. Very warming and hot going down. Now I do notice quite some dry wood underneath, tucked away neatly between the peat and the smoke. So it might be a bit hidden, but the cask is quite active as well. More towards burning plastic now and again the minty note. The peat note is more bitter and together with the smoke, also less dominant. The Sherry comes trough some more. Dried salty fish. This one needs some time to breathe, but not too much. When standing around in my glass for a long time, the taste deteriorates a bit (the bottle is also nearly empty by the way, so I notice the air did play its part). This will be of no concern with a freshly opened bottle, because then, this Malt still does need a lot of air. Crushed beetle in the finish, and overall still warming. Also some caramel comes forth.

Are all Sherry Butt matured Ledaig’s from 2005 created equal? Nope they aren’t. The Cadenheads rose to the occasion much more than this Signatory initially, but, oh boy, when this got enough time to breathe in an open bottle, yeah man! The nose is up to par with the Cadenheads, alas on the palate, the Signatory falls apart a bit and the Cadenhead is the clear winner. Sure it’s different from the Cadenheads offering as well. That one was tasty from the first poured dram until the last, and this Signatory one did need some time to find its place, which luckily it did, although it never reached those highs of the Cadenheads, and deteriorated a bit when nearly empty. Nevertheless two big peated hits in a row from Tobermory. I’m suspecting an album of greatest hits now, so for the time being, I will be replacing every emptied Ledaig with another one. Can’t wait to open up the next one now. I have to look in my stash for one matured in a Bourbon cask after these two Sherried ones.

Points: 86

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 007 (56.3%, OB, 2015)

I have to admit, I bailed on Laphroaig for a long time when the first signs of considerable quality loss were visible in the regular 10yo. A marketing person would mention that it has been made with an “improved recipe”. Change of ownership and the decision to sell out the brand a bit, with issuing lots of mediocre bottlings. Some luckily turn out to be a bit less mediocre than I initially thought. Assumptions, assumptions. The mother of all…thanks Jane!

The 1815 Edition, Brodir and Lore, weren’t as bad as others led me to believe. So after the 10 Cask Strength “Red Stripe”, I somehow “forgot” about newly released bottlings of Laphroaig and turned my attention elsewhere. Little did I know, because, forgetting about Laphroaig made me also pass on all these wonderful 10yo Cask Strength batches for a long time. So rather late, I started to backtrack. At the time of writing, batches #006 through #015 are still “reasonably priced” and batches #001 through #005 are already quite expensive (at auctions). Nevertheless, I was also able to get some Batch #006 and used that one as a starting point and work my way up from there. I still have to figure out a plan for batches #001 through #005 though. I’ll probably have to throw some money at these or hopefully score me some samples of those. As could be read earlier, batch #006 was very good indeed, now let’s move on to batch #007 a.k.a. the “James Bond” batch, I wonder why…

Color: Light orange gold. Batch 006 is ever so slightly darker.

Nose: Top notch peat, prickly smoke, briny and sweet. Starts big, but after some breathing it softens up a bit. Gaining even more balance. Yes, this needs some air. Very, very nice. In the plethora of Laphroaig’s slightly less fantastic (travel retail) bottlings, this shines like a big sun! Chalk and paper and some warm asphalt. Tarred rope, dried fish. Sweet and creamy. Fireplace on a chilly evening. Hints of Christmas spices and even a cold sea breeze whiff by. Man, this smells so good. Brings back memories. Hidden away between all these hard hitting aroma’s is some nice fruitiness and the tiniest hint of chlorine, hidden away in a breath of fresh air. This bottling is a testament that Laphroaig still has what it takes and for me it also functions a bit as an apology for the rest of the aforementioned bottlings, which aren’t all that bad to boot, but still… This one is definitely for Islay aficionado’s. If you are a novice please turn to “Lore”, get a bottle of this as well, but open it only of you feel you can appreciate something like this.

Taste: Licorice and sweet black and white powder. Nice soft peat hinting at a higher age than the 10 years claimed. Soft cream and again some hints of acidic red fruits. The smoke and sweetness perform a delicate dance. Warming going down. Take this as a nightcap and you’ll sleep like a baby, or so I imagine. Don’t taste this carelessly or a lot might go unnoticed, This needs your attention like a faithful dog. This Laphroaig will love you back in the same way. Licking the insides of your face. Come to think of it, this does have a animalesk note, wet dog maybe too? Nice balanced finish, but the aftertaste doesn’t seem very long. It does leave a minty feel on my tongue though.

Amazing this is so much better than a lot of the Laphroaig’s I reviewed last. Considering the price, I have not really a use for a “Lore”, a “1815”, a “An Cuan Mor”, or even a “Brodir”. Sorry, but this one here, this is the one for me, I like it even way more than the 18yo, which is no “dog” as well. If I need Laphroaig-variation, I’m getting several different batches of the 10yo Cask Strength. that sounds like a sound plan! I really like Ardbeg Uigeadail and Ardbeg Corryvreckan, but these Original Cask Strength’s trumps both, it also costs a bit more, don’t forget about that. Luckily these three are different from one another, so this warrants me (and you) getting all of them. Yey!

Both #006 and #007 smell quite similar, and the difference, as well as the beauty, lies in the details. Batch #006 seems a bit more raw, more sea, minty, fresh salty air and less sweet, but also has a more perfumy note. Meatier even maybe and some more clay. Batch #007 has a meaty note as well, but it differs. Batch #006 has a black tea note that is absent from batch #007. Batch #007 is slightly sweeter smelling and has a herbal and spicy note which batch #006 doesn’t have. Batch #007 has a slightly more classic Bourbon cask note, and even hints of a fruity Sherry note. Batch 006 is dirtier and slightly “bigger”. I couldn’t say one nose is better than the other. As said above, similar quality, just some differences in the details. One moment I prefer a detail from one batch, and the next from the other…

Where the noses of batch #006 and #007 were quite similar, there is a slightly bigger difference taste-wise. Batch #006 is nicely sweet and very ashy, more raw and somewhat simpler maybe. Batch #007 tastes sweeter and more mellow, softer and fruitier, and slightly more polished and balanced as well, so I’m sure this taste profile would suit me better on other days. Batch #006 is more of a fisherman’s dram. Ashy, tarry and minty. Bigger, with more length and also slightly hotter, more powerful. Both are equally good and therefore score the same. But if I had to choose at gunpoint, today, I would prefer Batch 006 (the empty glass even smells bigger). If you aren’t an anorak or a completist, you don’t need both and either one of them will do, if you are an anorak you most definitely need both. Lots of them, for future reference!

Points: 92

Laphroaig 10yo Original Cask Strength Batch 006 (58%, OB, 2014)

So in 2019 I reviewed some Laphroaig’s meant for travellers. “Lore”, “The 1815 Edition” and “Brodir”. So with this, we have now a small part of that retail channel covered. Laphroaig also has/had some entry level Malts for the general public like the 10yo, “Select”, “Quarter Cask”, and to a lesser extent, (due to price), the 15yo and 18yo. There are also bottles for collectors, criminals, presidents and owners of luxury yachts, like the 27yo, 28yo and 30yo. All in fancy white coffins for your hamster. Luckily those Whiskies are very good, so when you spend a lot of “hard earned” cash on those, and decided to open them en drink them, at least you won’t be buying a dud.

Now, what if you are a Whisky enthusiast, connoisseur, aficionado or anorak, and somewhat shorter on funds, yet still a canoe in the backyard. What do you do? Yes, I do admit I am one of them, I have been infected. In stead of only drinking the stuff, I also spend some time writing about it, how anorak-y or insane can you get? So what do we do? We, for instance, are interested in lots of independent bottlings of Laphroaig and are more than happy to pay a somewhat higher price for them. Usually they are also less expensive than the Laphroaig’s in the coffins mentioned above. Don’t we buy official releases then? Isn’t there a reasonably priced, very, very good official Laphroaig on the market then? Yes there is! We anorak-y and insane people are going for the 10yo Original Cask Strength, a bottling John Campbell makes just for us. He said so himself! It is usually sold only online, at the distillery and not our usual watering hole, so the general public doesn’t know about them and therefore this is our little secret.

Since batch 011 however, it does seem to surface in some shops as well. It’s, obviously, cask strength, so not for everyone, It still is love it or hate it, so again not for everyone, and as said above, a bit hard to get. It is released in numbered batches. All things we aficionado’s like. Why do we like this one so bad? Because it is seriously good, it has batch variation, so we buy all different batches and it does remind us of the Laphroaig’s of the good old days, days when even the standard 10yo was a belter, less so today alas. The 10yo is made for a different audience altogether. Now, do you understand why the “Lore” and the “1815” were bought as bottle shares?

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Soft peat, nutty and sweet, almost perfumy. Wet earth after heavy rain (remember how fresh the air is after that?). DAS pronto (clay), paint and meaty. Quite some clay notes to be honest. Smoked and dried meat. Very, very fragrant. Hidden away, very well hidden are some red fruity notes (half ripe forest strawberries. You can sometimes smell the ripe aroma’s of the fruit, the sweeter bits that is, not the promise of fruity acidity. Hints of cola. Black and white powder, Licorice and iodine. Cold gravy. A hot aroma, like almost melting plastic cable. The initial smell, not when it is already melting, that could be a foul smell. Warming and animalesk. Sometimes even whiffs of sweet pickle water. Dried out plants in full sun and some sweetish spices. Sweet, dusty, balanced and complex. Dried fish. Smells much older than 10yo. No strong in your face peat and certainly no harsh and sharp smoky notes. A sort of Cask Strength “Lore” if you ask me, only way better. It adopts a bit of the gentleman-like qualities of the “Lore”. Quite different from other expressions from this series, I have tried before. Softer and maybe a tad more complex? Hints of old wood. Furniture-grade. Distant roadside dry grass fire, and then the perfumy bit returns. Yes this is a damn complex Malt.

Taste: Wonderfully sweet and fruity, black and white powder, lots of licorice, and I mean a lot of it. Cold ashes and liquid smoke. Amazing balance. Sometimes I get slightly sweet White Wine notes. Animalesk again. More licorice and ashes (and some cola again), this time mixed with crushed beetle (I already smelled the beetle before tasting it). Sweet peppermint, like Menthos (combined with licorice), and an acidic top note intertwined with the minty note. Can’t call the acidity fruity though, it’s different. Very earthy peat, sweet and earthy, and therefore less peaty. Masked by the plethora of aroma’s is some woody bitterness. The nose gets better, than it already is, when you sip this Whisky, the warm oral cavity does its work wonderfully. What an amazing Whisky this is, especially the nose is super-complex for what is considered a heavy hitting, heavily peated Malt. So much better than most other affordable Laphroaig’s. John Campbell, thank you, top stuff!

Man, one just can’t have enough of these 10yo’s.

Points: 92

Craigellachie 1997/2014 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill American Hoghead & Refill Bourbon Barrels, AD/JIIG, 01/07/2014)

Craigellachie is no stranger to Master Quill. Funky and meaty, with often some hints of sulphur. Seize the day people, time flies like never before! Last time I reviewed a Craigellachie was almost 10 years ago, yes you heard that right, almost TEN years ago. Just sayin’. Craigellachie is now bottled officially by John Dewar & Sons Ltd. which are part of the Bacardi – Martini drinks giant since 1998. With plenty of stock they decided to put out lots of Whiskies from their newly acquired Distilleries, all with age statements. That’s not very 21st century now isn’t it. Fun fact: this only happened in 2014, so it took them a while think up of this plan of bottling their own Whiskies.

Apart from the officially released Craigellachies, also some casks manage to find their way into the welcoming arms of independent bottlers. Nevertheless, most of the output of this distillery ends up in several blends, but primarily end up in Dewar’s White Label. The bottling for this review isn’t a blend, but a (reduced) independent Single Malt offering from Gordon & MacPhail. After the Glenallachie I reviewed last week, I thought why not, why not do another of those 46% ABV bottlings from the previous iteration of the Connoisseurs Choice range before it got revamped a few years ago.

Color: Light White Wine.

Nose: Waxy, woody and warming. Hints of paper and somewhat sweet smelling. The first thing to do is to keep an eye (or rather a nose) out for sulphur. Craigellachie is so associated with sulphur, one must be careful not to fool oneself and smell it when it’s not there. Still, I’m happy to report, at the moment there are only mere hints right at the start during the first nosing. Soft mocha and soft milk chocolate with an ever so slightly acidic fruity note, something in the vicinity of unripe pear. Next the nose turns sharper, fine by me, but yes this has a tad of sulphur, which is also somewhat peppery. A sharp, and specific deep smell. Personally I never had problems with hints of sulphur, only when it becomes more dominant I start to dislike it. Most often that kind of sulphur can be found in Whiskies matured in ex-Sherry casks. This fine example hasn’t seen Sherry and this sulphury bit that must be present in the Spirit is fine by me. In this form it suits the sprit, it’s a part of the distillery character. I believe Bacardi, who are the current owners, even mentioned sulphur when they introduced their new official offerings, like the 13yo in 2014. The nose if fine, really soft overall.

Taste: Hints of paper, some indistinct ripe fruit and some cannabis, similar to the cannabis notes I get in some older Bunnahabhains. All of this seem to fit together well, however at times it also comes across as a bit of an unbalance, here a really minor gripe, hardly worth the mention. Next sip, more of the same really, paper and cannabis, sugar water. Not complex, nor layered, yet tasty. I actually expected more after some 16 or 17 odd years this has been in a cask. Where the Glenallachie wasn’t simple, this one sort of is. More fruity sweetness comes through. This is actually a pleasant and soft Malt, where Craigellachies can be more beefy and meaty, bigger and sharper. Again, I guess that the reduction might have had something to do with this. The Cannabis note is omni-present. It defines this dram. I like it for it, I was tempted to up the score with one point for the cannabis note, but I won’t. As a daily drinker however, it might be just a tad too sweet. Medium finish, with a pleasant and friendly aftertaste.

This one is really different from the G&M Glenallachie I reviewed before. This is actually a nice Whisky from an independent bottler when you’re a novice. I actually has no off notes unless you are really allergic to sulphur and can’t even handle minute amounts. For the rest of us, the hint of sulphur is OK. Where both the Glenallachie and the Craigellachie are good, I would buy the Glenallachie if spotted in the wild, and this Craigellachie I would pass up on. The Glenallachie is also hands down better and the Craigellachie is nice, but also somewhat less challenging, therefore a Whisky more for a novice. Across the years, some cask strength Craigellachies from 1997 were bottled by G&M, maybe I’ll come across one of those to compare it to this one, one day, although I won’t be especially looking out for one.

Points: 84.

Glenallachie 1999/2015 (46%, Gordon & MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, Refill Bourbon Barrels, AE/JJCG, 23/01/2015)

So in earlier reviews I found out that Glenallachie probably isn’t one of my lesser known distilleries that really click with me. Some bottlings I tried were good, some a bit mediocre and some quite forgettable. Up ’till now nothing really stood out. I have a feeling though the newer Whiskies might prove to be better than ever, so Glenallachie might be on the way up again (for me). Nevertheless, Glenallachie is making quite a name for itself the last few years. Lots of official bottlings but also a lot of independent bottlings are coming to the marketplace, with quite a few people who like the output very much, so who am I to argue.

I have already reviewed some independently bottled Glenallachies: Dewar Rattray, Kintra, Beinn a’Cheo, Mo Òr and Cadenhead. Missing from this list is “the biggest and the baddest” of them all: Gordon & MacPhail. Here we have a 1999 distillate reduced to 46% ABV. Alas the only Cask Strength 1999 Gordon & MacPhail ever bottled was sent to Binny’s in the U.S. of A. Not really my neck of the woods. It was bottled way back in 2011. Hard to come across one of those now, since it doesn’t have a lot of collector value, so I can imagine the good people of the U.S. of A. drank most of them, an d rightly so! So without further ado, lets just dig into this reduced one from 2015, shall we?

Color: White Wine

Nose: Wow, very malty and sweet. Cookies, dusty oats and breakfast cereals. Dry grass and hay like. A brekkie Whisky. Sweet smelling cookie dough, with a green note, a fruity note and a cold dishwater note and thus quite appetizing and pleasant. Marzipan and ever so slightly nutty. After a while a tiny hint of licorice. This nuttiness is the closest it gets to wood, because the wood itself is hardly noticeable. It has quite an interesting and appealing perfume to it as well, which emerges somewhat later from my glass. This is real and honest stuff and maybe a bit back to basics, although it isn’t really basic nor simple for that matter. Just a very nice smelling Whisky. Excellent example what a spirit in some “basic and simple” Bourbon barrels can achieve, also proving that the Glenallachie spirit is a good one. Based on the nose alone this could be a very good Whisky, and based on the nose alone I would definitely buy it. Let’s move on.

Taste: Hmmm, quite different here on the palate. Starts fruity, with a surprising and definite bitter note. How strong this bitterness is perceived by the taster depends upon the taster. The first time around, I found this to be more better than the second time around. Runny, thin toffee, wood and thus its bitterness, yet also spicy with some black pepper. Dark chocolate, wood and an alcoholic note you get with those bonbons that contain alcohol. Based on the nose I didn’t expect this bitter note. I expected fruity caramel to be honest. Let’s take another sip. After a while I guess my palate just got used to the bitterness and it isn’t so dominant anymore. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but just like the nose, this palate has something really appealing and interesting which intrigues me. In this case the 46% ABV seems very soft. I may be used to, and prefer cask strength Whiskies to be honest, but this example seems very do-able in the alcohol department. Its neither harsh nor hot.

This will do very well as a daily drinker, or as an aperitif. However, do not make the mistake believing this is merely a simple, entry level Whisky. It is quirky, it is able to surprise you and I definitely like this one (especially after leaving it in my glass for a while to settle some more). Still, this has some bitter notes here and there, so buyer beware. Definitely noticeable is the reduction to 46%, sure quite a high ABV, but it is definitely different from a cask strength offering.

To me this smells and tastes like a classic ex-Bourbon casked Whisky, not modern at all. Would never have thought this was from 1999, which feels like yesterday to me. Maybe today it is a classic Whisky though. Personally I’m shifting my interest in Glenallachie. Where Mr. Walker puts out a lot of different casks, I will be, for the time being, sticking to ex-Bourbon Glenallachie. Again personally: I like this stuff way more than the heavily Sherried 15yo. Yeah, this is a nice surprise, have to find me one now somewhere.

Points: 86

Bimber “Virgin Cask” 2020 (57.4%, OB, American Virgin Oak Cask #94, 263 bottles)

Earlier we reviewed two Bimbers matured in American oak casks that previously held another Whiskey. One Bourbon and one Rye. Both, together with American oak casks that previously held a Tennessee Whiskey, (like Jack Daniel’s and George Dickel), should be the type of casks that showcases the Bimber spirit best, especially when they are refill casks. This will become even more clear in my next Bimber review. That review is not yet planned, but I promise, you won’t have to wait all to long for it, just not right after this one. Just bear with me on this one.

But wait a minute, what about an American oak cask that previously held nothing more than air and maybe some water? What about a freshly made American oak cask, that has only been toasted, as they all are? Yes virgin oak. Using a new cask is not very popular in the Whisky world, and for a long time it was quite unheard of. Sure there were Whiskies made that in part used new cask, but not a lot per batch. When looking at Bimber, I was quite surprised virgin oak cask editions perform really well in the secondary market. Especially in the home (UK) market people seem to dish out some serious amounts of dough for a virgin oak Bimber. Well, since Master Quill is based in mainland Europe, the secondary market for virgin oak Bimbers has not yet reached the levels like that of the UK, so, as usual I snapped some up at a German auction. Yes I did pay somewhat more than for both the Belgium and The Netherlands editions, but nowhere near the current UK prices.

Color: Full gold, almost orange.

Nose: Creamy, buttery (Werther’s Original), with Bimbers marker: Cinnamon. Very fragrant stuff this is, slightly perfumy. Early on some hints of apple aroma close to Calvados, these are gone or overpowered lateron. Bigger and fatter than the Ex-Bourbon and the Ex-Rye reviewed earlier. Very fresh, pleasant and well balanced. Wood and sawdust. Vanilla ice-cream with a leafy and green note to it. Old cardboard and some pencil shavings. Even when smelling, the Whisky becomes less fatty. It’s dryer now. Less “big”. Still some dust, more cinnamon and some indistinct wood related spices which are easy to spot yet hard to identify. To me this one seems somewhat less complex and layered than both the Ex-Bourbon and the Ex-Rye. It is almost like the fruit wants to come out, but doesn’t manage to make it through the creamy cloak, (the vanilla, the butter and the ice-cream), that stretches over it. So this a pretty straight forward expression. Good again, yet a bit simpler. Sniffing this deeply, beautiful abundant wood notes and in no way does it smell of alcohol, similar with the other two. This is wood perfume (hints of vegetal oil and an old bar of soap). Hints of sandalwood, just less intrusive than the sandalwood coming off some men’s eau de toilette. The nose develops over time, becoming more complex with added notes of licorice combined with fresh butter. So all is good. Whereas in a tasting session with both others, the complexity just seems less, it does show multiple personalities over different sessions, so maybe this is a different way of complexity after all, or is it just me that is different?

Taste: Fruity onset, somewhat sweet. Wood, wax and some bitterness cloaked by the fruit and creaminess. The slight bitter note is paired with some licorice. Next the char and some masked (fruity) sweetness. Hints of cola? I expected it to be more creamy though, but the wood does dominate. Next some cookie dough, with a (fruity?), acidic note on top. Here I notice again that the nose seems more refined and developed after taking the first sip. Strange combination of sappy oak, sweet mint candy and carbon powder (the charred oak). A dishwater like bitterness. Usually it is the florality of dishwater that can be smelled/tasted, here it is the bitterness of soap. Just a hint, just making the whole more interesting rather than disgusting, because really, dishwater? Definitely less creamy and fatty than I’ve come to expect from the nose alone yet still bigger than “the other two”. By now the nose does evolve a lot, and again becoming more than just good.

Virgin oak casks are made of charred American oak, and since no other liquid has been interacting with the (charred) wood, a cask like this will always properly colour the Whisky. Virgin oak is often looked at with some concern, and thus it was never a common practice when it came to producing Single Malt Whisky. But after the Wine casks, the Port casks, the Rum casks and so on, it was just a matter of time to broaden the wood palette, and start experimenting with virgin oak. Why not? The market demands it, it wants choice! It is yet another marriage between spirit and “a wood” which is essentially what Whisky is. Is it better than the others, no it’s not, it’s different and it is yet another take, and often the results are mediocre at best, just like the early Wine casked Whiskies. Sgtill a lot to learn here I guess. For Bimber though, virgin oak seems to work pretty well, the quality and the character of the liquid just work with the virgin oak. Bimber aficionado’s know this, as I said earlier, because virgin oak Bimbers do very well in the secondary market, much better than its Bourbon and Rye counterparts. Is it better than those, no it is not, I say it again, but it is a welcome variant, but for a lot less you can purchase an Ex-Bourbon Bimber or an Ex-Rye one which are also much less scarce and offer at least the same amount of quality, just with a different overall feel.

Final remark. I’ve come to find that to get all out of a Bimber, you need to give it peace and quiet and also give it some time. Comparing the three: Virgin has the more straightforward nose, yet very chewy and likeable. Rye is the most complex, distinct and fragile. The Bourbon is somewhere in between the two, less fragile but much closer to the Rye than the virgin oak, so no surprises there really. The Virgin oak is actually a different puppy, and a big puppy at that. Based on the taste, the Virgin is again a different puppy, way more creamy and sweeter, and more about the cask than the other two, which show more of the (quality of the) spirit. And tasting all three back and forth, it seems to me the Rye seems to have the best balance of the three, as well as its delicate complexity. So If I had to buy just one: The Rye. If I could pick two: The Rye + The Virgin. They are not created equal, where the Rye and the Bourbon almost are. If I could only get the Bourbon, no problem whatsoever. Both the Bourbon and the Rye are quite similar, with enough to set them apart in the details, today I prefer the Rye, but tomorrow might be different. The virgin, however, is a welcome “distraction” or better: a variation on the Bimber theme. Especially after trying the Bourbon and the Rye back an forth to pick a favourite (emptying both bottles in the process), and actually, the Virgin is also a very good dram. All three are definitely worthy of their spot under the sun, and on my lectern.

Points: 87

Bimber “Netherlands Edition” 2021 (58.2%, OB, Rye Cask #224, for Bresser & Timmer, 271 bottles)

Geographically, the transit from The Netherlands to Belgium is a short one. The Belgians, when compared to the Dutch, are known to be more into the taste and smell of food and drink, and thus spend more money on it. So, as the human I am, (I’m no T-1000, although I do love my liquids, nudge nudge, wink wink), I would say, and I know this is a big assumption now, that the Belgian version should be better than the Netherlands one. Also, one doesn’t hear a lot about ex-Rye Whisky casks. However, I do know that in general the Whisky industry in general doesn’t discern between casks that previously held a Bourbon or those that held a Tennessee Whiskey. All are called ex-Bourbon casks, since the two are common in the US of A. I guess the same maybe true for casks that previously held a Rye Whiskey. All three forms of Whiskey are different especially the Rye Whiskey and now we have a chance to find out if Bimber from an ex-Bourbon cask is different from one that matured in an ex-Rye Whiskey cask.

Color: Pale White Wine

Nose: Floral, perfumy. Old worn out dried flower pouch, pot-pourri would be to much, to describe the florality. Maybe it’s even slightly soapy, like an old bar of grandma’s soap in a closet full of linen. Malty and soft. Smells also ever so slightly sweet combined with some pencil shavings and cinnamon. Again a wonderful, friendly nose. Fresh and zesty now. Sometimes slightly farmy yet also clean. Warm mocha and creamy, with a hint of peanut and almonds. occasional whiff (a mere hint) of tea tree oil. Candied warm apple and a mixture of soft kitchen spices. Great balance again. Smells very tasty. Rye Whisky itself is in general more floral than Bourbon, and the same is applicable here as well. All of a sudden a whiff of fresher, almost virgin, oak. Again, when this gets some time to breathe, this one has a killer nose as well. It is slightly closed at first, so it does need some air. I pick up on some licorice notes out of the freshly emptied glass. The nose of the Bourbon expression is bigger, yet this one is similarly complex and wonderful as well, Even with this one being “thinner” it is equally as good. Again here we have yet another example of a Malt that needs to breathe. When it gets this time, it is an amazing nose. The nose of both belong to Whiskies that score in the 90 points range, an amazing feat for such a young Malt.

Taste: Short sweet onset, somewhat thin texture. Less sweet and creamy than the Bourbon expression for Belgium. Right out of the gate this seems to have been a less active cask, somewhat introvert so to speak. It gets leafy, green, paper-like and woody quickly. A bit dryer, spicier and more raw than the Bourbon expression, yet the fruity sweet bit clings on for dear life as well. After the first sip (quite hot going down), the nose shows a lot more cinnamon. Mocha as well, which pairs nicely with the cinnamon notes. After trying quite a few Bimbers over the last year, cinnamon seems to be a marker you can recognize it with. After the wood, fruity lemonade pops up. I’m sure that the nice play on wood masks the fruit a bit, but is it quite fruity (underneath). Even if the Bourbon-expression for Belgium turns out to be “better” than this Netherlands one, I feel this one is more unique. I welcome the different experience the Rye expression offers, and I’m having al lot of fun with this one as well. The finish is yet again a bit thin yet ever so slightly better balanced than the Bourbon one, and it is of medium length. The aftertaste is somewhat sweet and lacks a bit of staying power. No off notes, no bitterness.

I know Hans (Bresser) and Auke (Timmer) and these guys wouldn’t accept a “lesser” cask for a Whisky in their name. But I also know these guys enjoy their live better than the average Belgian, who most definitely enjoy the good things in life better than the average Dutch. Even though initially I found the Bourbon version to be slightly better, this Rye version differs a bit and as such is also a bit more adventurous. The Bourbon is more creamy, the Rye more floral and slightly more special if you ask me. It is nice though to have the two side by side and compare the two. Never ever did I regret to have them both open at the same time. It was definitely worth it. Now that they are nearly gone, I find myself leaning a bit more towards the Rye, yet on other occasions more to the Bourbon. Go figure. Both are actually equally good, so they get the same score. It was a good thing to have them both open at the same time, easier to pick up on the difference. Good stuff.

Points: 88

Bimber “Belgium Edition” 2021 (58.4%, OB, Bourbon Cask #194, for Top Malts, 257 bottles)

Bimber means Moonshine in Polish. You know, alcohol distilled by amateurs under amateuristic conditions. Home distilling is not a strange thing in (rural) Poland, and most distillates are fruit-based. The founders of Bimber, Darius and Ewelina, moved from Poland to London and started distilling. The first casks with Whisky were filled on the 26th of May, 2016. The apple often doesn’t fall far from the tree, so no surprise here that somewhere down Darius’ family tree there were men distilling alcohol under amateuristic conditions. Bimber tries to do as much as they can themselves, with traditional methods and always with the highest quality in mind. They have an on-site cooperage and they have their own yeast. Apart from that, they have a seven day fermentation period which is much longer than is usually the case. This long fermentation produces a light and fruity spirit.

As with any Whisky, I feel you get to know it best when it’s matured in an ex-Bourbon cask, preferably a refill one. So no surprise here that the first Bimber on these pages is matured in a cask like that. I only don’t know if this is from a first fill or a refill cask, although the amount of bottles produced seem to suggest it came from a hogshead, which makes it a refill cask. When the first cask has been filled in 2016 and this was bottled in 2021, this can be no more than five years old, and probably less than that. I came across Bimber for the first time at the Whisky Show in London and liked it very much, and after that, the first purchases, (five in total), were just a formality. This Belgium one is one of those first five.

Color: Pale White Wine

Nose: Holy moly what a wonderful nose. Soft, spicy (also soft), mineral and creamy. Slightly farmy with fresh rain water or water in a fast running stream. Barley, barley sugar, sweet fruits (in candy form) and more cream, clotted cream, powdered pudding. Candied cinnamon, fresh almonds, soft sawdust and somewhat leafy. It’s like being in a dusty mill where spices are being ground on a sunny day. Potent and light at the same time. Full on aroma’s. Hard candy raspberry stick, the ones you buy at a fun fair. More soft spices. Greenish and leafy again, almost like candied sawdust this time around (that’s a first). Sometimes hints of creamy horseradish (Chrzan cremowy). Already this Malt oozes utter quality. What a perfectly balanced blend of aroma’s, and at this age! Nothing short of amazing. I’m an instant fan of Bimber after Whiskies like this. Look, I believe this can’t be more than four years old and it has already nothing to do with new make spirit. Well sparsely the smell of Gin, but we do like the smell of Gin now don’t we? However, when sipping this, I often don’t smell the Gin to be honest, but sometimes I do. Today even Lagavulin, and for some years, some other bottlings from other distilleries in Diageo’s special releases, like the ever so popular smoky Cragganmore, still taste a bit of milky new make. What is that? And why do different Diageo distillates show the same markers. Markers I’m not really fond of, by the way. Point is, that this young Bimber seems to be more mature than some other Whiskies more than twice its age.

Taste: The onset is sweet, but already there are some nice amounts of sweetish wood spices and cardboard to be found. A minty and cola-like sparkle. So some wood, ever so slightly bitter and quite fruity, as well as some acidic lemony notes, which makes the whole more vibrant and less heavy (as in syrupy peaches). Mind you, it isn’t a really sweet Whisky this, but the sweetness does play its role. Mocha with brownie dough. Instant coffee granules. Taste-wise the youth of this Malt is easier to pick up on, because of the lack of complexity when compared to the wonderful nose. Even at this strength this is highly drinkable. I should try it before its gone, but I never found the urge to add water to this. Finally, in the finish some woody bitterness arrives, which, in moderate amounts, is needed by a Whisky, since it is aged in wood, so we want to notice the wood. We don’t like the bitterness to be overpowering though, and here it certainly isn’t. Nevertheless, the nose is better than the taste, but the whole is really good. I wonder what will happen when this becomes of age, I’m not even sure right now if that is going to be a good thing, since this youngster managed to pick up already quite a bit from the cask it was in. We’ll see.

Points: 88