Tag Archives: Single Malt

Glen Moray 13yo 1996/2009 (43%, Ian MacLeod, Dun Bheagan, Sauternes Barrel Finish, Cask #91981/91984, 1419 bottles)

Second Dun Bhaegan on these pages, after the Brora 1981. But the first Glen Moray. For a while Glen Moray was owned by the people behind Glenmorangie, you know the distillery with the long-necked stills and the 16 men of Tain? In that period Glenmorangie saw the shortage is good casks and started to experiment a lot with wine-finishes. The ones they did not dare to use, they bestowed onto Glen Moray. So there are quite a lot of official Wine finishes by Glen Moray themselves. Now Ian MacLeod decided to add their wine finish of their own, or maybe bought it straight from the distillery.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Malty and sweet. Vanilla and quite spirity. A slightly winy smell comes in, along with some glue, cardboard and sawdust. Toffee adds to the vanilla. Gypsum. I cannot say this is very balanced. The longer you keep this the more is smells of a combination of solvents. Wait, now some plants come into the mix, just hard to say which ones. Given even some more time, the nose keeps developing. I like that in a malt, just the things you smell aren’t so special in this one. Clean wood and lavas now, and an overpowering kind of toffee.

Taste: Wood, paper, cardboard, but mostly wood. Spicy wood with some detached sweetness. (so not very balanced again). Quite hard and a bit bitter. Urine? After this straight into a finish of almost stale beer, cream and wood again. Sour.

Very simple, not a lot going on, and what is going on is not great for a whisky. It would have a lot of character if it were a Wodka. Still this very nice Wodka scores into the seventies. In a few words: Bitter-sweet wood toffee.

Points: 76

Tomatin 19yo 1989/2008 (40%, Master of Malt, Refill Sherry Hogshead, 399 bottles)

I caught a cold last week, which is very unfortunate when you try to write tasting notes. Fortunately my nose is back in business now, and in the process ‘got a rest’. Let’s start whisky reviewing again, with an example of a whisky that should be light and is ‘low’ in ABV.

There are two versions of this, one reduced to 40% ABV (this version) and one at cask strength, that was 57.6% ABV. This example was bottled by Master of Malt, maybe the biggest competition for The Whisky Exchange. Just have a look at their website for quite a nice collection, just don’t be fooled, a lot is sold out and stated as such. Looking around the net a bit, I already got a sense that the cask strength version should be much better. Those of you that are used to my reviews, know already that I don’t like reduction a lot, but I do admit that it sometimes cán work, let’s see if that is the case with this Tomatin.

Color:  White wine.

Nose: Toffee with some acidity. Seems sweet at first, but quickly turns into something dry. Cardboard like woodiness. Fern with a hint of licorice, toast and ash. Quite floral later on, but the cardboard doesn’t give way. Not bad, but atypical Tomatin, for this lacks the (tropical) fruityness, we all know. Apart from the cardboard it is powdery and slightly mouldy.

Taste: Again dry, woody and mouldy. Ear wax. Wood spice and slightly bitter. Watery. Nothing more to it really. I hope the cask strength version is (a lot) better, because this is nothing special. Maybe this was reduced to death? Very atypical for a Tomatin, since it lacks all forms of fruityness…

For me a completely uninteresting Tomatin. This must be a cask that was sold off for blending. Would be interesting to try the cask strength version though, because at 40% ABV… well you get the picture…

Points: 80

Tomatin 30yo (46%, OB, 1500 bottles, 2012)

Lou Reed’s Transformer on the record player and the new Tomatin 30yo OB in my glass, what can go wrong? As I already mentioned here, this Tomatin 30yo is a stunner. Yes let’s tell you up front that this will score in the 90’s. Don’t waste your time reading on, go out and get yourself a bottle. This Tomatin is all good, and that’s all I need to say!

The new 30yo was introduced in 2011, replacing the 25yo that still can be found. It’s reduced to 46% ABV, to fit neatly in the ‘standard’ range which now comprises of the 12yo, the 15yo, the 18yo and now the 30yo. The 21yo I reviewed earlier is a limited release and higher in ABV (52%), so it’s not part of the standard range. Still it looks like a huge gap to me between the 18yo and the 30yo. And a new 21yo or 25yo would be nice. For now, mind the gap…

When introduced, the press release stated it will be an annual release of up to 2000 bottles. Just so you know, the 2011 release was 1200 bottles and the new 2012 release is 1500 bottles. Keyword for the 30yo is consistency. By the way, these two 30yo’s are made up from 80% Refill Bourbon casks and 20% Oloroso Sherry casks.

Color: Straw, light gold.

Nose: Musty, and fresh. Lot’s of citrus fruit skins, oranges, tangerines and lemons. Also some old bottle effect, combined with (ear)wax. It has this similarity with the best of the 1972 Caperdonichs, which I like a lot. Great balance. A great one to smell. After some breathing we get another dimension of fruitiness. This time the citrus fruits are succeeded by more tropical fruits like pineapple, papaya and mango. There also is a dusty or powdery component to the whole. Still this waxy bowl of fruit is extremely nice and luckily all over the place. Some distant spiciness from the wood, but it’s hardly there, go figure after 30 years!

Taste: Again very nice. At first a short spicy attack and a little bit of wood. Next up, the tropical fruits again, papaya and mango. Not so much the pineapple and no citrus fruits. When the fruits subsides it shows a little a nice interplay with creamy (ice) coffee, vanilla and/or mocha. Yes the pineapple is here too, but it comes quite late.

Can’t imagine this was colored. It’s so light in color. That would be great, since we don’t like people messing with our drams, don’t we? Both the nose and the palate are neatly balanced. I really love these kinds of whiskies. One I thoroughly enjoyed. Imagine a great 30yo whisky and what they ask you to dish out these days. Considering this, this one is a steal (in some markets) and deserves a following. It’s 46% ABV and very nice, this makes it almost too easily drinkable and there is a possibility that this bottle will be empty in no time, so beware. The 2011 batch was also very good, still this one from 2012 scores one point higher, since it’s even more fruity.

Points: 91

Thanks to Alistair for the Sample and Stephen for the info!

Glen Scotia 18yo 1992/2010 (46%, Mo Òr, First Fill Sherry Butt #6, 1076 bottles, 500 ml)

Next up Glen Scotia, also a first on these pages. Glen Scotia hails from Campbeltown, once a big place for whisky with regional status (again). Try to imagine a place that has almost 30 distilleries working at one time in the 19th Century. Not so long ago this Glen Scotia was the ‘other one’ from Campbeltown after the well-known Springbank. Today Springbank makes also Longrow and Hazelburn. And from the same owners the recent ‘addition’ that is Glengyle Distillery (Kilkerran). Let’s say that Glen Scotia is the only Campbeltown distillery not owned by the people of Springbank. Owner today is Loch Lomond Distillery Co. and the place is fairly run down. When the distillery was mothballed in 1994, the staff of Springbank restarted intermittent production in 1999, not to lose the regional status of Campbeltown. A status lost eventually, but eventually reinstated.

The distillery was founded in 1832 by the Galbraith family. For one reason or another the label on the bottles state 1835. Lots of changes of ownership during the years and even some closures in 1928 and 1984. Since 2000 Loch Lomond has taken over Glen Scotia and runs the distillery with its own staff.

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Very musty and dirty. Fruity as in fresh sweet apples mixed with apple compote. A very nice hint of smoke and coal that reminds me of an old steam locomotive. It actually smells like something from the industrial revolution. Old Skool? Lets move on. Mint and still a lot of apple. Lit matchstick. Nice balance and easy. Not very complex. Underneath it all, a sort of sweet wood smell, very laid back.

Taste: Wood and toffee. Caramels and quite a bit of ash and toasted cask. A nice bite and definitely a firm body. Sulphury (of the egg kind) and quite some oaky and milky sourness. Actually I get some more egg notes, especially boiled egg (the white part). Closing in on the finish, it dries out a bit, and is not as big as expected. Here the wood plays a much greater role, than on the nose. Not as balanced as the nose.

Usually you’d expect more color after 18 years in a First Fill Sherry Butt, so this must be a Fino (again) and it kinda goes into that direction.

I was asked to keep an eye out for sulphur in this one. It’s there slightly on the nose (as a burning match). But it is more pronounced on the palate (the bite here comes not only from the wood, but also from the sulphur. Usually there is some sulphur in Sherried Glen Scotia’s. Lots of it in a 1991 Cadenheads offering if I remember correctly. It’s there on the palate and even more so in the finish (late). Is it ruining the balance or the palate? Does it disturb me? No, it’s some kind of good sulphur. it’s somewhat hidden. It’s there but not in the usual obvious way. That happens sometime, that’s why I called it good sulphur. Still, overall there isn’t a lot of sulphur in this one, so don’t worry. And hey, sulphur is good for the skin!

Points: 84

Longmorn 15yo (45%, OB, Circa 2002, Litre)

I just found out that Longmorn isn’t on Master Quill yet! Longmorn is one of my absolute favorites. Just have a go at a sixties or seventies fruitbomb or heavily sherried expressions from the days the stills were heated with coal. Sometimes it almost tastes like the coal went into the whisky too. A liquified locomotive. But no use crying over spilt whisky and let’s start-up with this old 15yo. This 15yo is no more and was replaced in 2007 by the current 16yo. So it’s off the market for five years now, but bottles are found in some shops and are still fairly cheap at auctions. Also the packaging has dramatically changed. The 16yo new bottle has metal and leather glued to it, and has an intricate box. This 15yo looks fairly simple. Surely Longmorn are capable of making a pretty good standard whisky? Lets find out how this eighties distillate behaves, and maybe we get a chance in the future to compare this to the new 16yo expression. I tasted the 16yo once in 2009, and scored it a measly 81. I hope it got better in the mean time.

Color: Copper gold, caramel.

Nose: Spicy and slightly smoky. Apples (not the skin), and heather. Vanilla ice-cream. Creamy with the slightest hint of pine. Malty and it smells quite sweet. Nougat. Powdery with wet leaves and even some wood.

Taste: Full sweet body, with a tad of almonds. Powdery texture. (no there is nothing floating in my glass). This does have its bite. I get apples again, half sweet and half sour.

In the whisky market of today and definitely in the whisky market of tomorrow which will be taken over by bottles without an age statement, something like this is hardly possible. Aged for so long, and bottled at this strength. This is pretty good stuff, and only a few can still drink this as their daily dram. It seems they can’t make it like this anymore…

Points: 86

Allt-a-Bhainne 12yo 1996/2008 (46%, Murray McDavid, American Oak & New French Oak, 1500 bottles)

Allt-a-Bhainne is a new distillery, now owned by Pernod Ricard (through Chivas Brothers Ltd.). It was founded in 1975 to be used for the Chivas blends. Pernod Ricard bought Chivas from Seagram in 2001. The distillery was shortly mothballed between October 2002 and May 2005. Just two years before the foundation of Allt-a-Bhainne, Chivas also founded Braes of Glenlivet (Braeval) for the same purpose, and therefore is considered it’s sister distillery.

Color: Full gold, hint of copper.

Nose: Musty. Pencil shavings. Mocha. Very light. Powdery and creamy. Thick wood. Spicy oak and floor polish. Liquorice-water. A bit salty. Dry meat.

Taste: Paper, cardboard. Sweetish malt. Again thick spicy wood. Not very expressive. Non existent finish. Nothing offensive, but also nothing spectacular in this. Sweet wood. Watery.

Built on wood, but not on tannins as you might have thought. Not a lot happening really. Disappointing, but also quite cheap. I don’t know why this got bottled. It would have gone into a blend without a problem. Buy if you like inoffensive wood.

Points: 76

Auchentoshan 18yo 1991/2009 (46%, The Cooper’s Choice, Hogshead #491, 360 bottles)

Well living in the low-countries and doing a Auchentoshan review without pointing at the site of the A toshan man is impossible. So here is a link to Mark Dermul’s site about Auchentoshan. It’s about whisky obviously, but have a look at all those Auchentoshan Trucks! Lovely.

For now I will do a short intro to Auchentoshan. officially the first word of Auchentoshan is in 1823 when a guy named Thorne got a licence. But there is reason to believe that Auchentoshan started in 1800 named Duntocher. In the past the Germans didn’t like Auchentoshan too much and bombed the place already in 1941. Smart as the Scottish are they waited for the end of the war, rebuilding Auchentoshan. Just to be sure, they started rebuilding in 1948. In 1984 Stanley P. Morrison buys the place and sells his own company to Suntory ten years later. In 2008 Morrison Bowmore starts with the new packaging we know today. But first this expression by indie bottlers The Cooper’s Choice (actually The Vintage Malt Whisky Co. Ltd.) The people behind Finlaggan.

Color: White wine.

Nose: Grassy. Mocha and lemon. It’s sour in an ugly way. It’s whisky with an added layer of strange minty sourness, that wouldn’t gel at all. Very unbalanced. Air freshener.

Taste: Malty with menthol. Although the taste isn’t bad, something definitely went wrong with this cask. Hot and woody. Caramel. Leafy and some plywood. Toffee, with paper in the short finish.

Sorry Mark, but this wasn’t very good. Something went wrong and it showed in the nose. Unbalance. Funny though, that the taste wasn’t all that bad. So it can be drunk, but why should you want to, when it smells like this.

Points: 78

Oban 1995/2010 (43%, OB, OD 159.FW, Distillers Edition, Montilla Fino Finish)

Oban is one of the special Whiskies from Diageo. Not a lot of versions around, very little independents have it, and most of it you’ll find are old bottles, with big prices. It a bit their highland Lagavulin, which also once had few expressions and little seen with independents.

Montilla is a Spanish DO (Denominación de Origen) from the southern part of Córdoba. The Fino used for this finish is commonly a clean, vibrant, straw-colored wine. It has a complex and subtle nose. Delicate notes of predominantly yeast and almonds. Sometimes also tobacco and liquorice. The taste is dry, bitter, smooth and lingering. Also very nice olive oil comes from here.

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Fresh (air), wood, a little bit creamy. Thick. Slightest hints of tar and laurel liquorice and something sour like a green apple. Dry and perfumed paper. This does have a Fino trait to it (I once had a Fino Glenfarclas and the characteristics are very similar. I also once had a bone dry Fino Sherry from Lustau, which also had the same characteristics). I guess, Whiskies from a Fino cask are easy to recognize.

Taste: Wood is the first up, plywood. Yep, Fino. Little bit of vanilla ice-cream. And a slight pepper bite. It has cardboard combined with sugar, some sort of strange sweetness. I’m not convinced this finish worked well with the Oban distillate. The finish is quite anonymous. Also, it isn’t very balanced. After some breathing I got some organics (yeast and cow-stable) and some late sweetness, which makes it slightly more drinkable, but it doesn’t undo the unbalance.

This is a bit disappointing actually. I expected more from Oban combined with Fino Sherry. Not something I would buy, nor would I order this at a bar. For me it is ‘put together’ or crafted. It isn’t being honest like I found recently with some official Benromachs. Also the Fino finish doesn’t work for me here.

Points: 82

Port Ellen 24yo 1978/2002 “Second Annual Release” (59,35%, OB, 12000 bottles)

Two weeks ago I had a Talisker tasting and unofficially a Port Ellen aftertasting. Somehow one bottle got left behind by its owner. It’s leash bound to a great oak tree, and you can see its sad, not being surrounded by its usual brothers and sisters. I asked its owner if I could play a little with this lost bottle, and he said it was OK. Just to be sure I will bring it back in January. So yes, Master Quill is giving this stray puppy a refuge in Master Quills castle. Nice and comfy near the fire-place.

How nice it is to have another Port Ellen on these pages. This one in particular plays a strange role in the Port Ellen annual release series. First of al this strange ABV. 59,35%. New Japanese measuring equipment on loan? No it’s not that. This one is known to be a little closed. Very closed in fact. I had the chance to try this expression when it was freshly opened and it was really hard to taste this. Very hard to tell what is in there. It was nice, but nothing you’ve come to expect from such a Port Ellen. This time around the bottle is open for a while and less than half full. Is this, one of those whiskies that has to be put on the shelf without its cork, to maximize its breathing? Lets see…

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Leafy, nice liquorice laden peat. And the peat is not very bold mind you. Creamy ashes and some dust. Still it’s closed. I’m trying really hard, even warming the stuff in my hands, with a lid on my glass and without. Yes it does work a little. Doing this trick, brings out a big nice bonfire. Even though it is unbelievably closed it shows a lot of balance. Sniff hard on this one (and you’ll get a new layer of spicy sweetness).

Taste: Yeah! Leafy again, strong, and slightly bitter. Black tea with almonds. Rather sweet and seaside peat. Not completely balanced due to some sourness, from the wood, that takes over the palate straight into the beerlike finish, but the effect doesn’t last. there is a fruityness about it. Like pineapple (sour and sweet), with dried apricot and banana. The finish breaks apart a bit, but you’ll still see the quality. Long finish though.

Well it does demand of you that you’ll work on it since it doesn’t give away its treasures easily, especially on the nose. Probably not the best from the series, but still it oozes Port Ellenness. It is an experience. Freshly opened bottle scored 87 Points, but after extensive breathing I’ll score this:

Points: 87 (sorry no change)

Heartfelt thanks go out to Jos for leaving this bottle behind!

Glenkinchie 12yo (43%, OB, American Oak, Circa 2010)

Glenkinchie can be good, but despite the efforts of the proud people working there, Glenkinchie will always be known as the distillery that Diageo saved by adding it in the Classic Malts range and thereby closing Rosebank.

Earlier I reviewed a Single Cask Glenkinchie bottled by Signatory Vintage and that was pretty good! This time around let’s see how the entry-level 12yo bottled by the owners will do. This 12yo replaces the 10yo that was available earlier.

Color: Gold.

Nose: Malty and quite big. Should that be surprising for a Lowlander? Guess not, since the Glenkinchie mentioned above was quite big too. Cardboard and vanilla ice-cream. It may be simple, but it smells quite nice. Sour spices. A strange kind of sawdust vanilla. Also some thick sugary yellow fruit sensation. Passion fruit. Weak peppermint candy and a slight hint of plastic.

Taste: Sweet wood and a hint of urine. Beer and wood. A drop of liquorice water on cardboard. The beer is there in the finish too. Not a very strong finish. A bit anonymous actually and very simple and subdued. Luckily the initial taste is good.

Hmmm I wouldn’t choose this as my daily drinker, but it does show you what Glenkinchie can be. It does have potential, but it barely shows itself in this one. It’s decent and dirt cheap, but it’s a silent partner, it doesn’t say much (to me). There was also a Cask Strength version made for the Friends of the Classic Malts and that one was very good. One problem only. That version is four times the price of this Glenkinchie, and that’s a bit of a shame really.

Points: 83