Tag Archives: Whisky

Ailsa Bay Release 1.2 Sweet Smoke (48.9%, OB, 022 PPPM, 019 SPPM, 2018)

“No other Malt is made with this much science” as said by Stuart Watts, Distillery Manager. Well that’s a first. Single Malt Whisky used to surround itself with romanticism, traditionality and age statements, with people making the stuff, oozing with skills passed on from generation to generation to generation. In the old days it was all handy work and thus skill, so if a Whisky was good it was really excellent, yet also some absolute misses occurred. Today, all seems to be computer controlled and science driven. Good for overall quality, and obviously not forgetting about getting the highest yield from the barley as possible. It also seems that the highs of yesteryear aren’t really there anymore, and I haven’t really encountered any terrible misses as well. So, we now live in a different, flattened out, era, or so it seems.

Ailsa Bay opened with 8 stills in 2007 and is owned by William Grant & Sons, a company we better know as the owners of Glenfiddich and The Balvenie, as well as Kininvie and the Girvan grain distillery. Already in 2013 the distillery was expanded greatly with another 8 stills, all 16 stills similar to that of The Balvenie. The condensers of one pair of stills are made of stainless steel, to make it possible to have more sulfur in the spirit. Usually distillers want to avoid sulfur, that’s why copper is used. Just like Kininvie before it, Ailsa Bay was needed to provide Single Malt Whisky for the many Blends of William Grant & Sons, since the output of Glenfiddich and especially The Balvenie is more and more used for Single Malt alone. Hence commissioning stills in the style of The Balvenie. In 2016 the original Ailsa Bay was released as a Single Malt (021 PPPM and 011 SPPM) and the one we are about to review was the second release from 2018 and that’s more or less it, nothing more has been released as Ailsa Bay. Sure William Grant & Sons also released Ailsa Bay Whisky as Aerstone in 2018 (a land cask version and a sea cask version), dirt cheap and bottled at 40%. Not particularly in a hurry to buy those though, and there are also a few independents that have some Ailsa Bay, often tea-spooned, hence some fantasy names as Ardmillan, Dalrymple and Drumblade. Maybe not entirely fantasy, probably names of hill, water sources etc. etc.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Sweet, funky, perfumy, vegetal peat. Wood fire in winter. Cozy and appetizing peat combined with an acidic (almost fruity) note. Quite some smoke as well. Tiny hint of lemon dishwater liquid. This is a good and rather modern smelling peat smell due to the combination of peat with wood fire. Very clean and of medium sharpness, due to the smoky bit. For me peat is usually a more rounded out and earthy smell, and smoke is usually a bit sharper. Nice fresh oak and sandalwood smell come next, as well as a more fire-like a garden bonfire. More vegetal and on the nose definitely more about peat and smoke than it is sweet. If you smell this one carefully, there is also a floral bit (and in my mind also a salty bit), yet not like fresh flowers, more like flowers in peat, if this was possible obviously, without them rotting away to be a part of peat. This is the first Ailsa Bay I’ve had, but based on the nose alone, I’m impressed. It feels like A.I. managed to produce this Whisky, a feeling based on the “science” statement on the label. After a while the peat is still here, softer and more earthy, and the slight sharpness of the smoke dissipated to leave room for a more, sweeter apple compote-like smell as well as some dry, salty and smoked meat. Hints of plastic anyone? Yes even though peaty, this is an elegant and well made Whisky, at least the nose is great, lets have a taste to confirm my suspicion.

Taste: It starts sweet and chewy, but the sweetness, combined right out of the gate with peat, and definitely also with some smoke and acidic fruit. Not apples though as on the nose. Chewy at first (toffee and caramel, check), yet also turning a bit thin. Warming going down. Sappy woody bitterness, wood and smoke. However the perception of this bitterness depends on the moment, and the taster. The second time around, tasting this for this review, I wasn’t picking up as much bitterness as I did the first time. Alas we people are faulty, subjective. I expected the sweetness to be more fruit-like, but it resembled sugar diluted in warm water more. That one wasn’t all that complex as well, but it did show great balance. Hints of mint. Some diluted citrussy and pear-like aromas emerge, hindered a bit by these bitter notes on the side of my tongue. From the wood maybe, but more likely from the peat. F.i. Laphroaig is underneath the peat actually quite a sweet Whisky, but I don’t feel this Ailsa Bay is all that sweet underneath, so 019 SPPM is probably a low number for sweetness. 022 PPPM seems about right for peat, although the whole feel is more peaty than that 022. Peat is definitely what this Whisky is all about. Finally, the taste of this Ailsa Bay is somewhat simpler than the nose, yet I still had a lot of fun with this one. A welcome addition to my lectern. This one most definitely gets a recommendation from me.

So, altogether, this is a true peated Whisky, and a nice one at that to boot. I wonder how this will turn out with some more age to it, when the peat is more sophisticated, leaving more room for the 019-sweetness. Since nothing happened since 2018 I guess William Grant & Sons aren’t really into Ailsa Bay as a Single Malt anymore, probably focusing more on their main brands Glenfiddich and The Balvenie. A shame really, since this is a very nice peated Single Malt as well. I hope there will be a release 1.3 someday, with maybe even more SPPM and maybe slightly less PPPM. The 48.9% ABV works well for me.

Next day, the empty glass feels fatty and slippery (glycerol?), and smells even more peaty than the nose. Still clean and very appetizing though.

Points: 85

Edradour 9yo 2010/2020 (58.6%, Van Wees, The Ultimate, 1st Fill Sherry Butt #393, 614 bottles)

Seems to be some sort of a recurring theme on these pages to review a Whisky from a distillery I haven’t reviewed for a looooong time. This time around a Whisky from Edradour, which was last featured here in 2015. Edradour is a bit of a difficult Whisky. You don’t hear very often that someone calls it their favorite Whisky. Edradour is a picturesque distillery. As mentioned before, Edradour is owned by Andrew Symington, of Signatory Vintage Fame, since 2002. The distillery itself was founded by farmers in 1825 and who called it Glenforres. In 1837 the name Edradour is used for the first time. The distillery changed hands quite a few times. In a more recent history, 1982, the distillery is bought by Campbell Distilleries (Pernod Ricard), before being bought by Mr. Symington. Since Andrew is used to bottle quite a lot of Whiskies, quite a lot of Edradour Single Malts have been released since.

In 2018 Andrew commissioned a second distillery on site, So essentially Edradour isn’t just one distillery anymore. Interesting, interesting indeed. The Independent bottling at hand has been released by Van Wees of the Netherlands in their Ultimate range. Han van Wees himself has been a Whisky-icon since the sixties. The Ultimate range consists of Whiskies sourced from…yes you might have guessed it, from Signatory Vintage. The ultimate is bottled with almost always the same label, almost never in a box to keep prices reasonable. Because of this, (and the quality obviously), The Ultimate is a very popular range in The Netherlands. What did they always say about the Dutch, and the Scottish as well for that matter?…

Color: Orange brown.

Nose: Lets start by saying that initially this smells a bit metallic, a somewhat similar feel you get when tasting blood. Lots of warm, herbal and sometimes soapy wood. Dusty, dry dead leaves in the sun. Definitely somewhat vegetal, with sawdust and leather. Some raisins, honey and some indistinct red fruit aromas. Sometimes some whiffs of berry-like acidity are apparent. Coffee candy and mocha. Hints of water-based paint with some dish water, complete with some lemon-aroma. Sawdust again. Overall not really fruity, or it is masked by other stronger aromas. Some smoke and some rubber (orange air hose). Lots of fresh oak. Not really complex and not a lot of development over time, not in the bottle, nor in my glass. Overall pretty nice smelling though. For some maybe a bit to harsh, but the balance is unmistakably good.

Taste: Lots of wood, shrinking my oral cavity (a drying sensation). Right from the start, unbalanced and quite harsh. Sawdust from plywood. The nose left a way better first impression. Wood first and foremost, getting spicy and waxy with some licorice and tar next. It’s a bit punishing, but some of us like that. It’s like a Yorkie biting you in the ankles. It still hurts but you love it anyway, unless it’s not yours. Every sip starts very nice, but than the muscle comes in. A bit of a Jekyll and Hyde affair. The middle of the body fits the nose better, which is probably its true identity, yet the finish can be strangely acidic. Strange stuff this sometimes is. I’m actually amazed that for the amount of wood this shows, it isn’t bitter. The aftertaste is not the best part of the experience, yet acceptable and at times depending on the taster, it can be quite nice. Could have fooled me this is not molasses based, which obviously it isn’t.

Another difficult Edradour, which is definitely not for everybody. Works really well though right after robusto coffee. After a strong black coffee, the start is sweeter (toffee, caramel), more fruity (ripe red fruits), more tarry. Still an emphasis on wood, fresh oak, making for a very dry Whisky, somewhat peculiar after the initial sweetness.

Points: 84

The bottle was gifted to me by Auke, who thought it was just too much and is not a coffee drinker.

Glen Elgin 13yo 2008/2021 (54.1%, Meadowside Blending, The Maltman, Sherry Hogshead #90744, 297 bottles)

Seven years between the first review of Glen Elgin and the second one. That has to change, so what about two weeks between the second and the third review? Now, that’s a lot better now, isn’t it? Third review and again it is an offering by an independent bottler. The company’s name is Meadowside Blending, based in Glasgow, and specializing in Single Malt Whiskies, and run by the Hart Family. I don’t know why, but initially I thought this was a German outfit, probably because a lot of their bottlings are imported into Germany. My bad. This is a Scottish firm and they have several ranges on the market. Foremost is the range called The Maltman. These are all single cask releases. Next interesting range is The Grainman. Yes, you guessed it, all single cask, Single Grains. Other brands carried by the firm are The Granary (Blended Grain) and Royal Thistle. The bottle at hand, and this is no surprise if you are a regular on these pages, comes from The Maltman, yes a single cask, Single Malt Whisky from Glen Elgin. And yes imported into Germany by Alba Import, not sure if all of it went to the German market though…

Color: Orange gold.

Nose: Spicy sherry. Wood-spice and rather fresh and appealing, yet also some black coal with tar and right after that a more sharp and acidic fresh note. I have to say, all fits together quite well, so nothing wrong in the balance department. Lovely oak. The nose as a whole is thus rather appealing, fruity with half ripe sour cherries and maybe somewhere in there a more yellow fruit-note (indistinct). Breaths of fresh air run through the Sherry bits as well as some gravy? This is not a Sherry monster in the style you now often get with all these 10yo first fill Oloroso Sherry monsters. No, this is way more refined and still has quite a lot of colour to it. Tiniest hint of sulphur which I don’t even pick up on every time I nose this. Right after that some honey and maybe even some cigarette smoke. Warming and actually helping the whole of the nose. This has some fresh wood right from the start, but it’s not overpowering and actually very nice. Reminds me a bit of being outside near a sweet water lake on a nice and sunny day. Fresh winds, and the sherry bit could almost be some nice floral aromas blooming in nature. I guess this will not be a bad weather Whisky.

Taste: Half sweet yet also spicy (wood). Runny caramel or warm toffee. The coal, the tar and the wood are present right from the beginning. Sweetness seems building already. Quite some toffee now. All of this right before some fruit sets in. Warm apple compote? Nutty (yet different than in other Sherry bottlings), soft and supple leather. Leather as in belts and trousers, not thick saddle leather. Aftertaste is toffee and caramel again. Hints of plastic and warm wood. Again well balanced. I wouldn’t call the nose better than the taste of the other way around. No, this is one nice complete package indeed. Yet if I had to… yeah the nose is slightly better.

This one differs obviously from the Bourbon hogshead one by the Sherry influence. Apart from that, the Sherry influence didn’t actually overpower the traits of Glen Elgin, so there is still a family resemblance to be noticed between the two. I have to say, I like both Glen Elgins a lot, and both have their own moments. This one scores slightly higher (one point), because it is just a little bit more appealing and definitely better suited for a larger audience than the Bourbon hogshead one, which is more of an anorak-y Whisky. This one is also a little bit lower in ABV, which helps the drinkability. I like this one a lot, and would definitely it pick up again if I weren’t that adventurous and prefer to see what else is out there!

Points: 87

Glen Elgin 11yo 2009/2021 (58.8%, Elixir Distillers, The Single Malts of Scotland, Hogshead #807777, 238 bottles)

Actually, Glen Elgin is one of my favourite lesser known Whiskies. Being somewhat partial to the stuff, mostly from independent bottlers, I’m actually amazed this is only the second review on these pages. The only other review of Glen Elgin I did, was in 2017, being a 19yo Signatory Vintage bottling, that wasn’t as special as I expected, especially for its age. Hmmmm, never mind, I still stand with what I just said. Building started in 1898 just months before the Pattison Crash and it was also the last Distillery designed by Charles Doig (the foremost distillery architect of the time).

After the Pattison Crash, Whisky found itself in a sort of 50 year long slump, that more or less ended in around 1949 when William Delme Evans built the first distillery after Glen Elgin: Tullibardine. Fast forward a bit and cutting this history lesson short; Glen Elgin is now owned by Diageo and mainly used for its White Horse blend and currently is investing heavily in it by rejuvenating it. Back to the Whisky at hand, since this time around we have a bottling from Sukhinder’s outfit Elixir Distillers. Being a independent bottler foremost, I wonder what they actually distil. Elixir distillers is mostly known for their Single Malts of Scotland range of independent bottlings but also for their Port Askaig bottlings of undisclosed Islay bottlings (often Caol Ila).

Color: Pale White Wine.

Nose: Barley and biscuity. Cereal, crackers and bread. Dusty with hints of cardboard. Starts big and in your face. Good and honest Whisky, no frills, no funny business. The next wave is more fruity (dry citrus skins), with the tiniest hint of cask toast and pencil shavings. Warm wind in summer, slightly grassy and vegetal. Hints of rainwater. The third wave adds a more perfumy note as well as grandma’s old soap note, never losing sight of the fruits though. Quite fresh overall due to a slight minty and green nose. Well balanced and straightforward. A very effective and highly drinkable Glen Elgin. It may be somewhat simple, but don’t be fooled by this, since there is quite a lot happening in this one, and as said earlier, its also quite big. It’s layered, so it might be even more complex than I initially thought. I always liked Glen Elgin and this is definitely an example why. The fruity note becomes sweeter, not only ripe fruit sweetness yet also a more honey-like aroma. I know sweetness is something for the palate to discern, but I hope you know what I mean here. In the end this is quite a nice (not modern) nose. I like it a lot.

Taste: On entry half-sweet but easily overpowered by a spicy and woody note. Prickly oak, only ever so slightly bitter and soapy. Maybe an odd red chilli pepper found its way into the cask? Nah. Warming going down. After the first sip, the soapy note on the nose becomes more like cold dishwater. Second sip shows a more complex sweetness, fruity and honeyed. (The nose is now more old-skool and melancholic). Less syrupy than expected. Some peach emerges as well, retaining the relative hotness from the first sip. Lots of paper and cardboard comes next which does get in the way a bit of the fruity notes. Where this is a miss on the palate, the nose, even now, keeps developing further still. Hold on now, after a while it does become slightly more bitter and slightly acidic as well, which in the case of the paper and cardboard do less for the palate than it sometimes can do. It also shows some new make spirit notes now (that fit the colour of this Whisky well if I might say so). Next some sun-tan lotion, you didn’t see that one coming now didn’t you? Although not a biggy, this part of the palate is not the best. By the way, I get some cheese on the nose now, how is that? This turns out to be quite a surprising Glen Elgin. Definitely not boring this one. Still, this one has much nice things going for it, so the score is warranted. Peach yoghurt in the finish as well as a peppery note, some might call hot. The finish as a whole is of medium length and especially the minty bit seems to have some staying power here. It’s alright, it’s good, but the nose was better.

Yes the Mortlach I reviewed just before scores slightly higher, but in comparison this Glen Elgin is slightly more drinkable. Even though this one has a very diverse, unusual and layered nose it is even more accessible than the Mortlach. Mortlach has always been a more anorak-y kind of Whisky anyway. Still, I wouldn’t recommend this one either if you are a novice, just like the 19yo Glen Elgin I reviewed in 2017.

Points: 86

Mortlach 10yo 2011/2021 (57.3%, Signatory Vintage, Finished in 2nd fill Sherry Butt #3, A Farewell Dram bottled for Walter Schoberts Final Tastings, 527 bottles)

What can I say, Mortlach is a special distillate with a special profile. First of all, Mortlach is known for its unique distilling regime where the spirit has been distilled 2.6 times. Mortlach is also known for its big and meaty Sherry profile, like the 16yo Flora & Fauna bottling or this 10yo Wilson & Morgan bottling. But even the lighter (ex-Bourbon) versions of Mortlach always bring something special to the table, like this 11yo Provenance bottling, not a high scorer, yet very interesting indeed, or this small batch 12yo Signatory bottling from 3 Bourbon Barrels. This time around however, we’ll have a look at a Mortlach that has its initial maturation in, most likely, American oak Bourbon casks and a finish in a second fill Sherry butt. As usual, no info about the type of Sherry, and we all know there are a lot of different types of Sherry around. Oloroso is no Palo Cortado, ain’t it! Nevertheless, this Whisky seems to be more on the light side, so at this point I don’t expect a meaty Sherry expression.

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Nice entry. This immediately reminds me of good Whiskies I tried in the early noughties (if you let it breathe for a minute or so), definitely brings back memories. A slightly mineral and somewhat Sherried barley note. Wow, really old-skool nose. Quite organic at first with hints of sugary sweetness, cardboard and white bread. Slightly biscuity. Fresh and vibrant nevertheless, since bread is not a vibrant aroma. Very classy and well balanced for a 10 year old dram. Some fruity notes emerge next. Initially some unripe cherries. More fruits in general, more syrupy yellow fruits actually. Peach syrup and candied pineapple. Sweet peachy yoghurt. Together with this a fresh and warm barley wind bringing a Gin-like freshness. Warm old wood in the sun. Slightly dusty and powdery. Not floral at all although it is slightly perfumy. It has quite a lot of different aroma’s going for it. For me personally Mortlach often has this meaty quality to it (especially when aged in a Sherry cask), but I’m struggling to find that here. It is definitely more fruity than meaty. Don’t think the fruit is masking it, I feel the meatiness just isn’t here. The longer this breathes, the fruitier and sweeter it becomes. Very appetizing fruity fresh and vibrant Mortlach this time. After some time a more soapy note emerges as well as some more freshness. Not in a bad way though. Definitely a quality nose. Maybe a little bit light, and this might have been ruined (a bit) if it would have been reduced. All in all definitely a quality and classy nose.

Taste: Nutty first, almonds, hazelnuts and fruity second yet not far behind. Big, sweetish and balanced. Did I mention that its nutty? Notes of burnt or toasted oak, and some cold dishwater to be honest. Big aroma initially which quickly becomes somewhat thinner. Definitely a fruity Whisky with lots of ripe yellow fruits and some red berry acidity. After the layered and complex nose, the taste is simpler and more straightforward. Notes of a yellow fruity beer and ever so slightly soapy. Even though the nose is way more complex, the nose and the taste of this Whisky are well balanced and suit each other well. Since this was finished in a Sherry butt, I guess this initially aged in probably two or three ex-Bourbon casks (barrels and/or hogsheads), and where I struggled to pick up on the Mortlach meatiness, I also struggle to pick up on vanillin from the American oak, so, probably not first fill. A vanilla note or ice-cream note, yeah, maybe, gets lost a bit in the slight thin-ness of the body. And maybe somewhat overpowered by the fruity acidity. Let’s say this is a summer expression of Mortlach. The aroma’s are transported well, so 57.3% ABV, yes indeed, but it doesn’t really show this much alcohol. More woody towards the finish, warming, with a bonfire like toastiness, as well as some paper and cardboard notes. Dirty and fruity, yet not meaty.

A Good summery Mortlach. The nose is really good. Sometimes the taste seems thin, but that also depends a bit on you yourself. For this review I tasted it twice on different days, and the second time around it wasn’t as thin as the first time. Very good Mortlach again, and this particular expression has some similarities to Bimber that has matured in Bourbon casks, Like this cask #194.

Points: 87

P.S:(I). This one is very nice after a cup of coffee…

P.S:(II). In case you are not German and you want to know who Walter Schobert is:

Walter Schobert (* 1943 in Erlangen) is a German museum director and author. Schobert studied Protestant theology and theatre studies. He then worked as a priest and as a film speaker for three years each. From 1974 to 1985 he was chairman of the working group for community film work. From 1979 to 2003 he was the founding director of the German Film Museum in Frankfurt am Main. He is the author and editor of numerous writings on film and film history and has taught film history at various universities. Since 1994 he has been an honorary professor at the Institute for European Art History at the University of Heidelberg. In 1995 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Edinburgh. In addition to his work on film history, he has published numerous publications on the subject of Scottish whiskey and regularly conducts tastings. He is a member of the “Keepers of the Quaich”, an association that looks after the whisky culture in Scotland [Source: Wikipedia].

Amrut Double Cask 5yo 2012/2017 (46%, OB, Bourbon Cask #3189, Port Pipe #2716, Scottish Peated Barley, 1050 bottles)

Amrut Double Cask. In this case, Amrut just married two different casks together and reduced them to 46% ABV. In 2010 the first Double cask was released, marrying two Bourbon casks together, ehhhh, where is the fun in that? Later in 2016 and 2017 two more batches (both in two expressions) were released that seem to be a lot more exciting: batch 2, marrying Bourbon with PX (using unpeated Indian barley) and batch 3, marrying Bourbon with Port (using peated Scottish barley, most likely of the Aberdeen kind.), so I expect both later batches to differ quite a bit. I’m quite sad actually, because Double Cask seems to be a concept with many possible permutations, and I thought there would be a lot more batches than only these three. For completists here are the three batches/five expressions of Amrut Double Cask:

  • Batch 1 (2010-02-27): 2002-07-25 (Bourbon #2273) / 2003-02-27 (Bourbon #2874),
    The original Double Cask (7yo), 306 bottles
  • Batch 2 (2016, August): 2009, June (Bourbon #3451) / 2010, May (PX #3802),
    Unpeated Indian Barley (6yo), ??? bottles
  • Batch 2 (2016, August): 2009, June (Bourbon #3452) / 2010, May (PX #3803),
    Unpeated Indian Barley (6yo), 800 bottles
  • Batch 3 (2017, June): 2012, May (Bourbon #3189) / 2012, March (Port Pipe #2716),
    Scottish Peated Barley (5yo), 1050 bottles
  • Batch 3 (2017, June): 2012, May (Bourbon #3190) / 2012, March (Port Pipe #2717),
    Scottish Peated Barley (5yo), 900 bottles

Color: Dark orange brown.

Nose: Starts with peat and iodine. Very big and definitely bold. Animalesk, the acidic note of crushed beetle (don’t ask) and miscellaneous organics. Cola. Maybe too early to say, but I don’t think reduction to 46% ABV hurt this Whisky at all. Clean and tight. Port yes, but very much playing second fiddle behind the peat, adding a dimension and not really upfront or overpowering. Otherwise, as said, very fresh and tight. Definitely a winter type of affair. Because of the lack of Indian Six-row barley, this Amrut really misses its exoticness. If this was done with Indian barley, it would be highly unlikely this Whisky would come across as a winter-Whisky. So in that respect quite an unusual affair (for an Indian Whisky). I guess the other version, the 2016 one, that has been done with PX and unpeated Indian barley will be entirely different, probably back into the exotic realm. Next up some fatty clay and smoke. Scottish autumn at the bank of a river (with clay). Chocolate powder (Droste or Dutch Windmill) and warm plastic. Mocha and the tiniest hint of vanilla. Yeah, but all in all, this is yet another great smelling Amrut. As often with Whiskies that came into contact with Port casks, the nose is somewhat less complex. After the peat subsides a bit over time in my glass, the Port is able to show the fruitiness it is able to give to this Whisky. Good stuff. After a day or two, the empty glass smells of a lot of peat and a wee bit of polyester. I have smelled that before, but not in an Indian Whisky.

Taste: Starts thin. Where the nose was thick, bold and big, this thin texture comes a bit as a surprise, making me wonder how the unreduced Whisky would have been. Starts with berry like fruits, ripe red fruit and a lot of almonds. Nice. Its like eating unsalted roasted almonds with sweet dried cranberries. The almonds also have a lot of staying-power, and linger for a long time in my mouth. With the fruit comes also a nice sweetness. Just like the nose, not very complex. Cola here again. The cola, the fruits and the almonds put together, remind me of Cherry Coke. Needless to say this tastes highly drinkable. Haagsche Hopjes, a Dutch hard coffee candy. Well isn’t this turning into a treat? Very nice. With a taste like this, who needs complexity? In the end, this one is on the palate still a wee bit too thin. Could have done with slightly more points on the ABV-scale, 50% seems about right, but this is just a minor gripe. I haven’t tasted this at 50%, so I really don’t know if it would have been better. The finish and the aftertaste retain quite a lot of fruity sweetness. To be hones it could have done with slightly less of it. Highly drinkable every time, but not one keep pouring one after the other. If your glass is empty refill it with another Amrut. I’ll finish this like I started, really sad there aren’t any more Amrut Double-casks around. Please Amrut do some more, surprise us. I’ll even forgive you if you keep them at 46% ABV, for continuity purposes.

Well, well, well, Scottish Peated Barley. For me the strength of an Indian Whisky lies in the specialness, the “exoticness” of Indian six row barley, setting it apart from other Whiskies and carving more than only a niche for itself. A type of Whisky I really do like myself, if I may say so. There are already a lot of Amruts and Paul Johns on these pages, and also Indri is knocking at the Indian Whisky door with quite the drum-roll. Up ’till now I tried three expressions of Indri, and all are winners in my book. With this Amrut Double Cask however, don’t expect an Indian Whisky because the whole comes closer to a Scottish peated Whisky than any Indian Whisky. So in fact, what we have here is a Whisky with a bit of an identity crisis, and from now on, don’t underestimate the power and the character of Indian six-row barley.

Points: 86

Amrut Naarangi (50%, OB, Batch No. 05, August 2018)

This is a very a-typical Amrut, no I’ll correct myself, this is a very a-typical Whisky! Amrut claims this is another first of its kind, (which are the others?), and yes sir indeed is this a first one of its kind, I’ll say. This is a Single Malt Whisky finished in an orange Sherry cask. No they didn’t paint the cask orange, they didn’t, didn’t they? No, Amrut got them some Oloroso Sherry (from Spain, nonetheless) and infused the Sherry with fresh orange peels for over two years. Two whole years of infusion! After this, the cask was filled with some great three year old Amrut Whisky and they let that mature further for another three years or so, resulting in multiple batches of Naarangi (orange in Hindi).

After the reviews of some experimental special releases of Ardbeg concocted by Mad Professor Bill Lumsden, I guess Bill finally met his match, because I guess even Bill didn’t come up with an experiment as bold as this! I’m not entirely sure if this is entirely legal by SWA standards though, so maybe Bill wasn’t allowed to do such a thing and passed the idea on to Amrut? Or more likely, Amrut have even madder professors (12 Monkeys-style, too crazy even to get hired by SPECTRE). I hope for the latter! Bring it on! The bottle I’m about to review is now half full and was opened quite a while back. I remember that it oozed with orange so much when freshly opened, even so much so, that I left it alone for quite a while. I wasn’t really fond of it.

Color: Copper gold, yes, let’s just say orange gold!

Nose: Hints of orange (in the deep, yet definitely present). Smells like orange flavoured dark chocolate. Creamy, spicy wood, and very nice smelling actually. Orange liqueur bonbon, with a vodka-like alcoholic aroma, all of this kept in check and well balanced. Big ‘n bold. Dusty, like a dusty old door mat. Sometimes even slightly meaty. Vanilla cream, more soft wood notes and the nose becomes quite vegetal by now. My imagination makes green vanilla out of this. I wonder how those pods smell before turning brown. Hints of a soft licorice tarry note and more dust and some pencil shavings (especially after sipping, so the oral cavity does its work amplifying certain notes). Next come some notes of Sinaspril (orange flavoured paracetamol for children). So there are real orange-oil notes as well as artificial orange notes in this, both coming from the natural source I guess. The orange bit in the nose dissipates first from my glass, letting other aroma’s come forward. Through all this, yes, the orange notes are more than present, although not (anymore) in an overpowering way. I’m quite amazed actually, that it became more toned down, considering my experiences with a freshly opened bottle.

Taste: Wood with a chewy sweetness. Spicy and a bit prickly. Bit of cayenne pepper and again some licorice. Ashes from toasted oak. Vanilla-orange-wood fusion. Slightly more acidic than expected from the nose alone, kept in check by some honey/sugar sweetness. Initially a thin texture, where I expected it to be more oily or fatty (but this sorts itself out later in the process). The thin feel is a bit of a let down, as if the Whisky isn’t fully up to transporting all the aromas. Definitely not cloying. Surprisingly well balanced though. The wood gives off a more bitter note now, but that’s not bad. It doesn’t say so on the label, but sometimes I do find some peat in this, although I’m sure this isn’t a peated Whisky. Slightly soapy mouthfeel now. In the taste all is more upfront and less complex than the nose is. The body, and the especially the aftertaste, becomes quite creamy and very friendly to drink, with obviously hints of orange-skin oil. Very drinkable now (half full bottle that was open for quite a bit). The nose and the taste have great balance to them (again, because of the half full bottle that was open for quite a bit), and I feel this is because of the way the orange and the wood behave themselves in this expression, they work well together.

After opening this for the first time, I disliked it, I thought the orange was over the top and overpowering. Just too much. I couldn’t get past the orange, but as a flawed human I am, and I hate to break it to you, so are you, (unless you have green skin and read this from another galaxy, then you are perfect and all that we humans ever wanted is peace!) I also expected something like this, the overpowering aroma’s of orange, and maybe therefore I already disliked it before opening? You wonder why I bought it then? Well, it is an Amrut after all, isn’t it? I have yet to taste a bad or mediocre Whisky from them. I tasted a lot of Amruts by now, and they were all good or better than good. But at first the Orangey-idea was a bit to bold, even for me, and I do like extremes in Whisky!

If any Whisky in the world, or the universe if you are green, needed breathing to get the most out of it, than this is the one, boy did this one improve over time. I have to say, this Naarangi was a bit of an experience. Disliked it at first, gave it a lot of time to gather itself, and when it did, it came up trumps. I really thought this would be a negative review, and surprised myself sitting down with it and analysing it. I like it (now). The down side is that this Whisky needs a lot of time to get there, to show its strengths, so not really recommended if your collection of open bottles is rather small, because it still is a niche Whisky.

Points: 85

This review is dedicated to Surrinder Kumar, a truly wonderful, passionate and patient man, who I may have slightly offended in London last year, with my initial thoughts about Naarangi, calling it borderline illegal. I’m sooooory (from Ted 2).

Ardbeg BizarreBQ (50.9%, OB, Double Charred Casks, Pedro Ximenez Casks & BBQ Casks, 15/2/2023)

The previous post, which was quite long to be honest, was about a somewhat experimental special release Ardbeg called Auriverdes. Auriverdes was released way back in 2014. More recently though, in 2023, Ardbeg released this BizarreBQ, and I thought, hey, why not do another, preferably shorter, review of a special Ardbeg. I’ll even post a minimalist picture of the bottle without the box, (because there isn’t any). The previous post is about Auriverdes alone and this one will be about BizarreBQ obviously, but also a bit of it in comparison to Auriverdes, since both Whiskies have quite some charring going on. I also thought, when selecting all Ardbeg’s on these pages, what a visually appealing look it is, to have all those beautiful green Ardbeg bottles lined up one after the other. This 2023 Ardbeg is most definitely experimental, because BBQ casks, really? What is that? Pssssst. Yes? These casks underwent yet another super-secret char, making the inside of the cask even more akin to the charcoal you’d use for BBQ-ing. Ahhh, OK. Amazing.

Color: Pale orange gold, with an ever so slight pink hue.

Nose: Thick fat peat with lots of smoke and iodine. More upfront and smells way younger than Auriverdes did. We’re definitely in NAS territory all-right, since a lot of the nose smells like a very young Whisky. Earthy, wet and dry tea-leaves, vegetal and even more iodine now (80’s Laphroaig style). Quite spicy and herbal. Warming and very well balanced. I like this nose a lot already, apart from the initial overtly youthful bit. Smoke from burning newspapers, burnt match sticks, mixed with the smell of a crushed beetle. Somewhat sweet smelling, but couldn’t say if this is the PX speaking, since Auriverdes was on the sweeter side as well. If smelled “blind”, I probably wouldn’t have mentioned PX-casks at all. I guess all the charring that was going on defines this nose, and the “sweetness” might be the newly released vanillin from the oak, especially if it’s American oak. After the bold bits wear off, (it is initially quite fresh and sharp), the nose becomes more friendly, Gin-like, with hints of Rye Whisky and yet it still is quite a balanced endeavour altogether. Slightly more wood now with black coal and licorice coming to the forefront, as you get in modern day Ardbeg. The smell reminds me of old steam trains, more than an actual BBQ, with or without meat on it. Based on the nose alone, a very nice Ardbeg indeed, makes me feel a bit melancholic again, yet less so than Auriverdes managed to do, which in comparison has a more classic nose.

Taste: Sweetness, accessible, likeable. Bigger than Auriverdes. Fattier and even sweeter. Like Auriverdes, again somewhat simpler than the nose, but very drinkable indeed, without losing the freshness and sharpness which is present in the nose. I would say, great balance again. Not really a PX sweetness here too, yet more so than the nose showed. This Sweetness, the feel of it might be somewhat closer to a Whisky from a PX-cask, but still not all that much. All good so far. Some sweet licorice, a whiff of polyester and horseradish. After sipping it now, I get the horseradish on the nose as well, as well as the hint of polyester. If you do your own boat-repairs, you know what I mean. By the way, the polyester bit is not as bad as it might sound. Chewy wet wood. After the big bold entry this Whisky has, it also falls short in the finish a bit and not a lot actually remains for the aftertaste. Maybe herein it shows its youth. Lots of upfront stuff because of the charring, but lacking some depth due to age of the Whisky. Alas this has quite a short finish and only some lonely, left behind, licorice in the aftertaste.

I feel the whole of this Whisky is (much) younger than is the case with Auriverdes. But hey, still not a bad Ardbeg again, fetching a decent score. Yet again it is a special release that scores lower than the batches of Corryvreckan and Uigeadail I reviewed. But it does offer another perspective on the Ardbeg theme. Of course there might be some batch variation with Corryvreckan and Uigeadail, since they are released regularly as opposed to the one-offs that are these specials. If you want to spend your money wisely and don’t mind staying with those two expressions alone, you will be fine. If you are more adventurous and are willing to spend a bit more on a variation of the Ardbeg theme, and mostly with a lower ABV as well, than those special releases are for you. Only if you believe, that since you spent a fair bit more money, you are getting a better Whisky, than those mentioned from the core range, you are likely to get disappointed and get a bit salty. That being said, there are obviously also special releases which are definitely better than the core range. Some of which will be reviewed on these pages in the future and by now are or have become quite pricey.

Points: 86

Ardbeg Auriverdes 12yo 2002/2014 (49.9%, OB, American oak casks with toasted virgin oak lids, 6660 bottles)

I have to say that many of Ardbeg’s “special” releases aren’t getting a lot of love. It almost seems to be in fashion to slam these releases. Maybe a combination of NAS and silly marketing or the combination of NAS and the pricing of these “specials”, because obviously these Whiskies could be containing pretty young stuff. Maybe people dislike the posh new owners LVMH. How can a leather bag and a mediocre Champagne be the owners of the mighty beast that is our Ardbeg. Whisky is romantic and better than all other alcoholic beverages! Another explanation might be that the core range is actually quite good. Especially Uigeadail and Corryvreckan if you ask me, both better than the 10yo, An Oa and the 5yo Wee Beastie. All five are more affordable than all these special releases. Most of which are often NAS Whiskies (Hence the funny names) and also are a bit more experimental in nature as well.

In 1997 Ardbeg was bought by Glenmorangie, so the experimental nature of these releases comes as no surprise when, since 1995, they have Bill Lumsden on the payroll (Head of Distilling & Whisky Creation at The Glenmorangie Company). For those who don’t know Dr. William “Bill” Lumsden (The Mad Scientist), he previously experimented quite a bit with Whiskies at Glen Moray before experimenting on an even higher level at Glenmorangie and Ardbeg. Online, two of the most disliked Ardbeg expressions are Perpetuum and the Auriverdes at hand. Perpetuum in fact wasn’t even very experimental. Old en Young Whiskies from Bourbon and Sherry casks. Still, I found it was a decent expression and I never had a dull moment with it. I scored it 86 points which is certainly not bad at all. But the two aforementioned cheaper ones from the core range: Uigeadail (2018 batch) scored 87 and Corryvreckan (2014 batch) scored a whopping 89 points, so both outdid the “special” release. As mentioned above , this time around we’ll have a look at another unloved Ardbeg: Auriverdes. Is it experimental? The Whisky matured in second fill Bourbon barrels. The original lids were removed and replaced with new virgin oak ones, which were toasted using a very special secret toasting process, which accounts for the experimental bit.

Color: Light gold, not pale.

Nose: Nice funky peat, soft smoke with some notes of crushed beetle. A fireplace in December. The smell of Christmas in a log cabin. Hints of black coal and glowing embers. Old bicycle inner tubes. Less salty and fishy than expected from a south shore Malt, even though more than enough organics are happening in this nose. After a while, a more fresher approach starts, with breaths of fresh air, and more citrus-like aroma’s without being overly fresh or acidic, just adding to the perfume. After this fresh phase, we’re back in the realm of black coal and chimney smoke in winter, preferably on a dark evening after a snowy day, only lit by street lights, by odd coloured sodium lamps. Tiny hints of sweetish licorice powder, a Licorice-Menthos combo and some dust for old-times sake. Ooooh, the rubber comes back. I think this is a really nice smelling Ardbeg. Maybe some experimentally and specially and secretively toasted cask ends, but other than that, no funny business and nose-wise quite a successful experiment. I really do like the nose on this.

Taste: Sweet licorice comes first, as well as the crushed beetle. Somewhat vegetal and tea-like. The texture seems a bit thin initially. An indistinct fruity note is also present. Citrus, only more sweet, more sugared, than it is acidic and maybe some other ripe yellow fruits as well. Warming going down. Somewhat sweet, somewhat peaty and more of the Menthos feel that came rather late in the nose. It tastes somewhat like a minty licorice powder. Whisky-candy. The sweetness works very well in this Whisky. After swallowing, a nutty note emerges as well as some distant vanilla. Initially not big-bodied at all, maybe this is what people dislike in this expression. It is definitely simpler than the nose. The nose is really good and melancholic, the taste is initially a bit watered down, or maybe not mature enough. Is this the youth a NAS Whisky allows for? Yet it has great balance. Everything fits and works together well. Mind you, this is still not bad, but the nose carried some sort of a promise of things to come, a promise that hasn’t been kept entirely. I expected more complexity. During sipping, the nose still keeps on evolving, and truth be told, the taste does collect itself, which makes for a highly drinkable Ardbeg. I’m not having a beef with this one at all. Well, well, well, the taste really does develop after a while. This needed some time as well, time I might have saved, if I had added some water (but why hurry). It did gain even more balance and the body and especially the finish are bigger now, still not very complex though.

If really analysed well, with more than enough time, it is much easier to pick up on the true Ardbeg underneath. Maybe these specials aren’t for casual sipping at all, and if you try to be patient and give it some time, these special releases might be better than I was lead to believe by the internet. Maybe you got to work them a little, and since you are reading this, you as an experienced taster, are very able to do so, so please do.

People can be so judgemental these days, living fast, judging fast, too self confident. That’s human nature in the 21th century Whisky world or maybe even the world in general. I’m actually amazed how negative some people are and how vocal about it as well, and a lot of less experienced people just run with this and claim the same, unsure about their abilities to smell and taste. I see around me that even experienced aficionados fall into this abyss. If this is you, maybe you should learn to relax a bit, sit back some more, take some more time to smell the roses, (or Ardbeg in this case). Don’t be biased that Ardbeg is trying to pull one over your eyes and dupe you, because they probably aren’t. Not from the Whisky makers perspective anyway. Marketing may be another story entirely. Bill may be a mad scientist who tries to explore, often with an idea and sometimes by trial and error. This is definitely not a bad Ardbeg and don’t believe anyone telling you this. I feel this is a decent malt if you only let it. Don’t fool yourself and don’t let yourself be fooled, make up your own mind, and if after this you don’t like it, it must be true. Only then.

Points: 87

Longrow 10yo 2007/2018 (56%, OB, Fresh Sauternes Hogshead, for The Nectar, Belgium, 258 bottles, 18/437)

Nico got a mention in the previous review of the Springbank 12yo Port. So this Nico dude once made me aware that he really, really likes a particular Longrow 10yo Sauternes. So here we are again, going to have a look at yet another Whisky from the stills at the Springbank distillery that has matured in an ex Wine cask. Sauternes is a sweet White Wine from Bordeaux, France. Do I really need to mention this is French? Isn’t Bordeaux already famous enough? Well, just in case you didn’t know.

Although Longrow is also famous enough, as is its distilling regime. Just in case you don’t know, I am still going to tell you that Longrow is peated Whisky from the Springbank distillery that has been distilled just two times, where Springbank is 2.5 times distilled. Half the spirit is distilled 2 times and the other half 3 times, so the Gandalf’s at Springbank call it a 2.5 distilled spirit, sounds like wizardry to me. Add to that some more peat than they use for “Springbank” and you have Longrow: the heavily peated expression, 50 – 55 ppm (parts per million) phenol content of the malted barley after kilning.

Color: Copper Brown.

Nose: Fantastic fruity and sweaty peat, really bold and amazing. Could Sauternes also be one of the best wine casks for Whisky? What a classic, big and utterly wonderful nose. Sweetish and fruity. Clay, dust, white pepper and some more earthy and peaty aroma’s. Rotting leaves lying in the garden. All the aroma’s here are perfectly integrated with the peat. It almost smells chewy as well. Where fruit aroma’s usually give off a summery feel, here it seems to be the opposite. Yes it is fruity, but in a dark and broody way. Nice soft and velvety peat leaps out. As I said, fruity, but in this dark and broody way. Its fruity yes, yet also very much industrial in its feel. This is an amazing smelling Whisky. After a while a smoky note pops up. The whole is dry and fruity at the same time. I think this might very well be very special stuff. I already like it a lot. The next day the empty glass still has some big aroma’s to it. Lots of peat and smoke and some hints of plastics and a fatty aroma, for that industrial feel.

Taste: Fruity, nutty at first and than some wood, with a nice spine tingling, spicy bitterness. Black coal and iodine. Chewy peat and the smoke itself is more upfront here. Big and bold again. Seems like the Wine underlines the peat somewhat more in this expression than in other Longrows. In comes toffee, so it has some sweetness to it, with lots of carbon and peat inside. Tasting this Whisky, I’m really missing some of the funkiness the nose showed. The taste is drier and less chewy. Fruit toffee. Nutty. Semi-sweet ripe red fruits, mixed in with a healthy dose of peat (and nuts). The taste of burning off garden waste. Even though there is enough fruit here, the whole is still quite dry. Towards the aftertaste this bitter note slightly coated my tongue and shows quite some staying-power. This bitterness is actually hindering a score into the 90’s. Sometimes a bitter note can work wonders, this is just not one of those cases. Nevertheless a very nice and special Longrow for sure.

Wishing you all a very good and healthy 2024!

Points: 89