Tag Archives: Whisky

Tobermory 32yo 1972/2005 (50.1%, OB, Green Label, Oloroso Sherry Finish, 912 bottles)

This is the first Tobermory on these pages and the Whisky itself comes from the Island of Mull. This distillery was founded already in 1798 and was originally called Tobermory. Tobermory closed in 1930 and was turned into a power station. It stayed closed as a distillery, untill it reopened in 1972, but this time as Ledaig. Ledaig’s history, from its reopening was a rocky one, with a lot of buying and selling of the distillery with production stops to match. The current owner is Burn Stewart (which itself is/was owned by an insurance company (since 2002), that again was rescued by the government of Trinidad & Tobago in 2010. You don’t want to know…)

Back to Tobermory (or Ledaig). Ledaig was sold to Burn Stewart in 1993, and they decided to give back its original name: Tobermory. In 2005 Tobermory issued three 32yo from 1972. These were Oloroso Sherry finished Whiskies. One with a black label, one with a red label and this green label reviewed here. Purists mention an additional brown labeled version for sale at the distillery. Also 32yo and 1972, but “put on bottle” in 2010, so it must have been kept in stainless steel tanks of on glass from 2005 to 2010 to stop further ageing. Not a lot is known about this bottle…

Color: Brown

Nose: Tarry with lots of red and black fruits. Peat, asphalt and lemonade. Honey. Very appetizing. Coal smoke and steam. This is a true vintage steam locomotive. A little bit of plum with a lot of burned sugar. Toasted wood, burned wood (when turned cold again) and burned paper. Cookie dough. Later it gets dryer and more dusty. Incense. There are a lot of associations with burned stuff, but still, all that doesn’t overpower the whisky. The fruityness makes for great balance. This is truly one of these malts that oozes the days of yesteryear and really they don’t make them like this anymore…

Taste: Strong and again steam locomotive. The taste matches the nose perfectly. Thick sherry with some licorice. It’s fruity, red fruit and the fruit part is fresh and lively. Over this fruit steam and coal again. Hard (red) candied fruit. Quite nice is that the finish is only a little bit bitter. Warming. Wood and tar. The only beef I have with this Green label as opposed to the other two is that the taste is not that balanced and coherent. It doesn’t gel completely and with time it sometimes seems thinner than the other two.

Of the three, this is the least interesting one. In my humble opinion, the Red label Tobermory 32yo is the best, but the black follows in its footsteps quite well. Between the two it’s a matter of taste. Still, if the other ones aren’t available, do get this one in stead, because you’re up for a nice journey, and this one is pretty good by itself! All three of these whiskies may not be perfect, but they are classics in their own right and they do deserve a place in the Whisky hall of Fame!

Points: 88

Ben Nevis 1986/2012 (58.2%, The House of MacDuff, The Golden Cask, CM 188, 111 bottles)

Here are a few firsts, and on paper a quite interesting one to boot. This is the first Ben Nevis on these pages. It’s also the first time I’m reviewing a Whisky that was bottled by The House of MacDuff. Now for the interesting part. Some of you might have read “Wort, worms & washbacks” The memoirs of John McDougall written by Gavin D. Smith. By the way, Gavin was “reviewed” once before, so he’s no first. The House of MacDuff is a venture of Jane MacDuff ánd John McDougall. John also picks the casks for bottling under the Golden Cask brand. For those of you who haven’t read this book, well it’s utterly entertaining and very funny. Recommended. John has worked at a lot of very interesting distilleries in all Scottish regions, so I’m assuming that all picks by John just have to be great. I got a few samples from the series, and I’ll start with this Ben Nevis from 1986.

Color: Pinkish gold

Nose: Fresh, sharp and fruity sweet. Black tea (dry leaves). Nice bourbon cask not dissimilar from the Cadenhead offerings (Bourbon Barrels). Warm apple sauce and quite thick. Condensed sweet apple. Not a lot of wood, but there seems to be enough vanillin going around in this. Sawdust. Slightly vegetal too. Hints only of ethanol.

Taste: Sweet, vegetal and slightly woody (multiplex). Quite full and round (sweet) mouthfeel. This is not bad, not very complex but very likeable. Taste is pretty balanced, for me it just goes a bit wrong in the finish. Slightly acidic and the vegetal part (fern) starts to play a larger role. Also, but very late, comes in some bitterness from the wood. Fern with the sweetness, and the slight bitterness, is maybe a strange combination, but hey it’s only part of the finish, so don’t worry.

The Golden Cask don’t disclose all the facts of the cask, but this is probably a Bourbon Barrel. This bottling has yielded 111 bottles, so I’m guessing the cask was shared and this is only half the output from the cask. The second half was probably bottled for the Whiskymesse Rüsselsheim. That bottling yielded 100 bottles. 100 bottles of whisky on the wall, was probably the original order with The Golden Cask buying the rest of barrel #133. Therefore this Ben Nevis should also be 26yo.

Points: 84

Glen Keith 19yo 1992/2012 (53.8%, Kintra, Bourbon Hogshead #120587, 156 bottles)

Recently I reviewed a Glen Keith by Malts of Scotland (a german bottler) that one was also 19yo (1990) and was quite the surprise. This time another Glen Keith that is 19yo old (1992) and this time by the Dutch bottler Kintra. Glen Keith itself was mothballed for more than a decade (1999-2013), but has restarted recently, Probably the last one of the mothballed distilleries that could have been revived. The rest of the closed distilleries are demolished or used for warehousing or have been turned into apartments or warehouses. It is very unlikely that any other of the closed distilleries will reopen. As of now probably only new distilleries will see the light of day.

Color: Gold

Nose: The nose starts out rather sweetish and slightly soapy. Next up some fresh air and latex paint. This changes seamlessly into a perfect woody touch, that gets spicier with time. Vanilla and ice-cream with cherry bon-bon liquor (without the chocolate). Sometimes it even smells a bit as new wood. Those of you that think that something’s wrong because of the hints of soap and latex paint are mistaken. Pretty neat nose, one to be taken in vigorously, Smelled like this I also get a hint of sweetened yoghurt and some toffee. Later on some hints of dark chocolate and red fruit gello. In no way does is smell like a cask strength Whisky. No, this is a very laid back Glen Keith.

Taste: A perfect balance between the wood and the sweetness. There is a nice caramel like sweetness that underlies the whole experience. Nice and warming, and never bitter. Luckily it is not quite clean. Again some ice-cream, but after the sweet and the vanilla, the wood returns, which makes for nice balance. They play together well. Small hints of lemongrass and some lemon skins, but don’t get the wrong picture, these are only in here in hints, and make the whole even more interesting. It does develop a bit in the glass, more to the woody side and late in the taste a little bitterness does emerge, like walnut skin. That’s no problem.

Compared to the Glen Keith by Malts of Scotland, this is even a better example of a Bourbon matured Glen Keith. Again a bottle that will be finished rather quickly. Nice Pick by Erik Molenaar.

Points: 86

Thanks to Andre and Erik for providing the sample.

Tomatin Legacy (43%, OB, Bourbon & Virgin Oak Casks)

There is a new Tomatin in town, and they’ve called it Legacy. No age statement on this one. First of all what does legacy exactly mean? Searching on-line I find this: anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor. We know this “Legacy” is aged in Bourbon and Virgin oak casks, so is this the way Whisky was made in the past? I will have to ask, but surely my interest in this Legacy has been aroused. maybe it’s not about the casks, but the way the distillate shines through?

Second thing i noticed is that it’s 43% ABV, making the 12yo the only one in the standard range this is 40% ABV. The rest is higher with 43% and 46%. Having said that, Tomatin placed this Legacy before the 12yo, simply by making it cheaper. Pretty neat.

Recently The Glenlivet released the Alpha, of which in a weeks time the true contents will be released. The Glenlivet used a huge social media ad campaign to aid its sale, whereas Tomatin did not. By now we do know that is also is made using Bourbon casks (first fill) and new wood (second fill). Alpha is 50% ABV. and costs 4 times as much as this Legacy. Let’s have a look…

Color: Light gold.

Nose: Clean and youthful, hints of mocha, caramel, toffee, but the hints don’t smell sweet. Wet new wood, freshly cut-down tree. tree sap (not resin!) and some nuttiness. Very toned down, no sharpness and only some spiciness from the wood but no burning alcohol of very young distillate. Very honest. Some vanilla and warm butter. Not bad!

Taste: Malty and half sweet. Wood and cardboard. Again wet fresh wood and tree sap, and again a very toned down profile, laid back. A hint of licorice and even an even smaller hint of tar. Not a very long finish. The virgin oak isn’t omni-present in this one so it doesn’t dominate. It’s not very sweet, but the sweetness is sugary. Good balance.

In the nose very different and younger from the Alpha. Extremely drinkable. This would be the lemonade in my lectern. The last bottle opened, but also the first one finished.

Alpha has the same color and is higher in ABV, smells spicier (older) and definitely more mature, the wood on the Legacy smells like a freshly cut down tree. Tastewise the Alpha comes across as older, spicier and bigger bodied, aided by the ABV. Conclusion: incomparable, the Whiskies are quite different and aimed at different people. Legacy is one to give some time to and feel what and aged whisky distillate really is. One to analyze, but also the easiest drinkable malt around. And it costs next to nothing to boot!

Points: 82

Thanks go out to Jennifer for providing me with this sample!

The Glenlivet Alpha (50%, OB, First Fill Bourbon & Second Fill New Wood, 3350 bottles)

Returning from my vacation, a blank white box was waiting for me. Inside this rather large sample (70cl !), wrapped in a black velvety cloth, of the new Glenlivet Alpha or α (being the first letter of the greek alphabet). Alpha is also used as a synonym for first (of a series) or simply meaning “the beginning”. If this Glenlivet is the first of a series, then there are 23 more letters in the greek alphabet. Bring on The Glenlivet Iota and Omega! (The 9th and the 24th letter of the greek alphabet).

One thing is clear though, the (Single Malt) Whisky world is rapidly changing. For starters new Whisky countries (like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are quickly becoming a sort of black hole for Whisky. Not a lot went there before and demand is now soaring, so anything still available is flowing there. Most older whiskies are therefore quickly sold out or offered at a premium price, and maybe there are not enough casks lying around to meet the demand. It therefore has become more common practice to bottle Whisky without an age statement (or NAS), and give it a name. Just have a look at a lot of recent Ardbeg’s or some of the newest Macallan’s, but also Tomatin Legacy and Talisker Storm to name but a few, almost all with extensive add-campaigns to explain what kind of Whisky it is and what’s inside the bottle.

Now The Glenlivet have their own NAS bottling and an even more elaborate marketing campaign to boot! Al lot is happening on the internet with extensive use of social media to promote this new α. Just have a look at the “Master your Senses” campaign on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, all to help you decide for yourself what Alpha really is. Well, aficionado’s already know that blind tasting is fun, and sometimes pretty revealing about our (or the tasters) abilities. We have to wait for June 6th when all will be revealed. By then I fear that all bottles will be long gone. It’s already almost sold out, and prices are getting higher and higher already on Ebay. I guess we can already call this one a success. It looks great and it got people to part with quite some hard-earned money, without even knowing what’s inside. How about that!

So what dó we know? Already we know that it has distillates from at least two different kinds of casks. First fill Bourbon casks and second fill new wood casks were used. But what is second fill new wood? If it has been filled a second time, is it still new wood? What has been in there the first time around then? How old are the different components of the Whisky? Questions, questions, questions, but is that all? Maybe besides the two different kinds of casks, a subtle finish was done? Well, again the campaign works, after all this, who isn’t curious what will be revealed on june the 6th! The most important question of them all cán be answered right now: Is it any good?

Color: Light gold with tiny hints of sediment.

Nose: Fresh and soft dusty wood. Grass from Grasse, malt, hay and small hints of green apple skin at first, but quickly turns into something more like sweet vanilla ice-cream, more toffee than caramel and hints of “Haagsche Hopjes” (Dutch sweet coffee bon-bon). Sweet vanilla. Definitely (in part) “new” wood was used, due to the light wooded or sawdusty smell. Also some kitchen herbs (basil) and anise (from the wood) were thrown in. Smallest hint of toast, licorice and moss. Fruity it is, but all in small amounts, all the things mentioned above is where it’s about. Hints of unripe pear skins, banana and pineapple can be found. The nose is very nice and quite complex.

Taste: Sweet and fruity. Slightly tarry and slightly bitter (new and/or toasted)wood. Quite a full body. Again with some toast. Sweet like burned sugar, sweet with an edge. Also quite floral. Mocha and caramel. In part some young alcohol. For me the finish is slightly unbalanced (less sweet, more woody), the best part  for me is the more sweeter full body (and the nose). The taste is definitely less complex and more youthful than the nose.

Although up untill now only Bourbon and New wood casks were mentioned, I have a feeling there maybe more happening than only this. Still I guess some older or boulder Bourbon casks were used and the second fill new wood are there to give the Whisky an edge and might be younger (or the other way around). Not sure if any finish was used though. If any, it was done sparsely.

Thanks go out to Jacob-Jan for providing the rather large sample!

Points: 86

Clynelish 32yo 1972/2005 (49.9%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Hogshead #15619, 226 bottles)

Looking back, I see that two of the last four posts are old Clynelishes. One from 1974 and one from 1973. What could beat that? Well maybe another old Clynelish? Why? Because we can! And this time we’ll do a 1972! Exactly 1972, the year in which the adjacent (old) Clynelish distillery (a.k.a. Brora) reached the stellar quality we all (should) know by now. If you don’t know Brora 1972 by now, prepare to dish out some serious cash to do so, but then again, you might be a Sheik? Clynelish 32yo 1972/2005 (49.9%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Hogshead #15619, 226 bottles)But that’s Brora, here we have a 1972 Clynelish, so it’s distillate from the then newly built distillery next to Brora…

Color: Light Gold

Nose: Old once (painted) wood. The whole nose has a nice oldness to it. A smell you don’t encounter in more modern malts. Lots of woody caramels. The whole nose has some similarities to the 1973 I reviewed some days ago. This one is more leafy though, and less waxy. It’s not only sweets and woods. Pencil shavings and fresh air. Quite clean. Apple skins, nuts and some flowers. Freesia maybe?

Taste: Wood and a thin kind of waxiness. half sweet and a spicy bite of wood (do I detect a hint of smoke?). The wood doesn’t dominate. Also some hints from the animal kingdom. Something along the lines of a sweating horse. Again the added leafiness. Dry leaves and cold and wet black tea leaves. The body is medium to full, but with a lot of character. Orange skins. The finish is longer than I thought, but also thinner due to the lack of the big sweetness and waxiness a lot of Clynelishes have. Having said that I do like this one. It oozes Whisky from times long gone…

Brora’s from 1972 are special amongst others by the use of peat. This Clynelish lacks that peat. The cask itself didn’t do a lot for the whisky, apart from giving some woody traits to the Whisky. Wood, vanillin, that sort of things. This does allow us to have a glimpse at the distillate of Clynelish.

Points: 90

Clynelish 33yo 1973/2006 (54.3%, Signatory Vintage, The Prestonfield, Cask #8912, 405 bottles)

At last a new review at Master Quill! Some kind of throat infection and a Polish vacation stood in the way of writing some new reviews. But now all’s well and time to do some tasting again! I’m also happy to inform you that at last today was a day that made me forget about the half-year winter we had. First time it was really nice to sit outside in the sun, with even a nice cup of coffee and a little cigar, a Vegueros Seoane I reviewed more than a year ago.

Let’s get out some Clynelish. This Clynelish was officially bottled by The Prestonfield Whisky Company Ltd. which is just another moniker for the Signatory Vintage Company. There is also a second bottling of a 1973 Clynelish, of sister cask #8913. Under the Signatory label, Casks #8914 and #8915 were bottled in 2006 and 2007. These last two bottlings mention a Refill Butt, so this one here is probably from a Refill Butt as well. All four Butts were bottled as 33 year olds.

Clynelish 33yo 1973/2006 (54.3%, Signatory, Prestonfield, Cask #8912, 405 bottles)This Clynelish was distilled July 23rd 1973, a year Brora was still open but not very active, if active at all. As we all know, 1972 was Brora’s finest year, or so it seems. Time to find out what they did one year later at Clynelish…

Color: White wine

Nose: Farmy, with butter and old wood spice. Sweet and sweaty. Dusty and above all lots of beeswax. Typical Clynelish and a typical old Whisky. Also a fresh sea-air note. It has some hints that make me think this was a Fino Butt, but it could have been a Bourbon cask as well. Nothing is particularly Sherry in this one. It’s mainly oak (which here is a very lovely smell), and wax. It does tend to smell sweet, but not very fruity. Not fruity at all.

Taste: Sweet and again the spicy waxy wood. Great and elegant! Who said old whiskies are overly woody, and who said wood is a bad thing. Not in this one! This taste is a great example of how wood can taste when it’s carried by some sweetness and waxiness. It’s fat! Mocha, milk chocolate, toffee and again very Fino-ish. Later on a toasted not emerges accompanied by some sea weed and wait for it…It’s medicinal! The elegant wood lingers on and stays in the finish for quite some time.

A whisky of great balance, what you smell is what you taste (WYSIWYT). When I think of it, no, it’s still not very complex (but it is pretty sweet). Just like a Prestonfield Ben Nevis 1975. Also fabulous tasting whisky. That one is almost a Scottish Bourbon, yet also not very complex.

Points: 91

Bowmore “Dusk” (50%, OB, Bordeaux Wine Casked, Circa 2002)

Here we have a Bowmore oldie. This is the Bowmore Dusk, that was finished for two years in a Bordeaux Wine Cask (sometimes called a Claret finish). In 1999 Bowmore Claret was released, also a Bordeaux Wine Casked Whisky (12.000 bottles, 56% ABV), and was at the time a lot more expensive. Bowmore Dusk was introduced in 2000 whilst Bowmore Dawn, that had a second maturation in (Ruby) Port pipes, was introduced one year later. Both got the same look as Bowmore darkest, that had a second maturation in Oloroso Sherry Casks. Darkest wasn’t considered a speciality as Dawn and Dusk were, so Darkest was more accepted as part of the “standard” range and still exists today. Dusk and Dawn are no longer made, and hardly available anymore. The three were also sold together as a three-piece set (3 x 200 ml). Back to Dusk. There is some batch variation over the years, so there are versions available that are much lighter in color than the one I’ll be reviewing here…

Bowmore Dusk (50%, OB, Bordeaux Wine Casked, Circa 2002)Color: Copper Gold

Nose: Smoke pops out first. Very nice organic and peated smoke. Peat smoke, bonfire at the beach, at night. That sort of thing. Next some coastal freshness, with butter and something smelly from the animal world. Animal sweat? Clean oak, without any toast. A little bit powdery. Most definitely a wine finish. Caramel and vanilla, but the wine doesn’t allow them to be full, or round. They are around as an aroma, but more spiky in nature. Still this is all about smoke and luckily the wine doesn’t take over or ruin the bonfire at the beach party.

Taste: Sweet, caramel, toffee, fatty peat and lots of licorice. Medicinal. Great body, full and balanced. Long finish. After a long time, the finish that started out creamy, shows some woody sourness and the wine part shifts the whole into a slight unbalanced state, that is less sweet and creamy. But as I said that is way in the back of the finish. Not overly complex, but the wine finish is done with taste. Very drinkable. The ABV seems just right, and I can’t imagine this needing any water.

When I had this a long time ago, the taste is what I always remembered, the nose, well I completely forgot how nice this actually smells… I have to admit this is a tastefully crafted Whisky and I appreciate it better now, than I did back then (old score was 84). Here everything fits together nicely. Well done.

Is it just me, or do these older bottles look way better than the new ones? (Also true for Old Malt Cask bottles imho).

Points: 86

Clynelish 32yo 1974/2006 (58.6%, The Whisky Fair, Bourbon Hogshead, 266 bottles)

After the 1994 Clynelish I reviewed last summer, it took me a lot of months to return to Clynelish. As we all know, Brora 1972 (from the old Clynelish distillery) might be the closest thing to whisky heaven, I know there are more, but bear with me. The distillery built next to the old Clynelish distillery is the current (new) Clynelish distillery, so in fact what we heave here is a whisky made very close to heaven, close in space and close in time. Luckily to keep the legend sort of burning, Clynelish managed to keep up the quality and still makes a pretty decent Whisky. The 1994 reviewed earlier, was above average, now let’s have a look at this 1974 Clynelish.

Clynelish 32yo 1974/2006 (58.6%, The Whisky Fair, Bourbon Hogshead, 266 bottles)Color: Gold

Nose: Slightly farmy, leafy, clean and fruity. Old wax, but more wax off, than wax on. Rather fresh and lively. Dried apricots. Dusty paper, and  powdery. Vanilla. Bold (sour) wood, which is not up front. Naked oak, hence the sourness that sticks to it. It’s not particularly woody, but it ís the wood that keeps it together. Some grounded coffee. Cold cigar tobacco (Havana naturally). Musty clay and late vanilla. It’s not a Banff but I do ‘get’ some mustard here…

Taste: Wow! A nice attack of smoke, cannabis and hops. Creamy sweetness. Like true vanilla ice-cream with an apricot/mango syrup on top. Definitely a nice bite from the wood to accompany it all. The longer I keep it in my mouth the woodier it gets. It’s never too woody though. Quite strong, but it is almost 60% ABV. The finish lacks a bit of sweetness to round it all out. The wood makes it ‘pointier’ and dries out the lips. It does remind me a bit of the 1974 Rare Malts version, which was (also) no punishment to drink, but I liked that one a bit better.

This is one of many bottlings that are dedicated to one of earths finest Whisky festivals, or fairs, of all times. The Whisky Fair in Limburg Am Lahn in Germany that will be held at the end of this month. Of course this is long sold out, but new festival bottlings keep emerging as mushrooms on a wet forest floor, most of them pretty good, to say the least. It’s a very good Clynelish but the last part of the experience keeps it out of the 90 points range.

Points: 89

Lochside 18yo 1991/2009 (56.7%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Refill Bourbon Barrel #15220, 106 bottles)

Yet again we have one of the many 1991 Lochsides, and one of the many that were issued as a Gordon & MacPhail Reserve. This one was picked by Dutch retailer Van Wees. Gordon & MacPhail code for this one is JI/ACAC. The spirit was distilled on September 18th, 1991 and eventually bottled on October 15th, 2009. Picked by Van Wees in July 2009. Those of you that meticulously read this blog probably had a Deja Vu experience. We know this bottle, we know this lay-out. Well yes and no. February 4th 2013, I published a review of quite a similar Lochside, opened by Master Quill’s Apprentice (like this one). That was Cask #15217, here we have sister cask #15220, distilled and filled on the same day. This one was bottled some five months earlier, so here we have a chance to compare the two, to see what the effects are of another, but similar cask, and almost half a year of maturation…

Color: Gold (ever so slightly fuller in color)

Nose: Clean and fruity. Distant wood. Clay and organic. Dusty with smoked ham. All in good balance, but nothing pops out. A very quiet Lochside. The esters I remember from the “other” Barrel, are here too. Vanilla from the wood. The yeast is way down in this one, and there is no peat, rubber or petrol. It’s easier on the nose (more balanced), more rounded out, but also less complex. When nosing this a long time, slightly more (sour) oak comes along, but still not a lot, and it gets fresher, but in a mint and menthol kind of way. Also cherry liquor bonbons. The chocolate from them are in this Whisky too.

Taste: Sweet and farmy, with a great sweetish attack. Definitely less woody, at first, than the other Barrel. A nice peppery bite, next to the sweetness and the fruity, farmy notes. Again a nice big body, aided by the ABV. Honey and a great balance. Here too a chocolate liqueur bon-bon. Big body with a matching long and balanced finish. The wood is a lot more contained within this Lochside. Less vanilla though, so the wood reacted differently, it gave slightly more color, but less wood and vanilla. If you let it breathe for some time, the wood does play a larger role, and overall this is less “deep”.

You can’t go wrong with these kinds of Lochsides. There are a lot of 1991 bottles around, but they all are slightly different. sure the family resemblance is there, but I’ve tasted more of the 1991 G&M Reserve, and they all are variations of a theme. I feel it’s safe to say that some four or five months of extra maturation has a smaller effect on the maturation of a whisky, than te particular staves that were used making the barrel. Maybe I’m wrong. I just can’t imagine that the differences between cask #15217 and #15220, come from the small difference in maturation time. Here the “younger” one is more balanced but also less complex. For me I prefer the nose of barrel #15220 over #15217. Considering the taste, this one is easier, and less complex, but it has a better balance. All in all it’s definitely the same family, but the easiness, better balance and containment of the wood, the added farmyness and the difference in fruityness, makes me score this even two points higher. I just like this one better!

Points: 88

Thanks go out to Erik for providing yet another Lochside sample.