Lets stay with Yamazaki and Suntory for a while and have a look at a more younger version that is bottled in the vintage malt series. I would guess that it is cask strength, but both versions, the 2004 and the 2005 are precisely 56%. Coincidence or design? The version reviewed here is the 1991 bottled in 2005. The picture below is for the 2004 version, but both look the same. Now we can finally see how a cask strength japanese whisky will be, since I always claimed Japanese whiskies do need their strength, since I feel the reduced versions strike me as watery.
Color: Gold
Nose: Peaty clay. Musty, but also fresh. Radiant wood. Rotting leaves. Just the right spices. Salty grass, dry grass (not hay). Bonfire, fresh smoke. Yes it’s fruity too. Peach. Candy like sour fruityness. Very special.
Taste: Spicy, smoky and half sweet. Hardly any upfront peat here, at least not as much as expected. Licorice with clay.Fruity, just more pineapple than peach. Also the grassy notes emerge here too. Otherwise it’s clean and not overly complex. Warming. Ah, there is the peat, it comes very late in the finish. Welcome. Just a tad of imbalance in the finish though. The sour elements are fighting the sweets and they don’t go together well, because of the peat. Not an elegant Yamazaki this is, more rough around the edges. Likeable, but has it’s flaws taste-wise.
This smells like a Brora! It’s unbelievable, but in Japan they know how to make a whisky that smells like a Brora now! Isn’t this a hidden secret! Keep this in mind when going into a blind tasting… Just two big let-downs. The taste is a simple Brora at best and they charge as much for these kinds of Yamazaki as they do for a Brora. Bummer! Still, well done Suntory.
Points: 87
Taste: Very dry and oaky. Toast and a hint of soap. The soap returns in the texture that otherwise is pretty thin. Sherried. Seems old. Red & black fruits, mocha and coffee. Dry teeth. Unfortunately this has a short slightly burnt, oaky finish. In this case it’s probably a good thing it got reduced, because if this would have been 55% ABV or even higher, with all these thick aroma’s and all that oak, it probably would have been very hard to drink. It’s a syrup (just not in the texture).
Color: Orange gold.
Color: Full gold, almost copper.
In 1918 one
Nose: Musty gravy. Nice slightly burnt wood. Sweetish fruits with pineapple. Sweat ánd men’s cologne. Powdery, almost like sawdust. Greenish. It smells a bit like those hard candies made out of fruity powder pressed into little pills. Sometimes a whiff of soap. All in all, very nice.
Also from 1986 but several years younger, a 13yo to be precise. Even though it was younger, this bottle showed more character to it. The 13yo was almost empty and maybe these Bruichladdich’s need a lot of air. Let’s have a look in my controlled environment and using my glass of choice, how this Bruichladdich really is. (This bottle, just open).
The other day, I reviewed a reduced
that means this Tormore was bottled around the time previous reviewed Tormore was distilled (1996). Both Tormore’s are about the same age too. Let’s see if thís Tormore is any feminine.
Color: White wine.
In 1984 the heating system for the stills was converted, so that it could be heated with… woodchips to heat the stills. Officially only a 10yo was released, later replaced by the current 12yo. For a short while also a 5yo and a 15yo existed. So mostly independent bottlers issue Tormore Single Malt today. Still, over the years not a lot was issued this way, nor does it usually score very high. I guess it’s time to have a look into Tormore. First a Tormore bottled by Dutch bottlers
Color: White wine
Remember this one? Before this came the nice broad-shouldered bottle with the big knob cork. And somehow they changed it into this. We hated the looks of it back then, but looking at it today it doesn’t look that bad. Well this version of the bottle is also no more and again they changed the looks completely into something that looks oval from above.
Color: White wine.