Tag Archives: Whisky

Caol Ila 24yo 1975/2000 (54.3%, Wilson & Morgan, Barrel Selection, Millenium, Cask #2981, 259 bottles)

Even though it’s supposed to be summer, looking outside you could have convinced me of something different. I see people outside wearing coats and jackets. Yesterday I reviewed an Islay malt, Bruichladdich to be precise, and it didn’t taste too bad on these cold summer nights. So why not try another one. This time one by Italian independent bottler Wilson & Morgan, or Fabio for his friends. Earlier I reviewed a young Mortlach that Fabio bottled, that turned out to be pretty damn good! Let’s see if this Caol Ila is something down similar lines.

Color: Gold

Nose: Nice subdued elegant peat combined with fresh succulent grass. A really held back Islay. Apples and nice malty flavours. Nice old fat clay and bonfire smoke. Salty, absolutely very wow this is! Some powdery dryness and wet wood. Wet earth with a hint of some undefined sour fruit and dried meat. There is definitively some rain in this. What? Rain. I love Islay whiskies that smell like this.

Taste: Thinner than I had expected. Sweet with apple flavoured coffee. Grassy peat again. Cardboard and wet hay. The sweetness fits the fatty peat and is cloying. It’s a strange kind of sweetness. Again, the nose exactly fits the taste here. Salty lips. The finish doesn’t seem to have a lot of staying power.

Although its heritage is pretty obvious, for me it’s not a typical Caol Ila. Maybe I’m more used to Caol Ila’s from 1979 through 1984, so this could be typical for a Caol Ila from just after the rebuild. We’ll see. Still a very interesting dram. I know, usually that doesn’t sound good, interesting, but here it is used in a positive way, so this scores…

Points: 89

Bruichladdich 1989/2004 (57.9%, Gordon & MacPhail, Reserve, Cask #1957, 275 bottles)

On Monday, July 23 2012 it was announced that Bruichladdich of Islay was sold to Remy Cointreau for £58.000.000 to enrich their high-end portfolio of brands and to confirm their strategy in the luxury spirits segment. If I’m not mistaken it’s their first distillery, and maybe there is more to follow? We’ll see what happens next. In stead of picking one of their numerous official bottlings by the old owners, first a Sherried example from independent bottlers Gordon & MacPhail.

Color: Orange Brown.

Nose: Thick raisiny sherry, and fresh sea air (not salty). I guess some smoke, but peat? No, not yet. Mocha, coffee with tarry toffee. Strangely enough I detect some lime on this nose. Old ladies stationary. Yes, wood also. Altogether it doesn’t promise to be sweet.

Taste: Ok, half sweet. Tarry and thick. Toffee with some ash. Nice body and good balance. The nose and taste seem to match. It has the sourness of oak. There is some peat in the depth, but as with the nose, it has more smoke. Wycam’s cough drops! Very nice not over the top Sherry, but also not all to complex.

Pretty decent independent Bruichladdich. Although the Sherry isn’t too overpowering, the distillery character got lost here. Still it’s a very nice dram, with no obvious flaws but low complexity. Recommended

Points: 87

Linlithgow 31yo 1970/2002 (52.4%, Douglas Laing, Platinum, 139 bottles)

This was staring me in the eye for a while now, and since this is my favorite Lowland distillery, no, one of my favorite distilleries of them all, it is time to try out a very old Linlithgow. Well Linlithgow’s on the label, but it is better known as Saint Magdalene.

What could be more appetizing to you than the fact that the site of St. Magdalene in Linlithgow, West Lothian, housed a Lepper Colony in the 12th century, or that the water didn’t come from an ancient super pure melted snow mineral water source, but from the Union canal nearby. But enough facts. If you want more, have a look at Tomas Karlsson’s site.

Founded in 1798 and closed like many (good) others in 1983. The distillery is no more and there are no casks maturing there anymore, only people. It’s an apartment building now. What a shame. Didn’t they know then, it was this good, am I wrong, or isn’t it about the quality anymore…

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Malty. Light citrus freshness and seems very clean at first. It doesn’t take long for a lot more to show up. Grass on a hot day. Dust and hay. It has a touch of floral sweetness to it. Given some time, there is a new depth to this. Or a “growing” depth you see in Hitchcock’s Vertigo. Oily, fatty, toffee, licorice and hot tar (all in tiny amounts). No wood. Very special.

Taste: Thick, grassy and medium sweet. Dried apricots and apple skins. It isn’t the same as the nose (for me the nose was not fruity), but it complements it very well. Again there is almost no wood. It’s there really, but it is hidden well and transports the body. You can taste the balancing spiciness or distant bitterness (again, hidden well) and the sourness in the finish is from the oak too. Great balance.

For some people these whiskies are to light, or more of an acquired taste, but if you work on this a bit, it will be really rewarding.

It’s a first for me, but this is one, I’d recommend, you enjoy in absolute silence and by yourself. Almost any other Single Malt is best shared with friends, but this is a private one, maybe because the beauty lies in the details. But that’s not all. This has a lot to give and it doesn’t give it all at once. Again time is a friend here. I’m quite stunned also that this is a 31yo and that it’s from 1970, because it can come across much younger. For me it resembles some of the 1982 expressions also bottled by Douglas Laing. I’m a fan!

Points: 91

Springbank 36yo 1970/2006 (53.1%, Signatory Vintage, First Fill Oloroso Sherry Butt #1629, 461 bottles)

After reviewing one of the most popular official releases by Springbank, the 10yo at Cask Strength, this time a Single cask bottled by Signatory Vintage in their heavy glass decanter series that are hard to handle (the Cask Strength Collection). The fourth already on these pages. Hard to handle maybe, but so pretty. This time it isn’t in one of those clumsy tins, but in a beautiful, probably fake mahogany box. Even if the whisky is mediocre, the packaging is stunning. Let’s hope the contents measures up, because that’s what you’re paying for.

Color: Radiant Orange Brown, with powdery sediment.

Nose: Wow. Buttery. Very old wood with lots of spices. Nutmeg and ginger. Dusty toffee. Sherry as in raisins. Deep sugary raisins, not fruity. After some breathing it gets some lovely spicyness to it. Toasted wood and warming. Really great nose, with a developement to it. So packaging great, nose great, high hopes for the taste now.

Taste: Woody and dry. But there is some chewy sweetness to it. Roundness is maybe a good word. Also some bitterness from the wood. Coffee (Espresso), Warming chocolate. It really is a hot brandy spiked cupa coco. Also some cough bonbons. Not especially as complex as the nose is. What you see is what you get. Later some mint and furniture wax. Nice throat coating finish.

This definitively got way better when the bottle got time to breathe. Both the nose and taste got better. It shifts its focus from the wood and nice bitterness to something more rounded out and lets you see more of what’s underneath. Not the best old Springbank around but still a very nice one if you give it time and an open mind. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Points: 91

Glenlivet 1975/2006 (54%, Berry Brothers & Rudd, Cask #10846)

Well here is an example of the mother of all Single Malts. No it’s not the oldest distillery in Scotland, nor is it the first in anything. The oldest being Ferintosh at Ryefield (from 1689). The oldest still working distillery is Glenturret (1775). But once there was a time a lot of others added the “Glenlivet” to their own name to benefit from the success, and the known quality of Glenlivet, and who doesn’t know Glenlivet? Started in 1817 and ‘founded’ in 1824 when George Smith was one of the first to obtain a licence for his distilling. All of his illicit distilling neighbours, wanted him dead for it. Traitor! In 1845 George leased Minmore farm, which he bought in 1858. Minmore was renamed Glenlivet a year later and is the site of the current distillery. Funnily enough, Cadenheads also state the name “Minmore” on their Glenlivet offerings. George died in 1871. Long live George and to his health we raise the glass with this Berry Brothers & Rudd Glenlivet. Slainthe George.

Color: Orange Brown.

Nose: Fresh and spicy. Lots to smell here. Sour oak and honey, very “Bourboney”. Later on more elegant, refined, not very bold, even though there is a lot coming out of the glass. Distant smoke with powdery dryness. Apples and cloves. And something meaty, steak, gravy.

Taste: Initially, thick and spicy, minty and sweet. Later some tar, acetone with cookies (dough and baked chocolate chip cookies together). Medium wood, with its bitterness in place. Fine and elegant. Applesauce, almonds and cherried rubber tyres. Finishes dry.

A grand old whisky with a lot of quality to it and with a woody punch. This is unique for me since it is bold and chewy at first but quickly transforms into something more fine, refined and elegant. Just a wee bit too bitter for me, hence no score into the 90’s. probably was aged for too long.

Points: 89

Ladyburn ‘Rare Ayrshire’ 34yo 1975/2009 (45.2%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, Bourbon Barrel #558, 166 bottles)

Yes! Another example from the distillery that took its water from the Penwapple Reservoir, yes say it again, the Penwapple Reservoir. This time one of the many sister casks from the last year of operation, bottled by Signatory. Yesterdays cask was nice, but I couldn’t say it was worth your money (when you plan to drink it, rather than just mere collecting it), so will this be any better? This will be nice to compare to yesterdays one. Are they all the same? What does happen, when the same spirit is put into ‘supposedly the same casks’? In effect we can see a little bit here, what maturation in wood can do.

Color: Gold (slightly lighter than barrel #562)

Nose: Spicy wood. Clean and citrussy. Fresh sea air. Mocha and Cappuccino. Fresh cut grass. It’s different from cask #562, with a more typical Lowlander style. Fruitier, lemons and apples. Slightly woody with grass and hay. Lovely.

Taste: Sweetish, more estery sweet. This seems a bit  young too. Not very complex but a good body with apples. It has a different kind of sweetness, thicker and more tiresome if you have a lot of it. Nuttier too. Yes more hazelnuts. The finish has more woody influence and is a bit more bitter, but nothing to be afraid of. This has more balance and body. The other cask seems thinner.

No two casks are alike. whats the influence of cask, wood etc. Of the two, this is the better one. Nice full body and a great Lowlander. I enjoyed this one more. Good finish and nice aftertaste too. Because of the different sweetness this has, (corn-sugar), this seems to me less drinkable than cask #562. Still, who would try to drink the whole bottle at once, of this museum piece, so drinkability is not an issue here. Nice Ladyburn. Recommended.

Points: 84

Ladyburn ‘Rare Ayrshire’ 34yo 1975/2009 (46.9%, Signatory Vintage, Cask Strength Collection, Bourbon Barrel #562, 172 bottles)

Ladyburn wasn’t long around. Opened in 1966 and already closed in 1975. It was built by W. Grant & Sons within their Girvan grain distillery complex. Not completely uncommon in those days, since there were more malt distilleries on a grain distillery site. Glen Flagler was added to the Moffat site and Ben Wyvis was added to Invergordon. All three didn’t last long and are pretty scarce these days. These Rare Ayrshire’s are still around, but there will be a time soon, they will not, and prices will soar. So is this worth your money? Lets see…

Well officially there is no Ladyburn on the label, still it isn’t hard to guess what this must be. Out of the blue Signatory started to bottle a lot of casks from Ladyburn. Which is always nice since the place shut down in 1975 and whiskies from Ladyburn are getting more and more rare.

Color: Gold

Nose: Clean, like you would expect from a younger bourbon cask. Grassy, cold butter. Spicy yet light. Caramel, vanilla and clay. Powdery. Mild wood, which smells a bit odd here, small hint of rot maybe? It smells old now, but also not quite right. Grainy and with that, hinting at sourness. Finally perfumy and creamy.

Taste: Butter. Very grassy, lemonade-like. Mild wood, like liquid old sawdust. It’s not without body this. Caramel and powdery cream. Sweet and ever so slightly bitter. Nutty, hazelnuts. Not very balanced and rather anonymous. If you close your eyes you could imagine this being from a bourbon barrel. It slightly resembles Woodford Reserve.

I have to say that after some breathing it tastes better compared to when it was freshly opened. Beware, this Lowlander is easily drinkable and that’s not good for what is essentially a museum piece Whisky.

Points: 81

Caol Ila 21yo 1984/2006 (58.5%, Dewar Rattray, for The Nectar, Belgium, Refill Bourbon, Cask #6266, 251 bottles)

Caol Ila was founded in 1846 and rebuilt in 1879 and 1972, and in 1974 six new stills were installed. As of 1999 also unpeated whisky is made, which is nice, but also makes you wonder about single casks sold to independents since that date. Mainly used for the Johnnie Walker blends, but more and more used as a single malt due to the popularity of Islay malts. If I’m not mistaken the first official bottlings were the Flora & Fauna 15yo and a few Rare Malt editions. In 2002 the 12yo, 18yo and a cask strength were released and a few years later a Moscatel finish Distillers Edition and Moch were released. During that time also three versions of a 25yo were released, I know were pretty good.

This whisky was distilled on December 12th 1984 and bottled 21 years later on September 6th, 2006, and was bottled for Belgian outfit, The Nectar.

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Fat Peat with ash. Very leafy, as in fresh, non-musty wet leaves and crushed dried leaves. Sweet and balanced. Green apple skin. Sweaty, tarry and with distant flowery perfume. Hints of wood. Crushed beetles, (not Beatles). Sea with some smoke and late (dare I say unexpected) fruitiness.

Taste: Sweet and chewy, with elegant peat. Nutty, almonds and some walnut. Some white pepper and plants. Also the sweat returns which fits the profile. Nice balance. It has some unexpected fresh sourness in the warming finish. No wood to speak of, but it has the wood spice. Finally, some salt on the lips, during the yellow fruity finish (apricots and peaches obviously). Astonishing.

I quite like this. Due to its perfect sweetness this is dangerously drinkable. Not as complex as I might have hoped, but hey, it’s not a super old Islay, and we don’t drink those for their finesse do we? Caol Ila in al its guises is a very nice alternative to all the other (increasingly expensive) brothers from Islay.

Points: 90

Lagavulin 16yo ‘Port Ellen’ (43%, OB, Circa 2006)

Well, after all those old, sometimes priceless, but always hard to get, independent bottles I reviewed recently, it’s now time for something more easy to get. A standard bottle, even sold, in some countries, in your local supermarket, at reasonable prices to boot. Add to that, it’s usually decent quality, so this is a bang-for-your-buck type of malt.

We’re talking this time about the Lagavulin 16yo. The bottle I’m reviewing is from 2006, and I guess because of the high turnover, it is probably bottled in 2006 as well. I don’t know exactly when the bottles with the royal warrant were succeeded by the “Port Ellen” ones, but this could be one of the first.

Many stories surround these Lagavulins. First of all that, when the royal warrant disappeared from the label, the quality went down. In fact the quality was dwindling even before that. Last year or maybe in 2010 I heard that the quality level is picking up again. This year I  hear again that the recent bottlings are not as good as they were once before. So lot of debate about this one, and considering the interest, we know this is a popular one.

I tasted once a bottle from 1992, and scored that 92 points, so lets see how this one from 2006 will compare to that.

Color: Full Orange Gold.

Nose: Smoke and burnt wood (the next day). Black and white powder. It’s less peaty than I remembered, creamy peat. Animalesk and spicy, which makes it a bit ‘dirty’. Salty, sea and seaweed. After a while only smoke and bonfire remains.

Taste: Sweet, licorice with some peat and a slight hint of milk chocolate, almonds and wood. Sugar water. Black and white powder again. Not as rounded as earlier expressions. Smoke towards the slightly spicy and sweet finish that isn’t heavy at all. Salty sensation on the lips. In comparison, this is less complex.

I love Lagavulin, and I understand the producers statements that it isn’t true that Lagavulin 16 got worse. That memory doesn’t serve us well. Well that’s not the case. Earlier bottles are still around in big numbers so it’s not hard to do a head to head between older and more recent expressions. All I can say is they don’t make Lagavulin 16 anymore as they used to, but with all those efficiency regimes and when only the amount of alcohol yielded per tonne of barley counts, you can hardly be surprised.

So Lagavulin 16yo isn’t what it used to be, but how does it do on its own, not compared to the older ones? Well that’s another story, even today it’s a pretty special dram, that still scores pretty high, but I like the new 12yo better, although a completely different dram.

Points: 87

Royal Lochnagar 28yo 1977/2005 (58.5%, Blackadder, Raw Cask, Hogshead #310, 260 bottles)

New Lochnagar was founded in 1845. New Lochnagar? Yes. First Lochnagar was built in 1823, and burnt down by “the competition” just three years later. The distillery was rebuilt, only to burn down again in 1841. So the distillery was rebuilt again in 1845 as New Lochnagar. Lochnagar became Royal in 1848 (it lies very close to Balmoral Castle). No more fires burning down the house, but still a lot of construction going on. In 1906 the distillery was rebuilt yet again and in 1963 completely renewed.

Here we will try an independent Lochnagar, again a Blackadder Raw Cask with cask sediment in the bottle. This time no powdered char, but only small chunks of charred wood.

Color: Full Gold

Nose: Fresh, sea spray wich changes quickly into a damp wine cellar. Very spicy wood and vanilla. Resembles the sweet smell of a bourbon, high on rye. Mocha with a hint of ground coffee. Varnish and fresh mint leaves (not bruised). This smells like it will be very sweet. Very nice nose.

Taste: Strong and sweet, but luckily not as sweet the nose predicted. Butter caramels and the varnish is here again. The whole is very full bodied. Wood with Aspirin (wow, that’s a first). Nutty and ashy. The finish is drier than in the beginning, but still sweet enough to mask a lot of the wood. It doesn’t taste like it, but underneath it’s pretty woody. The dry finish ends in a little bitterness that reveals this woodyness.

In the end a quite nice Lochnagar. The finish is dryer and has some bitterness that seems a bit off compared with the sweetness from the beginning. Maybe not a 90+ scoring malt, but definitively a very interesting Lochnagar if you want a complete collection. Still, with these flaws in the finish I have a little soft spot for this Lochnagar, since the nose and the initial taste are really great.

Points: 88

p.s. This one is at the time of writing still available in Russia for 534 Euro’s