Millstone 12, 1999

Millstone 12, 1999
Continuing my tour of award-winning whiskies here is Whisky Advocate’s “World Whisky of the Year” for 2012 (okay, so my timing is a little off). No, not the best whisky in the world for 2012—the “world” for Whisky Advocate means “not American, Scottish, Irish, Canadian or Japanese”, and this was from a Dutch distillery named Zuidam, who are better known for all the other spirits they produce. As the category includes Kavalan and Amrut you’d expect anything winning here to be of high quality, but it’s also possible that after giving the award to Amrut in 2010 and 2011 Whisky Advocate decided to go all Jim Murray on people. Further evidence for this theory: after a nod to Kavalan in 2013, last year’s award went to some Austrian whisky called Broger Burnout; no, I haven’t had it, and for all I know it’s great stuff, but I am prepared to say anyway that there is a good chance that Whisky Advocate is trying a bit too hard. Anyway, the 93 point score the Milllstone 12, 1999 got from Dominic Roskrow on Whisky Advocate is some distance away from its current average of 82 points on Whiskybase. I’m sure people made as much fuss about this discrepancy back then as they do every year about Murray’s selections.

Millstone 12, 1999 (46%; sherry cask; from a purchased sample)

Nose: The first whiff is a pleasant one (oranges and raisins), but then it takes a weird, musky turn towards what I can only describe as sweaty armpit; this is then joined by something a little varnishy. The pleasant stuff’s all still there—just with all this other stuff beside it. Water knocks the sweaty note back and brings the fruit out more fully, and it’s a little bubblegummy with melon etc. (reminiscent of some Littlemills I’ve had).

Palate: Somewhat blank at first but that’s better than sweaty armpit. After a beat there’s the citrus and some biscuity notes to go with it. Nice texture. On the second sip there’s some tannic wood (but it works here as a counterpoint). With time the musky thing starts happening on the palate as well but thankfully here it’s fruity in nature (melon, a hint of peach). Water emphasizes the fruit further.

Finish: Long. The biscuity note gets maltier and picks up some butterscotch as it goes. The wood shows up here too and with time so does the citrus. With more time the muskier fruit hang out longer too. Water’s less good to the finish.

Comments: Some odd bits on the nose to start but time and water were good to it. The finish was the best part neat but got muted by water. It’s a decent whisky but hard to imagine it as the best anything. It has been three years since this was released, however: has the distillery’s product gotten better?

Rating: 84 points.

8 thoughts on “Millstone 12, 1999

      • Yes, that may be what happened.

        Frankly, Amrut doesn’t do a whole lot for me either. Like you said, that category probably is more about drawing attention to a distiller with promise than what is actually good.


  1. While I do like Zuidam’s whiskies as sort of a patriotic sentiment, I think their Rye whiskies are much better than their single malts. If you could get your hands on those, I suggest trying their 100 Rye sometime. (100 for 100 months old, 100% Dutch barley, 100% ground by windmills, 100 proof, that kind of gimmick).

    I think it’s really good. The special bottling for The Whisky Exchange is too, but that’s rather expensive.


  2. The Millstone Rye is good stuff. Slightly less spicy than most American ryes, but very much in the same vein. I’m a fan.

    I also quite enjoyed their French Oak single malt.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.