Yesterday I posted a brief look at the Dornoch Castle Hotel. Here now is a review of one of two whiskies I drank at their famous whisky bar: a Bunnahabhain 34, 1980 bottled by/for Whisky Fair. As I mentioned in my write-up yesterday, their bar has a rather impressive collection of whiskies. You can choose between whiskies bottled in the 1970s (and earlier), older whiskies distilled in the 1970s (and earlier) and also many recent and contemporary whiskies of very strong reputation. And the prices are very fair as well—each bottle has its by the pour price marked on it, which keeps nasty shocks at bay. They also have a large printed list. I took a look at it, I looked at everything in the cabinets and on the shelves, and my eyes began to glaze over a bit. Accordingly, I decided to just go with the recommendations of the Thompson brothers as listed with those of other staff members at the front of the whisky list. This was my first pour, Phil Thompson’s value pick from the then-current list. Continue reading
I reviewed a 28 yo Auchroisk earlier this week. Today’s whisky is the same age but we go south and west to Islay, to Bunnahabhain, and one year in the past, to 1987.
It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a Bunnahabhain. Coincidentally, the last one I reviewed was also a 28 yo and also from a sherry cask. That was distilled in 1989 and was bottled last year by K&L in California under their Faultline label. I quite liked it. In theory, this 28 yo, distilled in 1987, should be better as it was bottled by an outfit with a much better reputation, the German independent, Maltbarn—no longer the upstart they once were. This was their 43rd release and I suspect only a bit of the cask was bottled for it. This because there were only 89 bottles in this release and two years later they put out 88 bottles of a 30 yo, 1987 at a very similar abv. In fact, I now wonder if the 121 bottles of the 26 yo, 1987 they’d put out in 2014 was the first release from this cask (similar abv again), and if there’s more being saved for another older release. I guess we’ll never know for sure, but I’ll keep an eye out for more 1987 Bunnahabhains from Maltbarn. Continue reading
My series of reviews of recent K&L casks continues. The score so far is 2-1. The two casks I liked a lot were both Old Particular releases (a Bowmore 20, 1997 and a Bunnahabhain 25, 1991). The other was a Mortlach 22, 1995, an Alexander Murray cask bottled in K&L’s own Faultline series, and I thought it was ordinary. This one’s also a Bunnahabhain but it’s also another of the Alexander Murrary Faultline releases. That doesn’t bode well. Will this be another of K&L’s older whiskies that seems like a great value but isn’t actually worth it anyway? Let’s see.
Bunnahabhain 28, 1989 (42.1%; Faultline; first-fill sherry hogshead; from a bottle split)
On to review #3 of K&L’s recent single cask releases, and the oldest one so far. As you may recall, the first was a Bowmore 20, 1997, bottled by Douglas Laing’s Old Particular, and I quite liked that one. The second was a Mortlach 22, 1995 bottled under K&L’s own Faultline label (the cask came from Alexander Murray). I did not have much of an opinion of that one. Will this Bunnahabhain, also bottled by Old Particular, get things back on track? Like the Mortlach 22, it’s priced very well—I should say “was”, as it’s already sold out: $160, I believe. Considering the lowest price for the OB 25 yo on WineSearcher is $342, that seems like a very good deal indeed. But, as we saw with the Mortlach, age isn’t everything. Paying a relatively low price for an older whisky isn’t much of a steal if the whisky in the bottle isn’t very good. Older Bunnahabhain can be very good indeed, however, so I am hopeful. Let’s see how it goes. Continue reading
I have not reviewed an official Bunnahabhain in a while—not since the 25 yo, almost two years ago—and this recent special release seems like as good a choice as any for a return. It was released late last year and has been very well received online. It goes without saying in our era of hype, that it all disappeared very quickly.
As per the distillery, this was matured for 11 years in ex-bourbon casks and then transferred to first-fill Pedro Ximinez sherry casks for another three years—which I would say would put it in “double maturation” rather than “finish” territory. I can’t remember if I’ve had, let alone reviewed, any other Bunnahabhains that involved PX casks but I’m intrigued. Bunnahabhain’s spirit plays well with sherry casks, and in theory, at least, the richer, sweeter PX character should be a good match as well. Let’s see if that indeed proves to be the case. Continue reading
It was not so long ago that older Bunnahabhains of a high quality were easily found at reasonable prices from reputable bottlers. For example, at release this bottle did not cost very much more than the OB 18 yo costs now. Back then it was possible for middle-class buyers like me to purchase older whiskies and get some understanding of how maturation affects the character of whisky from a particular distillery or how the profiles of whiskies made at the same distillery in different eras vary. If I was at the point in this whisky obsession now that I was at in 2012, I would not be able to afford that experience—if I could even find it. For more in this tedious vein you might want to (re)read my post on older whisky and value in the current era and the many excellent comments on it (here). For now, however, here’s a review of a 31 yo Bunnahabhain from 1980. This was released by Whisky-Doris. I opened and finished the bottle last year and took my notes then too. I’m not sure why it’s taken me so long to post them. Continue reading
Of all the distilleries I visited in Scotland, whether in depth or on a hit and run basis, none were more of a pain to get to than Bunnahabhain, few had as idyllic a location when I got there, and none presented as depressing a prospect in such a lovely setting. This does not immediately appear to be the case as you approach the distillery—see the photograph alongside for the promise of charm. It’s a lovely glimpse after a not-very fun four mile drive on a single track road on which you meet far more oncoming traffic than you would like (more than 0 vehicles was far too many for me at some of the spots where we encountered trucks etc.) but the promise is not kept. At least not right now. It’s been reported recently that the owners are going to spend a lot of money to refurbish the distillery and I think you’ll understand why below. Continue reading
This is the second of three Scott’s Selection releases from 2004 that I split with friends when Binny’s put them on a clearance sale a couple of months ago. I’ve already reviewed the Auchentoshan 1983-2004. The oldest of the three, the Glenlivet 1977-2004 is yet to come—though I’m constantly being warned against it.
I *think* that I might actually have tried this Bunnahabhain before. I have a vague memory of it being the malt, a small pour of which led off one of the tastings my friend Rich put together a couple of years ago. If so, I have an even vaguer memory of liking it then. As with all Scott’s Selection releases, there’s very little information out there on this one—no detail on cask type and very few reviews (though it does have a very good rating on Whiskybase). Anyway, let’s see what it’s like. Continue reading
Well, on the box they have it as the Bunnahabhain XXV. On the label they put the age in Arabic numerals as well, just to be safe—say this for Bunnahabhain: others may be taking ages off their malts but they put theirs on in two different notations. By either notation this is the oldest official Bunnahabhain I have yet had. I got this from a bottle split—the bottle it came from is at 46.3%, which means it’s post-reboot Bunnahabhain (the reboot happened circa 2011, I believe, but don’t trust me). As to what the actual year of release of this bottle was I’m not sure. This is supposed to have a fair bit of ex-sherry cask whisky in the vatting. This is true of the rebooted 12 yo and 18 yo too, of course, and those are both quite different—I found the sherry in the 12 yo I reviewed to be overbearing and indeed sulphurous, whereas in the 18 yo I reviewed I found the sherry touch to be light and the resultant malt to be balanced with the briny and fruity character of the spirit coming through. Let’s see where on the spectrum this one falls. Continue reading
Abbey Whisky are a Scottish retailer who from time to time release their own cask selections. While their Glendronach casks, like those of other stores, have been released in the official distillery livery, most of their other bottlings seem to be under their own name in a series called “The Rare Casks”. There only seem to have been four releases in this series (as per Whiskybase anyway)—there are also a number of undisclosed distillery releases in their “The Secret Cask” series. All I’ve had from them so far is a very nice Glendronach (which I’ve reviewed) and a sample of their “Rare Casks” Glencadam that did not really impress me (the sample was too small for a review). This Bunnahabhain, which I opened for my local group’s tasting last month, fell somewhere in between at the first outing—I’m interested to see what a month or so of air and time may have done for it.
This is one of K&L’s cask selections for 2013, though it arrived in early 2014. They bottled a number of casks for their Faultline label, many of them at very good prices relative to age and so laden with temptation I could not resist. Alas, my random sampling of these bottles—based on what I ordered and tasted via swaps—suggested the prices may have been good for a reason. A few were pretty decent, most were mediocre, and a couple were less than mediocre. In the last category I’d place the Bowmore 16 and this Bunnahabhain (though, as you’ll see, I liked it a bit more than the Bowmore).
I’d purchased it (and some of the others) for the tastings I do for our local group—this allows me to spread the risk of unknown quantities at attractive prices around a bit (which I’m sure the few members of my group who read the blog will be very happy to know). I first opened it for our October tasting and most present were not very enthusiastic though nobody actively disliked it. I tasted it a couple of times after that and it seemed like it might be improving. Accordingly, I poured it again at our most recent tasting. Our scores and comments suggest that while we thought the nose had improved the palate and finish had degraded. This review is an amalgam of notes taken at our tasting and at a more focused session at home before emptying the bottle. Continue reading
Archives is Whiskybase’s line of proprietary releases—they’re only available at their store and are always excellent value for money. That said, not everything they’ve released has garnered rave reviews; and this Bunnahabhain, released this year as part of their “Fishes of Samoa” series, is one that not everyone seems to have loved. References have been made, I think, to the dread beast “sulphur”, and you know how it is with us whisky geeks when references to things like sulphur and chill-filtration and E-150 get tossed around. As a result perhaps this bottle is still hanging around—not usually a fate that befalls intensely sherried Bunnahabhains, as this one’s colour advertises it to be.
I don’t have a very high sulphur sensitivity myself so I’m approaching it with optimism (as I do everything, really—that’s the kind of guy I am). I have a few older Bunnahabhains on my shelf but have a bit of a gap in the low 20s, age-wise, and it would be nice to find something affordable to plug it for a mega-Bunnahabhain vertical tasting I have in mind. Continue reading
My notes under the “Quick Hits” rubric are of whiskies of which I do not have large enough samples for anything other than a strong impression at best. As such they do not carry ratings and should be seen as even more contingent and unreliable than my usual reviews. Tonight I am tasting three Bunnahabhains–one very old one from 1968, one old one from 1986, and one very young one from 2006. All samples purchased from Whiskybase (I think–see below). There’s only a tiny bit of the 1968 left (I tasted it as soon as I got it some months ago). I wouldn’t normally record notes even for “Quick Hits” for something I am tasting so little of but as the other two are Bunnahabhains far apart in age I couldn’t resist throwing in one even older than the 1986 as well.
Been a while since my last Bunnahabhain review. Here’s another peated expression from an independent, this time Duncan Taylor in their NC2 range (the name refers to the fact that the whiskies are neither artificially coloured nor chill-filtered) which replaced their old Whisky Galore range of affordable malts. Let’s get right to it:
Bunnahabhain 12, 1997 (46%; Duncan Taylor NC2, peated; from a sample received in a swap)
Nose: Brine and farmy peat (something organic rotting in wet undergrowth). Dry smoke, not phenolic at all. With more time some darker sweetness emerges (some kind of fruit–having trouble figuring out what). With more time it gets more citrussy–lime peel (not a whole lot though); and the smoke is leafier now. With a few drops of water the dry/leafy smoke recedes a bit and there’s more citrussy sweetness. A minute later there are some toffee-like notes.