Category Archives: Distillery

Highland Park 28, 1980 (Mackillop’s Choice)

Posted on by


A week of reviews of late 2000s releases by Mackillop’s Choice comes to a close today. You will recall that these are all older whiskies and distilled in successive decades. Monday’s review was of a Tomintoul 41, 1966. Wednesday’s review was of a Glenlivet 30, 1977. Today’s review is of the youngest in the set, a Highland Park 28, 1980. Will it scale the heights of that Tomintoul? Well, if it’s as good as the Glenlivet I’ll be happy enough.

Highland Park 28, 1980 (43%; Mackillop’s Choice; from a bottle split)

Nose: That prickly, lightly smoky, heathery Highland Park thing off the top. Earthier on the second sniff, even as some creme brulee emerges on top: the peat is more vegetal now and there’s some shoe polish and some greased metal. Continues in this vein. With a drop of water there’s more of the creme brulee. Continue reading →

Glenlivet 30, 1977 (Mackillop’s Choice)

Posted on by


I remind you that the theme for this week’s reviews is older whiskies bottled by Mackillop’s Choice. And they were distilled in consecutive decades. First up on Monday was a 41 yo Tomintoul that was distilled in 1966. Next up is a Glenlivet that is roughly a decade younger and was distilled roughly a decade later. This is not my first review, as it happens, of a Glenlivet distilled in 1977. I’ve previously reviewed a 1977-2004 release from Scott’s Selection—who, like Mackillop’s Choice—were once a reliable source in the US for solid older whiskies at reasonable prices. Unlike Scott’s Selection, however, Mackillop’s Choice is still a going concern—or at least it was a few years ago. If anyone knows if they’re still bottling casks on the regular, please write in below. Anyway, I quite liked that Scott’s Selection Glenlivet 1977-2004, even as I noted that it was quite oak-forward. I’m hoping that this cask might have a little less oak and a little more fruit. Let’s see if that pans out at all. Continue reading →

Tomintoul 41, 1966 (Mackillop’s Choice)

Posted on by


This will be a week of reviews of older whiskies, all >25 years old. They were all bottled by Mackillop’s Choice for the US market, and were distilled in successive decades. I’ll begin with the oldest, a 41 yo Tomintoul, distilled in 1966. It was bottled at 42.7%. As I doubt this was an abv arrived at by choice, I assume it was the natural strength of the cask at time of bottling. Casks that have naturally aged down to lower strengths often demonstrate greater depth than those that have been diluted to identical or similar strengths and I’m hoping that will be the case here. It can be depressing to drink a very good older whisky while all the while sensing the great whisky it could have been with a bit more weight. But what is lost in strength can be made up for by aging. 41 years is a long time though and there’s also the risk of far too much oak influence. It’s not the oldest Tomintoul I’ve had—not that I’ve had so very many. I’ve previously reviewed a 45 yo that was distilled in 1968. That one was at a higher strength and thankfully did not demonstrate massive oak impact. I’ve also reviewed another 1960s pair in their 40s (in age and abv). None of those blew me away, though I did like two of them quite a lot. Let’s see if this one improves on them. Continue reading →

Kilkerran Hand-Filled, October 2022

Posted on by


This week’s reviews are of a couple of Kilkerran distillery exclusive hand-filled casks. On Wednesday, I reviewed one that was filled at the distillery (or maybe at Springbank) in late-August 2022. Today I have one that was filled at the distillery (or maybe at Springbank) in late-October 2022. (I’m not sure because I was not the one who filled them.) The late-August hand-fill started out very nicely on the nose but then things went south in a hurry on the palate and finish. I’m hoping this cask will redeem it some. Let’s see how it goes.

Kilkerran Hand-Filled, October 2022 (58.9%; from a bottle split)

Nose: A very nice start with lemon, wet wool and peppery peat off the top and muskier fruit coming up from below (charred pineapple). Sweeter as it goes with some peach in there as well. With more time the lemon turns to lime and there’s some salt as well. Water pulls the passionfruit out here as well and mixes it with some vanilla (just a bit). Continue reading →

Kilkerran Hand-Filled, August 2022

Posted on by


It’s a short week of whisky reviews—the month having started on Monday—and so I had to rummage around to see what I had a natural duo/pair of. And in the depths of the sample drawer I found two Kilkerran hand-filled casks. These were both acquired with the other Campbeltown hand-fills I reviewed late last year and earlier this year. I hope you don’t recall that the first of those was a set that was filled at Springbank in August (here, here and here); and the other a set that was filled there in October (here, here and here). Let’s take these Kilkerran hand-fills chronologically as well, and start with the August cask. A reminder: these hand-fill casks are not exactly single casks—as they are topped off from time to time—and don’t have vintage or age statements associated with them. I’m not even sure what cask type or types go into the vattings; and if I recall what I was told correctly, they aren’t even filled from casks per se but from large glass containers. If I’m in error about any of this, I hope someone will correct me in the comments. Continue reading →

Glenallachie 12, 2008, PX Cask (for Spec’s)

Posted on by


Glenallachie week comes to a close with another heavily sherried, cask strength whisky. But this is not yet another batch of the 10 yo CS (see here for my review of Batch 2 on Monday, and here for my review of Batch 3 on Wednesday). This is a 12 yo and it’s a single cask that was bottled for Spec’s in Texas. And where both batches of the 10 yo CS were vatted from whiskies matured in more than one type of cask, this one was matured in a PX puncheon. Or at least so it seems. Keep in mind that Glenallachie is run by Billy Walker, and when he was at Glendronach, they used a much looser definition of the term “single cask” (see here for more on all that if you don’t know what I’m referring to). So maybe this is all whisky that was matured for 12 years in this specific single cask; or maybe it’s whisky that was re-racked into this cask before being bottled. If you know one way or the other, please write in below. Anyway, I liked both batches of the 10 yo CS that I reviewed this week quite a lot. Let’s see if this keeps that streak alive. Continue reading →

Glenallachie 10 CS, Batch 3

Posted on by


Let’s continue with the reviews of sherry cask-matured, cask strength Glenallachie. I reviewed Batch 2 of the Glenallachie 10, Cask Strength on Monday. Here now is Batch 3. Batch 2 was released in 2018. Batch 3 was released in 2019 in the Europe and in 2020 in the US. As to whether the 2020 release was the same vatting as the 2019, just released later, or if it was a different vatting, I don’t know. But I’d guess it was the latter since, as per Whiskybase, the US release was bottled a full year later. Or I suppose they might have released an 11 yo as a 10 yo to preserve the branding of the series. At any rate, both releases, like Batch 2, are officially 10 years old. However, while Batch 2 was vatted from spirit matured in oloroso, PX and virgin oak casks, Batch 3 dropped the virgin oak, making it an all-sherry cask whisky. I liked Batch 2 quite a lot and given that this one doesn’t have virgin oak casks in the mix, odds are good I’ll like it even more. Let’s see if that proves to be the case. Continue reading →

Glenallachie 10 CS, Batch 2

Posted on by


I’ve reviewed a couple of official Glenallachies in the last six months—see here for the 2021 release of the 12 yo, and here for the 15 yo (release year unknown). Those are two of the only three Glenallachies I’ve reviewed—the third was an older independent release from Whiskybase from before the Billy Walker era. This week I will double my total Glenallachie count. Yes, this is going to be a week of reviews of Glenallachie. They will all be official releases, they will all involve at least some sherry, and they will all be at cask strength. First up: Batch 2 of the Glenallachie 10 CS. This was released in 2018 in the US market (and, for all I know, in other markets as well). I don’t remember seeing it in Minnesota but then again I don’t really spend much time in liquor stores any more—or for that matter on liquor websites. It’s a vatting of spirit matured in oloroso, PX and virgin oak casks. Let’s see what it’s like. Continue reading →

Bowmore 17, 2004 (SMWS 3.339)

Posted on by


Let’s bring this series of reviews of Bowmore 17, 2004s bottled by the SMWS to a close. The three whiskies reviewed this week were from consecutively numbered casks, all filled on the same day in 2004 and matured in second-fill hogsheads. On Monday, I reviewed cask 3.337; on Wednesday, I reviewed cask 3.338. I liked both very much indeed; and liked 3.338 a bit more than 3.337. If you’re good at math like me, you’ll eventually figure out that today’s review is of cask 3.339. And you might also expect that I will like it a bit more than 3.338. But that’s now how whisky reviewing math works, fool! The SMWS’ tasting panel named this one “So wonderfully close, yet so wonderfully far”. This is, as far as I can make out, a reference to the whisky having conjured up visions of the Caribbean for them. I’ll be happy enough if it’s close enough to cask 3.331—which I reviewed last month, and which I liked the most so far of all these SMWS Bowmore 17, 2004s. Okay, let’s get to it. Continue reading →

Bowmore 17, 2004 (SMWS 3.338)

Posted on by


Here is the second of three reviews this week os Bowmore 17, 2004s distilled on the same day, matured in second-fill hogsheads and bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. On Monday I reviewed cask 3.337; here now is cask 3.338. The Society’s panel dubbed it “Smoky ‘spice of the angels'”; spice of the angels is a fancy name for fennel pollen. I would have preferred “Smoky fruit of the tropics” but maybe I’ll get it anyway. Let’s see.

Bowmore 17, 2004 (57.6%; SMWS 3.338; second-fill hogshead; from a bottle split)

Nose: The smoke in this one is more ashy than mineral. There’s also more fruity and custardy notes here from the get-go: peach, a bit of passionfruit, blueberry. More fruit than smoke with time. Three drops of water bring out more of the custardy/creamy sweetness. Continue reading →

Bowmore 17, 2004 (SMWS 3.337)

Posted on by


Back in the end of March I reviewed a Bowmore 17, 2004 bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. It was full of everything that is typical of the best of modern-era bourbon cask Bowmore: coastal notes, mineral peat, lots of fruit (acidic, sweet, tropical). Not surprisingly, I really liked it. I noted at the time that the SMWS had released a fair number of casks of Bowmore 17, 2004, all of which were distilled on the same day and, like the one I reviewed in March, matured in second-fill bourbon hogsheads. I also noted at the end of that review that I had samples from three more casks in that sequence. This week I’ll be posting reviews of that trio.

First up is cask 3.337 (my previous review was of cask 3.331). With unusual restraint, the Society’s tasting panel gave it the relatively sober name of “Pure Timelessness”. Let’s see if it lives up to the expectations set by 3.331. Continue reading →

Strathmill 12, 2009 (Signatory)

Posted on by


Unheralded Speyside distillery week comes to a close with only my second ever review of a malt from Strathmill, and the first to which I’ll be assigning a score. The only other one I’ve reviewed was a much older malt that I had only 20 ml of (I rarely assign scores to anything I’ve tasted less than 30 ml of). I liked that one but didn’t love the little bit I had of it. Now this 12 yo, I have 60 ml of. I’ve not had very many more Strathmills than I have previously reviewed and so I have very little sense of what to expect from this. I do know that I quite liked Monday’s Dailuaine (review here) and I liked Wednesday’s Inchgower even more (review here). Given that all three were bottled by Signatory, I’m choosing to be optimistic about this one. Well, I guess the suspense is going to be dispelled in just another minute. This entire introduction has been a waste of your time.

Wait, I do have an interesting nugget: this was put together from two first-fill hogsheads and yet the outturn was less than 300 bottles. Were these leaky hogsheads? Or did half of the spirit remain in a cask? If you have any idea or an educated guess, let me know in the comments. Continue reading →

Inchgower 11, 2007 (Signatory)

Posted on by


This week’s whisky reviews, I remind you, are all of malts from unheralded Speyside distilleries; they were also bottled by Signatory. The week began with a Dailuaine 13, 2007 that was bottled for Specs in Texas. It continues today with an 11 yo Inchgower, which I think was just a regular release in Signatory’s Unchillfiltered Collection series. There are actually at least three Inchgower 11, 2007s released in this series that were all bottled in 2019 from proximate casks. I am sorry to inform that I don’t know which of those this sample is from. At the time that I acquired it I did not think to check and at this juncture I no longer remember who the source was and so cannot ask them. But maybe it’ll be representative of at least those casks. As to whether it’ll be representative of the distillery is a more complicated question. Most of Inchgower’s production goes into Bell’s, or at least it used to. Other than the 14 yo in the Flora & Fauna series, Diageo has released very few official Inchgowers in recent years. It is therefore one of many Scottish distilleries known far better through indie releases. Such have been all the other Inchgowers I’ve reviewed—which, oddly, have also all been older whiskies: the youngest before this one was a 20 yo. Anyway, let’s see what this is like. Continue reading →

Dailuaine 13, 2007 (Signatory for Specs)

Posted on by


This will be a week of reviews from unheralded Speyside distilleries; it will also, as it happens, be a week of reviews of whiskies bottled by Signatory. Let’s begin with a 13 yo from what is probably the best-known of the trio: Dailuaine (the other two are Inchgower and Strathmill). This was bottled for Specs in Texas. There’s not too much information about it online. Specs’ listing (it is still available) gives no detail. Whiskybase indicates that it’s been put together from several hogsheads for a total outturn of 1152 bottles (no wonder it’s still available). There’s only one rating on Whiskybase with an accompanying review. The review actually makes the whisky seem quite intriguing to me but the rating is pretty low. I’m curious to see what I make of it—for what it’s worth, I’ve liked all the Dailuaines I’ve reviewed; of course, that’s no guarantee. Anyway, as this whisky is still available, my review is not actually untimely, even though it comes more than two years after it was bottled. There is no need to thank me. Continue reading →

Laphroaig 15, 1998 (Signatory for The Whisky Exchange)

Posted on by


This week of reviews of sherry cask Laphroaigs began with the 2022 release of the official 10 yo Sherry Oak. That one is a sherry finish. It continued on Wednesday with a 13 yo refill sherry cask, distilled in 1998 and bottled in 2011 by A.D. Rattray. We’ll end the week now with another refill sherry butt filled with spirit distilled in 1998. This is a 15 yo bottled by Signatory for The Whisky Exchange in London. There were quite a few of these casks filled in 1998 bottled around that time. This is from cask 700393. I’ve actually previously reviewed cask 700394. That one was another 13 yo and was released by Van Wees in 2011. My understanding is that a lot of Van Wees’ casks came from Signatory in those days and so it’s not a surprise that the numbers are adjacent. Anyway, I really liked that 13 yo—and, for that matter, I quite liked cask 700348 as well, which was also bottled by Van Wees. Will another two years of aging make this 15 yo even better than those two? If only things worked that way. Anyway, I opened this bottle earlier this week and so I know that it’s certainly not a disappointment. At 60.8% abv and almost 10 years in the bottle, however, that first pour was a bit tight. And so these notes are being taken from the third pour. Continue reading →

Laphroaig 13, 1998 (A.D. Rattray)

Posted on by


Having begun this week of reviews of sherried Laphroaigs with a recent official release (the 2022 release of the Sherry Oak), let me now get back to my annoyingly untimely ways. This is a 13 yo that was distilled in 1998 and bottled by A.D. Rattray in 2011 from a single sherry butt. I purchased it from the Whisky Exchange in August 2011, opened it in September and finished it in August 2012, just over half a year before starting this blog. In those days, however, as I’ve mentioned before, it was my standard practice to save 6 oz reference samples from bottles I liked so I could drink them again years down the road. Predictably I forgot about most of these 6 oz samples over the next decade. In recent years I’ve been making an effort to drink them up and now they’re almost all gone. This was one of the few remaining Laphroaig reference samples from that period that I still had. I assumed I’d already reviewed it but it turned out I hadn’t. It was still in very good condition and so here are some notes from the last two ounces. Continue reading →

Laphroaig 10, Sherry Oak, 2022 Release

Posted on by


Even though Laphroaig is my favourite distillery, I’m not sure that I’ve yet done a week of Laphroaig reviews. Well, let’s do one now (and if it turns out I have in fact already done one, then I was only testing you).

I’ll begin with the 2022 release of the Laphroaig 10 Sherry Oak. I’ve previously reviewed the 2021 release—just about a year ago, actually. I quite liked that one. I’d noted in that review that I was going to keep an eye out for it in Minnesota. This plan was foiled—or at least slowed down—by the fact that I barely ever enter liquor stores—or look at their websites—anymore. But in February I did see a bottle on a local shelf and quickly nabbed it. I didn’t have my reading glasses with me at the store and so couldn’t read the bottling code etched near the bottom. When I got home I confirmed it was a 2022 release (the code begins L2). Will I like it as much as the 2021? Let’s see. Continue reading →