It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed an old Scotch blend, by which I mean, a blend released a long time ago. The last one I reviewed was a White Horse released in the 1950s. Today I have for you another White Horse, albeit one released in the 1970s. Unlike the 1950s release, this review is not of a pour from my own bottle but of a sample I’ve had sitting in my stash for a few years now. I have an unexpected feeling of nostalgia about this whisky, however. This because in the late 1970s, when my family lived in Iraq, White Horse was one of a few Scotch whiskies that my father had in his bar. A bottle of White Horse or Black and White from this era was probably my first encounter with the aroma of Scotch whisky—and, of course, we repurposed the empty bottles to store drinking water in the fridge! I certainly didn’t taste any of it then but it feels a bit like a time machine trip to be drinking it now. Let’s hope the actual whisky doesn’t now disappoint! On that note, let’s get right to it. Continue reading
Category Archives: Distillery
Benriach 26, 1987 (Exclusive Casks)
Last week’s booze review was of a sample sent to me a long time ago by Michael K. of Diving with Pearls. That was of a bourbon released in the 1980s. Here now is a review of another sample sent to me a long time ago by Michael. This one is a single malt whisky distilled in the 1980s. This is a 26 yo Benriach, distilled in 1987 and bottled in 2014 or so by Exclusive Malts/The Creative Whisky Co.. I apologize if I am killing them off prematurely but I don’t think they’re still a going concern. Back in the day they were a middle of the road indie bottler who sought to project a more premium feel via branding and design. I don’t think they ever quite pulled that off very successfully but they did bottle some decent whiskies. And the proprietor, David Stirk, was an energetic participant in whisky forums and so forth. I was reminded of this when I went to Michael’s own review of this whisky in search of cask info. I realized then both that there is no specific cask info for this release and also that I had participated in a conversation in the comments on that review alongside one David Stirk and some likely sock puppets. I’ll leave it to you to go check those shenanigans out for yourself if you’re so interested. For now let’s get to this whisky. Continue reading
Old Taylor 6, 1985 Release
Here is something I have not reviewed in a while: a bourbon. My last bourbon review was posted all the way back in November 2022. That was a single barrel of 1792 bottled for Total Wine. Today I have for you something older, something in the genre that bourbon people refer to as “dusties”: bottles of older bourbon that sat around in stores for decades, gathering dust. This particular dusty is the 1985 release of Old Taylor. Rather than pretending that I know very much about the brand I am going to send you to the source of my sample to find out more about what may be in this bourbon. That source is Michael K. of the excellent Diving for Pearls blog (on the short list of the very best full-time whisky blogs still on the go). He has a head-to-head-to-head review of Old Taylor releases from 1985, 1987 and 1996 that goes into some detail into the history of the brand and the likely provenance of this whiskey and if you’re interested you should check it out. All I can tell you is what I think of it. Speaking of which… Continue reading
Glenallachie 10 CS, Batch 5
You may have noticed that I failed to post the promised Seoul restaurant report this past weekend (I’d actually said I might post two) and that I also failed to post my usual Monday booze review yesterday. What can I say, it was a hectic week, capped by travel on Sunday—we are currently in Southern California—and I just did not have time to either resize photos for a restaurant report or take tasting notes for a whisky review. Accordingly, this week’s booze review is being posted on a Tuesday and the usual Tuesday Twin Cities restaurant report will be posted tomorrow. And even though my track record with actually following through is so poor at this point, I am going to once again say that I will try to post one or maybe even two food reports from our time in Korea by the end of the week—I have a total of five of those left to do, I think. I also still have two reports yet to come from my trip to New Jersey/New York in mid-May; and by the time Thursday rolls around I will have already begun to add to the waiting list with meals from this current Southern California sojourn. I will at least refrain from making promises of reports to come from those fronts this week. Continue reading
Longmorn 30 (Gordon & MacPhail)
After last week’s rum—a Foursquare 12 bottled for Total Wine—let’s get back to whisky and back to opening long-held bottles in my stash. This week’s newly opened bottle is an older Longmorn bottled by Gordon & MacPhail. As you may know/remember, in 2011, G&M bottled a quintet of old Longmorns for van Wees. I’ve reviewed all of them (the 1964, the 1966, the 1968, the 1969 and the1972). Those were all very good, most were excellent, one was probably the best whisky I’ve ever had. In addition to being vintage releases, those were also all single sherry casks and all bottled at cask strength. Today’s Longmorn is also sherry-matured but a little younger than all of those, being “only” 30 years old. More importantly, it’s not a vintage release or a single cask or at a very high strength. Indeed, it was bottled at the bare minimum legal strength of 40% abv and was doubtless a vatting of several casks. It was released sometime in the late 2000s, maybe in 2009. I have a feeling that G&M had a lot of outstanding casks of 1970s Longmorn in their warehouse and that while some made it out as single casks, many others may have been vatted and diluted—or perhaps vatted with casks that had slipped below 40% to rescue them for bottling—and released with very little fanfare. I certainly purchased it with very little fanfare in 2013 (for all of $136 from Binny’s). It’s hard to imagine either a 40% vatted release of a 30 yo sherry cask malt today or one that would not cost several times as much. Anyway, I opened this bottle a couple of days ago. The first pour felt a little underpowered at first but then it came along really nicely. Let’s see what it’s like now. Continue reading
Ben Nevis 18, 1995 (The Whisky Agency)
Next up in my “Open ’em and drink ’em” campaign is an 18-year old Ben Nevis. This was distilled in 1995 and matured in a refill bourbon hogshead till 2013, when it was bottled by the boutique German independent bottler, The Whisky Agency. As I haven’t followed the whisky world closely in some years now, I had to look at Whiskybase to confirm that The Whisky Agency are still around—though they don’t seem to be releasing quite as much as they once did (if this is an incorrect impression, please write in below to correct me). I remember when, along with fellow German concern, Malts of Scotland, The Whisky Agency were one of the most reliable, most prolific and, it must be said, one of the more expensive (and yet sought after) bottlers. Of course, what seemed like high prices 10-15 years ago would seem like utter bargains in this insane market. My spreadsheet tells me I paid $92 for this 18 yo in 2015. That’s another way the market was different, of course: bottles from this single hogshead from a name bottler hung around for almost two years. Anyway, after sitting on the bottle for almost 10 years, I opened it a week ago. I enjoyed the first few pours very much and now it’s time for some notes. Continue reading
Lagavulin 11, Offerman Edition, Rum Finish
This whisky is obviously not from the stash of long-accumulated bottles that I am supposed to be opening, drinking and reviewing these days on the blog. It’s just that I wasn’t able to keep myself from picking up a bottle when I saw it at our local Costco last week. I’ve quite enjoyed the preceding Offerman Editions of Lagavulin 11 and so it seemed to be a good bet. As you may recall, the very first Offerman Edition—which was released in 2019, I think—did not have any cask complications associated with it. The second edition—which came out in 2021, I think—received a Guinness cask finish. Meanwhile, the third edition featured maturation in casks that had been shaved down and re-charred. I didn’t like the third one quite as much as the first two but all have been interesting variations on the Lagavulin profile and not gratuitous celebrity cash-ins. The fourth edition—only just released in the US—sees the whisky get a rum finish for eight months. Let’s see how it compares to the others. Continue reading
Bowmore 15, 1992 (Douglas Laing)
No, I haven’t already rolled back my commitment to slow the pace of my whisky reviewing and to restrict it only to bottles that have lain unopened for years in my stash. It’s only that I still have a few samples left over from before I left for Bombay in early January and I may as well get through all of them as well. And so here’s a Bowmore 15. This was distilled in 1992 and bottled in 2007 from a refill hogshead by Douglas Laing in their Old Malt Cask series. Back when this came out a lot of whisky geeks were still very wary about Bowmores distilled in the early 1990s. This was on account of the proximity to the long problematic preceding decade at the distillery. As I’ve noted before on the blog, my random sampling suggests that by the early 1990s most of those problems had been worked out. Indeed, I’ve had quite a few rather nice indie Bowmores distilled in the early 1990s. That’s not to say, of course, that there aren’t casks from that period that still bore/bear traces of the major problems of the distillate in the 1980s, particularly a strong soapy note. Let’s hope this cask is not one of those. When teenaged bourbon cask Bowmore is good it’s very good indeed, with that unique mix of smoke, fruit, florals and coastal notes. Let’s see where this one falls on the spectrum. Continue reading
Highland Park 25, 1988 (Cadenhead)
At the start of April I noted that I am cutting down the the number of whiskies I review on the blog so that I can focus on finally drinking down all/most of the whisky I acquired over the last decade and a half. It’s going to be a slow campaign, with no more than four bottles projected to be opened and steadily consumed (with help from friends) each month. The campaign began two weeks ago with a Littlemill 23, 1989 from Archives; it continued last Monday with a Talisker 10 released in the 1990s. Here now to close out the month is a Highland Park 25 that was distilled in 1988 and bottled in 2013 by Cadenhead. It’s not a single cask but a batch release. Bottles went to both the European and US markets. Neither label notes a year of distillation or cask information but this is rather obviously sherry cask whisky in colour, aroma and flavour. Whiskybase says “sherry butts” and lists 1086 bottles. So probably a pair of butts—assuming, that is, that no Glendronach-style shenanigans were involved, in which case this might be from a clutch of 24 year old ex-bourbon casks that were dumped into “rejuvenated” sherry butts for an additional year before bottling. At any rate, I opened my bottle a few days ago and waited for it to settle down a bit before taking my initial notes. Here they are. Continue reading
Talisker 10, “Map Label”, 90s Bottling
As you may recall from my post to start this month, for the foreseeable future I am going to be posting fewer booze reviews on the blog. This is due to a desire to drink down the many bottles in my stash accumulated over some 15 years. The plan is to open a bottle a week and gradually drink it down—with the occasional help of friends. The first bottle I opened as part of this campaign was the Littlemill 23, 1990 from Archives that I reviewed last week. That was a fruity bourbon cask. As I currently already have a few open bottles of heavily peated whiskies and a couple of sherried whiskies, I decided to next open a mildly peated whisky. Accordingly, bottle 2, which was opened last week is a Talisker 10. Not a recent one though. This is the so-called “map label” which was released in the 1990s (as far as I know). Perhaps there’s a bottle code somewhere on the bottle that would narrow the specific year down but I’m not terribly enthused about looking for it. If anyone knows when the map label was launched and discontinued, please chime in below in the comments. What I can tell you is that I have been enjoying this bottle very much and am already beginning to feel melancholy about its inevitable demise in a few weeks. Here now, from the top quarter of the bottle, are my notes. Continue reading
Littlemill 23, 1990 (Archives)
This week’s review is of a Littlemill. As I’ve noted before, Littlemill didn’t have the best reputation when it was a going concern. Indeed, when I first started getting interested in malt whisky as something other than an occasional indulgence, the official 12 yo—pretty much all that was easily available then—was one you learned to stay away from (though I didn’t think it was that bad when I finally tried it). As with so many other distilleries though, the distillery’s reputation improved after it closed, when older single casks began to become available from independent bottlers. In the early-mid 2010s, in particular, a number of 20+ yo casks filled in the late 1980s to the early 1990s showed up on the market that put the distillate in a very different, very fruity light. A number of these casks were bottled by Whiskybase under their Archives label. This bourbon cask 23 yo, distilled in 1990 was one of the first (though not, I think, the very first—there was one in the inaugural Archives release as well). As with so many bottles I purchased in those years, I’ve had it sitting on my shelves for a long time now. I’m glad to finally open it and am looking forward to drinking it down over the next few weeks. Continue reading
Indri, Trini — The Three Wood
Hey look, it’s a whisky review. As I said on April 1, I’m going to be posting far fewer whisky (and other booze) reviews going forward. The goal is to focus on drinking down my own collection of bottles and not on reviewing as many whiskies as I can. These two goals are not compatible, in case you’re wondering. Anyway, my review today is not of a whisky that was in my collection but of one I drank quite a bit of in my recent travels. I first purchased a bottle of this Indri after arrival in Bombay. I liked it so much as I drank it down over those five weeks that I purchased another bottle from duty free that I drank down over five weeks in Seoul. And then I purchased a third bottle that I drank part of in Delhi and left behind in my father’s bar. Yes, I thought it was a very good whisky, especially for the price. I was shocked, however, to learn in Delhi of the company’s controversial ownership. Frankly, it’s put me off the whisky more than a little. You may be wondering what I’m on about. Here’s the story. Continue reading
Kilchoman 10, 2006, for Clauso & Friends
One more review to close out the week in Islay whiskies and the month in whisky reviews. Like Monday’s Bowmore and Wednesday’s Ardbeg, this Kilchoman is an official release. It is not, however, one that was widely available: it was a single cask bottled for a private group, one of several casks from 2006 and 2007 that were privately bottled. The cask was a bourbon barrel. Bourbon barrels always make me worry about the possibility of too much vanilla etc. in the whisky, but, on the other hand, I do also really like bourbon cask Kilchoman; and so I’m also quite looking forward to this one. Let’s see where it falls.
Kilchoman 10, 2006 (57.9%; for Clauso & Friends; bourbon barrel 112/2006; from a bottle split)
Nose: A big wave of peat off the top, and it’s a mix of phenolic notes with charred woodsmoke and toasted cereals. On the second sniff there’s ink and more coastal notes below that (kelp, brine). Continues in this vein with some added sweetness (a touch of creme brulee). A few drops of water pull out quite a bit of citronella and meld it with the medicinal notes and the creme brulee. Continue reading
Ardbeg 12, 1999, “Galileo”
I said on Monday that I’d be closing out the month with a week of reviews of single malt whiskies. I forgot to say that they’d all be Islay whiskies. On Monday I reviewed a relatively recently released Bowmore: the second release of the Bowmore Vault Edition. Today, I have a review of an Ardbeg released almost 12 years ago: the Ardbeg Galileo. This was Ardbeg’s special release for 2012, back when Ardbeg’s Feis Ile releases had just begun to take up residence in the realm of the ludicrous. The silly story attached to the Galileo was that a small amount of the whisky that went into it was sent into space at the end of 2011, purportedly to see how well it would mature in zero gravity conditions. Because that naturally was and remains a very relevant question for any contemporary distillery: as you know, we are on the verge of running out of gravity on Earth. Well, at least we can be secure in the knowledge that a corner of Islay will be prepared. It was also a controversial release among a sector of whisky geeks then on account of the ex-marsala cask content. This was clearly also well before proliferating cask folly made marsala cask maturation seem positively old-fashioned. Continue reading
Bowmore Vault Edition, Second Release
Alright, let’s close the month out with a week of single malt whiskies. And as the blog’s 11th anniversary was yesterday, let’s start with a Bowmore. [My first-ever review was of the lowly Bowmore Legend, and so I’ve marked every anniversary with a Bowmore review.] This is the second release of Bowmore’s Vault Edition and hit the market back in 2019. The Vault series was apparently intended to showcase different aspects of Bowmore’s character—I’m not sure if it’s still on the go—and the second edition emphasized peat smoke. It was matured in bourbon and then sherry casks. No word on age but the price on release was £70. This was down from the first edition’s original asking price of £100, which I guess might mean that even in the inflated market of recent years, drinkers are not uncritically buying up every official release from a name distillery no matter what ludicrous price is being asked for them. That said, I’ve no idea what the prices asked for later releases were. Let’s see if I like this one more than the Legend all those years ago. Continue reading
Royal Brackla 22, 1994 (G&M for Binny’s)
Let’s close out highlands distilleries week with another pick for Binny’s in Chicago. Unlike Wednesday’s Teaninich, this one was bottled by Gordon & MacPhail and while it’s also from a hogshead, it’s from a refill sherry hogshead. The distillery is another that I’ve not reviewed very many malts from: Brackla, or as they style themselves, Royal Brackla. After this review I will have reviewed only two more Bracklas than I have malts distilled by Ardnarmurchan (see Monday’s review). Well, I hope this one—which is older than both the two previous combined—will be quite a lot better than either: this has not been a great week so far on the blog for highland malts. The portents are good. The last Brackla I reviewed was also a Gordon & MacPhail pick for Binny’s and I liked it a lot—I reviewed that one four and a half years ago. And I also quite liked the first one I reviewed—that was almost 11 years ago, only a few weeks after I started this blog. Where does the time go? Anyway, let’s see what this one is like. Continue reading
Teaninich 10, 2007 (Signatory for Binny’s)
This week of reviews of malts from highlands distilleries began on Monday with a young release from a new distillery I had never tried before: Ardnamurchan. It continues today with a malt from a much older distillery: Teaninich. I’ve not reviewed so very many malts from Teaninich either—there is not a massive amount of it about—but I’m always happy to have encounter one of them in my glass. This one is another single cask bottled by Signatory for Binny’s in Chicago. It’s a hogshead, which is good news as that austere northern highlands style that Teaninich is part of shines best from bourbon casks. Anyway, let’s see if it’s shining here.
Teaninich 10, 2007 (58.5%; Signatory for Binny’s; hogshead 702710; from a bottle split)
Nose: A sweet arrival with cereals and apple; some wet wool in there too. On the second sniff there’s some honey and some simple syrup; behind it there’s some hot tarmac and some wet stones. With time the simple syrup trumps the fruit. Water tames the simple syrup a bit and brings out some cream. Continue reading