Laphroaig 17, 1997 (Signatory for Binny’s)

Laphroaig 17, 1997, Signatory for Binny's
Monday’s Laphroaig 18, 1997, bottled by Berry Brothers and Rudd for The Whisky Exchange was a real beauty with unexpected fruit and a lot of it. Will lightning strike a second time with this 17 yo also distilled in 1997 and matured in a bourbon cask? Am I going to have to start hunting down Laphroaigs from the late 1990s bottled in the high teens?

This was bottled by Signatory for Binny’s in Chicago. Binny’s have an excellent track record with their Laphroaig selections and so even it isn’t as fruity as the TWE/Berry Bros. & Rudd I expect it will be very good anyway. Let’s see. I should note that the regular price is in the new normal range for Laphroaig (i.e $169.99 for a 17 yo)—but it’s currently discounted down into the almost plausible range ($129.99).   Continue reading

Highland Park 12, Cask 2820 (for Twin Liquors)

Highland Park 12 for Twin Liquors
It has been more than six months since I’ve reviewed a Highland Park. Considering it was once one of my very favourite distilleries that seems like a long gap. I say “was once” not “is” because it’s been hard to get excited about Highland Park of late. They seem to have gone irrevocably down the path of premiumization at one end of their range and NAS’ization at the other, and silly names and stories and gimmicks like Dark Origins and Ice taking the place of the no-nonsense quality that was once their calling card. Of their old range the 15 yo has been phased out, the 18 yo‘s price has long gone out of the “good value” range and the 25 yo and 30 yo are now only for the very wealthy. The 12 yo remains their one saving grace, though I haven’t had a recent bottling: who knows if, with all the NAS stuff they’re putting out, enough quality casks remain for what was once the cornerstone of their range.  Continue reading

Glen Garioch 16, 1998 (for Binny’s)

Glen Garioch 16, 1998, for Binny's
I haven’t had too much luck with recent Glen Garioch. Then again, I’ve not had very much of what’s been officially released. I didn’t like either the NAS Founder’s Reserve or the 12 yo enough to want to try their other vintage releases. This is a single cask selected by Binny’s though and a Binny’s pick is usually a safe pick. Well, that didn’t prove to be true for me with Monday’s Clynelish. Let’s see how this one goes.

Glen Garioch 16, 1998 (55.1%; American oak cask 587; from a bottle split)

Nose: Slightly gingery, slightly minerally, slightly peppery to start along with some biscuity/malty notes. Fruit comes up from below that (apple), along with some vanilla. Gets sweeter and creamier as it goes but there’s a minerally sourness (aspirin) behind it. With more time there’s some lime as well. More lime with water and slightly chalky now too.   Continue reading

Clynelish 7, 2008 (Signatory for Binny’s)

Clynelish 7, 2008; Signatory for Binny's
This Clynelish was acquired as part of the same set of bottle splits as last Friday’s Ardmore. If you read that review you’ll find many similar notes mentioned in this one but, as you’ll see, a much lower score at the end. This is a case where you have two whiskies at different ends of the same style continuum: a sort of old-school Highlands profile. The Ardmore is peatier, of course, but there are other similarities. The problem here is that some of the notes that are either more muted in that Ardmore, or which dissipate with time, are stronger here and linger; and this one doesn’t have the compensations of the Ardmore. It’s also quite far away from what most people have come to expect from Clynelish in terms of “distillery character“. This is down partly, I think, to the young age. Some of these off-notes might well have dissipated with more time (and less wood contact in a slightly larger hogshead) and other characteristics might have emerged.  Continue reading

Ardmore 16, 1998 (Gordon & MacPhail for Binny’s)

Ardmore 16, 1998. Gordon & MacPhail for Binny's
Let there be rejoicing in the land: Binny’s is shipping again! Not to every state but, fortunately for me, the list includes a neighbouring state with a border town about an hour away in which a friend works. Accordingly, I organized a group split of eight of their current handpicked single malt casks. (You can see which the others are in this month’s “Coming Soon…” post.) Here first is this Ardmore which is one of the casks I was most interested in. The reason for this is that there isn’t a whole lot of Ardmore about in the US—minimal official releases and very few indies—and even fewer are from single sherry casks. As such this was an unusual proposition, hard to resist (and the risk underwritten by the fact that Binny’s generally picks very good casks). Let’s see if this story of hope has a good ending.

Continue reading

Glen Elgin 24, 1990 (Signatory for K&L)

Glen Elgin 24, 1990 (Signatory for K&L)
Here is the fourth of my four timely reviews of recent Signatory exclusives for K&L. Well, not entirely timely I guess: while the Imperial, Blair Athol and this Glen Elgin are still available, the Benrinnes is sold out.

Glen Elgin is another of the many distilleries of the Speyside with whose malt I don’t have a terrible lot of experience—in fact, this is the first I’ve reviewed on the blog. There’s not much available from it officially and in the US there’s not a whole lot available of it from the indies either. As such, this is another that I cannot really place in the context of the distillery’s usual profile. But I am curious to see if this turns out to be another of K&L’s selections of 20+ yo whisky that doesn’t actually display very many of the characteristics people associate with older whisky. Let’s see.  Continue reading

Blair Athol 26, 1988 (Signatory for K&L)

Blair Athol 26, 1988 (Signatory for K&L)
Here is the third, and penultimate, in my mini-run of reviews of recent Signatory exclusives for K&L. Will this hold any surprises as Monday’s Benrinnes did? I expect not as this is not my first sherried Blair Athol of this general age from this period. I’ve previously reviewed a 25 yo and a 26 yo, both from 1988, both from sherry casks and both bottled by van Wees. My understanding is that Signatory is also the source of van Wees’ casks; if that’s true then that bodes well for this one: I liked both the aforementioned (though one more than the other) despite their being at 46%; this one is at cask strength.

The strength is not the only difference though: this one is much more expensive than those van Wees bottlings were and that discrepancy is hard to ascribe only to the different strengths as the price multiplier is almost 2x. Whether Signatory or K&L are the source of the markup, I’m not sure but it made me very reluctant to pay for a full bottle considering how much less I had paid for the others (one bought for myself and one bought for friends). K&L’s marketing spiel would have it that the last Signatory Blair Athol 25, 1988 sent customers into a frenzy, with people calling to ask for it well after it sold out; that doesn’t seem to have translated yet into big demand for this one as, at time of writing, a lot of it is still available. Anyway: let’s see what this is like.  Continue reading

Benrinnes 20, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)

Benrinnes 20, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)
This is the second in my mini-run of reviews of recent Signatory exclusives for K&L. As with the Imperial 19, 1995, this was part of a bottle split with a bunch of other whisky geeks all interested in finding out if we wanted full bottles. In the case of the Imperial my own answer was “no”. Let’s see how things go with this Benrinnes. It’s always my hope to discover quality casks from the lower tier Scottish distilleries, as that is increasingly the only zone where good deals can be had.

I’ve reviewed even fewer Benrinnes on the blog than I have Imperials, and I’ve not tasted very many more either. And all of the ones that I have tasted have come across as fairly regulation fruity bourbon cask Speysiders (ex-bourbon Benriness seems to be the majority of what’s available in the US—I note this because the distillery is most known for its sherry matured spirit). As such I was not prepared for what I found in this Benrinnes: a lot of peat.

Continue reading

Imperial 19, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)

Imperial 19, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)
This inaugurates a brief run of reviews of a number of K&L’s recent barrel selections from Signatory. These are all at cask strength—though in the cost-saving UCF bottles—and I believe they may all still be available (these notes are being taken long before this review will be posted and I am probably not going to remember to go back and check: you’re welcome!). I acquired these as bottle splits for the purpose of deciding if I wanted full bottles—my findings may be of interest to you as well.

There are some who make a case for Imperial (another closed distillery) being a bit of a hidden gem but I am yet to have any of its malt that I have found to be particularly remarkable—this includes another Signatory selection for K&L, a 17 yo that I had at 84 points. I am also yet to have very much of its malt so it’s entirely possible that I have not been lucky. Will this cask turn that around? Let’s see.  Continue reading

Bowmore 12, 2001 (Signatory for K&L)

Bowmore 12, 2001, Signatory for K&L
Okay, let’s make it five whisky reviews in a row this week. This Bowmore was one of K&L’s 2014 selections (I think—I purchased it this summer at any rate). I opened it for one of my whisky group’s tastings at the end of the summer and then took it back to our November tasting. I liked it better the second time than I did the first—our group is now so large that I was one of only two people who were at both tastings and I forgot to ask the other person if his views had likewise shifted. I found it a bit too rough/sulphurous on the first go but those notes seemed to have receded with a couple of months of air in the bottle. It’s now been a few weeks since that second tasting and the bottle is almost empty, and so it should be mellower still.

(Michael K. reviewed this in the summer, by the way—he liked it more and didn’t pick up the rough notes I remark.)   Continue reading

Balmenach 25, 1988 (Signatory)

Balmenach 25, 1988, Signatory for Binny's
This is the last of the four Signatory bottles I purchased at Binny’s in September. I’ve previously reviewed the Glen Keith and Tamdhu that are Stoller’s Wines exclusives and the Auchroisk that, like this one, is a Binny’s exclusive. All four are still available.

I don’t have a whole lot of experience with Balmenach. I’ve had a few (very few) that were distilled in the 1970s (as, for example, the only other I’ve reviewed), and a couple from more recent decades. As such I don’t have the best handle on the distillery’s usual profile. I would say that what I’ve had falls firmly in the fruitier end of the fruity-grassy spectrum of bourbon cask Speysides. Having said that, Serge puts “sherry” as the first keyword for the distillery profile; but I haven’t seen much sherry cask Balmenach about in recent years. It is true that most of Serge’s Balmenach reviews seem to be of much older distillate so I suppose it may be there’s been some change in maturation regime.  Continue reading

Laphroaig 13, 1997 (Duncan Taylor)

Laphroaig 13, 1997, Duncan Taylor for Binny's
Here is the second of three Laphroaig reviews this week. Like the first (this 17 yo from the Scotch Malt Whisky Society of America), this was distilled in 1997 and matured in a bourbon cask. It’s a bit younger though, having been bottled at 13 years of age by Duncan Taylor for Binny’s of Chicago back in 2011. I remember that this cask took a long time to arrive at Binny’s and that I was rather obsessed with tracking its arrival—I think it was first mentioned in their Whisky Hotline in early 2011 but it finally showed up in 2012. This is partly because back then is when I was the height of my whisky derangement (having recently arrived at that state), and partly because Binny’s had released a few rather excellent (and well-priced) bourbon cask Laphroaigs and the odds seemed good that this would be another one. Having waited for it for more than a year I then didn’t get around to opening it for more than another three years. I guess I wanted to stay in a state of permanent anticipation. Yes, this is fascinating biography. Continue reading

Benriach 19, 1994 (for K&L)

Benriach 19, 1994, K&L
Here is the second of two reviews of K&L exclusives. I did not enjoy last week’s Faultline Blended Scotch Whisky at all. Will this Benriach, which is much older, be better? It won’t take much. This is from a bourbon barrel and made from peated malt (Benriach is one of the few Speyside distilleries that regularly issues peated whisky—see also my reviews of their Curiositas, Septendecim, Arumaticus Fumosus and Solstice). K&L originally attempted to sell it for $150 but after a while were forced to lower the price to $109, at which point it eventually sold out. Good to see sanity prevailing every once in a while among customers in our overheated market.

As with the Faultline blend, this is review is being posted simultaneously with that of Michael K. and Jordan D. I’ll have the links once everything’s live. I wonder if we’ll have more agreeement this time. Continue reading

Faultline Blended Scotch Whisky

Faultline Blended Scotch, K&L
K&L released this blend under their Faultline label earlier this year (or was it late last year)? I wasn’t very interested in it at first but when Michael K. suggested a bottle split I decided to give it a go. It’s cheap to begin with and a quarter of the bottle was really cheap. He then suggested we review it simultaneously and roped Jordan D. of Chemistry of the Cocktail in as well. And so here I am. If all goes according to plan Michael and Jordan’s reviews should go up at the same time, and I’ll link to them when I’m awake in the morning. (Here and here.)

I know nothing about this whisky or of what David D. said about it, but I’m sure it’s the very best blended whisky anyone has ever made. I think I remember Sku liking it a lot, so I guess it has a decent ceiling; at worst, the rest’ll get used up in my vattings. Continue reading

Auchroisk 24, 1990 (Signatory for Binny’s)

Auchroisk 24, 1990, Signatory for Binny's
I passed through Chicago recently and after moaning on Twitter that there was nothing very inspiring on Binny’s website, I found myself inevitably standing in the whisky section of one of their outlets anyway (the branch on W. Grand Ave.). Binny’s has sadly stopped shipping liquor and beer completely. This is a great contemporary American tragedy (and stems from the ancient and ongoing farce of American liquor laws and hypocritical public morality). If Binny’s had not been shipping when I began to take a serious interest in malts I would probably not have developed a serious interest in malts and I would not have a blog now and then where would the world be? Anyway, I went to Binny’s—how can you go to Chicago and not go to Binny’s? And I was glad to see that the store I was in had a decent selection of their recent “handpicked” single malt casks. Brett Pontoni and team don’t make a lot of noise about their selections—no breathless, hyperbolic emails and dubious narratives—but they pick good whisky. And when it comes to ex-bourbon cask selections from less-heralded distilleries there is no American store I trust more. I walked away with bottles from three of them, aged 19-25 (plus a young, sherried Tamdhu). First up, this Auchroisk. Continue reading

Caol Ila 15, 2000 (Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen)

Caol Ila 15, 2000, Malts of Scotland
I am not generally a fan of whiskies finished in red wine casks. A lot of this is Glenmorangie and Murray McDavid/Bruichladdich’s fault, but when I see that a whisky has been finished in a red wine cask I assume the worst. That said, peated malts seem to survive such encounters the best and this here is a Caol Ila. Like Friday’s Ardbeg, this was bottled by Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen in their “Dunes An Oir” series (Gaelic for “dunes of gold”, I believe) and it was finished in a Banyuls cask. Banyuls is a sweet, fortified wine, and so, in theory, at least, it may end up closer to a sherry or madeira finish than to a regular red wine finish. I think this was matured for 15 years in a bourbon cask and probably only saw a very brief “finish” in the wine cask—I’m guess the original cask was bourbon both from the outturn and on the basis that it’s unlikely anyone would do a wine finish on top of sherry maturation. Anyway, this is a rusty red in the glass—let’s see what it’s like on the nose and palate. Continue reading

Ardbeg 17, 1998 (Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen)

Ardbeg 17, 1998, Malts of Scotland
Since I started the week with Ardbeg. I might as well end it with Ardbeg too. This is from a sherry cask and was also bottled by Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen’s Dunes An Oir series. Given how rare indie Ardbegs of any kind are, leave alone from sherry casks, and given how manic the market for Ardbeg usually is, you might expect this to have to sold out double-quick. But as of my writing this is still available. Have the distillery’s own annual shenanigans finally begun to puncture some of its mystique? Probably not, but one can hope. Still, you’d think whisky geeks tired of NAS Ardbeg with tall tales and funny names attached might be attracted anyway to a 17 yo at cask strength from a bespoke bottler. No, I’m not trying to give you the hard sell on behalf of the retailer; just trying to wrap my head around the vagaries of the whisky market.

Anyway, let’s see what this is like. Continue reading