Category Archives: Whisky by Bottler

Caol Ila 7, 2015 (Single Cask Nation)

Posted on by


Last week’s series of reviews of wine-bothered, peaty whiskies ended with a 16 yo Caol Ila with a moscatel finish. Let’s make this week all about Caol Ila, beginning with a much younger release put together from refill bourbon barrels—no wine in sight.

Caol Ila 7, 2015 (57.1%; Single Cask Nation; refill bourbon barrels; from a bottle split)

Nose: Bright carbolic peat mixed with lemon and brine. Sweeter on the second sniff with cereals and a bit of vanilla. The brine expands with each sniff and there’s a mild “green” vegetal note as well—green bell pepper. After a while there’s a nice balance of carbolic peat, acid and sweeter notes. With a few drops of water it’s sweeter still and the peat moves from carbolic to a little more phenolic/inky. More salt too now. Continue reading →

Caol Ila 16, 2006 (Infrequent Flyers)

Posted on by


This week of reviews of wine-bothered peated whiskies got off to a rather rocky start on Monday with a 10 yo Ballechin from a marsala cask. Things looked up significantly with Wednesday’s Kilchoman for Spec’s which had received a madeira cask finish. That one was three years younger but balanced the peat and the sweeter wine notes well. Here to close out the week is a Caol Ila that is almost as old as the other two put together. This is also a finish, this time in moscatel casks. If I recall correctly, the Caol Ila Distillers Edition—is that still a regular thing?—is also a moscatel finish; but I’m not sure what connection that might have to a 16 yo moscatel finished whisky released by an indie bottler: perhaps something left over from a Feis Ile or Distillery Exclusive experiment? If you have any ideas, please write in below. The bottler in question is the Alistair Walker Whisky Company, who put out all their releases under the Infrequent Flyers label. While the company is relatively new, Alistair Walker has been around in the whisky world for a while. He’s the son of Billy Walker, ex of Benriach/Glendronach, now at Glenallachie. Indeed, he was the source of the information on Glendronach’s “single cask” practices that led to this post, early in the blog’s career. Of course, none of that has anything to do with this whisky but I got a bit of a kick out of it when I found out. Continue reading →

Bunnahabhain 13, 2009 (Sansibar for Finest Whisky, Berlin)

Posted on by


This week of reviews of sherried Bunnahabhains began with the distillery’s release for Feis Ile 2022. I did not care for that one. That was followed by the 2021 release of the Bunnahabhain 12 CS. Now, that one I really liked. This last review is of a 13 yo single sherry butt that was bottled by Sansibar for Finest Whisky in Berlin (a whisky store, I think). Will it keep the week’s trajectory going even higher? Let’s see.

Bunnahabhain 13, 2009 (54.4%; Sansibar for Finest Whisky, Berlin; sherry butt; from a bottle split)

Nose: Not quite as rich as the  12 yo CS but in the general ballpark. Less orange peel here; instead a fair bit of pencil lead. The savoury notes pop out on the second sniff. The fruit begins to expand as it sits: some dried orange peel, yes, but also some cherry; a bit of toffee and salt as well. With a few drops of water some of the oak emerges here as well (dusty rather than spicy) but there’s more toffee as well. Continue reading →

Blair Athol 12, 2009 (Cadenhead)

Posted on by


Let’s bring this week of reviews of bourbon hogsheads bottled by Cadenhead to a close. The week started with a Glenburgie and continued with a Glentauchers. Both were bright, summery malts. For the last review, I have a non-Glen and non-Speyside distillery: Blair Athol. This is a 12 yo distilled in 2009. The last Blair Athol I reviewed was also a 12 yo distilled in 2009, and was at a very similar strength as this one—but that was a sherry butt. I liked that one but it stopped well short of excellence. Let’s see where this less adorned bourbon  cask falls.

Blair Athol 12, 2009 (59.8%; Cadenhead; bourbon hogshead; from a bottle split)

Nose: Fizzy lemon; that nutty note I often get in Blair Athol; baked apples; malt; a bit of damp oak. Continues in this vein for a while. With more time and air the acid backs off a little and lets more of the musky notes through—a floral note too now, or is that peach? With a few drops of water the acid recedes further; the nutty note and the damp oak are gone too. Continue reading →

Glentauchers 15, 1998 (Cadenhead)

Posted on by


Tuesday is usually Twin Cities restaurant review day on the blog, but this week’s review—of a recent dinner at Petite Leon—will be posted not today, but tomorrow. It’s the end of the term and I’ve been too busy catching up with everything I need to get done to have time to resize the photographs from the meal. That review will be posted tomorrow, after I finish all my current grading today (and then a fresh wave of papers will come in over the weekend). In the meantime, you can go read my previous review of dinner at Petite Leon, or just read the second in this week’s reviews of bourbon casks bottled by Cadenhead.

Monday’s whisky was from Glenburgie. Today’s whisky is also from a Speyside distillery, and one that is even less vaunted than Glenburgie: Glentauchers. I really liked the last Glentauchers I reviewed, but that was almost twice the age of this one, and from a sherry cask. All the other Glentauchers I’ve reviewed have been from bourbon casks—and while none reached the heights of that 27 yo, none disappointed. And so I am hopeful that will at least be good. Let’s see. Continue reading →

Glenburgie 14, 2004 (Cadenhead)

Posted on by


There’s been a fair bit of peat and sherry in my whisky reviews this month. And so it’s only fitting that I close out the month, and start the next, with a complete lack of peat and sherry. This week’s reviews will all be of bourbon cask whiskies. All were bottled by Cadenhead, all from bourbon hogsheads. First up, a 14 yo Glenburgie.

Glenburgie 14, 2004 (53.6%; Cadenhead; bourbon hogshead; from a bottle split)

Nose: Bright fruity notes off the top (lemon, apple, pear) with some toasted oak and some icing sugar. On the second sniff the fruit is already muskier and there’s some plum and nectarine in there too. Continues in this general vein with the oak getting a little pricklier with time. With more time there’s some cereals as well. With a few drops of water there’s quite a bit of malt and some pastry crust (with baked apples behind). Continue reading →

Laphroaig 9, 2013 (Single Malts of Scotland)

Posted on by


The Highland Park 28, 1980 that I ended last week’s series of reviews of late 2000s Mackillop’s Choice releases was quite peaty but not phenolic. This week will be pretty peaty and phenolic. All the whiskies this week will be peated Islay releases. And what’s more they’ll be from the three distilleries from Islay’s south shore: Laphroaig, Lagavulin and Ardbeg. I’ll take them in that order, which is also the order in which you’d encounter the distilleries if you set out from Port Ellen on the A846. A young Laphroaig will kick things off. This was bottled by the Whisky Exchange’s spin-off company, Elixir Distillers for their Single Malts of Scotland label (which they inherited from the parent company). I believe this was an exclusive for the US market. It’s from a single bourbon hogshead. Generally with young Laphroaig, ex-bourbon casks are a good bet; and as Single Malts of Scotland has historically been a pretty reliable label, I am hopeful. Let’s hope this doesn’t make me regret giving hope a chance. Continue reading →

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 →

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 →