
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
Category Archives: Whisky by Bottler
Teaninich 11, 2007 (Berry Bros. & Rudd)

I started the week with a bourbon cask Bowmore bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society that I thought was excellent. May as well make bourbon casks the theme for this week. Accordingly, here is a young Teaninich, distilled in 2007 and bottled by Berry Bros. & Rudd in 2019. Mind, these days 11 years is not terribly young for single malt whisky. And I’m sure this was not priced like an 11 yo of days of yore. Or maybe it was— I don’t think the current insanity in the whisky market had yet begun to approach its peak in 2019. Anyway, Berry Bros. & Rudd rarely indicate the cask type on their labels, and this one was no exception. It’s safe to say though—via a look and a quick sniff—that this was an ex-bourbon cask. Though whether first-fill, second-fill or refill is unknown; and the cask’s outturn not being mentioned on the label either, it’s hard to know whether this was a hogshead or a barrel—though perhaps the whisky itself will offer some clues. Anyway, let’s get to it. Continue reading
Bowmore 17, 2004 (SMWS 3.331)

The first whisky I ever reviewed on the blog was a Bowmore (the lowly Legend of yesteryear), and since then I’ve marked every anniversary of the blog with a Bowmore review. All except for the 10th anniversary this past Friday when I instead posted a look back at the decade on the blog. And so, a few days late, here is the requisite anniversary Bowmore review. This is a Bowmore 17, 2004, bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society, and is one of several they’ve released that were distilled on the same day in 2004 and matured in second-fill hogsheads. Indeed, the whole sequence of releases from 3.330 to 3.341 (where 3 refers to the SMWS’ distillery code for Bowmore and the other digits to the release number) are casks that were filled with spirit distilled on February 16, 2004; and almost all of those casks were second-fill hogsheads. Confusingly, this release, 3.331 was put out under two different silly names by the SMWS. Whiskybase shows one with the name “Taken out to sea” and one with the name “Ice cream dusted with chimney soot”. The former was the allocation for the US market and I guess they may have given that a different name—everything else is the same, down to the tasting notes on the label. Fascinating, no? Continue reading
Glentauchers 27, 1993 (Gordon & MacPhail)

Here is a Glentauchers to close out my week of heavily sherried 25+ year old whiskies bottled by Gordon & MacPhail. Glentauchers is a pretty anonymous Speyside distillery. I’ve reviewed five others previously—I believe those were all from ex-bourbon casks. Like Monday’s Aberfeldy, this one is from a first-fill sherry puncheon; Tuesday’s Mortlach was from a first-fill butt (a bit smaller than a puncheon). Well, I liked the Mortlach quite a bit more than the Aberfeldy and so hope that the cask type is not going to be the predictor of quality here. Let’s get right to it.
Glentauchers 27, 1993 (54.3%; first-fill sherry puncheon 2635; Gordon & MacPhail; from a bottle split)
Nose: Ah yes, this is a richer, fruitier sherry cask. It leads with dried orange peel, fig jam and a touch of hoisin. Sweeter on the second sniff with brandied raisins. A bit of pencil lead too. With time some apricot jam joins the party. With a few drops of water there’s some camphor and it get spicier on the whole. Continue reading
Mortlach 25, 1994 (Gordon & MacPhail)

Yesterday, I posted only my third-ever review of a Aberfeldy. Today’s whisky is from a distillery whose whisky I have far more of a familiarity with: Mortlach. Like yesterday’s Aberfeldy, this is a 25 yo single cask, also a first-fill sherry cask, bottled by Gordon & MacPhail. Mortlach is very well-known in sherried incarnations—the interplay of sherry oak, especially when from an European oak cask, and Mortlach’s naturally meaty profile can yield truly pleasurable results. Though, while I liked the last sherried Mortlach I reviewed quite a bit, it wasn’t really one that displayed that character that one would think of as quintessentially Mortlach (let me once again encourage you to read my post from several years ago probing the question of “distillery character“). I have liked most sherried Mortlachs I’ve tried, however—with a couple of exceptions from K&L’s series of casks that are not really the bargains they seem. But I’m still chasing the memory of a Mortlach 13 bottled by G&M in their old Reserve series (anyone remember those bottles? cask strength, green labels?). It wasn’t a world-beater but it was a truly idiosyncratic meatily sulphurous beast. I finished that bottle a couple of years before I started the blog and, alas, do not seem to have saved a large reference sample from it as was my usual practice at the time. Anyway, let’s see if this 25 yo is in that vein or something more refined. Continue reading
Aberfeldy 25, 1993 (Gordon & MacPhail)

After a week of weirdo Kilchomans that included two red wine cask-bothered releases (here and here) and one mezcal finish (here), let’s get back to more conventional ground: sherry cask-matured whisky. All three of this week’s whiskies—like the Linkwood that led off the month—were bottled by Gordon & Macphail in their Connoisseurs Choice line, which is a lot fancier these days than it used to be. We’ll begin the week in the highlands with an Aberfeldy. This is only my third-ever Aberfeldy review and is by some distance the oldest of the three. The other two included a Cadenhead’s small batch release from bourbon hogsheads and another G&M Connoisseurs Choice release from a refill sherry cask. This one is from a first-fill sherry puncheon. The refill sherry cask was fine but didn’t excite me very much. Will this first-fill sherry cask, which is nine years older be better? Let’s see. Continue reading
Linkwood 23, 1998 (Gordon & MacPhail)

One of the possible themed weeks I might do this month is “Unfancied Speysiders”. Though this review is obviously not part of that week, Linkwood too is an unfancied Speysider. It is one of many Diageo distilleries that, outside of the Flora & Fauna line, don’t get any but the rare official release. And when Diageo does put any older Linkwood out, it’s at a nosebleed price. As such, as with so many such distilleries, if we want to taste more of their output, and if we want to taste reasonably affordable iterations of their older malt, it is to the indie bottlers we must go.
In this case, to the giants of Elgin, Gordon & MacPhail. (Linkwood too is located in Elgin, by the by.) This 23 yo Linkwood was released in Gordon & MacPhail’s refurbished Connoisseurs Choice line. Older whisky drinkers will remember that a decade-plus ago this was G&M’s entry-level label, usually bottled at 40% or 43%, and no one got very excited about it. Of course, even before that many well-regarded older whiskies from the 1960s and 1970s had also been released under this label—usually also at 40%; the obsession with cask strength whisky is a relatively new thing, after all. Anyway, the Connoisseurs Choice label is fancy again, and now at cask strength—which is another way of saying “expensive”. Will this Linkwood, bottled from a refill sherry hogshead, prove to be a good value anyway? Let’s see. Continue reading
Glen Mhor 44, 1966 (Gordon & MacPhail for Van Wees)

This ancient Glen Mhor was bottled by Gordon & MacPhail in 2011. It was part of a legendary parcel of casks bottled for Van Wees in the Netherlands. The other casks in the parcel included a legendary quintet from Longmorn. One of those, a 41 year old distilled in 1969, was the recipient of the highest score I have yet given a whisky; and the others were no slouches either. I’m hopeful that this Glen Mhor will prove worthy of its company and signal a good start to the month in whisky reviews. Let’s see.
Glen Mhor 44, 1966 (52.1%; Gordon & MacPhail for Van Wees; refill sherry hogshead; from my own bottle)
Nose: Sweet orange, paper, old coins, brown butter, an old wooden box, just a hint of soot. The citrus gets brighter/more acidic as it sits and the softer notes expand as the brown butter is joined by some malt; a leafy note now too. As it sits the fruit comes to the fore and there’s pineapple and a bit of apricot now along with the citrus. Continue reading
Ardmore 21, 1997, Whisky Doris

Let’s stick with peat for the last whisky review of the month. Only a bit of peat though. This is a 21 yo Ardmore bottled by Whisky Doris half a decade or so ago from a bourbon hogshead. The last Whisky Doris Ardmore I reviewed was also from a bourbon cask—albeit, a barrel—and was pretty damned good. It didn’t have a striking label like this one though. Well, let’s hope the label design is not the most notable thing about this Ardmore and that I like it more than the 24 yo bourbon cask bottled by Whisky Sponge, which was also distilled in 1997.
Ardmore 21, 1997 (49.4%; Whisky Doris; bourbon hogshead; from my own bottle)
Nose: Lime, mineral peat, paraffin and whiffs of muskier fruit which expand with each sniff. Some candle wax too with time. The musky fruit (pineapple, a bit of peach) merges with the lime and also with emerging vanilla and cream. A bit of water and the peat gets pushed back a fair bit. Continue reading
Ledaig 14, 2008 (Cadenhead)

Alright, let’s bring this week of peated whiskies to an end. We started on Islay with a 6 yo Bunnahabhain and continued in Campbeltown with a Kilkerran that is probably not very much older than that Bunnahbhain. We’ll end now with a Ledaig that is positively ancient by comparison, at 14 years old. Even though Ledaig is distilled on the Isle of Mull (it is, of course, essentially peated Tobermory), in a sense we’re still in Campbeltown for this review. This because this sample comes from a bottle purchased at Cadenhead’s Warehouse Tasting in Campbeltown, late last fall. I have not been to Campbeltown myself. I very much hope to go if I make it back to Scotland anytime soon—and if I do, the Cadenhead Warehouse Tasting will be high on my list of things to do. That will be true, by the way, even if this Ledaig disappoints. Though I don’t expect it will.
Bunnahabhain 6, 2013 (SMWS 10.202)

After a week of Caol Ila, let’s keep the peat fires burning a little while longer. We’ll stay on Islay for the first review of the week, at a distillery not primarily known for its peated malt: Bunnahabhain. Well, they weren’t traditionally known for their peated malt; these days they make a fair bit of it—you’re not going to lose money in Scotland selling smoky whisky. This one, very young at six years of age, is not an official release. It was bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. It began its life in a bourbon hogshead before being finished in a recharred cask (HTMC=heavily toasted, medium char?) and bottled at an eye-watering strength. Youth? Heavily peated? Big oak contact? Stupid strength? It checks almost all the boxes for whisky I am normally wary of. Hopefully, it will all work somehow. Let’s see. Continue reading
Caol Ila 17, 1991 (Single Malts of Scotland)

This week’s recipe will also not post on a Thursday (today) but on a Friday (tomorrow). Instead, I have for you today the last in this week’s independently bottled Caol Ila triad featuring three different cask profiles.
The week began on Monday with a 12 yo bottled by DS Tayman. That one was a bourbon cask that had been finished in a Bordeaux cask. On Wednesday I posted a review of a 13 yo bottled by Old Particular for K&L in California. That one was from a refill butt. I liked both fine—and the 13 yo a bit more than the 12 yo—but neither got me very excited. I already know that I like today’s 17 yo from a single bourbon hogshead more than either. That’s because this is taken from a large reference sample I saved from the bottle many years ago. Yes, unlike the DS Tayman and Old Particular releases, this is one of my signature highly untimely reviews. This 17 yo was distilled in 1991 and bottled in 2008 by Single Malts of Scotland—back when my referring to Single Malts of Scotland as the Whisky Exchange’s indie label didn’t make Billy Abbot’s beard quiver with rage. I have the score I gave it then recorded in my spreadsheet but not my notes. Let’s see if the scores match across the years. Continue reading
Caol Ila 13, 2008 (Old Particular for K&L)

Caol Ila week began yesterday with a 12 yo finished in a Bordeaux cask. It started out well but I was not finally very enthusiastic about it. Today I have a 13 yo that was matured in a sherry cask. If I’m generally suspicious about red wine cask-matured whisky of any kind, I’m usually very excited to try Caol Ilas from sherry casks. Be it a richer sherry cask profile or a drier one, Caol Ila’s distillate usually matches it well. I certainly hope that will be the case for this one, a refill butt bottled by Old Particular for K&L in California. Let’s get right to it.
Caol Ila 13, 2008 (56.9%; Old Particular for K&L; refill butt; from a bottle split)
Nose: Very nice, very quintessentially Caol Ila notes of lemon, mineral peat and coastal notes (brine, oyster liquor) and green olives. Green peppery bite on the second sniff and a touch of cream. With time the cream expands a bit. A few drops of water and it gets softer still, with the smoke all but receding into the background. Continue reading
Caol Ila 12, 2008 (DS Tayman)

It’s been almost exactly three months since my last week of reviews of malts from a single distillery. That was a Kilkerran week (here, here and here). This week will feature three Caol Ilas. They’re from three different cask types: ex-bourbon, refill butt, and in the case of today’s review, a Bordeaux finish. I will confess that when I purchased this bottle I did not realize this was a Bordeaux finish. I generally avoid red wine finishes. But I was at the store without my reading glasses and the font size on the details on the label is very small indeed. That label is by a bottler I had not previously heard of: DS Tayman. Their website says their whiskies are available in the US, UK, Israel and Australia—so I assume it’s not an American concern, as I’d first though they might be. If you know more about them, please write in below. The bottles are attractive; the whisky is bottled at 46%; and the price—at least on this Caol Ila was fair: cheaper at Total Wine than the official Caol Ila 12 at 43%. What’s not to like? Well, maybe the red wine finish. Let’s see. Continue reading
Speyside/Glen Grant 19, 2003 (WhiskySponge)

Thursday is usually recipe day on the blog. But this week’s recipe—for chana masala—will be posted tomorrow. Instead, today I have for you the third of this week’s whisky reviews—which is also the third of this week’s reviews of recent releases by WhiskySponge. On Monday, I’d posted my review of a 24 yo bourbon cask Ardmore that I both enjoyed and was a little disappointed by. On Wednesday, I had a review of a 22 yo sherry-finished Ardmore that I was less enthused by. Both are good whiskies, in my opinion, but I found neither to be particularly distinctive or worth the high prices that were asked for them. Today, I have what is officially a malt from an undisclosed Speyside distillery but is said to be a Glen Grant. And my understanding is that it is made from lightly peated malt, which makes it more than a little unusual for Glen Grant. I don’t believe I’ve ever had a modern-era Glen Grant with palpable peat in it and I’m looking forward to trying it for that reason alone. Let’s get to it. Continue reading
Ardmore 22, 2000 (WhiskySponge)

I am typing this preamble in a hurry before leaving for the airport and so will keep it brief.
On Monday I reviewed a WhiskySponge Ardmore 24 from a refill bourbon hogshead. I simultaneously liked it a fair bit and was a bit disappointed with it. Today I have a 22 yo Ardmore that started out in a refill hogshead and was then subjected to a sherry finish. I have to confess my default reaction to such a sequence is first one of anguish: why risk marring one of Scotland’s truly idiosyncratic profiles with a brief, potentially overbearing dalliance with sherry? And then one of skepticism: was the sherry finish applied in the manner of lipstick on a pig? But though my initial response may be skeptical, my mind remains open and I am hoping for the best. Will those hopes be rewarded or will they fall apart like an ill-conceived sherry finish? Let’s see. Continue reading
Ardmore 24, 1997 (WhiskySponge)

There were competing requests last week for themed weeks centered on Ardmore and on WhiskySponge releases. Competing because I cannot do both: two of the Ardmores are WhiskySponge releases. As a compromise I propose a week of WhiskySponge releases now and then the third, non-WhiskySponge Ardmore at the end of the month, to be paired with a whisky from another highlands distillery, with which I’ll kick off February’s booze reviews.
So, here’s the first of two WhiskySponge Ardmores. This is the older of the two: 24 years old and from a refill hogshead. On paper, at least, that sounds very good indeed. Will that be true in the glass? I liked the only other WhiskySponge releases I’ve reviewed—a trio of Ballechins from almost exactly a year ago (here, here and here)—but was not blown away by them. I’m hoping this January’s trio will live up to all the hype. Let’s see. Continue reading