Category Archives: 80-84 points

Braes of Glenlivet, 1977-1997 (Glenhaven)

Posted on by

Glenhaven, Braes of Glenlivet, 1977This is my second review of a malt from the erstwhile Braes of Glenlivet, now Braeval. I was not terribly enthused by the previous one, a 1997 vintage from Cadenhead’s. This whisky was released by the now-defunct Glenhaven and is from an earlier era. I quite liked an Auchroisk of the same vintage that they released at the same time as this and so I’m hopeful.

Braes of Glenlivet, 1977-1997 (49.3%; Glenhaven; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Toasted wood, light caramel, cinnamon butter (is that a real thing?). Gets quite malty. After a minute or two there’s quite a lot of honey and apricot and the wood is more polished than toasted now. There’s also more wood spice and notes of rye in particular. Very nice. With a drop of water the maltiness expands at first and then the fruit gets muskier and creamier.

Palate: Far hotter than I expected at 49.3%. The wood, malt, honey and apricot make the strongest impressions, roughly in that sequence. The apricot brightens out into something more citrussy (somewhere between lemon and orange) and there’s more bite from the wood spice on the second sip. And in general the wood gets stronger. Okay, let’s add water. Water pushes the wood back a bit and brings out a lot of pepper and some lemon.

Finish: Long. The fruit leads out into the wood but it’s the malt that seems to linger the most. With time the wood trumps the rest.

Comments: I liked this a lot on the nose but there was just a little too much wood on the palate and finish. It’s certainly not overly woody or tannic but just felt a little out of balance. While water pushed the wood back a bit, on the whole, I think I preferred it without. Not bad at all though and more evidence of how much good whisky is produced at unheralded distilleries.

Rating: 84 points.

Thanks to bpbleus for the sample!

Glenmorangie 10, “Original”

Posted on by

Glenmorangie 10 Original

This is a classic whisky, one that’s been the gateway malt for a good number of drinkers, I’d imagine. If you’ve ever wondered what the quintessential Northern Highland profile is, this is it (though fans of the Old Pulteney 12 and the younger Balblairs may disagree). Given all the crazy (and ongoing) experimentation at Glenmorangie in the LVMH era this entry-level malt gets forgotten in the hoopla over the various exotically finished or put together annual releases.

I’ve tasted it regularly–at bars, at friends’ homes–over the last decade or so and it’s always been solid, if unremarkable. For whisky geeks, or aspiring whisky geeks, that may seem like damning with faint praise but there’s something comforting about knowing that the Glenmorangie 10 is still the Glenmorangie 10; and there are evenings when a solid but unchallenging malt like this is just what you want. This is one of those evenings. Continue reading →

Elijah Craig 12, Small Batch

Posted on by

Elijah Craig 12Elijah Craig 12 is a classic, affordable ($25 and below) and easy to find bourbon. It is somewhat unusual, I suppose, in being popular with both bourbon geeks and regular drinkers. It is bottled in small batches by the Heaven Hill distillery in Kentucky and is made, I believe, from a not-particularly high rye mashbill. I have tried and enjoyed it a number of times before but this is my first time paying close attention to it.

Elijah Craig 12 (47%; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Maple syrup, caramel, cinnamon. Classic bourbon nose. Little bit of orange peel as well. More vanilla as it sits. Very well balanced. Gets dustier with time. Not very woody. A few drops of water bring the caramel closer to toffee.

Palate: More oak on the palate certainly but it emerges after the caramel, cinnamon and clove and a bit of cola pass through. Not a whole lot of change with time. With water the oak gets pushed back a bit and there’s more of a mocha note now. I just wish there was a little more texture/depth.

Finish: Medium. The spices and the oak linger. With more time I get more rye on the finish.

Comments: I like the nose much more than the palate but this is very nice–better with some water, I think. I wish the companies that own the Scottish distilleries (to say nothing of the Japanese) could give us whisky of this quality at this price. It does seem like there is a much smaller jump in quality from $20 to $80 in bourbon than there is in single malt Scotch–and some might say that bourbon is dodgier at the $80+ end of the market than closer to the $20 end. Granted I’m no bourbon maven, but I could be happy drinking Elijah Craig 12 and Old Weller Antique and not much else. Will things remain this way for long? I really enjoyed the Elijah Craig 18 that I got to try a couple of years ago but that disappeared and was replaced by a 20 yo that cost three times as much.

Rating: 84 points.

Thanks to Bryan F. for the sample.

Fettercairn 16, 1995 (Signatory)

Posted on by

Fettercairn 16, 1995, Signatory
I’ve said rude things about distilleries such as Deanston before; but where Deanston is merely held to be inoffensive, Fettercairn is openly scorned by many whisky geeks. The only other malt I’ve had from them was in fact quite well received but I thought it was just a bit above average: the Fior from a couple of years ago. Of course, reputations are unreliable; sometimes they rest on past sins/laurels, and even where justified on the whole are never descriptive of every cask of whisky that’s come out of a distillery. On this blog I’ve previously noted very positive experiences with malts from Loch Lomond and Miltonduff, both of which have poor reputations on the whole as well; will this Fettercairn be an outlier like those may have been?

Continue reading →

Teaninich 12, 1994 (G&M)

Posted on by

G&M, Teaninich, 1994Teaninich is another of the many Scottish distilleries that produce malt largely for blends. Indeed, there are only 12 official releases listed on Whiskybase and most of those are from the extinct Rare Malts series. It’s not shown up yet in Diageo’s Annual Releases either. And so it is to the indies we must look yet again to find Teaninich, and who better than Gordon & Macphail who seem to have large stocks of everything. I will be reviewing another G&M Teaninich early next month.

Teaninich 12, 1994 (46%; Gordon & Macphail; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Malty, slightly spirity and generic but pleasant sherried notes: dusty caramel, light mocha. Toasted wood emerges as well, and it gets a little bit grassy with time. With more time and water there’s some citrus and honey and the wood gets a tad more polished than toasted. Faint hints of some musky fruit too (or am I imagining this?).

Palate: Very much as on the nose at first but then there’s a burst of citrus–orange peel at first but it gets brighter quite fast. Some salt and a little bit of woody bite (some cinnamon in there too). Somewhat thin mouthfeel. Gets quite salty on the second sip. With more sips there’s an increasing leafy quality and more leathery bitterness.

Finish: Medium. It’s the citrus, salt and wood, in order of increasing intensity that make the most impact at the end. Leaves a bitter taste on the sides of my tongue.

Water didn’t do much for/to the palate or finish.

Comments: Perfectly pleasant but completely undistinguished sherried whisky. But there’s nothing wrong with that–at the right price this would be good everyday whisky. Would it have been much better at cask strength? Maybe the citrus would have been more pronounced on the nose and richer on the palate, but then maybe the woody/leafy/bitter notes would have been far more pronounced too. As it is, even at 46% it’s better with water.

Rating: 83 points.

Thanks to bpbleus for the sample!

Royal Lochnagar 14, 1996 (A.D. Rattray)

Posted on by

Rattray, Royal Lochnagar 14This was bottled for the giant Californian chain, BevMo! This is the only malt I think I’ve had from the Lochnagar distillery (one of a very small number that get to put the appellation Royal before their name). And so I have nothing to say about it other than its name sounds like it could be that of a North Indian town and would thus be perfect for one of those Indian whiskies claiming Scottish antecedents through their names (Bagpiper, Peter Scot, McDowell’s #1 etc.). And so with this useless preamble out of the way, let us to the tasting notes:

Royal Lochnagar 14, 1996 (56.3%; A.D. Rattray for BevMo!; sherry cask #29304; from a reference sample saved from my own bottle)

Nose: Malty and mildly fruity (citrus, melon) along with some pepper and light hints of mocha. Not particularly sherried. With a little more time the fruit expands and gets more acidic, and now there are mild notes of toffee and raisins as well. With even more time some toasted wood peeks out as well. With a drop of water the malt and fruit make a big integrated comeback.

Palate: Very much as on the nose: malty and fruity with light hints of mocha and tasted wood. As on the nose, it’s not overtly sherried with mild rum-raisin notes and a hint of toffee the chief nods at the cask. Gets a little grassy as it goes. With water the fruit gets brighter.

Finish: Medium. More citrussy on the way out but there’s also something mildly soapy and bitter at the very end. Water gets rid of the soapy/bitter thing.

Comments: A decent whisky which probably owes its character more to the type of wood (I’d guess American oak) the cask was made from than from its previous contents. Nothing earthshaking here and apart from the slight soapiness on the finish at first, no real flaws. Better with water.

Rating: 84 points. (Pulled up by water.)

Redbreast 12 CS

Posted on by

Redbreast 12 CS

This is the cask strength version of the Redbreast 12 that was a huge hit when it arrived in the US some years ago, and it was quite well received in its own right. I have to admit I wasn’t crazy about it the first time I tried it (or, more accurately, I didn’t think it offered enough to justify the price premium over the regular 12) but am interested to see what I make of it this time around.

Redbreast 12 CS (57.7%%; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Aromatic, floral wood that gets sweet quite fast, moving from honey to vanilla sweetness in the span of a few seconds. Settles finally in a darker, muskier fruity sweetness framed by polished wood, and there’s more honey and some raisins too. With time it gets a little grassy and the wood gets a little sharper but it’s still the honeyed fruit that dominates. With water there’s a dusty/talcum powder’ish note and more creamy vanilla below that. Continue reading →

Power’s John Lane

Posted on by

Power's John Lane
Irish whiskey is a bit of a blind spot for me and in 2014 I am going to try and drink more of it. I have to say the little that I have tried so far has not thrilled me overmuch. I liked the Tyrconnell NAS at the price and the Redbreast 12 at its introductory price (in the low $30s) but the rest I’ve either found to be not very good or overpriced for what it is. Let’s see where this Powers John Lane falls. It is a single pot still whiskey from the New Midleton distillery who also produce Redbreast, Green Spot, and most famously, Jameson. This is from a mix of bourbon and oloroso sherry casks and I believe the bourbon casks are predominant in the vatting.

Continue reading →

Auchroisk 12, 2001 (Cadenhead’s)

Posted on by

Cadenhead's, Auchroisk 12
This Auchroisk is yet one more from my ongoing series of reviews of Cadenhead’s bottles I split with some friends. I’ve quite liked the few Auchroisks I’ve tried so far. Those were both middle-aged (see here and here). What will the story be with this not quite teenager from 2001? As per Cadenhead’s, “[I]n 2011 the character of Auchroisk was changed” with a 72 hour fermentation now employed in place of a 48 hour fermentation. They say that this bottle is “from the old style”. Unless I’m misunderstanding, surely no one has yet tried the new style. If the new fermentation regime was put into place in 2011, nothing distilled from it could be bottled as Scotch whisky till 2014 at the earliest. Or is this a typo and did the fermentation time change in 2001? Does anyone know?

Auchroisk 12, 2001 (59.3%; Cadenhead’s Small Batch; bourbon hoghshead; from a bottle split with friends) Continue reading →

Braes of Glenlivet 16, 1997 (Cadenhead’s)

Posted on by

Cadenhead's, Braes of Glenlivet 16Braes of Glenlivet was the old name of the distillery now known as Braeval (read more about its history and change of name at Malt Madness). As with so many distilleries, Braeval’s malt goes almost entirely into blends and there are no single malt releases available other than from the indies. I’ve not had very many Braevals, and while none of the ones I’ve tried so far been bad, none have got me very excited. Let’s see where this one falls.

Braes of Glenlivet 16, 1997 (56.9%; Cadenhead’s Small Batch; bourbon hogshead; from a bottle split with friends)

Nose: Lime zest, kiwi, gooseberries. Some peppery wood below that and some malt as well. Quite floral too. With more time there’s some vanilla as well but also a slight grassiness. Not much change with water. Continue reading →

Glen Garioch 20, 1990 (Kintra Whisky)

Posted on by

Kintra, Glen Garioch,1990

The recent official Glen Gariochs I have reviewed so far have not greatly enthused me. Let’s see what the story is with some older, recently released independents. First up, is a review of a 20 yo from 1990 from the new’ish Dutch bottler, Kintra Whisky. This will be followed soon by a review of a 21 yo from 1990 from another Dutch label, Archives (the imprint of the guys at Whiskybase). Though the reviews are being published a few days apart the whiskies were tasted together.

Glen Garioch 20, 1990 (49.6%; Bourbon Hogshead #5873, Kintra Whisky; from a purchased sample)

Nose: A little spirity at first and then some light fruit (green apples, peels and all) and a minerally, mildly sooty note. Quite austere. Not much development with time. Wait, with a lot more time there’s a light almondy note. Hmmm I can’t really say that water makes much of a difference to the nose; maybe brings out a faintly sweaty note. Continue reading →

Benriach “Septendecim”

Posted on by

Benriach Septendecim

Benriach, a Speyside distillery, known mostly for a fruity, unpeated malt also has made a good amount of peated malt over the years, much of which has been released in single cask form in the last few years. Some of these have been very well-received, and usually they seem to be matured or finished in sherry/port/etc. casks. The peated whisky in their regular line is mostly ex-bourbon (I believe) and they bear odd Latin names such as “Curiositas” and “Authenticus” and so forth. Hence perhaps the name of this 17 yo which is also peated and was quite a hit when it came out almost two years ago. I finished my bottle almost exactly a year ago but, as is my wont, saved a 6 oz reference sample from when the bottle was at its prime.

Continue reading →

Old Pulteney WK 217, Spectrum

Posted on by

Old Pulteney WK 217This was the third in Old Pulteney’s WK series, each named for fishing boats associated with the port town of Wick that is home to the distillery. I have previously finished a bottle of the cask strength WK 499, Isabella Fortuna, which I rather liked (I think I may have a reference sample saved). Later editions of the WK 499 and also the second release, the Wk 209, Good Hope were not at cask strength and nor is this edition, the WK 217 Spectrum. As per the tin this is entirely from sherry butts, but from a combination of Spanish and American oak. (As I noted here, I’ve only recently learned that butts used for maturing sherry in Spain are typically made from American oak while European oak casks are used primarily for shipping; I have to quit my knee-jerk equation of American oak casks with ex-bourbon casks.) This makes it quite different from the Old Pulteney 12, which is the most ubiquitous of the distillery’s releases in the US, and which I rather like and also from the WK 499, which I recall as being quintessentially ex-bourbon in character.  Continue reading →

Charbay R5, Lot R5 610A

Posted on by

Charbay R5 Lot 5
Charbay are an outfit in northern California who make a wide range of spirits and wines. Among whisky geeks they’re best known for a few releases of rather expensive whiskey made from pilsner beer. While all whisky is in a strict sense distilled from beer Charbay use beer made for commercial release. And what’s further unusual about their whiskey–including the one I am reviewing today–is that it is made from hopped beer. This is, in fact, rather different and I’m curious to see what this whiskey—distilled from Racer IPA—is like, though also somewhat wary. There are two versions of the Charbay R5, which is double-distilled in a pot still, Scotch style–one unaged, and the other aged in French Oak casks. This is the latter.

There is, by the way, some controversy over whether this is in fact distilled from hopped beer (as Charbay claim) or whether hops are added somewhere else in the process. I don’t personally find this to be such an interesting question (only because I’m not that into the ins and outs of American whiskey) but you can read a report here that treats it like the stakes are at Watergate level (to be fair, there’s a lot of other very interesting information there about the production process, if you’re into that sort of thing). Continue reading →

Kavalan Concertmaster, Port Finish

Posted on by

Kavalan Concertmaster

This is my third Kavalan. I thought the basic Single Malt was just about acceptable and the King Car Conductor was decent. Now to see what this port finished Concertmaster is like. I’m not sure if this is just the regular Single Malt finished in port pipes or what the relationship is between this one and the higher strength Vinho Barrique (which I have not tried). So many mysteries. So many uninteresting mysteries.

Kavalan Concertmaster, Port Finish (40%; from a purchased sample)

Nose: Rich and fruity. The influence of the wine is clear but this still smells like whisky. Red fruits lead (cherries, strawberries and cream) and then some oak behind it. Some apricot and citrus emerge as well after a minute along with some flambeed banana. Quite nice. Now will the palate match it? Quite some time later the red fruits are all gone, and now it’s just the apricot and tangerine peel and some honey. Continue reading →

Kavalan King Car Conductor

Posted on by

Kavalan King Car Conductor

After yesterday’s unprepossessing and prosaically named Kavalan Single Malt here is another that is at least more extravagantly named. “King Car”, it turns out, is the name of the conglomerate that owns the distillery. As to whether “Conductor” is meant to call up an image of a man in a penguin suit in front of an orchestra or someone selling tickets on a bus, I don’t know but it’s a good job this conglomerate has an evocative name; though it would also be fun to drink a whisky named Taiwan Heavy Industries Limited or similar. But enough meaningless chit-chat. On to the whisky.

The website is no more forthcoming with details about how this is made than they are with the regular Single Malt, but it is distinguished from the other by at least a higher abv: this is at 46%. Continue reading →

Jameson 18

Posted on by

Jameson 18After the NAS Black Barrel disaster here’s an older Jameson that will hopefully be better. In fact, this is the oldest Irish whiskey I’ve tried. Its makeup is not entirely clear. On the Jameson website there’s an unexplained reference to it being comprised of “3 beautifully matched whiskeys…matured for at least 18 years”. There seems to be some explanation in the TWE listing which refers to it as a “blend of two potstill whiskies and a single grain”. However, while the TWE listing also adds that this blend “is matured in Oloroso sherry casks and finished in bourbon wood for 6 months” the official website suggests a different maturation regime, saying the whiskeys are “matured for at least 18 years in hand selected American bourbon barrels and European oak casks, where they complete their rite of passage and are finished in first fill bourbon barrels”. So as per the website, it would seem that bourbon wood is involved in the primary maturation as well. But what does it taste like? Continue reading →