The last Highland Park I reviewed was an old release of the official 18 yo that was put out in 2002. This is a much more recent release. Well, I suppose officially it’s not a Highland Park but an undisclosed distillery; but there are only two distilleries on Orkney and only one that makes its casks available to independents so you do the math. Anyway, officially this is a Secret Orkney. It’s a 15 yo, distilled in 2005 and released in 2021. It’s also an example of something we usually get only from independent bottlers: bourbon cask Highland Park. The distillery’s official “character” is associated with sherry cask aging, and high quality sherry cask Highland Park is indeed an excellent thing—see, for example, that 2002 release of the official 18 yo. But bourbon cask Highland Park is a truly wonderful profile as well and one that has almost never let me down. I always look forward to drinking it and so was very happy to find this bottle on my shelves while trying to figure out what to open this month. I think this was part of one of the very last whisky I orders I placed, back in the spring of 2021. I’ve already opened it and know that it was a good choice. Here now are my notes. Continue reading
Category Archives: 85-89 points
Ben Nevis 21, 1997 (Maltbarn)
Here is my last whisky/booze review of the month and also of the year. (Yes, there are five Mondays this December but I’m sticking with my regimen of only opening four bottles each month). I’ve not chosen anything particularly special to close out the year but I’m looking forward to this one anyway as well-aged Ben Nevis from a bourbon cask is usually a good bet. This one was distilled in 1997 and bottled in 2018 by Maltbarn, who’d then been on the indie bottling scene for almost a decade and had built a strong reputation over that time. They’re still around but, as I’ve not kept up with the whisky world in the last few years, I’m not sure if they’re still releasing whiskies at the clip they had been at the end of the previous decade. For that matter I’m not sure how many of the other stalwart European indie bottlers who came to prominence in that decade and the one previous are still as active as they used to be. I’m no longer in the whisky accumulating business and no longer a good source of information—if I ever was one—on what’s being released and by who. But I am glad to have a number of good bottles on my shelves from my whisky accumulating days to drink now. Let’s see if this is one of them. Continue reading
Port Charlotte 7, 2002 (Whisky Doris)
The third whisky review of the month is of a malt that is considerably younger than the previous two (a Strathisla 30 from G&M and a Bunnahabhain 33 from Whisky Doris). This Port Charlotte was distilled in 2002 and bottled from a single bourbon hogshead in 2010, a few months shy of its eighth birthday. The bottler again is Whisky Doris. I purchased it not too long after it was released and it has sat unopened on my shelves for almost a decade and a half for no good reason. I opened it in November and took a large sample with me to Delhi to both drink there and review. Here now are my notes.
Port Charlotte 7, 2002 (63.5%; Whisky Doris; bourbon hogshead 1171; from my own bottle)
Nose: The usual lactic notes off the top: scalded milk, parmesan rind. Big phenolic smoke too, of course, of course, along with sweeter coastal notes: shells, rotting kelp. Some apple as well. With some air some cream emerges. More cream with a few drops of water and the smoke expands as well. I think this might need a little more water as it still hits my nostrils hard. Yes, a second splash and it’s now just mellow enough: big smoke and cream still and some of the lemon from the palate emerges as well. Continue reading
Bunnahabhain 33, 1980 (Whisky Doris)
A day later than usual, here is the month’s second booze review. Following last week’s Strathisla 30 it is both another single malt review and another review of an older whisky. This time it’s a Bunnahabhain bottled by Whisky Doris, a 33 year old distilled in 1980 and bottled in 2013. I’ve previously reviewed a 31 yo Bunnahabhain distilled in 1980 (that one was also bottled by Whisky Doris) and a 34 yo Bunnahabhain distilled in 1980 (that one was bottled by Whisky Fair). I liked both of those but neither got me very excited. Will this one break that streak? Hopefully, it will in a positive direction. Let’s see how it goes.
Bunnahabhain 33, 1980 (45.6%; Whisky Doris; sherry butt #92; from my own bottle)
Nose: Honey, brown butter, wood glue, dried leaves, some oak extract. On the second sniff it’s quite reminiscent of some tonics I did not enjoy being forced to drink as a child—not objectionable in this case though! As it sits the organic notes recede and some toffee emerges. A few drops of water pull out more of the oak extract. Continue reading
La Luna, Chino
Mezcal November continues. Here is another release from La Luna. La Luna is based in Michoacán where members of the Perez Escot family—from which all of La Luna’s mezcaleros hail—has been making mezcal for four generations. They are a relatively recent brand but have a pretty good presence in the American market. At any rate, a lot of their expressions are available in Minnesota. I’ve previously reviewed a few of these: the Tequilana; the Manso Sahuayo; another Manso Sahuayo bottled for the Minnesota Agave Society; and an ensamble made from a mix of Tequilana, Manso Sahuayo and Cupreata. I’ve liked them all a lot. Today I have review of a bottle of Lot 50 of their Chino. Chino is apparently the name for the wild cultivar of the Cupreata maguey. As with most mezcals, there is a wealth of information on the production methods on the La Luna labels (though unlike Real Minero’s labels, La Luna’s labels dispense this information in Spanish; I like this touch). So I can tell you that the maguey is roasted in conical earthen ovens, spontaneously fermented and distilled in copper and pine stills. I don’t yet know enough about mezcal to make much of this information but perhaps it will be of interest to you. Here now are my notes on this bottle which I opened last week. Continue reading
Real Minero Barril
Real Minero is the name of the brand of mezcal made by the Ángeles family, who have been distilling mezcal in the town of Santa Catarina Minas in Oaxaca for more than a century now. You can find out more about them in this report on Mezcal Reviews on a distillery tour in 2017. (Mezcal Reviews, by the way, is an essential resource for people like me who are new to mezcal.) Their mezcal is no longer officially called mezcal—the word no longer appears on their labels. This has to do with the bureaucratic headaches of the certification process: it is in fact mezcal in all but name only. The mezcal produced by the family has a very high reputation (and commands prices to match). I was lucky enough to find two bottles from a local liquor store at a significant discount last year. I’m not sure what led to that discount but I wasted no time in snapping them up. I will be reviewing both this month. First up, is a batch of the Barril, a maguey that is new to me. As per the label, the average age of the maguey used was 15 years old and it was all harvested in 2018. The mezcal itself was distilled in the second half of that year and then rested in glass for six months. I opened the bottle last week and have been enjoying it very much. Here now are my notes. Continue reading
Gusto Historico, Tobala, Victor Ramos
For the first booze review of the month, I have for you another mezcal. Last week I reviewed a special edition of La Luna’s Manso Sahuayo that was bottled for the Minnesota Agave Society. This week I have for you a tobala from Gusto Historico. Gusto Historico is a relatively recent brand. As far as I can make out, they are based in Oaxaca and bottle mezcals distilled by mezcaleros from the region, seemingly almost all from the town of Miahuatlan. Two of the main mezcaleros they work with are the father and son pair of Victor and Emanuel Ramos. This tobala was made by Victor Ramos. I specify this because they’ve also released a tobala distilled by Ignacio Juarez and another by Emanuel Ramos (the labels are of different colours and if that’s not enough to tell them apart, the names of the mezcaleros are on the rear labels that have lots of other detailed production info on them). I’ve liked all the (not-very many) tobalas I’ve tried so far and am looking forward to this one as well. Let’s get right to it. Continue reading
La Luna, Manso Sahuayo (for Minnesota Agave Society)
It’s been a while since my last mezcal review. This is not because I have stopped drinking mezcal. I’ve been drinking mezcal quite regularly, in fact. But on account of the fact that I am trying to keep the number of open bottles of any type of liquor on my shelves down at a manageable number, I have not opened any new bottles of mezcal in a while. Well, not till last week. My most recent opening is a La Luna release. As it happens, my last three mezcal reviews were also all of La Luna releases; Cupreata, Manso Sahuayo and Tequiliana. This latest was also distilled from Manso Sahuayo but was not a general release. It was bottled for the Minnesota Agave Society, a group based up in the Twin Cities. I recently established contact with a member of the group but I haven’t had time to actually ask about how this bottling came to be (or if they’ve bottled any/many others). I purchased my bottle from Surdyk’s in the summer but it’s also available at other Twin Cities liquor stores (I’ve seen it at South Lyndale Liquors as well). I rather liked my previous bottle of Manso Sahuato (that was Lot 23; this is Lot 76), finding it to be an earthy change of pace from the other mezcals I’ve had. I’m curious to see what this one is like. Continue reading
Laphroaig Cairdeas 2024, Cask Favorites
Well, I finally found the 2024 Cairdeas in the Twin Cities. I don’t mean to suggest that it had been hard to find until now. For all I know, it’s been out and easily available for a while. It’s just that I had not looked. But a week ago I stopped in at South Lyndale Liquors to buy some salumi (yes, I now go to liquor stores to buy cured meats) and when I took a look at their single malt whisky section, there it was. $85 was the price, I believe—quite reasonable in the current market. I noted two things of interest right away: 1) this is the first Cairdeas since 2011 (at least) to be packaged not in a tube but in a box; 2) it has an age statement. Personally, I prefer tubes to boxes but, really, who gives a fuck? The age statement is interesting though. Not just because it’s 10 years old but because of the way it’s supposed to have been put together. Apparently, this year’s Cairdeas is comprised of whisky from casks of the previous cask strength Cairdeas incarnations of the Triple Wood and PX releases. Why is that interesting? Well, the Triple Wood Cairdeas was released in 2019 and the PX in 2021. So either they’ve vatted leftover Triple Wood casks that were a few years older than 10 years of age with PX casks that just hit that number or the Triple Wood Cairdeas was very young indeed in 2019. Well, I guess that’s not really very interesting. More interesting, or rather, amusing, is that Laphroaig is now apparently approaching the Cairdeas releases the same way I approach bottles I’m not terribly enthused about finishing once they enter the home stretch: by mixing them together and hoping for something more interesting than the originals. Let’s see if that’s what we have here. Continue reading
Aberlour 20, 1990 (Single Malts of Scotland)
Last week I reviewed a 19 yo Lagavulin released in 2015. This week I have for you a review of a 20 yo Aberlour released in 2011. This was bottled by Single Malts of Scotland, which was then just one of the Whisky Exchange’s labels. Some years later they spun their independent bottling concern off as a separate concern, Elixir Distillers. But back in December 2011 when I purchased this, all of that was some distance in the future. And you’ll know 2011 was a lot more than 13 years ago when I tell you that this 20 yo single cask whisky at cask strength from a well-known distillery cost all of $77. Well, I’ve finally got around to opening the bottle. As always, I have no idea why I waited so long, especially as I rather enjoy bourbon cask Aberlour—see here, here and here for a few reviews. Most official releases from the distillery involve sherry maturation; in fact, I can’t remember trying an official bourbon cask release that was not a hand-filled distillery exclusive. Alas, when I was at the distillery in 2018—when I did one of their tours with a friend—they did not have any casks available for hand-filling, leave alone any bourbon casks. Anyway, let’s get to this one now. Continue reading
Amrut Cask Strength, Batch 8
I was going to say it’s been a long time since my last Amrut review but it turns out it’s only been a year and a half. In February 2023 I reviewed (the?) four releases in the distillery’s Aatma series (here, here, here, and here). And in 2022 I’d reviewed another couple of releases that were exclusives for US stores (K&L and Spec’s). But it would be accurate to say that it’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed a whisky from what used to be Amrut’s core range: the Fusion and the unpeated and peated releases (at both regular and cask strength). I’m not sure what Amrut’s core range looks like one or if they still have one. As I’ve said before, it’s been a long time since I’ve paid any attention to whisky industry news. I did always enjoy that core range, especially the cask strength incarnations of their base malts. I’ve previously reviewed Batch 2 of the unpeated Cask Strength and Batch 4 and Batch 9 of the peated. I see now that I never did review the Fusion—an oversight I should do something about. Here now is a review of Batch 8 of the unpeated Cask Strength. As this was bottled in 2010, I can’t tell you what relationship it has to Amrut’s current whisky but if you have kept up with it, perhaps you could let me know in the comments. Continue reading
Littlemill 24, 1990 Revisited (Alambic Classique)
I don’t have a new whisky review for you this week. Or more accurately, I do not have a review for you this week of a whisky I have not reviewed before. This is my second review of this Littlemill 24, 1990 from Alambic Classique. I posted my first review of it almost exactly two months ago. That review was based on my fourth pour from a recently opened bottle. The first couple of pours had been somewhat spirity but it had calmed down by the fourth pour with some air in the bottle and I liked it very much at the time (to the tune of 88 points). I enjoyed the next few pours as well but then it seemed to come apart in the bottle, with a bit too much acid and powdered ginger. Disappointed, I set the bottle aside for a while before giving it another go last week. And, hey presto, it had improved dramatically, and has since stayed that way as the bottle now approaches the end. And so, I figured I would do something I’ve long talked about doing more often but not actually done very much of: a re-review of the same bottle from a different time in its life. In this case the reviews are just two months apart but I’m interested to see what I make of it now just the same. I will be looking at the first review while taking my notes tonight. Here goes. Continue reading
Laphroaig Cairdeas 2011, Ileach Edition
It’s Laphroaig Cairdeas season in the United States of America and accordingly I have for you a review of the Laphroaig Cairdeas. In my helpful way, it’s not a review of the 2024 Laphroaig Cairdeas but of the 2011 release. It’s not my fault: the 2024 Cairdeas is not in Minnesota yet. Or at least it wasn’t in the closest Total Wine when I checked a couple of weeks ago. But I had two unopened bottles of the 2011 Cairdeas on my shelves and was somewhat surprised to discover that I’d not previously reviewed it on the blog, despite having gone through at least one bottle, if not more after launching the blog in early 2013. Anyway, no time like the present. The 2011 Cairdeas, the so-called Ileach Edition—a reference to then-distillery manager and native son of Islay, John Campbell—was the first edition of the Laphroaig Cairdeas to come to the US. It was also the first one I ever tasted and purchased a bottle of. It was right in my wheelhouse: young, bourbon cask Laphroaig. In 2013 the distillery began to go down a path of wine finishes and double maturations for the Cairdeas releases, pausing only in 2015 when they put out the outstanding bourbon cask 200th anniversary release. I’ve liked some of those later releases but I’m looking forward to renewing my acquaintance with this more straightforward expression of the distillery’s classic profile. Continue reading
Caol Ila 22, 1990 (Archives)
Okay, after a week off, let’s get back to the booze reviews. My most recently bottle is this Caol Ila 22, 1990 bottled by the Whiskybase shop to mark the first anniversary of their Archives label. (There were a few other anniversary releases as well but I can’t recall off the top of my head what they all were.) This was from a single bourbon hogshead and Whiskybase only got 130 bottles from it—I don’t know where the rest went. Well, the Whiskybase database lists four other Caol Ila 22, 1990s, three of which were released in 2012 along with this one. None are at the strength of this release but two were diluted to 48% and 46% respectively. So it’s conceivable that one of those might have been the destination of the rest of this hogshead. As it happens, I reviewed one of those two just over a year ago (this Mackillop’s Choice release at 46%) but it has a different cask number. So too does the Ian Macleod Dun Bheagan release at 48%. So there are either more Caol Ila 22, 1990s out there than are listed on Whiskybase or the rest may have gone into a vatting or a blend or aged further for a later release. If you know more about this, please write in below. Anyway, I opened the bottle last week and here now are my notes from the fourth pour. Continue reading
Glenlivet 16 “Nadurra”, Batch 0606A
I was going to say that it’s been a long time since I reviewed a Glenlivet but it turns out I reviewed two of them just last year: a 15 yo Binny’s exclusive from Signatory and a 30 yo from Mackillop’s Choice. It has been a while since I reviewed an official Glenlivet, however. The last one was an oloroso edition of the Glenlivet Nadurra. I found very little to like about that one. I hope to set things in balance today with this review of a bourbon cask Nadurra, which was, of course, the original incarnation of the series, well before the distillery decided to fuck up a very good thing. 16 years old, first-fill bourbon cask, pretty good value: that’s what the name Nadurra used to stand for when I got interested in single malt whisky. This one isn’t just from that era, it might be the first of the cask strength bourbon cask Nadurras. It was bottled in 2006, which means it is comprised of whisky distilled in 1990 or earlier. My spreadsheet is for some reason missing information on when I acquired this bottle or from where or at what price. What I can tell you though is that I opened it a few days ago and found it to be right in line with Nadurra as I prefer to remember it. Here now are my very timely notes on this whisky released 18 years ago. Continue reading
Nikka Pure Malt Black, “Smoky & Mellow”
Let’s keep the mini-streak of bottles I purchased around the turn of the previous decade going. My spreadsheet tells me that I acquired this bottle of Nikka’s Pure Malt Black, courtesy a friend transiting through the Reykjavik airport in August 2012. My spreadsheet also tells me that the 500 ml bottle cost all of $22 in 2012. This makes me want to both laugh and cry. There is very little good Japanese whisky on the market in the US anymore and none of it is as cheap as this was in 2012 (and it was cheap then too). That much is clear. What is less clear is the makeup of the whisky. Nikka put out a number of these Pure Malt releases (do they still?). In addition to the Black, there was also a White and a Red (apologies to any other colours I may be forgetting). No one was ever sure how they were made. The official line was that these were blends of malts from Nikka’s Miyagikyo and Yoichi distilleries but unofficially they were said to also contain whisky from, at least, the group’s Ben Nevis distillery in Scotland. Anyway, I don’t know why I never opened this bottle (or the bottle of the Pure Malt White my friend got me alongside it) for so many years but it’s now open, and here now are my notes. Continue reading
Longrow 11, 2001, Rundlets & Kilderkins
Next up in my restarted “Open Them and Drink Them” campaign is a Longrow released before I’d started this blog. This is an 11 yo distilled in November 2001 and released in January 2013. It was part of Springbank’s Rundlets & Kilderkins line that saw releases from all three of their single malt variants: Springbank, Hazelburn and Longrow. I reviewed the Springbank Rundlets & Kilderkins very early in the blog’s life. As I already made a hilarious joke in that review about the name “Rundlets & Kilderkins”, I’ll spare you this time and inform you—in case you don’t know—that rundlets and kilderkins were two type of old-timey small casks. Where a sherry butt approaches 500 liters in volume and a bourbon hogshead contains 250 liters (200 in a bourbon barrel), a kilderkin holds 80 liters and a rundlet only 60. This means far greater oak contact over the course of the spirit’s stay in the cask. And I believe the Longrow Rundlets & Kilderkins matured entirely in the small casks, just as the Springbank version had. Well, the Springbank Rundlets & Kilderkins was not overwhelmed by the oak contact and I am happy to tell you that the same is true of this whisky. I opened my bottle a few days ago and have been quite enjoying it. Here now are my notes. Continue reading