I reviewed an 11 yo Glendronach back in August. Six months later, here is one that’s almost twice as old. This is the Glendronach 21, Parliament, specifically from the 2012 release. If I’m remembering correctly, the Parliament was launched in 2011. I was under the impression that I had reviewed a bottle of that 2011 release in the first year of the blog but I see now in my spreadsheet that I emptied that bottle two weeks before I launched the blog. Back in those days I did used to save large reference samples from bottles for future tastings; I wonder if one might be kicking around somewhere in my hoard or if I finished that as well at some point! Anyway, here is the 2012 release. The Parliament is unlike the more sought-after single casks Glendronach had begun to release around that same time in that it is a vatting, did not bear a vintage statement and was not bottled at cask strength. It was, nonetheless, usually better than many of those so-called single casks. Of course, I am referring to the earlier releases: I’ve not kept up with the distillery and have no idea if the 21 yo is still bottled or if not, when it was pulled. If you know more, please do write in. Continue reading
Category Archives: 85-89 points
Caol Ila 30, 1983 (Wilson & Morgan)
I reviewed a 12 yo sherried Caol Ila last month. Here now is a much older one. While the 12 yo—bottled for Feis Ile in 2017—had been double-matured in sherry casks (in casks that had previously been used to make the Talisker Distiller’s Edition), this one came out of a single sherry butt. It was distilled in 1983 and bottled in 2013 by the Italian indie, Wilson & Morgan (yes, it’s not a very Italian name). I quite liked the only other Caol Ila I’ve had from Wilson & Morgan, but that was much younger and from a second-fill bourbon cask (this 16 yo). Indeed, I’ve generally liked almost all the Wilson & Morgan releases I’ve tried (not very many). And I can tell you—spoiler alert—that I quite like this one too. I opened this bottle, which I’ve had sitting on a shelf for a long time now, a few days ago and have been dipping into it ever since. These notes are being taken from the fourth pour from the bottle. The bottle was more than a bit hot when opened and I am hopeful that it may have mellowed a bit. Let’s see. Continue reading
Caperdonich 36, 1972 (Lonach)
Back in the early days of the blog—back when I had more energy and was known for being a thorn in the side of not food writers but the whisky industry and its many amateur apologists and spokespersons—one of the pet mythologies of the whisky enthusiast community that I often took issue with was the belief in magic vintages at particular distilleries. Indeed, one of my earliest reviews featured Caperdonich, which is one of the distilleries around which a lot of the magic vintage talk used to center (do people still go on about this kind of thing?). 1972 was the year about which people were most apt to wax rhapsodic. I never tired of pointing out—as I did in that first Caperdonich review—that what was almost certainly happening was that for entirely random reasons more casks of 1972 Caperdonich had survived to be bottled in the 2000s than of other years in the 1970s. I guess I just did it again. Anyway, I have for you today another Caperdonich 1972. This one was also bottled by Duncan Taylor—who bottled so many of those fruity Caperdonichs that made the dead distillery’s reputation—but not for one of their premier lines. The Lonach releases typically featured low bottling strengths and were not single casks. Quite likely these were vattings that had been used to rescue casks that had fallen below the minimum required strength of 40%. Many of these whiskies were very good anyway. Let’s see what this one is like. Continue reading
Longmorn 15
So far this month I’ve reviewed whiskies released in 2021 (this Highland Park), 2017 (this Caol Ila) and 2009 (this Talisker). Here now is an even more untimely review: of the Longmorn 15. This release was discontinued in 2006, being replaced the following year by the just about whelming Longmorn 16. The 16 yo added three more percentage points in abv but you would have had a hard time finding people then who preferred it to the 15 yo. But we took what we got. Back then there was barely any official Longmorn on the market, as most of it went—and still does—into the group’s blends, particularly Chivas Regal. Your best bet beyond the 15 yo, and then the 16 yo, were the occasional limited 500 ml releases in the Cask Strength Edition series from Chivas that used to be available at the group’s distilleries and a few retailers. Now there are three official releases: an 18 yo, a 22 yo, and a 30 yo. I haven’t tried any of them and couldn’t tell you when they were introduced. I have an idea though that they probably cost a lot more than the 15 yo or even the 16 yo ever did. The 15 yo, in case you’re wondering, went for about $50 back in the day (hell, the 16 yo cost me $70 in 2012). Anyway, this bottle remained unopened for about two decades. No longer. Let’s see what it’s like. Continue reading
Caol Ila 12, for Feis Ile 2017
Until a few years ago I used to purchase whisky occasionally from auctions in the UK and somehow accumulated a number of Caol Ila’s releases for Feis Ile, the annual Islay whisky festival. They’ve been sitting on my shelves ever since; it’s time to start opening them. For no particular reason, I’ll start with the 2017 release which was a 12 yo bottled at cask strength. The twist was that it had been double matured in amoroso sherry casks; and not just in any amoroso sherry casks but ones that had previously been used to make the Talisker Distillers Edition. I could be wrong but I think Diageo did that kind of a thing with a bunch of their distilleries either that year or around that time. I have a vague memory of there being another Diageo distillery’s whisky that had been double matured in casks that had previously been used to make the Caol Ila Distillers Edition. Or maybe I dreamed that up—it’s been a long time since I paid attention to this kind of thing. In this case, this complicated maturation process means the amoroso casks would have contributed not just the sweet/savoury character of the original contents but also some of Talisker’s brand of peppery peat. Let’s see what it all adds up to. Continue reading
Secret Orkney 15, 2005 (Cooper’s Choice)
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
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