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
Category Archives: -Whisky by Rating
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
Lagavulin 19, 1995 for Feis Ile 2014
I still haven’t gotten my hands on a bottle of the Feis Ile release I was expecting to review this fall. I am referring, of course, to the 2024 Laphroaig Cairdeas. For all I know, it’s been in Minnesota for a while: I just haven’t stopped in at a liquor store for a while—if you’ve seen it around somewhere locally, please drop me a line. In the meantime, here’s a review of a Feis Ile release from ten years ago. You are welcome. This was Lagavulin’s release for 2014. The total release was of 3500 bottles, which tells you a number of casks were involved—as your average sherry butt holds between 475-500 liters. Those casks were all European oak sherry casks and were all filled on January 30, 1995, which would make this whisky 19 years old. When sherry cask Lagavulin is good, it’s really, really good. Such were the 2013 and 2015 Feis Ile releases, both of which I’ve reviewed on the blog (here and here). I’m also remembering the 12 year old Lagavulin for Friends of the Classic Malts, which was also a 1995 distillation and which might also have been from European oak casks (I’m too lazy to go down to the whisky lair and check the label on my last surviving bottle). Anyway, let’s see what this one is like. 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
Glendronach 11, 2002 (for Whiskybase)
This week’s booze review is of another young whisky released about a decade ago. A little over a decade ago in this case. This Glendronach 11 was distilled in May 2002 and bottled in December 2013. The label on my bottle says that it was “specially selected by and bottled for Whiskybase.com”—and that is indeed where I bought my bottle in early 2015—but I think this was a split cask, with half going somewhere else. I don’t think Whiskybase bottled all 701 bottles that came out of this oloroso sherry cask. Now, you may be thinking that 701 bottles is a lot at 57.2% even from a sherry butt and all I can say to you is that this is Billy Walker era Glendronach we are talking about. The whisky was bottled from a single oloroso cask but that doesn’t mean that all of it spent all 11 years in it or that multiple casks of different types didn’t get re-racked together into this oloroso cask for a short while before bottling happened. Of course, we’ll never know. On the plus side, Whiskybase did always make good selections. I will say though that the first few pours from this bottle—which I opened a few days ago—were not very promising, with the whisky tasting quite oaky and raw. Let’s hope it’s calmed down now as I take my notes. 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
Highland Park 18, 2002 Release
Last week’s whisky review was of the Longrow Rundlets & Kilderkins, which was distilled in 2001 and released in 2013. This week’s review is of a Highland Park that was released more than a decade prior, in 2002. I didn’t purchase it in 2002, however; at the time I had only barely started drinking single malt whisky and I’m not sure I was even aware of Highland Park as a distillery. No, I purchased it in December 2011 (I can tell you the month because in those days I was very meticulous about maintaining my whisky spreadsheet). I found a bottle at a store in a northern suburb of Minneapolis, on the shelf at the same price being asked for the current 18 yo (the flat bottle that had been introduced in 2006/7). I didn’t actually record it as a 2002 release in my spreadsheet though—it’s a funny story, how I came to confirm that date. When I opened this bottle last week, I peered at it against the light to find the bottle code printed on the inside of the label. That bottle code is L0146 B L11 12/03 10:16. Off I went to Google to see if there was any information out there on decoding Highland Park’s bottling codes. I arrived on this discussion on Connosr.com which indicated it was a 2002 release. The information came from a thread on the old WhiskyWhiskyWhisky forums. I clicked on the link to that thread to find…that it had been started by me in December 2011, right after I purchased the bottle. And the question had been answered by two different sources in 2013. I had absolutely no memory of this. I blame the whisky. Anyway, the bottle has been open a few days; here finally 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
Littlemill 24, 1990 (Alambic Classique)
Alright, after two Armagnacs in a row (here and here), let’s get back to single malt Scotch whisky. And after four reviews of whisky samples let’s get back to the business of opening and finishing bottles I’ve been hanging on to for a very long time. Today I have for you a Littlemill that has been on my shelves for almost a decade. This is a 24 year old bottled by the German outfit, Alambic Classique in 2015 from an oloroso sherry cask. There were 295 bottles released, which is too small a number for a regulation sherry butt and just a bit too high for a hogshead after 24 hours. Maybe a butt split with someone else? Or was some of it held back for a later release? I’m not sure—if you know more, please write in below. Anyway, this was another of the many casks of late 1980s, early 1990s Littlemill that were released in the early-mid 2010s and which were key to the rehabilitation of the reputation of the distillery. The distillery, of course, had long been closed by then; indeed, what was left of the distillery was destroyed by a fire in 2004. So this improvement to its reputation has not been damaged again by official releases the owners might have continued to put out. Anyway, let’s see what this one is like. Continue reading
Chateau de Pellehaut 40, 1983 (for Serious Brandy)
Last week’s booze review was of an Armagnac. That was a 31 yo from a mystery producer that was bottled in 2019 for K&L in California. This week I have another Armagnac. This adds 9 years of age and was bottled in 2024, not for a liquor store but the prominent Facebook brandy group, Serious Brandy. And it’s not from a mystery producer but the very well-known Chateau de Pellehaut located in the Tenareze production region. I very much enjoyed the only other Pellehaut I’ve reviewed—this excellent 17 yo—and am hopeful that this much older cask will be at least as good. This cask, along with a much younger Armagnac from Domaine du Cardinat, was selected by Steve Ury, the Artist Formerly Known As Sku, the evil mastermind who runs Serious Brandy with an iron hand. Well, Steve may be corrupt and capricious but he does have a good nose for brandy and he’s told me that if I don’t say so he’ll throw me out of the group and have me deported. What a great guy he is! Let’s taste the great brandy he picked! Continue reading
Domaine le Chaou a Perquie 31, 1987 (Fitte et Laterrade)
In 2019 K&L (the California store) released a couple of casks of Armagnac from a small producer named Domaine le Chaou, bottled by an outfit named Fitte et Laterrade (now defunct). The casks were 30 and 31 years old. Not very much was known about them—I’d learned long ago not to trust too much to K&L’s stories. However, Sku went on about them rather a lot and so I talked myself into buying a bottle of each. Five years later I’m finally opening one of them: the slightly older one. Looking about now for information about these casks, I came upon this wonderful bit of detective work, complete with aerial reconnaissance via Google Maps. You can go read the story there of how these casks came to be. One other bit of interesting information is that these two casks were not matured in the usual way for Armagnac. That usual way sees the spirit filled into new oak casks to start but then transferred a few years later into refill casks for the remainder of the maturation. These, however, were apparently left in the original casks for the entire maturation period. This may explain how it is that these casks ended up in the US. By which I mean that their greater oak contact would probably have rendered them more attractive to the American enthusiast market for Armagnac than to the French market. This because the American enthusiast market for Armagnac is largely comprised of bourbon drinkers who have a high tolerance for oak. Continue reading