Last week I reviewed a 30 yo single malt (the 2017 release of the Talisker 30). Here now is one slightly younger. This Littlemill was distilled in 1989 and bottled in 2014 by Whiskybase for their Archives label on behalf of a Dutch whisky enthusiast group named the CasQueteers. It was one of several older Littlemills from the 1988-92 era that were bottled in the early-mid 2010s, many of the others also by Whiskybase (one of whose founders, Menno Bachess is a well-known Littlemill collector). I’ve reviewed a few of these Littlemills before, including some others distilled in 1989. Such were this 22 yo also bottled by Whiskybase, this 22 yo bottled by Glen Fahrn, and this 24 yo bottled by the Whisky Agency. And I’ve reviewed a bunch of others from 1990 too, as well as a few from 1988. What all of them have in common are the qualities that made Littlemill celebrated not when the distillery was on the go but when these accidentally aged single casks were released long after it had been demolished and the ground it had stood on plowed with sand (well, it was turned into a block of flats). Those qualities could perhaps be summed up by my description of this 24 yo on Instagram a couple of days ago: a cocktail of tropical fruit and diesel. I’ve had this bottle open for a few days now; it’s time to expand on that note. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Scotch
Talisker 30, 2017 Release
My first whisky release of the month was of a 3 yo American craft malt whiskey, the Zeppelin Bend from New Holland Distillers in Michigan. For the second, let’s go across the Atlantic to Skye for a much older single malt whisky. This is the Talisker 30 that was released in 2017. It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a Talisker 30. The last was a bottle from the 2015 release, which I quite liked. Before that I’d reviewed the 2006 and 2012 releases. Of those three only the 2006 was at cask strength. The last of the cask strength releases of the Talisker 30 came out in 2010, I think (I have a bottle of that in reserve). After that, all the releases have been at Talisker’s standard 45.8%. Despite the lowered strength, I had quite enjoyed my bottle of the 2015 release and I’d hoped this will be in a similar vein. Early pours were promising and now that the bottle has been open for a week or so, here are my notes. Continue reading
Tamdhu 9, 1989 (Cadenhead)
Back when I became a deranged whisky person, there was a store in Burnsville, MN that had a pretty interesting collection of malts at quite fair prices: Blue Max. Well, they’re still around, but under new ownership for a while now and the old magic—to say nothing of the old stock and the old pricing—is long gone. I took chances on a number of independent releases there more than a decade and a half ago, whiskies about which very little information was available. Among them were several releases from the old Cadenhead’s Authentic Collection series in dark green bottles (including this Ardmore that I just adore). I don’t actually recall purchasing this young Tamdhu (Tamdhu-Glenlivet on the label) and it’s sat hidden in a corner of my whisky hoard for a long time now. I found it while looking for a non-peated bourbon cask whisky to round out my current lineup of open bottles (I like to have a spectrum of profiles on hand). I was a bit nervous while opening it. It was bottled in 1999 and there’s always a good chance a cork will come apart after 26 years. Thankfully, that did not happen. I’m also happy to say that I quite liked the first few pours from the bottle. It’s been open now for a few days and here therefore are my notes. Continue reading
Laphroaig Cairdeas 2025, Lore Cask Strength
I finally got my hands on a bottle of the 2025 Laphroaig Cairdeas. Just the one bottle though. Which means my collection of Cairdeas since 2011 might end in 2024 with the Cask Favorites. You see, I’ve been buying two bottles of the Cairdeas every year, one to drink and one to keep. (Well, in some excellent years—see the 2015 200th anniversary release— I bought more than two.) I fully acknowledge that this is a very silly enterprise. The Cairdeas has been up and down over the last 7-8 years; pretty good in some years; ho hum in others; nothing to really get me going since that 2015 release. Laphroaig’s approach to Cairdeas in recent years has something to do with that as they’ve either released wacky wine cask finishes or cask strength iterations of releases from their regular line. Last year’s release was particularly heavy on the “we’ve run out of ideas” subtext, being composed of casks from the previous two years. Which brings us to this year’s release, which the distillery says is a cask strength version of the Lore (yes, a whisky from their regular line). As to whether this truly is a cask strength version of the regular Lore is not clear: I’ve seen reports of people being told at the distillery that it was only made in the same way as the Lore, i.e with the same mix of cask types. If you know more about this, please write in below. In any case, I thought the Lore was fine when I reviewed it on release in 2017 but was never moved to go back and try more recent versions of it. However, this was made, I’m hoping it’s better. Let’s see. Continue reading
Laphroaig 17, 1995 (The Whisky Agency)
I haven’t reviewed a Laphroaig in a while (this 21 yo bourbon cask, back in February). I was hoping to set that right this month with a review of the 2025 Cairdeas, but I haven’t yet come across it in Minnesota. That’s not to say it’s not here; I’ve not looked very hard: just on a few stores’ websites. If any of my local readers have a line on where it’s available, please let me know. In the meantime, here’s a review of another bourbon cask Laphroaig. Like February’s 21 yo, this is also an indie release from a while ago—from The Whisky Agency—but it’s a bit younger at 17 years of age. It’s also from a slightly smaller cask: a barrel to the 21 yo’s refill hogshead. I do prefer hogsheads and refill hogsheads in particular to the smaller barrels, as they have less oak contact—and in the case of the refill casks, that contact is with less active oak. But I’ve had some very nice bourbon barrel Laphroaig before (this 19 yo, for example) and so have no reason to think that this one will be anything but good. Let’s see if my positivity will be rewarded. Continue reading
Glengoyne 12 CS, Pre-2012 Release
Looking at my cabinet of open bottles, I noticed I did not have any younger sherried whiskies open that do not have any peat involvement. It’s not that I have anything against peated and sherried whiskies—why, some of my best friends are peated and sherried whiskies; it’s just that it’s nice to have some variety on hand. And so down I went into my whisky dungeon to see if there were any candidates for opening. There was this bottle of Glengoyne 12 CS. I remembered where I’d purchased it—Lowry Hills Liquor in Minneapolis—but not when. My spreadsheet—very assiduously updated in those days—tells me it was in 2012. I then looked for a bottle code to see if I could pin the release year down further and this is what I found etched towards the bottom of the bottle: L5109BB and below it, 3 15:46. Normally I would guess this meant it was bottled on the 109th day of 2005 at 3.46 pm but I confess I don’t really know how Glengoyne’s bottle codes worked then (or now, for that matter) and there does not seem to be any intel on that online. If you know more about it, please write in below. What I can tell you is that I don’t have so very much experience with Glengoyne; I’ve reviewed very few—the last almost exactly three years ago. But I’ve generally enjoyed what I’ve had even if I have not yet encountered one I thought to be remarkable. I can tell you that this bottle is not going to break that streak (I had purchased more than one back then and I have the score I’d assigned then, in my pre-blog days, recorded in my spreadsheet). But I’m glad to make its acquaintance again anyway. Continue reading
Ellenstown 12
Back when I started this blog in 2013, Ellenstown was a not uncommon sight in American liquor stores with non-standard whisky selections. In case you’re more recently arrived at the pursuit of single malt whisky, Ellenstown is not the name of a defunct distillery but a name used for two Islay whiskies brought to the US by CVI Brands, an importer from San Carlos, CA. (I’m not sure if these were released elsewhere in the world as well or if there were releases elsewhere with other age statements.) There were two of these: a 10 yo and a 12 yo. The 10 yo was said to be an Ardbeg and I recall both Ardbeg and Caol Ila being named as likely candidates for the 12 yo. Whether any of this speculation was based on actual knowledge, I don’t know; I would expect that the Ellenstown name would imply one of the distilleries closer to Port Ellen—so Ardbeg, more likely than Caol Ila, but also no reason why it couldn’t be Laphroaig (Lagavulin not being made available usually to indies). At any rate, I remember thinking it likely that the 10 yo was Ardbeg. I certainly saw it more frequently in MN and went through a couple of bottles before the blog got going. My spreadsheet tells me I also tried the 12 yo back in the day but I have no memory of it. Luckily, I did have a bottle on my shelves (along with two of the 10 yo) and so can now open it and take some proper notes. I notice now that the label says it was a single cask release. Was there more than one cask? If you still have a bottle lying around let me know if the rear label has the same barcode number as mine: 7 91774 10388 1. Okay, let’s get to it. Continue reading
Rampur Double Cask
My previous booze reviews this month have been of whiskies that were peated to one degree or another: relatively mild (the Nikka Pure Malt White) to not-so-mild (the Ardbeg Corryvreckan and the Caol Ila Feis Ile 2016). To close out the month, let’s do a whisky that’s not peated at all. This is the Double Cask from Rampur, the Indian malt whisky distillery from the Radico Khaitan group. I’d lost sight of them after reviewing their original (?) release, the Rampur Select a few years ago. In the intervening period they’ve certainly expanded their portfolio of releases quite dramatically: their website lists five regular releases and four limited edition releases. This Double Cask is one of the regular releases. As per the distillery’s website, it is made by marrying spirit from American oak bourbon barrels and European Oak sherry casks (butts? re-made hogsheads or barrels?). So, not double maturation. As to what the ratio of the cask types in the vatting is, I have no idea. Well, I don’t purchase very much whisky any more but for some reason I couldn’t resist when I saw this bottle in the liquor department of my Costco last week. Let’s see if my weakness did me a favour or did me in. Continue reading
Caol Ila 12, for Feis Ile 2016
Back in January of this year, I reviewed Caol Ila’s bottling for the 2017 iteration of Feis Ile, the Islay whisky festival. Now that I’m on the verge of finishing that bottle, it’s time to open another Caol Ila, and it may as well be another one bottled for Feis Ile. We’ll go back one year in time to 2016. Like the 2017 after it, the 2016 release was also 12 years old and without a vintage statement. While the 2017 release was to be double-mature in ex-amoroso sherry casks (I think previously used for the Talisker Distillers Edition), the 2016 was put together from a refill American oak hogsheads and European bodega sherry butts. Now as to whether the second type refers to European oak butts or merely specifies that these were butts actually used in sherry bodegas (as opposed to being reconstructed and “seasoned” with sherry expressly for the purpose of whisky maturation), I don’t know. I’m sure somebody else does—and if you’re that somebody, please write in below. Okay, let’s get to it. Continue reading
Ardbeg Corryvreckan, 2011 Release (Again)
Here is a review of a whisky that I have already reviewed, albeit five years ago. I don’t mean just that it’s another Ardbeg Corryvreckan review: it’s a review of a bottle released in the same year as that previous bottle: 2011. The Corryvreckan was then just a couple of years old. I had loved my first taste of it in 2009 or 2010 or whenever it was and I quite liked the 2011 release when I first reviewed it in 2020. I’m curious to see what I’ll make of it now (I’m not re-reading my previous notes until I get done with my notes on this one). I’m also curious about the status of current Corryvreckan. It’s still part of Ardbeg’s core lineup, along with other mainstays, the 10 yo and the Uigeadail—and also the newer An Oa and Wee Beastie—but I don’t think I’ve had any Corryvreckan released in the last decade. Those of you who have: do you find it to be still more or less as it was? The makeup seems to be the same, with ex-bourbon and ex-French oak casks in the vatting. Do let me know your thoughts on more recent releases. Okay, let’s get to this one. Continue reading
Lagavulin 16, Feis Ile 2017
June’s whisky reviews began with a 22 yo Littlemill from a boutique German independent bottler. The second review of a month is of an official release from one of Scotland’s most iconic distilleries, Lagavulin. This is a 16 yo but it’s not the well-known and much-loved standard Lagavulin 16. This is a cask strength 16 yo that was released for Feis Ile, the annual Islay whisky festival, in 2017 (almost exactly eight years ago). And, no, it ‘s not a cask strength version of the regular 16 yo either. This was double-matured in casks that had previously held moscatel, a sweet wine. In case the name sounds familiar in a whisky context, the Caol Ila Distiller’s Edition is also double-matured in moscatel casks. I assume there are a number of these casks lying around in Diageo’s warehouses and so this was probably a convenient way to come up with a Feis Ile release in 2017. (I may be misremembering but I think there may also have been a Diageo special release slate one year that featured malts from iconic distilleries being double matured in the casks used for other distilleries’ Distillers Editions.). Anyway, I’ve had this bottle sitting around for a while and am glad to finally have it open. This review joins my reviews of the 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018 and 2020 Lagavulin Feis Ile releases. I have a bottle of the 2016 release on my shelf but I don’t have the 2019—so I’m afraid I’m probably never going to complete that sequence. Anyway, let’s see what this is like. Continue reading
Littlemill 22, 1989 (Glen Fahrn)
To kick off June’s whisky reviews, here is an older Littlemill. This is another of the many casks of 20+yo Littlemill that were bottled by various indie outfits in the early 2010s, well after the distillery had closed, been demolished and the ground it stood on plowed with sand. Well, the latter only happened in a figurative sense. The distillery closed finally in 1994 and was dismantled in 1997. What was left of it burned down in 2004 and now a housing development stands on the site. As I never get tired of noting, Littlemill had a very negative reputation among whisky aficionados when it was open. The official releases were not very inspiring. But a number of casks that remained in storage were aged into an excellence that the official releases never reached and many of them were released 15 odd years ago. As the whisky market was not insanely overheated at the time, bottles from these casks were available at quite reasonable prices from various indie bottlers (my spreadsheet tells me I paid just about $114 for this one) and I socked a few away. This cask was released by a German outfit named Glen Fahrn. The latest release Whiskybase logs from them was in 2017—I’m not sure if they’re still a going concern. Anyway, I’m glad to have finally opened this bottle a few nights ago. Here now are my notes. Continue reading
Ben Nevis 22, 1991 (Signatory)
May was going to be a month of single malt Scotch reviews but it turned more specifically into a month of reviews of sherry cask single malt Scotch whiskies. Things kicked off with an Ardmore 1977-2003 bottled by Scott’s Selection; next up was the 2011 release of the Glendronach 21, Parliament; last week I reviewed the 2018 release of the Springbank 15. And here now is a review of a Ben Nevis 22, 1991 bottled by Signatory. Whiskybase lists seven different casks of Ben Nevis 22, 1991 bottled by Signatory, but only two were at cask strength. This is one of the two. I’ve actually reviewed it before, back in 2020. That review was of a sample that had come to me from Michael Kravitz of Diving for Pearls (whose reviews I hope you are all still reading). I have to admit I had forgotten that I had already reviewed this but I’m always happy to re-review whiskies, especially when the first set of notes had come from a sample. Well, I really liked it back in 2020 from the 2 oz sample bottle and—spoiler alert—I can tell you that I really like it now that I have my own bottle open. These notes are being taken from the fourth pour from the bottle. Let’s get right to it. Continue reading
Springbank 15 (2018 Release)
I last reviewed the Springbank 15 more than six years ago. That review was of a bottle of the 2017 release. Today I have for you a review of a bottle from the 2018 release. Or rather, as per the very hard to find code on the bottle, it was bottled in 2018: my guess is it didn’t hit the market till 2019 (if I am reading the code correctly, it was bottled quite late in 2018). By the way, the code is not actually hard to find. It was for me because before opening the bottle I was squinting around the bottom, as that’s where I remembered it being etched/printed. Of course, when I gave up and removed the foil, there it was right at the top of the bottle. An exciting story, I think you will agree, full of the kind of dramatic tension and moral ambiguity that marks great works of literature. You’re welcome. More pertinent information is that the Springbank 15 used to be one of my very favourite whiskies, and the fact that I have lost touch with it has to do only with the fact that all Springbank seems to have become heavily allocated in the United States—with prices rising to match. Not that I buy very much whisky any more but even before I’d slowed down/come to an almost complete stop, it had become very hard to find any Springbank in Minnesota. A far cry from when we moved here in 2007, when a store in Minneapolis—famous for retailing a very wide selection of OB single malts at only 10% markup—was selling it for all of $68. Ah, those were the days. Anyway, here are my notes on this bottle. Continue reading
Ardmore 1977-2003 (Scott’s Selection)
After a month that featured no whisky reviews—instead, I reviewed a rum, an Armagnac, a Calvados, and a mezcal—let’s do a month of nothing but whisky reviews. Don’t get too excited now—it’s still just going to be one whisky review a week.
First up, is an Ardmore bottled by Scott’s Selection in 2003. It was distilled in 1977 and so would have been either 25 or 26 years old. Scott’s Selection was always reticent with detail on the label. Though in this case they somewhat unusually specify that the cask type was “sherry wood”. They don’t say it’s a single cask, mind you. In fact, I can’t remember if Scott’s Selection ever released any single casks from this era. Or at least any that they marked as such. There was another 1977-2003 “sherry wood” Ardmore, by the way, that was released in Europe at a different strength; this is the one that was released in the US. 15 odd years ago, you could still find bottles of this—and several other Scott’s Selection releases of whiskies distilled in the 1960s and 1970s—hanging around in whisky stores for prices that now seem like they must have been out of a fantasy. Those days are long gone. But at least I have a bottle of this left and now it’s open. Continue reading
Bowmore Tempest, Batch 2
Today is the 12th anniversary of the blog. My first-ever booze review—posted on March 24, 2013—was of the Bowmore Legend. I’ve since marked every anniversary of the blog with a review of a Bowmore. Accordingly, here is a review of a Bowmore. This is in keeping as well with this month’s “young whisky” theme, being 10 years old. The secondary theme of the month’s reviews has turned out to be “throwback whisky”, as they’ve also all been reviews of whiskies released in or before 2013 (the year the blog launched—I note this in case you are even worse than me at arithmetic). Already reviewed this month: a 2013 release of the Ardbeg 10; the first release of the Kilkerran Work in Progress; and the Springbank 11, 1997, Madeira Cask. Here now is a review of the second release of the Bowmore Tempest (see here for my review of the first release). It was bottled in 2010 and, like the first batch, comprised whisky matured in first-fill bourbon casks. I can’t remember now how many batches followed this one but I do recall that the second batch was the last one to bear the name “Tempest” in the US. This on account of some brand infringement issue with an American wine. Subsequent batches were put out in the US under the name “Dorus Mor”. Anyway, I quite liked the first batch and am glad to finally be tasting this one. Continue reading
Springbank 11, 1997, Madeira Cask
Let’s keep the month of reviews of younger whiskies going. Following my reviews of the Kilkerran Work in Progress 1 and an Ardbeg 10 from 2013, here is a Springbank 11. This was released around the same time as that Kilkerran and was one of my first forays into purchasing limited release whiskies. I had enjoyed the Springbank 10 and the Springbank 15 (available at a startlingly low price from a store in Minneapolis known for their low mark-ups) a lot and so plonked down my money for this 11 yo. It was not a single cask release—900 bottles total were bottled at cask strength—but the spirit had spent the entire 11 years in the madeira casks. I enjoyed it greatly and purchased more than one bottle over the next year or two (of course, in those days excellent whiskies stayed on the shelves for much longer). Indeed, it was the gateway for me into Springbank’s Wood Expressions series (see also the Claret Wood and the Calvados Wood—to say nothing of all the 12 yo sherry cask releases from the 1996 vintage). Years later, when my friend Patrick S. offered me a bottle, I was only to happy to take him up on it. Now that it’s open, I can finally review an old favourite. Continue reading