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

Kilkerran Work in Progress 1, Take 2


In February I reviewed four older whiskies: a Caperdonich 36, 1972, a Caol Ila 30, 1983, the 2012 release of the Glendronach 21 “Parliament”, and a Laphroaig 21, 1990. March’s first review, on the other hand, was of a 10 yo: the 2013 release of the Ardbeg 10. Accordingly, let’s make this a month of younger whiskies. Up next, is the first release of the Work in Progress series from Kilkerran. I’ve actually reviewed this one before—about three years ago. That review was from a sample from a friend; this is from my own bottle. It was released in 2009 and contained spirit distilled in 2004, making the contents four or five years old. The vattings for these early releases of the Work in Progress series were said to contain both ex-bourbon and ex-sherry spirit, but I’m not sure what the ratios were. I do know I’ve liked most of the Work in Progress releases a lot. I’ve previously also reviewed both the sherry and bourbon cask releases of the fifth release and the bourbon cask releases of the sixth and seventh releases. I have an unopened bottle of the third release on my shelf. I haven’t tried the second or fourth releases since starting the blog. Anyway, let’s get reacquainted with the first release and see what I make of it now. Continue reading

Ardbeg 10, 2013 Release


My previous review of the venerable Ardbeg 10 was an unusually timely review. That was back in 2017 and I was reviewing the 2016 release. Today I have a review for you of the 2013 release. (I’ve previously also reviewed the 2007 and 2009 releases.) I’m not sure if I’ve had any Ardbeg 10 released since 2016 and I don’t have any sitting on my shelves. After this bottle is done, the only Ardbeg 10 I’ll have left is a bottle from the 2008 release. And so my reviews are going further back in time. That’s a bit of a shame as this is one of the great classic malts; along with the Lagavulin 16 and the Laphroaig 10, it used to be the cornerstone of the collection of every lover of peated whisky from Islay. I really should seek it out again—and I should probably check in on more recent releases of the Laphroaig 10 and Lagavulin 16 as well. I’m not buying much whisky any more these days—can’t remember which the last bottle I purchased was, or when I purchased it—but these are easily available in bars. Okay, let’s see what this one is like. Continue reading

Laphroaig 21, 1990 (Whisky Import Nederland)


For my last whisky review of the month I have an older Laphroaig. This is a 21 yo distilled in 1990 and bottled in 2012 from a single refill hogshead by Whisky Import Nederland. I don’t think I’ve ever had an older bourbon cask Laphroaig that I’ve not liked a lot and this one is no exception. I opened it a few days ago and have been enjoying it greatly. I purchased this bottle a long time ago and had it sitting around ever since for no good reason. Now that it’s open, I don’t expect it will make it to the end of March. Here are my notes.

Laphroaig 21, 1990 (52.6%; Whisky Import Nederland; refill hogshead 5936; from my own bottle)

Nose: Bright, carbolic peat (Dettol) with a big dose of lemon. On the second sniff there’s some cereals in there too. A little sweeter here too with time with just a bit of vanilla emerging. With more time there’s salt here as well. A few drops of water emphasize the sweetness but everything else is still here. Continue reading

Glendronach 21, Parliament (2012 Release)


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

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

Talisker 14, 1994, “Manager’s Choice”, Take 2


If you’re a long-time, particularly dedicated reader of the blog [you are not], you might feel a sense of deja vu. Yes, I’ve reviewed the Talisker Manager’s Choice before. Almost five years ago, in fact. I loved it then. So why am I reviewing it again? Well, my initial review was of a sample from a friend’s bottle, and now I’ve finally gotten around to opening my own bottle (which I’d referred to in my previous review). And so I am curious to see how close the two experiences—one from a 1 oz sample taken from the end of the bottle’s life and one from the fourth pour from a freshly opened bottle—will be. I’ve not re-read the original review before taking these notes. Okay, let’s get to it.

Talisker 14, 1994, “Manager’s Choice” (58.6%; bodega sherry European oak cask; from my own bottle)

Nose: Very recognizably Talisker off the top with peppery peat and salt. Sweeter notes come up from below (pipe tobacco) along with beef bouillon and savoury gunpowder. Gets earthier as it sits with mushrooms—more specifically the liquor from soaking dried shiitake mushrooms. With more time there’s some orange peel in the mix and a touch of butterscotch as well. A few drops of water and the salt and orange peel combine and turn to preserved lime; a hint of apricot jam in there too. 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

Strathisla 30 (Gordon & MacPhail)


Here to kick off the month in whisky reviews is a rather old and rather good Strathisla. This 30 year old was one of those licensed bottlings by Gordon & MacPhail but I can’t get a fix on year of release. Whiskybase does not have a listing for this 750 ml bottle at 43% abv. We can cautiously assume it was released at the same time as the 700 ml bottle at 40% but there’s no release date on the listing for that bottle either. My spreadsheet tells me I acquired it in 2013 from Binny’s in Chicago but I am pretty sure it was released in the previous decade. If I’m right about that, this is distillate from the 1970s, possibly even the early-mid 1970s. That’s generally a good thing when it comes single malty whisky from Scotland and especially when it’s older Speyside whiskies bottled by Gordon & MacPhail. Anyway, if you know more about the release year etc. please do write in below. In the meantime, here are my notes taken from the fourth pour from my bottle (which I am very sorry to be separated from here in Delhi). Continue reading