Laphroaig 17, 1997 (SMWS 29.164)

Laphroaig 17, 1997 (SMWS 29.164)
This is the first of three Laphroaig reviews this week. This one was bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society of America and in age, strength and cask type is very close to the recently discontinued OB 18 yo. I think I am in a bit of a minority among whisky geeks in liking the OB 18 yo a lot, but if this is close to it then I’ll be happy, Of course, being a SMWS release means it cost almost twice as much as the OB 18 (in Minnesota anyway). I have to also say that my batting average with recent SMWSA releases has not been stellar: 85 points for a 23 yo Clynelish, 87 points for a 22 yo Highland Park, 87 points for a 13 yo Springbank—these are not poor scores by any stretch of the imagination but the mystique of the SMWS promises better, and they’re certainly not shy with the prices. Will this finally be the bottle that convinces me that I should sign up for a membership?

Oh yes, the SMWS called this one “A Ballerina at the Barbecue”. Continue reading

Ledaig 10, 2004 (Signatory)

Ledaig 10, 2004, Signatory
Tobermory’s peated malt Ledaig has not always had the best reputation. In recent years, however, a number of heavily sherried Ledaigs have been released that have been received very well indeed. I’m not talking only about ancient monsters like this Alambic Classique 40 yo from 1972 (the year the distillery was re-opened after being shuttered for more than four decades) but very young casks distilled in the 2000s. I’ve reviewed a few of these, giving very high scores (relative to age, and in general) to a 6 yo and a 7 yo from the Whisky Exchange and to another 6 yo from Blackadder. I’m hopeful that this cask, released by Signatory, may be up to those standards; especially since the price was not low for such a young whisky. As to why these heavily sherried casks are falling to the independents, while the distillery continues to release a very different profile for its own 10 yo and 18 yo releases, I don’t know. Continue reading

Auchentoshan 23, 1990 (Archives)

Auchentoshan 23, 1990, Archives
I think I can say safely that this is the oldest Auchentoshan I’ve ever had. I’ve not had too many Auchentoshans of any age, actually—I’ve not been a big fan of most of what I’ve had and have therefore not sought out much more. On the one hand, the general profile seems to fall in an acidic bourbon cask spectrum made all over the Speyside; on the other, there’s been something a bit weird about most of the few I’ve had that I can’t quite describe (though I did like this 14 yo from Cadenhead’s). Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what longer aging has done to this cask, which was bottled jointly by Whisky Fässle and Whiskybase (for their Archives label). It seems to have divided opinion on Whiskybase quite widely—there are a lot of ratings for it and they go evenly from the high 70s to the low 90s. Consequently, perhaps, this is still available.
Continue reading

Benriach 19, 1994 (for K&L)

Benriach 19, 1994, K&L
Here is the second of two reviews of K&L exclusives. I did not enjoy last week’s Faultline Blended Scotch Whisky at all. Will this Benriach, which is much older, be better? It won’t take much. This is from a bourbon barrel and made from peated malt (Benriach is one of the few Speyside distilleries that regularly issues peated whisky—see also my reviews of their Curiositas, Septendecim, Arumaticus Fumosus and Solstice). K&L originally attempted to sell it for $150 but after a while were forced to lower the price to $109, at which point it eventually sold out. Good to see sanity prevailing every once in a while among customers in our overheated market.

As with the Faultline blend, this is review is being posted simultaneously with that of Michael K. and Jordan D. I’ll have the links once everything’s live. I wonder if we’ll have more agreeement this time. Continue reading

Glendronach 15, Revival, 2015 Release

Glendronach 15 Revival, 2015 Release
As you may have heard, the Glendronach 15 is going on a hiatus for a few years. Presumably the distillery needs to build up aged stock for future releases. You may also know that some of the age-stated regular release Glendronachs put out since the new ownership re-opened the distillery in 2008 have in fact mostly been older than the age stated on the label. This is because the distillery was mothballed from 1996 to 2002. What this means is that a 12 yo released between 2009 (which is when it was first released) and 2014 had to be more than 12 years old (as no spirit was distilled between mid-1996 and 2002). But starting last year the 12 yo could at least theoretically have gone back to being 12 yo whisky distilled in 2002. Not so for the 15 yo. A 15 yo released in 2015 (as this bottle was) cannot contain spirit distilled in 2000 and is therefore at least 18 years old, possibly more. And so rather than continue to put ever older whisky into the 15 yo, as they did for a good number of years, the distillery seems to have decided to wait till spirit distilled in 2002 and later turns 15 years old. Presumably they’d rather save the older casks for their lucrative, so-called “single cask” releases. Can’t fault them for that. Continue reading

Scapa 20, 1993, Cask Strength Edition

Scapa 20, 1993
I have had very little Scapa and reviewed even less (only this old, long discontinued 12 yo). There doesn’t seem to be very much indie Scapa around these days—Whiskybase lists only two independent releases from 2015 and only another two from 2014. It’s not the case that there was once an ocean of indie Scapa sloshing around but the releases seem to have slowed to a trickle a few years ago. As the owners show little interest in official releases this means it’s mostly being reserved for blends (which is, of course, the case for many distilleries). The only steady official releases have been in the excellent Cask Strength Edition series from Chivas Bros.—500 ml bottles, small batch rather than single cask, I believe, and originally available only at the distilleries. This sample is from one of those, released in 2013 (many an excellent Glenburgie and Longmorn have also been released in this series). Let’s see what it it’s like.  Continue reading

Ben Nevis 18, 1995 (Wilson & Morgan)

Ben Nevis 18, 1995, Wilson & Morgan
I’ve noted many times before the phenomenon of distilleries that were unloved when they were open eventually becoming hot tickets some years after their closure. You could certainly add Ben Nevis to the list of unloved distilleries. When I was first getting serious/deranged about single malt whisky Ben Nevis was one of the distilleries of which very few people had anything positive to say. It was seen as an eccentric distillery at best, and even those who didn’t dislike its malt would concede that its product was wildly inconsistent. You might have thought that it too would need to close down to get a better reputation, a la Littlemill. Of late, however, it’s begun to seem that they might not need that drastic step. A lot of indie Ben Nevis has been showing up in the last couple of years, and a lot of it has been fairly well received. And given the high prices that the distillery has begun to charge for its teenaged vintage releases it appears that the worm may well have begun to turn. Indie Ben Nevis, however, remains good value. Continue reading

Bunnahabhain 23, 1989 (Abbey Whisky)

Bunnahabhain 23, 1989, Abbey Whisky
Abbey Whisky are a Scottish retailer who from time to time release their own cask selections. While their Glendronach casks, like those of other stores, have been released in the official distillery livery, most of their other bottlings seem to be under their own name in a series called “The Rare Casks”. There only seem to have been four releases in this series (as per Whiskybase anyway)—there are also a number of undisclosed distillery releases in their “The Secret Cask” series. All I’ve had from them so far is a very nice Glendronach (which I’ve reviewed) and a sample of their “Rare Casks” Glencadam that did not really impress me (the sample was too small for a review). This Bunnahabhain, which I opened for my local group’s tasting last month, fell somewhere in between at the first outing—I’m interested to see what a month or so of air and time may have done for it.

Continue reading

Glen Keith 19, 1995 (Signatory for Stoller Wines)

Glen Keith 19, 1995, Signatory
Here is another of my purchases from my brief Chicago trip last month. I’ve had very little Glen Keith before. It’s a relatively young distillery that no one’s ever gotten very excited about, albeit one that’s packed a fair bit of change into its brief history. It was built in the late 1950s and originally triple-distilled its spirit (unusual on the Speyside). In the 1970s it produced peated variants under the Craigduff and Glenisla labels. In 1999 it was mothballed and seemingly closed for good…until it reopened in 2013 with a doubled production capacity. Now, as then, it is producing a somewhat generic spirit for Chivas Bros./Pernod-Ricard’s blends and it’s mostly known to whisky geeks through a number of independent releases in the 2000s—and, of course, individual casks can hit far above the average. Unremarkable as its reputation is, I’d have been willing to bet that it would eventually have turned around if the owners had only been far-sighted enough to keep it closed. Anyway, let’s see what this one is like.  Continue reading

Glendronach 19, 1995 (PX Cask 3804 for Whiskybase)

Glendronach 19, 1995 for Whiskybase
I really liked the last Whiskybase exclusive Glendronach—this 21 yo oloroso cask from 1993—and am hoping this 19 yo from a PX cask will have more in common with it than with the controversial PX cask 23 yo that led to all the fuss about Glendronach’s use of the term “single cask”. Of course, what that controversy tells us is that using the terms “oloroso cask” or “PX cask” may be meaningless. As the cask information on the label only refers to the last cask in which more than one cask may have been re-racked, this so-called PX cask may in fact have whisky in it that spent far more of its life in oloroso casks, and the so-called oloroso casks that so many prefer may have whisky in them that spent a goodly portion of their lives in bourbon casks (and may even have been re-racked alongside PX casks). Yes, what finally matters is what a particular whisky tastes like, but if that’s the case, why bother putting cask details on the labels at all? Anyway, I shouldn’t get on a high horse about this as I’m obviously still buying Glendronach’s “single cask” releases. Continue reading

Bowmore 22, 1990 (Wilson & Morgan)

Bowmore 22, 1990 (Wilson & Morgan)
It’s been a while since I’ve had a good sherried Bowmore and I am hoping this may be one of them. It was distilled in 1990 (just at the edge of the danger zone). The last sherried 1990 I tasted was excellent (this one from A.D. Rattray) but that was full-term matured in a sherry cask, I believe; this is a PX finish (presumably of an ex-bourbon cask). As to how long the finishing period was, I have no idea. As for where the finish happened: from Wilson & Morgan’s website it appears that they’ve released a number of sherry finished malts and that they purchase their own sherry casks for the purpose (see here). Is this common among other independent bottlers who release finished whiskies as well? I would imagine many indies are not set up to do this sort of thing (unlike Wilson & Morgan or Murray McDavid who have/had wine business history)—if so, where do their finished casks come from? Are they leftovers from distilleries’ own special releases/experiments? If you know more about this phenomenon, please write in below.  Continue reading

Glenrothes 30, 1982 (Malts of Scotland)

Glenrothes 30, 1982, Malts of Scotland
Official Glenrothes, as I’ve noted before and as you probably already know, is almost always a vatting of spirit from sherry and bourbon casks. There are some exceptions (see the Robur and Alba Reserves, for example) but by and large this is true. And a lot of the independent releases that have appeared over the years, in the US at least, have been from sherry casks. As a result when people think of Glenrothes it is an at least somewhat sherried profile they have in mind. Drinking bourbon cask Glenrothes—when you can find it—feels like drinking the product of another distillery entirely. (Yes, this is a stealth build-up to my post on distillery character which will be going up very soon.) It’s always interesting to try such variations, and in this case this is also the oldest Glenrothes I’ve had—five years older than the not very good Wilson & Morgan cask I reviewed a couple of months ago and also the pretty good Archives release that I reviewed in 2014. Let’s see what it’s like.  Continue reading

Inchgower 24, 1990 (Maltbarn)

Inchgower 24, 1990, Maltbarn
Here is another 24, yo from 1990 from another relatively obscure Speyside distillery in Diageo’s portfolio: Inchgower. Inchgower produces mostly for blends—as with other Diageo workhorses, a Flora & Fauna bottling may be the only regular official release (I’m not counting the special Rare Malts and Manager’s Choice/Dram releases). Johannes of Malt Madness says of Inchgower that “the malt whisky is of excellent quality – at least the stuff they used to distill around 1980”. I am hopeful that someday soon I’ll get to experience some of this. I’ve not had very many, all have been pretty old and none have excited me (see here for quick notes on the two I’ve reviewed for the blog).

This one is from 1990, so well past Johannes’ cut-off for excellence, but who knows, it might be special too. Like Wednesday’s Glen Garioch it’s also from Maltbarn and is also still available.  Continue reading

Auchroisk 24, 1990 (Signatory for Binny’s)

Auchroisk 24, 1990, Signatory for Binny's
I passed through Chicago recently and after moaning on Twitter that there was nothing very inspiring on Binny’s website, I found myself inevitably standing in the whisky section of one of their outlets anyway (the branch on W. Grand Ave.). Binny’s has sadly stopped shipping liquor and beer completely. This is a great contemporary American tragedy (and stems from the ancient and ongoing farce of American liquor laws and hypocritical public morality). If Binny’s had not been shipping when I began to take a serious interest in malts I would probably not have developed a serious interest in malts and I would not have a blog now and then where would the world be? Anyway, I went to Binny’s—how can you go to Chicago and not go to Binny’s? And I was glad to see that the store I was in had a decent selection of their recent “handpicked” single malt casks. Brett Pontoni and team don’t make a lot of noise about their selections—no breathless, hyperbolic emails and dubious narratives—but they pick good whisky. And when it comes to ex-bourbon cask selections from less-heralded distilleries there is no American store I trust more. I walked away with bottles from three of them, aged 19-25 (plus a young, sherried Tamdhu). First up, this Auchroisk. Continue reading

Glen Garioch 21, 1993 (Maltbarn)

Glen Garioch 21, 1993, Maltbarn
At least one person has asked me why I did not mention anything from Glen Garioch in the “austere whisky” category in my post on stocking a well-rounded single malt bar. After all, Glen Garioch rarely presents easy pleasures but has a strong reputation anyway. My answer was and is that I have not had much luck with recent official releases, and those are what are most easily available (especially the Founder’s Reserve and the 12 yo). Independent releases are a different matter and show the distillery in a better light, in my view. That said, it is true that the indies I’ve tried tend to be from earlier eras than the standard OBs—in fact, all three of the indies that I’ve reviewed were distilled in 1990 and were quite a bit older. This one is from 1993. 1994 is said to be when Glen Garioch stopped using peated malt and so it probably also does not have too much in common with contemporary official releases. But this is still around itself so you can see if my take sounds enticing enough for you to consider a bottle. Continue reading

Laphroaig 25 (2014 Release)

Laphroaig 25, 2014 Release
After last week’s 2014 release of Lagavulin 16 let’s do another 2014 release from an iconic Islay distillery. This one is quite a bit more expensive than the Lagavulin 16, though, despite being only nine years older: the 2014 release of the Laphroaig 25. This is now down to 45.1% abv. Considering that earlier iterations hit the bottle at much higher strengths, and that global warming hasn’t lifted Scotland’s temperature quite that much yet, it seems likely that this is a case of trying to stretch stocks as far as they can. Whether this is to try and sell even more of this overpriced malt (though the price seems to slowly be creeping down, it’s far away from being reasonable), or whether it’s because they’re genuinely strapped for aged stock (see again the demise of the 18 yo), I’m not sure. At any rate, I’m curious to see if I like this more than the other two Laphroaig 25s I’ve had—the 2009 release (which I’ve reviewed) and the 2011 (which I haven’t). I liked both of those, but not as much as far cheaper and younger standard bottlings from Laphroaig. Continue reading

Lagavulin 16, 2014 Release

Lagavulin 16, 2014
I’ve reviewed the Lagavulin 16 before. That was from a bottle released in 2012. As I’m constantly annoying people with my skepticism about narratives of decline, when the opportunity came to review a more recent issue, I couldn’t turn it down. As it happens, this sample is from the legendary merchant of doom, Michael K., and so we can at least argue about the exact same whisky if we happen to disagree. I’m not sure, actually, if he’s already reviewed this one—but I’m going to avoid looking so as to not contaminate my own take. I am also going to avoid looking at my previous set of notes till I’ve finished the review. It may well turn out that I produce a near identical description. If so, I’ll post this anyway. You’re welcome!

(If this sort of thing interests you, you may also want to see my head-to-head notes on two Ardbeg Uigeadails from different years.) Continue reading