Tag Archives: Single Malt

Bowmore 15, 1998 (Chester Whisky)

Posted on by

Bowmore 15, 1990 (Chester Whisky)
Talk about Bowmore’s notorious period in the 1980s seems to have largely died down these days. As you doubtless know, their distillate then was very often marred by an extremely perfumed and soapy character, the cause of which was never accounted for (indeed the distillery never acknowledged it). I’ve noted before that in my view this period more or less ends by 1989, and that by the distillation years of 1990/91 Bowmore is no longer a chancy proposition. Others put the boundary line a bit later, but there’s general agreement now on there being a Bowmore renaissance in the 1990s.

Recently, however, I’ve had some bad luck again with some bottles from casks filled at the end of the decade. No, it’s not the perfumed thing again, and it may just be bad luck, but I’ve come across a few that exhibit an astringent soapiness on the palate and finish. This 15 yo from 1998 is one of them; next month I’ll be reviewing a 7 yo from 2000 that also has it. I don’t mean to start a new hysteria about Bowmore—which remains one of my favourite distilleries—but I am interested to hear if others have encountered this as well in any consistent manner. I welcome corroboration in the comments and I especially welcome a rubbishing of the notion by those who’ve had a larger random sampling of Bowmores from this general period. Continue reading →

Glengoyne 14, 2000 (Malts of Scotland)

Posted on by

Glengoyne 14, 2000, Malts of Scotland
I’ve not had very much Glengoyne. To a large degree this is because there isn’t much Glengoyne available from independent bottlers. Whiskybase lists only 125 independent releases over the years. This in itself is not so odd—there are a number of distilleries whose malts rarely show up from indies, and it’s not just the obscure ones pumping out malt for blends (when was the last time you saw an indie Oban?). Some do save what they don’t put out as single malt for their house/group blends (Talisker, for example), and some only put out single malt and so keep all/most of their product for themselves (Bruichladdich, for example). It’s the casks that move between blenders and brokers that are more likely to end up in the hands of the indies. What is unusual though is that none of the 125 indie releases of Glengoyne was/is from Gordon and MacPhail. And just as oddly, the indie that seems to have released the most Glengoyne is the relatively young Malts of Scotland—they have 30 releases, twice as many as the next highest, the Single Malt Whisky Society. What the explanation for these anomalies is, I don’t know. And you might say it’s not a very interesting matter either. In which case, you must be really resentful about having read all of this. Continue reading →

Caol Ila 15, 2000 (Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen)

Posted on by

Caol Ila 15, 2000, Malts of Scotland
I am not generally a fan of whiskies finished in red wine casks. A lot of this is Glenmorangie and Murray McDavid/Bruichladdich’s fault, but when I see that a whisky has been finished in a red wine cask I assume the worst. That said, peated malts seem to survive such encounters the best and this here is a Caol Ila. Like Friday’s Ardbeg, this was bottled by Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen in their “Dunes An Oir” series (Gaelic for “dunes of gold”, I believe) and it was finished in a Banyuls cask. Banyuls is a sweet, fortified wine, and so, in theory, at least, it may end up closer to a sherry or madeira finish than to a regular red wine finish. I think this was matured for 15 years in a bourbon cask and probably only saw a very brief “finish” in the wine cask—I’m guess the original cask was bourbon both from the outturn and on the basis that it’s unlikely anyone would do a wine finish on top of sherry maturation. Anyway, this is a rusty red in the glass—let’s see what it’s like on the nose and palate. Continue reading →

Ardbeg 17, 1998 (Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen)

Posted on by

Ardbeg 17, 1998, Malts of Scotland
Since I started the week with Ardbeg. I might as well end it with Ardbeg too. This is from a sherry cask and was also bottled by Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen’s Dunes An Oir series. Given how rare indie Ardbegs of any kind are, leave alone from sherry casks, and given how manic the market for Ardbeg usually is, you might expect this to have to sold out double-quick. But as of my writing this is still available. Have the distillery’s own annual shenanigans finally begun to puncture some of its mystique? Probably not, but one can hope. Still, you’d think whisky geeks tired of NAS Ardbeg with tall tales and funny names attached might be attracted anyway to a 17 yo at cask strength from a bespoke bottler. No, I’m not trying to give you the hard sell on behalf of the retailer; just trying to wrap my head around the vagaries of the whisky market.

Anyway, let’s see what this is like. Continue reading →

Ardbeg Uigeadail X 2 (2011 and 2014 Releases)

Posted on by

Ardbeg Uigeadail, L11
Through the increasing silliness of their annual releases it must be said that Ardbeg have maintained one of the strongest core lineups in all of Scotland: the venerable 10 yo, the Corryvreckan and the Uigeadail are all whiskies of which you will rarely hear complaints. Well, maybe that’s not true anymore of the Uigeadail (first introduced in the early 2000s). This is the Ardbeg that has a mix of bourbon and sherry cask malt in it and, unsurprisingly, the proportion of older sherry cask whisky was much higher when they first started releasing it. In recent years some folk have said that it’s gotten lighter, both literally and figuratively. It’s always good to test these kinds of beliefs blind, which is exactly what a bunch of Danish whisky geeks did earlier this year. Their results were interesting with the lowest scores going to the oldest and most recent ones they tasted (from 2004 and 2014) and the ranking breaking down as follows: 2007-2009-2010-2006-2004-2014. I saw this report recently after I’d made my own plans to taste a 2011 release head to head with a 2014 release; and as their lowest score had gone to a 2014 release I was more resolved than ever to do it blind.  Continue reading →

Clynelish 23, 1990 (SMWSA 26.99)

Posted on by

Clynelish 23, 1990, SMWSA
Let’s close out the week with another bottle from the Scotch Malt Whisky Society of America. As with the Highland Park 22 I reviewed to start the week, I split this bottle with a number of whisky geeks, though I got more of this than than I did of the other. I’ve not had very many Clynelishes over the age of 20 and so I could not resist. Will this be as good as the Malts of Scotland 22 yo from 1989 that I reviewed earlier in the year? I can only hope. Let’s get right to it.

Clynelish 23, 1990 (48.5%; SMWSA 26.99, “The Fisherman’s Friend”; refill barrel; from a bottle split with a number of whisky geeks)

Nose: Honey, lime zest, green apples, a hint of melon. A bit of wax after a minute or two and then it starts getting grassier. With more time the citrus gets sweeter (oranges now) and then the muskier fruity notes expand. With a lot more time there’s a bit of vanilla. With a few drops of water the citrus turns to citronella and it gets less grassy. More vanilla and cream too now. Continue reading →

Highland Park 22, 1991 (SMWSA 4.191)

Posted on by

Highland Park 22, 1991, SMWSA
Highland Park, as I have noted on many occasions, is one of my very favourite distilleries. And as I have doubtless also noted on many occasions, bourbon cask Highland Parks—which are rarely available from the distillery—always catch my eye. They’re obviously very different from the distillery’s usual fare: as Highland Park matures its spirit predominantly in sherry casks, bourbon casks are rare from even the independents. Unsurprisingly, they’re also quite different from the standard profile. While I don’t myself believe that it it’s in bourbon cask matured malt that a distillery’s true profile/character is revealed (this is because I don’t believe in “distillery character” as something separate from maturation*), it is true that it is from bourbon casks that you can most clearly get a sense of the nature of Highland Park’s peat, in particular. And the continuities between bourbon cask Highland Park and malt from distilleries like Clynelish and Springbank that I also like very much indeed are interesting as well.  Continue reading →

Glenfarclas 24, 1990 (for K&L)

Posted on by

Glenfarclas 24, 1990
I thought this was going to be a return to my untimely reviewing ways but in checking out the details on this whisky after tasting it I was surprised to discover that K&L (whose distillery exclusive this is) seem to still have a large amount of it left. I guess there’s only so many whiskies even David Driscoll can convince every breathless whisky geek in the US to shell out for. Or maybe it’s because this isn’t a single cask and we tend to get—for no good reason—more excited about single casks. It’s also possible that people got spooked by K&L’s description of the acquisition of the casks, which suggests that they were casks the distillery was unwilling to release as (more expensive) singles. As per Sku, the source of this sample, this was a vatting of two casks. K&L’s own copy suggests more than two casks: they refer to it as a “multi-cask” vatting “from a sequential lot of first fill Oloroso sherry butts”. But I’m sure Sku’s information is from the horse’s mouth (or whichever wind-spewing orifice you think is more appropriate in this case).  Continue reading →

Laphroaig 15, 200th Anniversary Edition

Posted on by

Laphroaig 15, 200th Anniversary
The old Laphroaig 15, much beloved of many peat-loving whisky geeks, was discontinued in favour of the 18 yo a few years ago. I’ve marveled before at this circumstance, which seems unimaginable in our current whisky world: a major distillery discontinuing a 15 yo whisky in their core range in favour of one that’s three years older and at a higher strength (without the price moving very much—not in MN anyway). Now, of course, there are rumours that the 18 yo is on the way out too. I don’t know if these are true but I doubt very much that we’d get a regular issue and affordable 21 yo out of it. Anyway, as part of their 200th anniversary celebrations this year, Laphroaig brought back a special release of the 15 yo. Opinions have been mixed but there was little chance, frankly, given my love of Laphroaig that I would pass on a bottle. And this is the bottle I did not pass on. Let’s get to it.  Continue reading →

Caperdonich 17, 1996 (Malts of Scotland for van Zuylen)

Posted on by

Caperdonich 17, 1996, Dunes An Oir
Caperdonich was shuttered in 2002 and demolished in 2010. It is about as dead as a distillery can be. There’s still a fair bit of its malt from the years before closure floating around though and I hope some of it is being allowed to mature to a far greater age. As most whisky geeks know, old Caperdonichs from the 1960s and 1970s can be some of the most delightful and complexly fruity whiskies of them all. While this doubtless has a lot to do with older production regimes and barley varieties and so on, it would be interesting to find out how similar or different whisky distilled there in in later decades might be if allowed to reach similarly ripe old ages.

That said, I’ve enjoyed a number of teenaged Caperdonichs from the 1990s (see this 18 yo, for example). If this one, bottled by Malts of Scotland for the Dutch retailer, van Zuylen, is as good as those I’ll be happy enough.  Continue reading →

Chichibu 2009-2013, Chibidaru Cask

Posted on by

Chichibu 2009, Chibidaru
After two 20 yo Yoichis let’s close out this mini-run of Japanese malts with this very young whisky from the relatively new Chichibu distillery. Founded in 2008 by Ichiro Akuto, the grandson of the founder of the now shuttered Hanyu distillery, and the man whose name is on the famous “Ichiro’s Malts” series, Chichibu has already become a bit of a sensation in its young life—somewhat predictable given the founder’s pedigree and the general excitement these days about Japanese whisky of any kind. It is a small distillery and so far they’ve released a number of small batch malts in a number of different styles (peated, unpeated, different cask types)—most of which have been very well received. (The prices, it should be noted, are very high for the age.) The one I am reviewing today is from chibidaru or smaller quarter casks. It is I believe a vintage, small batch release, not a single cask. Well, let’s see what it’s like. Continue reading →

Yoichi 20, Genshu Single Cask 100126

Posted on by

Yoichi 20, Genshu Single Cask
On Monday I reviewed the (now discontinued) Yoichi 20, which used to be part of the distillery’s core range. Here now is another Yoichi 20, this a so-called Genshu single cask, a series that, as I understand its, used to be/is only available at the distillery and at select bars in Japan. I’ve previously reviewed a 10 yo single cask, and also a 15 yo, in this series and have a sample of a 5 yo waiting in the wings as well. Well, let’s see how this one compares to the regular 20 yo.

Yoichi 20, Genshu Single Cask 100126 (60%; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Quite a bit peatier than the regular 20 yo: phenolic notes waft up through the sherry. The sherry is much richer and fruiter too (apricot, orange peel); some leather and brine and cured ham below that along with some pencil lead and just a hint of savoury gunpowder. Far less oak than in the other. After a couple of minutes there’s some toffee and a bit of maple syrup. Water knocks back the smoke and pulls out more toffee and fruit (some plum now with the apricot); some slightly dusty oak too now. Not much change with the added drops of water.

Continue reading →

Yoichi 20

Posted on by

Yoichi 20
The Yoichi 20 used to be the oldest malt in the distillery’s core range. I say “used to be” because it has been discontinued (and it never made it to the US). As you are probably aware, there is a tremendous shortage of aged Japanese whisky. Between declining stocks and sharply rising prices, quality aged Japanese whisky is more and more out of the reach of regular drinkers. Which is not to say that the Yoichi 20 was ever affordable. Even four years ago it was well north of $200 for a bottle. Keep in mind that at that time you could still find the Yamazaki 18 in the neighbourhood of $100. This is probably due to the fact that in 2008 a 1987 vintage edition of the Yoichi 20 won a major award, right around the time that Japanese whisky began to become hot. Pretty much every release since has received rave reviews, though it’s not always easy to tell non-vintage releases apart*. Anyway, I’ve long wanted to try it and am glad to be able to through a sample swap. Continue reading →

Longmorn 44, 1966 (Gordon & MacPhail)

Posted on by

Longmorn 44, 1966
This is the fourth of the five ancient Longmorns bottled by Gordon and MacPhail for van Wees in 2011. I’ve previously reviewed the 1972, the 1969 and the 1968. All were excellent, and the 1969, in particular, I thought was magical (I’ll probably review the 1964 next month). I have very little to add to what I’ve already said in my preambles to those reviews (and I really want to duck the question of the financial irresponsibility and likely decadence of buying such expensive whisky, even in the form of a four-way split) and so let’s get right to the notes.

Longmorn 44, 1966 (44.3%; Gordon & MacPhail for van Wees; first fill sherry cask 5063; from a bottle split with friends)

Continue reading →

Kilchoman 5, 2008, PX Finish (for WIN)

Posted on by

Kilchoman 5, 2008, PX
This is my first Kilchoman that’s been anywhere near a Pedro Ximinez sherry cask. It was bottled for Whisky Import Nederland in 2014 (I’m not sure if it is still available). It was only finished in PX and the outturn was a mere 258 bottles. This suggests that it started out in a bourbon hogshead, though it’s not clear to me if in such instances they would only fill a sherry butt halfway to finish one bourbon cask or if two bourbon casks get dumped in together and the product then split for separate releases; if so, the cask number below may just be for the cask in which the whisky was finished. In other words, perhaps more Glendronach-style labeling. Or maybe not—if you know more, please write in below.

At any rate, I’m intrigued to try this. While I’ve not loved every Kilchoman I’ve tried, I am a big fan of the distillery and curious to see how their spirit stands up to the heavier and sweeter PX sherry. Let’s get right to it. Continue reading →

Cut Spike Single Malt, 2 YO (for K&L)

Posted on by

Spike Milligan
I unaccountably failed to take a picture of the sample bottle before the review and then cleaned it and removed the label before I discovered the omission. And so in place of the picture of the bottle and label (one of Sku’s more staid efforts) here is a picture of Spike Milligan about to cut something with a knife and fork. As for Cut Spike itself, it’s a single malt whisky (whiskey?) distilled in Nebraska in pot stills made in Scotland, but matured in new American oak. So, it could be said to be a hybrid of Scottish and American whisk(e)y styles. For more of its story, I will send you to Sku’s own review. I can tell you that K&L purchased all of the early stock of this new distillery’s product and hyped the hell out of it last year. The first batch sold out double quick and the second batch sold out as well. Continue reading →

Glenrothes 25, 1988 (Wilson & Morgan)

Posted on by

Glenrothes 25, 1988, Wilson & Morgan
Because I am so on top of things I was going to say that this is the oldest Glenrothes I’ve ever had. But then, because I am even more on top of things, I checked and found that I’ve already reviewed another Glenrothes 25, 1988. So this is not the oldest Glenrothes I’ve ever had (that’s coming soon though). However, I will soon be an authority on 25 yo Glenrothes from 1988, or at least more of an authority than that other whisky blogger you follow who’s only had one Glenrothes 25, 1988, the poor sap, I don’t know how he lives with himself. So far this has been five sentences with zero useful content (four if you generously count this sentence as useful, and you really should since I did go back and count). And frankly, the odds are not good of there being dramatic improvement.. So I should probably just get to the review already—I mean don’t you want to find out about this Glenrothes 25, 1988 from a relatively obscure Italian bottler with a non-Italian name?  Continue reading →