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
Tag Archives: Whisky
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
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
White Horse, 1970s Release
It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed an old Scotch blend, by which I mean, a blend released a long time ago. The last one I reviewed was a White Horse released in the 1950s. Today I have for you another White Horse, albeit one released in the 1970s. Unlike the 1950s release, this review is not of a pour from my own bottle but of a sample I’ve had sitting in my stash for a few years now. I have an unexpected feeling of nostalgia about this whisky, however. This because in the late 1970s, when my family lived in Iraq, White Horse was one of a few Scotch whiskies that my father had in his bar. A bottle of White Horse or Black and White from this era was probably my first encounter with the aroma of Scotch whisky—and, of course, we repurposed the empty bottles to store drinking water in the fridge! I certainly didn’t taste any of it then but it feels a bit like a time machine trip to be drinking it now. Let’s hope the actual whisky doesn’t now disappoint! On that note, let’s get right to it. Continue reading
Benriach 26, 1987 (Exclusive Casks)
Last week’s booze review was of a sample sent to me a long time ago by Michael K. of Diving with Pearls. That was of a bourbon released in the 1980s. Here now is a review of another sample sent to me a long time ago by Michael. This one is a single malt whisky distilled in the 1980s. This is a 26 yo Benriach, distilled in 1987 and bottled in 2014 or so by Exclusive Malts/The Creative Whisky Co.. I apologize if I am killing them off prematurely but I don’t think they’re still a going concern. Back in the day they were a middle of the road indie bottler who sought to project a more premium feel via branding and design. I don’t think they ever quite pulled that off very successfully but they did bottle some decent whiskies. And the proprietor, David Stirk, was an energetic participant in whisky forums and so forth. I was reminded of this when I went to Michael’s own review of this whisky in search of cask info. I realized then both that there is no specific cask info for this release and also that I had participated in a conversation in the comments on that review alongside one David Stirk and some likely sock puppets. I’ll leave it to you to go check those shenanigans out for yourself if you’re so interested. For now let’s get to this whisky. Continue reading
Glenallachie 10 CS, Batch 5
You may have noticed that I failed to post the promised Seoul restaurant report this past weekend (I’d actually said I might post two) and that I also failed to post my usual Monday booze review yesterday. What can I say, it was a hectic week, capped by travel on Sunday—we are currently in Southern California—and I just did not have time to either resize photos for a restaurant report or take tasting notes for a whisky review. Accordingly, this week’s booze review is being posted on a Tuesday and the usual Tuesday Twin Cities restaurant report will be posted tomorrow. And even though my track record with actually following through is so poor at this point, I am going to once again say that I will try to post one or maybe even two food reports from our time in Korea by the end of the week—I have a total of five of those left to do, I think. I also still have two reports yet to come from my trip to New Jersey/New York in mid-May; and by the time Thursday rolls around I will have already begun to add to the waiting list with meals from this current Southern California sojourn. I will at least refrain from making promises of reports to come from those fronts this week. Continue reading
Longmorn 30 (Gordon & MacPhail)
After last week’s rum—a Foursquare 12 bottled for Total Wine—let’s get back to whisky and back to opening long-held bottles in my stash. This week’s newly opened bottle is an older Longmorn bottled by Gordon & MacPhail. As you may know/remember, in 2011, G&M bottled a quintet of old Longmorns for van Wees. I’ve reviewed all of them (the 1964, the 1966, the 1968, the 1969 and the1972). Those were all very good, most were excellent, one was probably the best whisky I’ve ever had. In addition to being vintage releases, those were also all single sherry casks and all bottled at cask strength. Today’s Longmorn is also sherry-matured but a little younger than all of those, being “only” 30 years old. More importantly, it’s not a vintage release or a single cask or at a very high strength. Indeed, it was bottled at the bare minimum legal strength of 40% abv and was doubtless a vatting of several casks. It was released sometime in the late 2000s, maybe in 2009. I have a feeling that G&M had a lot of outstanding casks of 1970s Longmorn in their warehouse and that while some made it out as single casks, many others may have been vatted and diluted—or perhaps vatted with casks that had slipped below 40% to rescue them for bottling—and released with very little fanfare. I certainly purchased it with very little fanfare in 2013 (for all of $136 from Binny’s). It’s hard to imagine either a 40% vatted release of a 30 yo sherry cask malt today or one that would not cost several times as much. Anyway, I opened this bottle a couple of days ago. The first pour felt a little underpowered at first but then it came along really nicely. Let’s see what it’s like now. Continue reading
Ben Nevis 18, 1995 (The Whisky Agency)
Next up in my “Open ’em and drink ’em” campaign is an 18-year old Ben Nevis. This was distilled in 1995 and matured in a refill bourbon hogshead till 2013, when it was bottled by the boutique German independent bottler, The Whisky Agency. As I haven’t followed the whisky world closely in some years now, I had to look at Whiskybase to confirm that The Whisky Agency are still around—though they don’t seem to be releasing quite as much as they once did (if this is an incorrect impression, please write in below to correct me). I remember when, along with fellow German concern, Malts of Scotland, The Whisky Agency were one of the most reliable, most prolific and, it must be said, one of the more expensive (and yet sought after) bottlers. Of course, what seemed like high prices 10-15 years ago would seem like utter bargains in this insane market. My spreadsheet tells me I paid $92 for this 18 yo in 2015. That’s another way the market was different, of course: bottles from this single hogshead from a name bottler hung around for almost two years. Anyway, after sitting on the bottle for almost 10 years, I opened it a week ago. I enjoyed the first few pours very much and now it’s time for some notes. Continue reading