Armagnac: Saint Christeau 1990 & Tariquet Blanche

Posted on 24 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

Another Saint Christeau Armagnac, and a weird one. The Tariquet Blanche is not just 100% folle blanche (which is the grape), it is also a blanche Armagnac. Which is just a fancy way of saying they didn’t bother to age it.

Now that sounds awfully negative. It just means it’s an unaged Armagnac. A bit like a newmake spirit in the world of whisky, or any other term for spirit that hasn’t come of age yet. This bottle was added to the bottle share by the retailer I bought the bottles at. I guess he felt kind of guilty for having to change a lot of the vintages because of his site not being up to date (the 1995, Selection, 1934 and 1968 were no shows).

It’s an interesting take on the spirit I’m trying to figure out and it is something that’s rather uncommon.

What’s strange about it, is that I was told they were the only stockist in The Netherlands since they import it themselves. However, upon 3 seconds of Googling, I found a regular whisky supplier also stocking it, at a similar price. Are there multiple importers? Does the first shop sell it to the second and function as a intermediary? Interesting…

Tariquet Blanche, unaged Armagnac, 46%

Sniff:
Very raw fruit distillate and more like brandy that what I expect from Armagnac. It smells like an okay product, but somehow I cannot find that thing that makes Armagnac Armagnac. Sharp, alcohol and quite generic.

Sip:
The palate is sweet and sharp. Quite ‘hard’ and peppery. Dry with lots of untamed alcohol. Coarse. The sweetness and fruit flavors come in but are very late to the party.

Swallow:
The finish goes back to raw brandy, alcohol and fruit distillate. Something fatty, somehow.

How to review this? I’m not sure. It might be a decent product. It might be well made. The drawback is that there’s absolutely nothing appealing about it and even though it might be well made and decent, I see no reason why this is available. It’s a generic fruit spirit and could be replaced by anything. So, some people might like this kind of stuff, but I don’t like it at all.

It’s not expensive, at € 25, but I’d prefer any of the other Armagnacs to this.

 

Saint Christeau 1990 – April 2009, 40.6%

Sniff:
This has lots of oak, right off the bat. Slightly alcoholic. Except for the missing corn sweetness this could be bourbon. Sweet and slightly fruity, old and moldy grapes. Light, but rather nice.

Sip:
A slight tingling on the palate with milk chocolate and the fattiness that goes with it. Quite dry with alcohol, lots of oak. Sweet, fruit and raisins.

Swallow:
The finish is long and sweet with sweet fruitiness. Raisins with a light dryness. Crisp, still.

This is more what I expect from an Armagnac. And even though it’s quite a lot younger than some bottles in the bottle share, it’s a really nice drink. It’s quite affordable at € 33.65 (can you imagine?) and very much worth the price.

I like this one better than the 1987, even though that was a really nice one too. If you’re on a budget, I think I’d go for this instead of a similarly priced whisky. The flavors are rather deep with lots of layers. Fruits and lots of oak. It all works well.

Posted in - Armagnac, Saint Christeau, Tariquet | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Armagnac: Saint Christeau 1940 & 1987

Posted on 22 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

The intention of the bottle share was to do only Armagnacs from the Saint Christeau brand, but as it turned out the shop had some stock issues and couldn’t deliver, or find, the bottles I ordered. Hence the switch to Laballe, Tariquet and Gaston Legrand.

The Saint Christeau brand is imported by Ton Overmars, the shop where I ordered them. Most of these bottles move very slowly, so everything I got was already bottled in 2006 to 2009. Surprising, actually, with the current focus on good booze and the rather low prices charged for these bottles. Quite mind boggling that you can get an Armagnac from 1938 for some € 300. A lot of money, but come on, 1938! That’s before French just gave the keys to the kingdom to Germany.

The Armagnac is distilled at Distillerie Miclo, which also distills all kinds of other fruit spirits. Currently they only have from 1960 onwards on their website so it seems we were just in time to try some 30s, 40s and 50s Armagnac before it’s all gone.

Saint Christeau 1940-2006, 40%

Sniff:
It smells ancient. Quite different to whisky-ancient though. The spirit is not as pronounced as it is in my favorite grain distillate. Something savory but also old fruit. Lots of caramel, sweet, treacly wine.

Sip:
The palate is rich and dry. There’s caramel, ever so slightly bitter. Lots of oak and lots of fruit. Pickled fruit too. Grapes with a very curious sweetness.

Swallow:
A dry, full and rich finish. Everlasting, more or less. Toffee and lots  of oak. The oak is comparable to very old port.

Saint Christeau 1987-2007, 40.6%

Sniff:
It has typical Armagnac flavors but less intense than the 1940. There’s some age to it, which results in quite some oak. Slightly bitter caramel.

Sip:
The palate has more chocolate, dates and some pepper. Dry, oak and is much more modern. Not as fruity.

Swallow:
The finish is gorgeous again. Rich with lots of caramel, oak, dates. Very warming and spiced.

After I tried these ‘first two’ I might say I could be swayed into buying more Armagnac and less whisky. These two are very different to the Laballes, and much better for it. Of course, there’s a lot more age to it (somehow, age is not important to whisky guys, right?), but according to general consensus, Bas Armagnac is better than other sub regions.

Anyway, the 1940. My initial reaction was something in line of ‘holy friggin’ shit’! The depth of flavor in combination with lots of oak and a fruit distillate works wonders. There’s not that much going on but the flavors are simply delicious.

The 1987 is a lot more simple and tasting that after the 1940 might diminish it a bit. However, when I compare it to the Laballes again, it’s still stunning. A lot going on, much more focused on the distillate. Still at 20 years old the oak has had plenty of time to swing some flavor into the spirit.

As said, this kind of stuff could convince me into buying more. It’s absolutely gorgeous. But I think we still have to wait for a more general conclusion. We’ve had two producers, and two regions. We should do a more level comparison.

 

Posted in - Armagnac, Distillerie Miclo, Saint Christeau | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Armagnac: Two Armagnacs from Chateau Laballe (Réserve and 2006 vintage

Posted on 21 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

When I started going through the Armagnacs from that recent bottle-share, I decided to start with the more recent distillates. On the other hand, I couldn’t wait to dive into the old ones too.

What I did was make a line-up of four different ones. These two from Chateau Laballe (Bas Armagnacs) and two from Saint Christeau, the 1940 and 1987. I’ll review these two first, since those are the ones I started with, and it makes for an easy duo.

Chateau Laballe Réserve, 40%

Sniff:
Quite typical for a young spirit and quite raw. On the nose there’s also something warming and fresh oak. Restrained with hints of butter, chocolate and kork.

Sip:
The palate is sharper than I expected, but that’s more the young spirit than it’s the alcohol. Surprisingly rich, but still spirity with tree bark and, well, heavy. As in, it doesn’t seem to flow easily.

Swallow:
The finish is fruity and spirity. Quite typical of a fruit spirit. Not unlike smooth grappa. Quite short.

Chateau Laballe 2006 vintage, 40%

Sniff:
A lot more oak than the Réserve. The spirity and grappa notes are gone. Light and dusty with nutmeg. More chocolate too, and cocoa and orange oil.

Sip:
A lot more oak than the Réserve. Sharp and quite similar to grain whisky. Cocoa nibs, oak, conifer. Some spices too.

Swallow:
The finish is nice and full. Slightly sharp with alcohol and oak. The fruit is very noticable. Long, with white chocolate, milk and beurre noisette.

So, what did I think of these? The Réserve is in a similar price range as a blended scotch. Its also similar in quality. Not very convincing but very acceptable. It would never convince me to switch from whisky to Armagnac, though. It’s all a bit thin, and unpolished.

The second one is a lot better with far more depth, and far more flavors to be discovered. At it’s price point (just under € 50, I believe) it’s in a rather acceptable single malt bracket. It fits. I think when push comes to shove I might just buy something like this if the choice was this or a, let’s say, Glenfiddich 15.

The combination of white chocolate and buttery fats with the conifer and spices works well and balances nicely.

Still, no reason to abolish whisky, but a nice bit of variety.

Posted in - Armagnac, Chateau Laballe | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Ledaig 1974-1992, 43%

Posted on 19 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

After trying the tremendous Ledaig 42 from 1972 last year, I thought there might be something to early seventies Ledaig. I never got around to trying many of those and when someone posted a share of this one on Facebook, I thought it a good idea to get stuck in.

So, 10 cl of 1974 Ledaig on the way from Germany to The Netherlands. Just in time so I could taste it at Christmas. December generally gets clogged up with the Blind Tasting Competition, Advent stuff and all kinds of get-togethers with family and friends.

Sniff:
It’s quite clean with gentle and thick peat. Less Islay-like than nowadays. Rich, slightly salty and some peanut flavors too. Lemon in the background, crisp with some chamois leather.

Note: Lemon, chamois leather and smoke. But absolutely not like Port Ellen.

Image from Whiskybase

Image from Whiskybase

Sip:
The palate is initially quite thin but builds in intensity quickly. Smooth smokiness, malted barley, oak. Sweet and salty. Lots of oak.

Swallow:
The finish is remarkably full for a whisky at 43%. Fiery and ever so slightly mineral. Pepper, salt, sweetness. Some vanilla here.

Now this is something else than what I know Ledaig for. It’s not really comparable to the 42 year old, and it certainly is not comparable to the modern ones out there at 5 to 15 years old (the ones I tried at least).

Is that a bad thing? Far from it! This is a really lovely dram with lots of flavors that progress from nose to finish. It’s quite clean and smoky at the beginning, and it migrates to a more wood focused dram towards the end. The oak never dominates the spirit, however.

What is it that they did with peaty whiskies in the seventies that makes them so much fuller, smoother and, let’s be honest, better than what there is now? Unless you like those fiery drams better than this far deeper flavor, of course.

In short, this is good stuff. I might be on the look out for something like this, and it also reminds me I should focus on getting some old whiskies in before they are all gone.

Ledaig 1974-1992, 43%. According to Whiskybase it’s valued at little over 200 euros, but I think that’s a very old bit of info.

Posted in Ledaig | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Bringing down my stomach’s PH level

Posted on 18 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

Last Friday my wife was away till late. I could have just sat my ass on the couch and watch tv, but I decided to invite some people over to finally investigate the sour ales I had sitting in the shed for about half a year.

Back in September I bought some Geuze beers from Cantillon and some other breweries. My father in law was interested in those, and me as well. I don’t have much experience with the style so, investigation was necessary. Or, freely translated, drinking with a mission.

More in laws thought it a good idea to dive in like this and brought more beers, so in the end we had some 12 sour beers available. We decided to see how far we could get. The ABV could not be the problem since they’re all about 5% to 7%, and we were splitting bottles.

I had to look it up. Stomach acid has a PH (sour-level, for the non-chemically inclined) of 2. Coca cola has the same level but you don’t taste it due to the vast levels of sugar. PH neutral is 7, beer normally is at about 4.3. The average for Geuze beers, as I’ve just Googled, is about 3.6.

This means it might be slightly tricky to drink a lot of it…

The initial line-up we didn't follow.

The initial line-up we didn’t follow.

The list of things we tried was the following:

  1. Cantillon Kriek 100% Lambic Bio
    This was an interesting one. My first experience with ‘real’ Kriek (cherry infused beer). The supermarket stuff is hideous and this was much better. Properly sour with a nice hint of cherries on the finish. Not overly convincing though.
  2. Cantillon Geuze 100% Bio
    Cantillon’s standard Geuze and a real nice one. Nicely sour, but not overly so. A foam that’s almost eggy but nice and crisp flavors. Really good.
  3. Cantillon Grand Cru Bruocsella Lambic Bio (2012)
    This one was, in a way, comparable to the second beer, except that it tasted far older and was completely flat. As in, no foam at all. Interesting but with deep flavors. Slightly hard to drink because of it. It really sits in your stomach, so to say. Nice and sour, and highly recommended for tasting.
  4. Rodenbach Charactere Rouge Limited Edition
    On the nose, the reaction was ‘bummer…’
    On the palate, this was revised. Heavily flavored with crushed and stewed raspberries, but utterly delicious. Strangely perfumy and sweet and sour. A weird beer, but highly recommended if you’re looking for a good fruit beer. Quite contrary to my expectations, though, I didn’t expect to like any fruit beer… Not this much at least.
  5. Mikkeller Spontangooseberry
    This beer had, in my perception, also quite a bit of bitterness. That, on top of the yeasty sourness of spontaneous fermentation and gooseberries made this a flavor bomb. Just not one I liked it. It was all a bit too much for me.
    Add to that that the price of a bottle of this (375ml) is over 11 euros makes this a miss in my book.
  6. Oude Geuze Brouwerij 3 Fonteinen
    Back to traditional Belgian Geuze. This one, compared to what came before, was very crisp and quite a bit more sour than expected. More so that the above beers so that came as a bit of a surprise. After the first face contorting sip we got used to it and were forced to conclude that this might actually be a bit better than Cantillon. Less friendly, but more crisp and sour.
  7. Mort Subite Geuze (2015)
    Then the last one. It was midnight by now and we hoped to go out with a bang. I have quite a lot of these babies stashed in the crawl space under the floor. The supermarket had them when I was in Belgium a while back so I emptied the shelf. Really cheap, compared to what we pay in The Netherlands for this style of beer.Anyway, it didn’t live up to expectations. The acidity was there, sure, but there was also a weird and unwanted sweetness that reminded me of banana candy. So, not banana, but banana flavoring. This ruined the palate of this beer and I don’t even think I finished it.

    Regarding my stash of this, I hope it improves with age…

So, sour beers is a big yes, but there’s some crap out there too. Or, maybe crap isn’t the correct descriptor. Maybe it’s just as with all booze that there are lots of people interested in the ones I don’t like.

It was a very interesting night with a lot of surprisingly good beers. I guess the trick is now to get some more good Geuzes and age them for a decade or so, so we can do a comparing tasting between fresh and old.

Posted in - Beer | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is bourbon being de-premiumized?

Posted on 15 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

This will be me just voicing my worries about the bourbon industry.

A while ago I read on Sku’s Recent Eats that Elijah Craig no longer has the big ’12’ on the front label. It has moved to the back label instead. The same has happened for Eagle Rare 10 years old.

What worries me (and probably others too) is that this is a preparation for dropping the age statement all together and hoping not many people notice it. This has not happened for those brands yet, as far as I know.

I guess it was in 2014 or so, I voiced my worry somewhere on Twitter when Knob Creek changed the front label from stating a big ‘9’ to a small print ‘aged nine years’, but it stayed on the front label. Please note that it was a ‘nine’ instead of the more prominent numerical variant. Also note that I said ‘was’.

Now, some two weeks ago or so I saw a new front label popping up on the internet, where the ‘aged nine years’ has been replaced by, hold on, ‘patiently aged’.

Patiently aged? That falls in the same category as ‘Slowly matured’. It means nothing.

By the way, when Googling the Patiently Aged variant I found that his has been circling for a while, but I just hadn’t seen it popping up anywhere yet.

I would not be surprised if Elijah Craigs follows suit quickly and drops the age statement. It seems the time for properly aged bourbon, where they indicate it at least, has gone. Of course, there are still quite a few bourbons with an age statement on it, and not all brands will follow suit.

It is, however, a trend. I think it already started when Jim Beam Black went from 8 years old to 6 years old. But anyway, I will keep this in mind when I’m at a bottle shop in the near future and stock up a bit.

Oh, and before the yaysayers/naysayers start: I have not tried the new Knob Creek yet. I might in the future. This is not necessarily saying anything about it being a worse whiskey, just that age statements are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Which is something I personally don’t like.

Posted in - American Whiskey, Knob Creek | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Glen Grant 1954-2012, 40%

Posted on 14 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

A couple of months ago when I was planning on visiting Gordon & MacPhail in Elgin I got an email whether or not I was interested in them sending me samples. By now, a lot of other bloggers have already reviewed those samples but somehow I didn’t seem to get around to them.

They sent out loads of stuff to loads of bloggers for their ‘The wood makes the whisky‘ campaign. This goes paired with a rather awesome looking website where they explain a lot of things about wood maturation and their vision on how to bottle great whisky.

intro_bg_lg

This review is the first of the bunch. Since the whisky was already released four years ago, I guess that one month delay is not going to be the biggest problem.

Oh, the visit to G&M never happened since we had an already busy agenda for the few days in the area and we couldn’t make it work. Shame, but it leaves something to go back for (like I needed another excuse).

A 1954 Glen Grant is not something you taste every day, so part of the reason for the delay was that I wanted a quiet hour to sit down for this one and I paired it with the 1950 Glen Grant that was bottled for Wealth Solutions. I tried them on Christmas eve after the kids went to bed. Best Christmas eve ever, maybe?

Sniff:
The sherry cask is clear from the first second. Quite a lot of it, and quite a lot of oak too. Slightly peppery, and spicy but also light hints of good vinegar. A surprisingly crisp hint of pine needles, forest. Some orange too.

Sip:
The palate is quite light and even a tad thin at first. It takes a few seconds to settle in, and by that I meant the thinness is gone after a second or three, four. Slightly dry and sweet. Dried plums and dates. Baking spices with a focus on clove.

Swallow:
The sherry is big on the finish, dry and rich. Again those hints of vinegar and pine needles are found which is an interesting combination with the dried fruits. One that works really well. It’s quite mellow, but really long.

This one has far more oak influence than the Wealth Solutions dram. A lot more sherry as well. It seems the focus on way of presenting lots of age is quite different, it makes them hard to compare.

The vinegar and pine needles is something that stands out, but in an oh so delicious way. I love the surprising crisp notes that this brings and it makes for an experience to remember. Normally, I’d expect a 60 year old dram (or 57/58 in this case) to be mostly about the oak and the spirit quite interchangeable (unless it’s a peated one, that is). In this case the whisky really stands out and makes itself unique.

What is hard to describe, I had problems pointing it out in the Bunnahabhain from earlier this week too, is the old age magic that is happening in the bottle and in your glass. This one has boat loads of that.

Wrapping up: This is a supreme dram. I’ve not tasted that many ancient whiskies, but this one might be one the best ones I’ve had, together with the Glen Grant for Wealth Solutions (the most recent one).

I found that the 58 year old Glenfarclas, and the 66 year old Glen Grant were awesome, but more generic ‘old whisky’. The latest two really stand out and it seems they try to really bring something unique to the table. At which they succeed.

Glen Grant 1954-2012, 40%. It’s available for 1050 euros at Scoma in Germany.

Posted in - News and Announcements | Leave a comment

The Dark Lord vs. The White Wizard

Posted on 13 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

While the title might not make sense to most of you, this will ring bells within the parts of Holland that like Arran.

Back in 2014 the Dutch importer of the brand, Van Wees, released these two bottlings at the same time. I completely missed it somehow and they never hit a shelf in any liquor shop. They were that popular.

Luckily, at the same time there was a whisky festival in IJmuiden and I got to taste them there, and the host of the festival (who is also the owner of the local bottle shop)  had a few stashed away. He was willing to split with one of each bottle based on me not speculating with them.

Arran has since become very popular in The Netherlands with the importer releasing two more single casks, and a lot of festivals and shops doing private casks. I even believe there’s another one coming up soon for the Whisky in Leiden festival in April. At least, there were hints for it.

As you might have guessed based on the names of the bottlings, The White Wizard is a bourbon cask and The Dark Lord is a sherry cask. As with most Arran bottlings, the sherry cask is a hogshead, so there’s American oak involved.

Arran, The White Wizard, 14yo, 56.7%
On the nose this one’s slightly spirity with rather crisp bourbon cask influence. There’s lemon and vanilla cream. White oak and apple. Sharp and slightly spicy.

The palate is a tad sharp and dry with apple, oak, lemon and vanilla. Quite creamy. White oak, dry and white pepper.

The finish really makes itself known. More apple and white pepper. Slightly drier than before, while being rich, long. Also oak and lemon curd.

Arran, The Dark Lord, 17yo, 53.2%
The nose on this one is mostly very fruity sherry. Plums, dates, baked apple and some cinnamon. Quite a lot of oak and baking spices.

The palate is sharp but rich. Lots of flavors and slightly drying. Apple, pastry, sweet plums and dates and some oak.

The finish mellows quickly but leaves a nice tingle. Lots of fruit, baking spices and oak. Quite long.

I’ve said before in some earlier posts that I generally like spirit driven whisky. Especially the bourbon cask is that and to me, and many with me, it was the dram of the festival in IJmuiden in 2014.

It’s a real cracking dram, and the sherry version is only a little behind in terms of quality. Both are crackers. Both are ridiculously good and ridiculously good value at the time. The crispness of the bourbon cask is what really appealed to me.

Both work their fruity spirit very well and it really shows in the bottlings what Arran is capable of. I hope they keep this up, especially at the decent prices they’ve been doing it. When these came out they were about € 75 each. The follow up 12 year old was some € 70 in 2015 and I guess the bottlings that I’ve missed will probably have been around that price point too.

So, thanks have to go out to Richard Blesgraaf of Zeewijck and the Whisky & Rum aan Zee festival.

Official prices are some 300 for both the bourbon cask and the sherry cask by now, but they go for quite a bit less in auctions.

Arran, The White Wizards, 14 years old, 19/07/1999 – 03/07/2014, 56.7%
Arran, The Dark Lord, 17 years old, 11/12/1996 – 03/07/2014, 53.2%

Posted in Arran | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bunnahabhain 1987-2015, 28yo, 55% – The Whisky Agency

Posted on 12 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

In 2014 during the Blog Birthday Bash, Teun was kind enough to bring a bottle of 1987 Bunnahabhain. That was one of the more popular drams of the evening and my first encounter with what turns out to be a great vintage for the Islay distillery.

So, based on that I bought a large share of the bottle together with Ben (as in, we split one). After that happened I got the chance to buy a bottle of The Whisky Agency’s take on a 1987 Bunna. Again, I split the bottle with Ben.

I’ve been sipping from it for a couple of months now and it’s nearing its end and has been moved to the kill shelf. However, I found that I had not reviewed it yet. So here’s that.

Sniff:
Old grains and quite some oak hit first. Slightly yeasty and dry apple and leather. Lots of aromas coming at you with old oak, slightly green, salt. There’s also that ‘old’ scent that you get after a few decades in oak. I find it hard to describe, but that ties it all together here and makes it pretty awesome.

Sip:
The palate is sharp, but rich. Vanilla, apple, oak. Some light salinity and old leather. Quite typical. Rich and a light hint of banana after a while.

Swallow:
The finish is long and quite sharp at first. Oak, sand, salt and leather. Old apple too, the slightly dried and corky kind.

While it is, from memory, not as expressive and kick-ass as the Berry Brothers & Rudd version of the whisky, it still is a damn fine dram. It’s hard to pin down the ‘old’ flavor to any specific flavor, since I think it’s a mix of oak, spices, dried fruits, all which makes for a recognizable, but hard to describe flavor.

This would easily score high in any tasting in which you can take your time a bit for the dram. That’s the only bad thing I can think of for the Bunnahabhain, it needs some attention to shine. If I just sit on the couch watching the tube and sipping away a random dram, this would not stand out as much as it would otherwise. So, if you have the option to try this, please do, but not at a festival or so. Take a sample home and do it there. It deserves it, and it’s rewarding.

Bunnahabhain 1987-2015, 28yo, Refill Hogshead, Circus series, 55% – The Whisky Agency & The Nectar. Available at WhiskyAntique in Italy for some 250 euros.

Posted in Bunnahabhain | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Picking a new cask for our club’s bottling

Posted on 11 January 2016 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

There’s no proper review today, since I didn’t really get around to writing a post yesterday.

Apart from being rather busy over the weekend I spent yesterday afternoon with 40 others from the Usquebaugh Society to pick a new cask for our annual club bottling!

It was already announced that it would be a Tomatin since Bram, our chairman, has been in touch with the people at the distillery for a while about this and they were quite willing to participate.

What also was cool is that Scott Adamson from Tomatin came to The Netherlands to host the tasting. He told us a lot about distilling history on the site of the distillery (and therefore, the distillery) while we were going through four drams that were options for the 2016 bottling.

Obviously, I will not (yet) be going in too much detail since the premier of that information will be in our club magazine. Just take it from the 40 tasters or so that it’s a good whisky at a good price.

I’m looking forward to it! We expect the bottling to be delivered somewhere in April or May, so it’s in time for our club’s annual whisky party.

The Usquebaugh Society rules!

Posted in Tomatin | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment