I emptied this bottle a little while ago. It was a very nice thing to do because drinking whisky of this level is always a pleasure. It was also a very unfun thing to do, because it’s not something that is easily replaced. It can be replaced, but I would need to shell out a thousand Euros to do so.
That is quite a bit more expensive than when I bought it from ‘Gall & Gall Van der Boog’, 11 years ago. It popped up in the ‘Wilde Whisky Dagen’, which was a thing back then. All whisky in the biggest liquor shop chain of the Netherlands would be discounted by some 25% (or more, in this case).
Nowadays, as far as I know, this discount over the whole inventory is no longer a thing. But, on top of that, the inventory of said chain is not overly interesting anymore, and prices tend to be so high that by discounting things by 25% they end up in the same range as most other shops.
And lastly, Gall & Gall Van der Boog no longer exists, and has mutated into Passie voor Whisky. A shop I have never physically visited, I have to shamefully admit. That has never stopped me from ordering things there, but it would be nice to go there at some point. After all, it’s just an hour’s drive away…
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: The nose starts very dry, with some slightly harsh smokiness. After a few seconds the whisky starts opening up with a note of black pepper, oak and dried fruits. The fruits are mostly peaches and apricots. It comes across as a very mature dram, with lots of depth. It’s slightly coastal with hints of salinity, but it’s not overly briny.
Sip: The palate has a bit of peppery heat, which isn’t strange for Talisker, but it also comes with dryness, lots of oak and a beach bonfire. The smoke is definitely present, with dried fruits in the background and quite some charcoal as well. With a bit of time it becomes more sweet,
Swallow: The finish lets the heat linger for quite a while, which is rather gorgeous. It’s just enough to be highly entertaining and note enough to be uncomfortable. Dry and smoky, with hints of dried peaches, dried apples and freshly cracked black pepper.
This whisky is what makes Talisker Talisker. Apart from the slew of NAS bottlings Talisker has released over the last decade, I think that goes for both their 10 and 18 years old releases as well. They have a character and they stick to it. With this 25 year old in a very glorious way.
The mature smokiness, the notes of black pepper and some dried fruits. It all combines to ridiculous heights. The flavors work very well together. The subtle influence of sherry casks on the distillery character of pepper and beach bonfire smoke are spectacular.
The fact that 2006-25 ends up being 1981, and that being my vintage is just a cherry on top of the cake!
Apparently Sansibar released a Christmas Edition about three years ago from Longmorn Distillery. Also apparently, a sample of it found its way to my shelf. I had no idea it was there, and the fact that there only was a Whiskybase Number on the label instead of any other info made for a nice ‘blind tasting’.
Of course, I didn’t really do it blind since I didn’t want to start the evening with a 60% belter and not taste anything for the rest of the night, so I checked before hand. I guess a Whiskybase ID and an ABV are ideal.
Let’s just dive in, before I really start rambling.
Sniff: A gentle start with lots of baking spices, and a whiff of aniseed. So, a more crisp note as well. A scent of old wine is present as well. It’s quite rich with lots of wine-cask notes. A sherry or port wine that is. Not overly specific, interestingly.
Sip: The palate is smooth and gentle. A bit of a spicy bite, with oak mulch, old casks and a rich soil note. It strangely tastes like port casks, and oloroso sherry. Some dates and chocolate.
Swallow: The finish brings some more spices and a little bit of a bitter note. Like cherry stones, and almond. There’s almond like sherry too.
The way the sherry tastes reminds me a bit of how Dalmore can taste. Good, but not overly complex. It’s Christmas-y in the same way that sherry is, based on what people used to drink at Christmas, back in the 70s when Sherry was much more popular than it is now.
Due to knowing some members of the inner circle at Whiskybase, I sometimes have the chance to taste Archives releases that are not meant for The Netherlands. This 29 year old Glen Keith was sent straight to Taiwan to be a single cask release there.
Glen Keith is a Speyside distillery that was closed for a couple of years some time ago, but before that, they churned out a lot of bourbon cask matured whisky, of which quite a lot has been bottled. What I generally associate their early nineties whisky with is a lot of cake like sweetness and heaps of vanilla. If you’re a regular reader of this here blog, you might know I’m not a huge fan of that style, so this kind of Glen Keith has not often found its way into my collection. Let’s see where this one ends up!
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: I expected some vanilla and it shows up right away. Very typical for Glen Keith. Also, I expected this to be a rather sweet whisky, and that is not the case. It’s quite dry, with a lot of chaff and straw. Some dried apples, and an fruity bitter note too. Green banana skins, grape seed.
Sip: The palate has similar notes to the palate, but adds quite some black pepper, as wel as chili pepper. Some apple cores, straw and chaff. It’s very dry, and a bit sharper than I expected.
Swallow: The finish loses the sharpness, but is still very dry. More focused on barley, chaff, straw, and oak shavings. Not a very long finish either.
Not entirely unexpected, but it’s a rather straight forward whisky. The type of whisky is rather tasty, but there’s not a lot of complexity, and if you’ve ever had Glen Keith from the early nineties, there’s not too much to be surprised about either.
Yes, it’s a bit less sweet and a bit more dry, but it’s all within the bandwidth of what you know to expect. Having said that, it’s still a pretty tasty dram. It’s just not one that I freak out about. Apparently, I’m rather alone in that, based on the scores on Whiskybase.
Of late there have been quite some independent releases of Dailuaine from around 2010-2011-ish. They tend to be rather funky but generally quite lovely. Not all of them are great, but when they are being advertised as ‘affordable Clynelish’ and the tasting notes include terms like ‘waxy’ and ‘fruity’ you bet eyes are on the ball.
This one, from Belgian bottler Bert Bruyneel, is indeed affordable. Going for € 78 a pop, excluding shipping, that’s note quite a steal, but it’s not costing an arm and a leg as well.
Dailuaine is one of the work horses of Diageo, with no official bottlings to speak of (of course, there’s the Flora & Fauna release, but that doesn’t really count). Virtually all output from the distillery is destined to be blended into one of Diageo’s many blended whisky brands.
The rumor mill has it that some years ago Dailuaine was designated to reproduce the vastly popular Clynelish whisky profile, due to Clynelish itself being under maintenance. The aim was to get that waxy profile from another distillery to not have a gap in their blended whisky output.
Image from Whiskybase
The story goes that they just could not get the waxiness they were aiming at correctly done, until they stopped cleaning the washback. If this is true, it goes to show that ‘impurities’ might actually be the thing we love most about certain whiskies. The thing that sets them apart.
Anyway, back to this poor man’s Clynelish…
Sniff: It was advertised as an extremely waxy whisky and, contrary to most advertising, this seems to hold some water. It’s a damn waxy dram indeed! Apple skins and candles, a whiff of honey and dried apple too. Wood and some mossy notes as well.
Sip: The palate brings a bit of fiery bite. White pepper, but also some notes of iron and slate. There are apples, and the waxiness begins with apple skins. There are notes of beeswax and candles too. Some hessian and straw.
Swallow: The finish mellows quickly and leaves a thick coating of fatty candle wax. Apple skins, apple itself as well. Not overly long.
It’s a bit like a Springbank that traded its coastal notes for waxiness on top of being very much like Clynelish. It works rather well. A fruity whisky with a funky waxiness that seems to be the way Dailuaine is going since around 2010. Not all releases work, but this one sure does! Lovely stuff.
The very first ever release of Wagging Finger Whisky! The Dutch distillery, run in Deventer by Erik Molenaar has been around for a few years and started out by making gin. A couple of years ago whisky was added to the repertoire and now, through a Belgian bottler, the first release is there!
Apart from there being a bottler, the bottling has a name too, and it belongs to a series, and a labelling.
So, fully qualified and quantified, it would be something like ‘Gileanne, Pin Up Queen, L’Intouchable, BYOB-C, Wagging Finger’. I don’t really know where to stop… But, apart from it having as many names as The Lord of the Rings has endings, in the end it’s the whisky that counts.
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: It’s quite light on the nose, with some (maybe not very surprising) gin like qualities. There’s quite a juniper note, and some fresh orange too. After a bit more air the young spirit starts showing, but in a ‘still maturing’ kind of way. Dry barley, a small note of white pepper, an even smaller note of oak. There’s a whiff of iron too.
Sip: With a bit of warm-up (read: other whisky) the over 60%-ABV isn’t too much to handle. It does show a white pepper bite, and a some dry oak shavings. That crisp gin note is here too, with juniper and some aniseed. The bite keeps building for quite a long time.
Swallow: The finish is slightly more sweet than I expected. There are sudden hints of vanilla and a note of mocha a few seconds after that. The gin note has completely disappeared.
It doesn’t seem like this whisky is trying to come across as more mature than it is, which is quite different to most new Scottish distilleries. It’s a very drinkable dram, if you’ve done a bit of warm-up. What I find very surprising is the inconsistency between the palate and the finish and I don’t really know what to make of that.
The fact that it tastes young means, I presume but won’t know until we’re a decade further along, is that there’s quite some room for aging and settling down. I sometimes doubt that with a lot of these ‘three year olds that taste like ten year olds’.
All in all, to me this whisky is a lot more impressive than I imagined. Of course, it’s very young and shows it’s (lack of) age, but I am very glad I got my hands on a bottle. I think Erik Molenaar is very much on the right track. He seems to be doing his own thing, instead of trying to make yet another generic imitation of Scottish single malt. Kudos!
I very much hope he’s kept enough casks to properly age them without having to bottle everything for private owners and have nothing left to keep it until it’s ten years old!
The fact that this is labeled as batch ‘008’ sounds rather presumptuous, if you ask me. I don’t think there’s a whisky company that doesn’t consider rebranding their entire line every six to eight years. So, from that perspective, it’s quite something that they’ve made it to eight.
But, away with the cynical banter, onto what is actually happening here. Glengoyne is a rather interesting distillery. Beautifully located just outside of Glasgow in the ‘valley of wild geese’. Interestingly they sit right on top of the ‘highland line’. A few hundred years ago this was the division drawn to separate several tax regions in Scotland.
The north started paying per gallon of still capacity and the south for whisky produced. The Highland whisky producers also had to use local barley and were not allowed to export their whisky south of this highland line. This was the case in 1784. However, in 1823 most of these rules were abolished and the Highland producers got a huge tax cut, mostly aimed at legalizing distilling there. Before 1823 Highland Whisky producers weren’t overly inclined to have licenses for distilling because of expenses and trouble selling their product.
Over the years the exact location of the highland line has shifted a couple of times, but currently it sits right in front of Glengoyne Distillery.
The result of this is that the whisky is made in the highlands of Scotland, but it is matured in the lowlands, just across the street.
Image from Whiskybase
This version of Glengoyne’s cask strength whisky was matured in sherry casks and a bourbon barrel, and was released in 2020. It’s still pretty widely available, but that’s not too rare since it’s not a single cask or anything.
Sniff: The typical creamy sherry notes of Glengoyne. A bit trifle-y with lots of dried fruits, dates, figs, golden syrup and toffee. Milky caramel and a whiff of vanilla. Quite pastry like, but surprisingly gentle for a whisky at almost 60% ABV.
Sip: The palate continues being rather smooth and gentle, but it’s a bit more dry than the nose and the ABV made me expect. Younger whisky at a higher ABV tends to be on the sweet side. Oak, chili, dried fruits again. Dates, plums, figs. Nutty bread with almonds and hazelnut.
Swallow: The finish is a bit more sharp and does bite a bit. More pepper, but black pepper instead of chili. More oak, less fruit, caramel and toffee. A hint of butterscotch.
Well, cask is king, as some tend to say. There is a lot of wood influence, although this is the typical style of Glengoyne and not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a rather predictable whisky, and the slight inconsistency between the palate and the finish is a bit strange.
However, it still is exactly what you expect a Glengoyne whisky to be, and for people liking the style it should be a fun bottle to go through. Personally, I prefer a bit less sweetness on the palate.
It’s not often that I try whisky from the Isle of Jura (distillery). From the early onset of my whisky fanaticism I’ve not held much love for Jura. In some cases I figured I had to get over that and tried some, but most times it’s been a disappointment.
Of course, some are really good, but those have not much to do with what the distillery currently puts out. I guess there are two (this and this) that I enjoyed, and the rest were only so-so. Interestingly, it’s one of those distilleries of which I tend to like the independent bottlings far more than the official ones. That seems to be a thing with Whyte & Mackay’s single malts…
Image from Whiskybase
So, when this one showed up in last year’s Autumn Tasting by De Whiskykoning I was interested to try it. Nothing beats proving yourself wrong every now and then. Let’s get in!
Sniff: Rather light on the nose but with the typical rubber bands that is a common scent in Jura whiskies. Rubbery and feinty, so to say. Earthy, slightly mossy and with hint of hay and card board.
Sip: The palate is dusty and earthy with some oak and white pepper. Rubber bands again and old moss, cardboard and hay. Quite Jura-y, all in all.
Swallow: The finish is rather long but doesn’t really offer anything new.
Well, there’s two distinct things to say about this one, I think. The first thing is that is by no means a very bad whisky and does the typical Jura things with rubber bands and lots of weird funkiness. The other thing is that because it doesn’t do anything you don’t see coming a mile away.
So, if you don’t generally like Jura (raises hand) this is one to avoid. If you like an interesting whisky that keeps you occupied (it’s still about a hundred bucks, after all) this is one to avoid as well.
Interestingly, among the whisky geeks I know, these distillery labels by Gordon & MacPhail are not very popular. Being bottled at 43% doesn’t help, because it’s not cask strength. It’s not even 46%, which sits above the threshold for whisky going cloudy unless filtered.
It’s quite a shame, since I’ve had quite some very good whiskies from this series, with an older Glenburgie coming to mind, and now this Ardmore. Of course, it helps that I tend to like Ardmore anyway, especially when there’s not too much done to it. So, preferably no weird cask usage, or being matured in Islay casks or something strange like that.
So fairly straight forward Ardmore, with a decent age to it. At a somewhat lower ABV than I usually drink. Should be good, right?
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: It starts with some Bowmore-like smokiness. Some ammonia and lemon, smoke. After a few seconds there’s heather honey, some oak and the brown crust of a pound cake. Dried apple and brown sugar too.
Sip: The palate is very dry, which isn’t too uncommon with Ardmore, and smoky whisky in general. Lots of oak, lemon and smoke. Heather and honey, pine resin, pine cones. There’s a slight bitter edge to it, with that cake crust again, as well as brown sugar and some tobacco leaves.
Swallow: The finish continues with the tobacco note and the smoke that goes with it. Heather and brown sugar, but without the honey sweetness. That slight bitter edge is present here too.
My father-in-law would instantly know this is a whisky I would like. It’s dry, slightly smoky, with lots of herbaceous notes. I find this stuff absolutely gorgeous. It’s a bit in the middle between Bowmore and Highland Park, in regard to flavor. Two of my favorite whiskies out there, and also why I love Ardmore in general.
Lovely and complex, with more than enough happening to keep me occupied. I tried this one months ago, and immediately ordered a bottle. Of course, with being very busy and me wanting to pick it up in person, it is still at the shop in Den Bosch (yes, Whiskykoning of course). I bought this to bottle-share it, but after re-reading the tasting notes I just might keep it all for myself!
When on holiday in France, several weeks ago, I was having a quiet afternoon. It was about 35 degrees (C, obviously), the kids and my wife were at the camping’s swimming pool. I decided it was a good time to sit back under a tree for shade, and have myself some whiskies.
I decided it was a good time to have all seven of the current series of Springbank Local Barley. Seven whiskies, on a hut summery afternoon. As you do…
Most of them have already been reviewed before on this blog, but I decided to do a little re-review without checking previous notes and ratings. Just to see whether or not they hold up. Expectations were high, very high. Let’s see how this went.
Springbank 16, 1999-2016, Prisma Barley from Low Machriemore Farm, 54.3%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Coastal and oily, with barley, oak, salinity, hessian and typical Springbank funkiness.
Sip: Gentle with a whiff of smoke, coastal salinity, barley, straw, olive oil.
Swallow: A rich and smooth finish, with some apple, pear, white pepper. A whiff of smoke, hessian and SB funk.
Balance, and awesomeness. It really does hold up after the initial hype. Great, great whisky.
91/100
Springbank 11, 2006-2017, Bere Barley from Aros Farm, 53.1%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: More bright, and much more lemony. Still quite Springbank, with a bit more peaty scents upfront. Vanilla, with oak and aome barley.
Sip: Some white pepper for a bit of heat, more oak than on the nose. Also vanilla and barley, some apple too.
Swallow: The finish is quite a bit younger tasting than the 16, logically. It’s very noticeable, though. A but more harsh, but still very Springbank.
A very solid whisky, but there’s more focus on vanilla. Lovely lemon notes. All in all, very good stuff.
88/100
Springbank 10, 2007-2017, Belgravia Barley from West Backs Farm, 57.3%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: More dark and dried fruits, plum paste and date milkshake. Slightly nutty too, and apricot jam.
Sip: Sweet, with quite some pastry notes on top of fruit and vanilla. A whiff of smoke, straw, barley and oak too.
Swallow: A bit of bitterness like plum stones, date stones and such. Straw, plums, dates, vanilla and pastry cream. A ‘pain aux raisins’
Lots of interesting flavors going on, with a good backbone of classic Springbank notes.
89/100
Springbank 9, 2009-2018, Optic Barley from High Cattadale Farm, 57.7%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Back to the slightly more austere bourbon focused ones with this one. Rather different than before with more minerals, apple and iron. It brings out a different kind of coastal note.
Sip: Some vanilla, but not a lot. The same with white pepper. Oak, barley, some mineral notes like slate, basalt, iron too. Again, quite austere.
Swallow: The finish is more mellow, and a bit on the short side. Similar to the palate, but slightly less focused on the austerity.
Very coastal with lots of austerity. A very tight whisky, but also a little less complex because of it.
87/100
Springbank 10, 2009-2019, Optic Barley from High Cattadale Farm, 56.2%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Strangely, the port casks bring a bitbof unexpected weight, even though there’s only 3% of them in the mix. Dried fruits and old, soaked wood. Dried red fruits, on top of the earlier sherry and bourbon lead notes.
Sip: A lot darker, more woody, and quite different. Old, wet wood, mulch. Some dried lemon and orange, pastry cream, baked plums. Quite gentle, all of it
Swallow: The finish is very gentle and quite rich. Fruit, dried tropical stuff and fresh berries. Cake, oak.
A minor addition of port casks to the mix makes for a rather different whisky. It does add quite some fruity notes, in a very typical way for port casks.
89/100
Springbank 10, 2010-2020, Belgravia Barley from Glencraigs Farm, 55.6%
Image from Whiskybase
Ah, the dark one!
Sniff: This is very different, and definitely a sherried Springer. Leather and furniture polish, lots of feinty notes, all in a good way. Dried plums and dates and figs. Very rich indeed with a treacly note too.
Sip: A lot drier than expected with ground chilli peppers, oak, some sandalwood and cedar, even. Dried fruits, some slightly waxy notes.
Swallow: The finish mellows quickly, but stays warming and intense. Dried fruits, some matches, wax, pepers and different woods.
Glorious! This whisky was ridiculously hyped, a while ago. But it does hold up! I am very glad I was able to get a bottle of this. It’s definitely a sherry cask, but it’s not a straight forward whisky. Various wood notes, peppers and fruits keep this very interesting!
91/100
Springbank 10, 2011-2021, Belgravia Barley from Glencraigs Farm, 51.6%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: A very quintessential springbank, with all the typical notes of barley, straw, salinity, oak and a touch of smoke. Like the regular 10 year old on steroids.
Sip: The palate is slightly sweet before the peppery heat kicks in. All the notes from the nose come by, with added white and black pepper, and a waxy note. Very straight forward, but very good because of it.
Swallow: The finish has a bit of an afterburner, but is, again, highly consistent.
On of the younger ones and the one lowest in ABV, and because it is so close to regular Springbank it is awesome. As in, this is exactly what you want a Springbank whisky to do, and it does it so very well.
90/100
As far as tastings go, I think this is a hard one to top this year. Of course, it would have been more fun to share this with someone, before people start the whole ‘whisky is more fun when shared’ schtick. They’re not wrong, but having a quiet afternoon, nice weather and awesome booze. And, maybe most importantly, some peace and quiet is hard to top…
With the Thompson Brothers opening up a bottle shop in Dornoch, I am really hoping things pan out and I am able to visit the place at the end of October. A small trip to that part of Scotland is in the works. Quality beers and a bottle of whisky sounds like a good idea. Then again, when does it not?!
Anyway, with a recent batch of Thompson Brothers bottlings arriving in The Netherlands, some shares were done by me and Rowald, and I got a sample of this one. Supposedly, this is a Glen Elgin, but it doesn’t say on the label.
The whisky matured in a refill hogshead, with 2 years in a sherry cask after that.
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: It’s very fruity, but in a very strange way. Dried lime, papaya and prickly pears. On a bed of straw, because it still is (supposedly) Glen Elgin. After a while it gets a bit of a whiff of a funky note of soil and wet laundry.
Sip: The palate is pretty strong, and sharper than I expected with 16 years of aging. Dried lime, some chemical version of lime as well. Like some cleaning product. It’s surprisingly heavy, for a dram that has a lime forward flavor profile like this.
Swallow: The finish goes back to the artificial lemon flavor, but it less heavy than the nose was. It’s not entirely unlike washing up liquid. With straw, some barley and a whiff of oak.
There’s a note in there that I cannot pinpoint, nor do I like it. It’s a strange combination of lime and heavier, feinty things. It makes me think of dirty dishwashing water. And that’s not something I enjoy drinking all that much. The fruity notes in the beginning were nice though.
With me just having a sample, I figured I might need to sit down with this a second time. Luckily, the sample was 6cl and I could go for seconds a week or so later. Unfortunately, the whisky didn’t improve. On the contrary.
A lot of the fruity notes had diminished and the strange acidity had become more prominent. I didn’t like this one at all.
Malt Fascination 