A new bottler announced itself a little while ago. A few years ago that would have been something quite regular, but it’s happening less and less. Probably because of a rather full market and getting hold of barrels of anything is hard at the moment (oil included…).
Jack Tar did just that though, announce themselves and get hold of casks. And those casks are quite something. They’re not starting out with any 7 year old Miltonduff or something. These are high end casks.
Luckily, I was sent a couple of samples of some of their first releases (thank you!). In this case a trio of Caroni and an old Enmore for rum, and a Aberlour. These latter two will be reviewed soon, but today it’s time to do a little write-up of the Caroni Trio.
As some of you might know, Caroni is a currently very popular rum distillery from Trinidad and Tobago. Unfortunately, prices are soaring because of said popularity in combination with the distillery having been closed since 2003. So, stocks are dwindling fast, and whatever’s there is sought after.
In some cases this popularity is mostly based on the distillery being closed, and not necessarily on quality. Caroni, however, has earned its stripes for their aged rums, and when you’ve tried one or two, you’d understand why people are snatching up bottles left and right!
These three were bottled at cask strength, and with them being similar in age, I decided to line them up according to ABV. Which means we start at the lowest, at an already whopping 61.3%!
Let’s review!
Caroni La Lune, 1997-2021, Cask #84, 61.3% – Jack Tar
Image from Excellence Rhum
Sniff: Pretty intense, to the surprise of about nobody. Very classical with molasses and tropical fruit. Brown sugar, and a whiff of diesel. Some menthol, and burnt toast.
Sip: The palate is massively intense, but not just because of the ABV. There’s a lot happening flavorwise too! Less sweet than the nose made me expect, even though there are still notes of brown sugar. Chili pepper, molasses, golden syrup. For fruitiness there’s mango and papaya, and the not uncommon note of diesel. Gentle oak with a menthol note make it a bit fresher, more crisp.
Swallow: The finish is mouth coating and surprisingly gentle. Golden syrup, brown sugar and soft notes of oak. After a little while the peppery heat from the alcohol reappears a little bit.
As far as Caroni goes, this is more or less what you expect from this kind of rum. It’s well aged, and it’s got that little note of diesel and engine oil which makes for a very interesting and very good tasting experience. Very good stuff indeed!
90/100
Caroni Limbo, 1999-2021, Cask #186, 63.7% – Jack Tar
Image from Excellence Rhum
Sniff: It already starts very different to the La Lune. Much less fruity, and strangely it’s both light and heavy at the same time. Heavy on the more industrial note of diesel and petrol, but light with more green notes of sugarcane and reed and grass.
Sip: The palate is quite peppery, very dry and pretty hot on the arrival. Even though that’s the first sensation, it doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of flavor to back up the massive ABV. Pepper, oak, sugarcane, brittle caramel. Also diesel, engine grease and a note of condensed milk. Sweet grassy notes and oak too.
Swallow: The finish keeps some heat around for a long time, in a very good way. Dry with a grass flavor, sugarcane, brittle caramel, oak and pepper.
While I love fruity notes in rum, those more industrial notes are what truly make it interesting to me (and many others). The sweetness is toned down in this one, which gives room to other aromas and flavors to start shining, and they do! A cracking rum!
92/100
Caroni Le Soleil, 1997-2021, Cask #60, 63.8% – Jack Tar
Image from Excellence Rhum
Sniff: Even though the previous one sat at almost the exact same ABV, the alcohol and the heat it brings is something of a blast still. Aroma-wise it sits right between the Limbo and the La Lune. Some molasses and brown sugar, but not without the green vegetal note of sugarcane. Menthol, basil and a light hint of diesel. Green banana peels and kiwi fruit.
Sip: I would have expected that my palate would have warmed up by now, but the arrival is still insanely intense, and quite hot and dry too. Chili pepper and red cinnamon. After a minute notes of caramel, baking spices and oak come through. Cinnamon, clove and burnt toast.
Swallow: The finish is very similar to the palate, with heat lingering nicely, lots of flavor led by the notes of pepper.
I never expected to smell kiwi fruit in a rum, but somehow I did here. The green notes are very interesting with the heat and sweeter notes of molasses. A very curious combination of flavors and scents. I said this sits right between the other two in ways of tasting notes, and I do end up there in regard to its mark as well.
91/100
This is a bunch of awesomeness alright! I never really doubted the level of quality from this bottler, knowing their provenance. The bottler, Jack Tar, although new as a brand, is not new in the world of luxury goods. Lukasz Baranowski is the man behind the team at Jack Tar and has earned his way in this before with Guinness Book of Records noted releases of whisky, rum, watches and and other ultra premium items.
These rums are still available in France, from Excellence Rhum, who’s images I used for the review.
You can click the images, or the links below to check them out:
To say that Clynelish can do no wrong in my book is a bit of a stretch, but I am a bit of a fan of the distillery’s output.
In my book that makes the balance swing both ways. When you like a certain style of whisky (a lot) and the whisky lives up to your expectations, one tends to rate it a bit higher than one should. But, if it doesn’t live up to expectations it might happen that the ‘malt mark’ sits a little bit lower than is warranted.
Anyway, Clynelish. One of the more waxy, and therefore slightly more idiosyncratic whiskies from Scotland. Some people dislike it, but most are pretty enthusiastic about it. Even their entry level 14 year old is a pretty decent dram, although with recent price hikes it’s starting to get a bit too expensive.
Image from Whiskybase
This one is from the days that Cadenhead was not the most interesting bottler out there. A lot of their whiskies were rather similar, with that being a tad thin, high in ABV and pretty sharp for what it was. There were some variations, but I didn’t consider it to be an awesome bottler, in those days.
Sniff: As far as Clynelish from the early nineties goes, this is a lot more austere than I expected. There’s a certain harsh woodiness combined with slate, dried flowers and crystallized honey. Not the smooth waxiness you’d expect.
Sip: The arrival is equally harsh, although a bit of leeway is necessary since it’s the first dram of the day. Strangely, it mellows rather quickly. The austerity is present here too, although it’s more sharp dryness than anything else. Minerals, slate, straw and dried flowers. A touch of sweetness from heather honey.
Swallow: The finish is still quite sharp. Of course, that should come as no surprise, but still. It’s quite short with more focus on the honey, straw and dried flowers.
It’s not what you hope for in a Clynelish. Not bad, but not up to par either. It doesn’t have the waxy scents and flavors that makes the distillate stand out and, maybe to expectations, it’s all rather sharp without enough flavor and richness to back it up.
In a way it’s a decent dram, but it’s not a Clynelish I would have been thrilled with, if I’d bought it myself.
A quick review, since it’s been a while. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve been massively busy, and the reinstatement of commuting hasn’t been without time consumption either.
So, between being away for a weekend, commuting, an insanely busy period from both a private and a work perspective has me tasting almost no whisky at all, and posting even less reviews. There’s some awesome stuff queued up, and I hope to get around to writing more and tasting more in the very near future, but it’ll be a few days.
Image from Whiskybase
Anyway, this one then. A Glen Elgin, released by Archives for the Taiwanese market. I never really knew Archives did things like that until recently, but apparently my information is lacking (and lagging).
Glen Elgin is one of these distilleries that I want to like, but in a lot of cases it just doesn’t happen. Sure, they have very good casks of whisky (this one, for example), but most of what is out there is 10 year old blandness that is too close to new make spirit to be considered to be anywhere near good.
Sniff: Very aromatic with classical scents of yellow fruit, barley and oak. There’s an earthy edge to it as well. Apples, pears, very ripe stuff with a good kind of sweetness. Some spices, with a bit of a funkiness of old age.
Sip: The palate has a bit of oomph, but isn’t harsh in any way. Lots of oven baked fruit, with some spices. Quite some pastry flavors too, sand biscuit, crumble, a touch of vanilla.
Swallow: The finish has that same maturity as the nose has, but with the fresh addition of candied lemon.
The palate is a bit more generic than the nose and the finish, but far from being uninteresting. The sweetness, which is definitely there, is never too much, and never overpowering. This is one of those good casks that makes me try more Glen Elgin, only to be let down most of the time. Luckily, stuff like this exists!
My friend Tom, who goes by Tomatin on any media that is whisky focused, did a wee bottle share of this a while ago. A Tomatin that worked really well for him up to a level that he wants a second bottle.
Image from Whiskybase
A whisky nerd wanting a second bottle of something is quite special, because that money can also go to something new, and something new is always what we’re looking for. Imagine that!
Anyway, except for pricing, even back in 2015, Tomatin Distillery Exclusives are generally pretty solid bottles that show the light distillery spirit in combination with rather focused cask influences quite well. PX is sweeter and less spicy than Oloroso, bourbon shows the vanilla and coconut, and so on.
Let’s dive in and see where this one takes us!
Sniff: There is not a little bit of Sherry in this one! Slightly leathery with dried dates and plums. The chewy kind of dried fruits. It’s rather woody, but still somehow a bit light. There’s a whiff of menthol in the background.
Sip: The palate isn’t too sharp, even when it’s the first dram of the day. There’s a certain dryness with sawdust, plum stones and ground almonds. Some dates that add a bit of sweetness, and a grist like texture and flavor too.
Swallow: The finish is a lot more gentle, with the sweetness being a little bit more prominent, and the bitter notes take a step back. Very similar to the nose, as usual, with more light notes of leather. The menthol isn’t here, though.
Decent, with a lot of sherry. There’s not a lot of distillery character left, except for the lightness of the spirit. It does carry the sherry rather well, though! Pretty tasty!
This Blended Scotch Whisky consists of Ben Nevis, Clynelish, Teaninich, Macduff, Dailuaine and Invergordon. Not the least interesting names in the business!
Also, while this states having had an Oloroso finish, what didn’t really fit the title, is that that finish took 20 years. If any sort of whisky has bragging rights to being ‘double matured’, it’s something like this!
Image from Whiskybase
My friend JPH got this bottle from an auction after reading some reviews on Whiskybase and taking the pretty stellar rating into account.
Sniff: Lots of oak, with dry sherry. A note of almond flour, with a bit of bitterness. Dried fruit with dates and plums. More and more oak, with old barley, hessian, hazelnuts, a whiff of black pepper.
Sip: The palate is pretty gentle, but dry. Black pepper, sawdust, mulch, dates with their stones. Almond flour, date stones, hazelnuts and pecans. An amazing amount of oak.
Swallow: The finish is a bit more sweet, with some cherries. Quite long and oaky. Black pepper, sawdust, almond flour. Also, the brown crust of pound cake.
It’s not too surprising that there’s a lot of oak and sherry on this whisky’s nose and palate. However, while those are nice flavors, I felt it lacked a bit in other areas to make it as complex a dram as I’d hoped it would be. The cask has completely taken over from the parts that went into the blend, in my opinion.
Based on a quick scan of all the ratings on Whiskybase, I figure this was very popular in Germany, which fits the ‘national preference’ of dark, old and sherried whiskies. Nothing wrong with that, but not entirely in my wheelhouse.
Last year my friend JPH and I bought a set of samples from Jon Beach, of Fiddler’s in Drumnadrochit. A massive splurge, but a series of great whiskies being surpassed by even better ones. This year, with Brexit being a reality, buying samples in the United Kingdom wasn’t really an option, so we looked elsewhere.
There are some advent calendars with booze available in Europe, but most of them were, in a word, shit. They’re too expensive for what’s included, and most of them contain entry level whiskies that I didn’t really want to sit down for anyway.
Around the time this was happening, I was on holiday with my in-laws in Luxemburg and saw the The Nectar Tasting Box sitting on a shelf. At the time I didn’t pay much attention to it, but when I was browsing the thousand-something whiskies there, I saw an awful lot of bottlings for The Nectar’s 15th anniversary.
So, a few weeks later, with still no viable alternative found, we opted to go for the box by The Nectar. There isn’t much information on the box, or in the shops where we could order them, so we lived under the impression that most of the samples were of said celebratory bottlings.
Very pretty!
Disclaimer
Now, after having gone through the samples a while ago, I’m writing a single post of reviews. I doubted long and hard whether or not to do this, which already gives you an idea about my feelings towards what I find about the drinks.
The box of 24 samples of 2cl set me back € 85 (+ shipping). Of course, there’s no viable calculation to do whether or not you’d be getting your money’s worth, since the box itself is quite well made, with individual boxes for the samples, a tasting glass, so of course, compared to the half liter of booze you’re getting, the price will be a bit on the higher side.
Also, I tend to like what The Nectar puts out. I’ve had quite some bottlings done by and for them over the years and over all, they’ve been at least good, mostly better than just ‘good’. So, yeah, I tend to like The Nectar. For proof, this, this, this, this and this.
The contents
I was rather surprised that all samples in the box were of what The Nectar normally imports into Belgium. None of the samples were of their 15th anniversary bottlings. There was one bottling done especially for The Nectar (Compass Box ‘Great King Street Marrying Cask’), and one exclusive bottling for Belgium (Waterford Mortarstown 1.1).
All the other samples were of regular bottlings. Almost all of the other samples were of entry level bottlings for each respective brand. Paul John Nirvana, Armorik Classic, Amrut Fusion and so on.
Taking this into consideration, with most (if not all) of these bottlings costing between € 30 and € 50, the price of the sample kit suddenly seems a lot less on point.
Several batches tried
The good
Of course, this entire post is introduction to a flaming review of how dissatisfied I am with my purchase. That’s not all there is to it, though. There are some pretty decent bottlings in the box. As a whisky fanatic you tend to skip other kinds of distillates, and with there being 8 non-whiskies in the set, you get to browser other categories for a bit too.
Amrut Fusion Sniff: Roasted barley, some caramel and a whiff of smoke. Not earthy, but just some roasty, smoky oak, charred oak maybe. Some tropical fruits like apricots, peaches.
Sip: The palate isn’t as rich as I hoped, and takes a step back. It feels a bit thin, although there is some barley and sawdust dryness. Roasted grains, toasted with butter, apricot jam. Some black pepper, and a minor smoky note. Not necessarily peaty, again, but smoky.
Swallow: The finish focuses more on the oak and toast. Surprisingly rich after the rather thin palate. Very tantalizing and makes you want to go back for another sip.
Dangerously drinkable! 86/100
BenRiach Smoke Season 52.8% Sniff: Wet hay, a bit of rot too. A bit of smoke, but not a lot. Quite barley forward, but there are some hints of apple peel and grass. Wood gets more intense after a few sniffs.
Sip: The palate is both surprisingly dry and surprisingly sweet, although the sweetness diminishes quickly. Apple peels, hay and grass. A bit of barley and some oak shavings. Black pepper, and a hint of vanilla. The smoke is present, but kept to a minimum.
Swallow: The finish is rather light too, with more smoke and a bit of peppermint towards the end. Some black pepper, barley and quite a lot of fresh oak. 85/100
Nardini Grappa Riserva Classic, 50% Sniff: I wasn’t sure what I expected, but not this. It’s spicy and herbaceous, with some grapes that have no sweetness left. Oregano, thyme, dried basil. A hint of tea and dried orange blossom. A whiff of oak too, and myrtle.
Sip: The palate is dry, but not without a bit of sweetness. It still is very focused on dried leaves of various kinds. Herbs, tea, myrtle, oregano, basil. But there’s a honeyed sweetness too.
Swallow: The finish brings a bit of a bite which combines nicely with the honey sweetness and the herbs. It’s less herbaceous than before, but those notes aren’t completely gone. A little bit of white pepper too.
The most interesting of the batch, and the one I want to keep returning to. 85/100
Compass Box Great King Street Marrying Cask #25 Sniff: A strangely acidic style, with a lot of dryness. The acidity of passion fruit. Quite some oak, and a bit of a funky, yeasty note too. Highly complex, with a bit of an austere approach, apples, iron and slate.
Sip: The palate is similar to the nose, but arrives a bit more intensly than I expected. More oak, some peppery heat, still some bourbon cask vanilla and sweetness behind it all. Passion fruit, orange peel, baked apple. That funky note becomes a note of hessian. The austerity is gone.
Swallow: The finish has a nice, lingering and warming dryness. Pepper, passion fruit with a bit more sweetness. Dried pineapple, later on.
The finish is very good. 85/100
The Bad
Apart from there being several interesting drams, there were a few that were utter shit. Of course, it’s two guys’ opinions, but holy hell I’ve been cured of being interested in some stuff now.
I don’t have any experience with spiced or botanical rum, but after tasting BrewDog’s ‘Five Hundred Cuts’ I sure as hell am not trying any more.
The problem with most of these samples being entry level bottlings is that they don’t stand a chance to what I’ve tried over the last couple of years. However, in some cases, going back to the roots of where these whiskies ‘begin’ and where I’ve begun can be quite interesting. Trying the original Glenfiddichs again last year was quite fun. Getting to know Kilchoman’s Machir Bay several years ago was a positive surprise too.
Trying Paul John’s Nirvana, Jura’s French Oak, Fettercairns 12 years old, Teeling Blackpitts was quite different though. Most of these drams were boring, some of them were very thin, and a few others were poured down the sink.
Plantation Barbados XO, 40% Sniff: Lots of baking spices, speculoos biscuits and cinnamon. Some baked apple, but that might be because of the cinnamon. A raisin like sweetness, with a whiff of glue and oak in the background.
Sip: Again, very sweet, but with a slight bitter edge of fresh oak. Some burnt caramel with spiced biscuits. Lots of baking spices, and slightly thin because it’s only 40%. A shame, it’s richness would be nicer with a bit more (or any) oomph.
Swallow: The nose and palate were on the brink of spiced rum levels of spiciness. The finish crosses that line. It makes it all taste rather artificial, and very watery because of its low ABV. 70/100
BrewDog, Five Hundred Cuts, Botanical Rum, 40% Sniff: It’s like sticking your nose into a bakery making all kinds of biscuits. The complete spice cabinet went into the bottle, and completely evaporated the rum itself. Lots of Speculoos, pumpkin spice, carrot cake. More like flavored vodka than anything else.
Sip: It does have the sweetness of white rum, but other than that it’s just spices, spices, spices. The entire list is “Tonka Bean, Clove, Lavender, Cardamom, Orange Peel, Mace, Cinnamon, Nutmeg, All Spice, Ginger” and I guess they all show up in the parade.
Swallow: Sticky sweet, and spices. See above.
Why is this called rum? Ok, I don’t know anything about spiced rum, I don’t think I ever had it. But if this is what spiced rum is, I’ll be staying a long way away from the category.
Paul John Nirvana Sniff: If this is more than three years old, it would surprise me very much. It’s aroma is that of a nondescript new make with a little dollop of oak added to it. There’s some fruit and a hint of copper or something like that. However, non of it is appealing.
Sip: The palate is thin as well. Not ‘oh it’s only 40%’ thin, but there’s been virtually no flavor that’s developed during maturation. There’s some orangy-pith note, a whiff of oak.
Swallow: The finish is watery, with a bit more barley, although it still has that fruit syrup flavor of new make. There’s a bit more oak and it does save it some points. Some raisins maybe, a bit of toast. 75/100
Fettercairn 12, 40% Sniff: Steeped barley with honey sweetness and porridge. Apples and orange, but we’re not comparing them. Sultana biscuits.
Sip: The palate is, unfortunately, very watery. There’s some oak, a bit of a funky bitterness, like wet hay and hessian bags left in a shed. Rotting leaves, a bitter note towards the end.
Swallow: The finish carries the bitter note longest, but there’s not much else. Old apples, and some oak.
Funky in all the wrong ways, and way too thin. 77/100
The verdict
The problem with this set is in expectation management. With there being only very little information on the box, you don’t really have an idea what you’re getting. On the outside it only has brand labels, and it’s not specific to the actual drinks. There’s more information on the inside of the lid, but that’s not overly helpful when buying something online.
When you’re celebrating a 15th anniversary, and you release quite a whopping amount of amazing and very interesting bottlings, most of which are very well priced too, it’s not too weird to somehow expect said bottlings to make it to the accompanying celebratory box set. Especially if you want people to be more interested, diverge from the well known into slightly more obscure drinks that you’re importing, you have some convincing to do. This doesn’t do that.
The only thing I’m interested in buying after having had these twenty-four drinks is the Nardini Riserva Classic, a grappa.
So, in the end, I just don’t understand what the idea is behind the box. Inviting people new to distillates won’t happen with something setting you back € 85 and no further info or marketing. Showcasing what kind of cool stuff you’re doing won’t happen with these drinks, and celebrating a milestone anniversary with entry level drams won’t happen for people who know the brand’s bottlings…
Some distilleries have great years (Caperdonich 1972, BenRiach 1976, Port Ellen 1978, Clynelish 1995, and so on). However, very few distilleries have bad years. For example, Bowmore is pretty shit if it was distilled in the 1980s, generally.
An overwhelming aroma and flavor of what is ‘lovingly’ called FWP, or French Whore Perfume permeates most, if not all, Bowmore whiskies from that decade. Interestingly, there are quite some Glen Gariochs and Auchentoshans from the same decade that show that too, so it is likely to have been some company wide thing…
Anyway, in the case of Bowmore the 80s stand out so much, because everything before and since is so very good. Bowmore from the 60s and 70s are legendary. Bowmore from the mid-nineties is too. And with stuff from 2000 onwards getting into some nice age ranges, we’re slowly finding out that these whiskies do everything the way they’re supposed to as well.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to be in on this, and this 17 year old Bowmore will set you back almost € 300. Let’s not even get into what older whiskies from the Islay distillery will cost…
So, we went into this one with high expectations, but also with a bit of apprehension, due to the hefty price tag. It must be VERY good to be worth € 279, right?
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: The nose is a combination of bourbon wood, with some apples and vanilla, a surprisingly light smokiness, and the typical lemon and oak from the distillery. There’s a scent of all-purpose cleaner, with alcohol and lemon, but strangely, in a good way. There’s also the Bowmore typical scent of ammonia, but far in the background and therefore, again, in a good way. It makes for a very complex nose with many layers to peel back.
Sip: There’s a lot more oak and smoke on the palate than I expected. It’s quite dry because of it. The smoke is definitely a coastal, Islay style of smoke with hints of brine, sea shells, sea weed. The dryness means there are a lot of notes of straw and tree bark. Apple cores, pear skin, and candied lemon too.
Swallow: The finish veers back towards the nose. The palate really is the odd one out. Here’s there’s far more typical notes of Bowmore with heaps of lemon, ammonia and a more gentle smokiness. A hint of ginger tea, and a bit of white pepper linger long.
The palate isn’t very Bowmore-like, somehow. After the rather typical nose with notes of ammonia, combined with the other scents, I expected something quite different.
All in all, the nose and the finish are great, but the palate is something I’m not overly thrilled with. Still, this brings a lot of the typical Bowmore scents, and flavors on the finish. Therefore, still quite a high rating. It could have been higher if the palate was more consistent.
But the nose on this one will keep you busy for a while, even if the rest doesn’t…
While initially it seemed like 1997 was going to be one of ‘those’ vintages for Clynelish, by now it seems to have been surpassed by 1995. Especially by Signatory bottlings, to be a little bit more precise.
A while ago I reviewed one my father-in-law has, and now I got the chance to taste another cask, bottled for The Whisky Exchange’s 20th anniversary. Of course, there being a 20th anniversary only reminds me of how long I’ve been at this nonsense, because over 10 years ago, I did quite some reviews to the 10th anniversary. Back when ridiculously old whisky was still a little bit more affordable…
Back then, there was Karuizawa, Glenglassaugh, Hakushu, Linkwood, and more. Back then, when a bottle of Karuizawa 1982 would set you back € 150… This same bottle of Karuizawa is now available in America for € 15,000. 100 times as expensive as it used to be.
But, back to this Clynelish before I get too depressed.
Image from Limited Whisky Investment
Sniff: Gentle sherry with tropical fruits. Some notes of orange, orange peel, resin and beeswax. Not a lot of oak, but there’s a hint of banana too.
Sip: The palate has a bit of a dry and corky palate. There’s lots of fruit and resiny pinecones. Apple seeds, grape seeds, but also mango and dried peaches.
Swallow: The finish is more fruity. Lots of fresh tropical stuff. Quite long, less dry, still quite waxy.
The combination of the various fruits, and the fruitiness is varied, with the resin and beeswax works very well. I also really like that there’s tropical fruit and more ‘local’ fruit in the form of apples and grapes. It makes for a more layered experience, more different flavors to be discovered.
Compared to the one linked to earlier, this one feels a little bit more timid. A very good whisky, but not the best of the 1995 Signatories out there. Close, though!
The guys from The Single Cask seem to be on their way to becoming a bigger and bigger bottler. In The Netherlands they’re still a bit rare, but with their presence at Maltstock and a slowly increasing number of retailers, it’s moving in the right direction.
Back when Master of Malt still shipped to The Netherlands, I managed to get my hands on a Tennessee Whisky, and a Glenrothes. The first one is still waiting to be reviewed (which is saying something too) and the other one was really epic.
This one was bottled for last year’s Whisky Tasting Festival, or WTF, in Utrecht. A Deanston from a refill cask, which I think is good since Deanston tends to be too cask driven for me to really stand out.
I’m still hoping to visit the distillery, and have been in the vicinity several times, but not with either time or ability to visit the place. Maybe this year?
Image from Whiskybase, by Erik H.
Sniff: There’s a lot of barley and oak on the nose. There sherry is present, but there’s not a lot of it. I find notes of peach, dried apples, oak shavings, fresh barley.
Sip: The palate is surprisingly sweet, although it’s not without bite. Very dry, with more apricots than peaches. A lot of peppery heat, oak and dry barley notes.
Swallow: The finish mellows a bit, but not all the way. The fruity side of things stay, with a lot more focus on that than on the barley. Quite oak driven, with some barley notes but not a lot of spirit.
Once more, Deanston gives a lot of room to the cask. It’s a good cask, with lots of nice flavors and aromas, but there’s barely any spirit left. The typical ‘blank canvas’ that I find so typical for Deanston.
I had a 10cl sample of this one, of which I had one glass now. I guess the rest won’t be emptied for a while… By this I don’t mean it’s a bad whisky, but it’s just a bit generic. If you want a fruity, sherried whisky, this is something to go for (as is most Deanston from sherry casks), but you can go for a dozen other ones too.
It’s not entirely unique, but Ardmore seems to be the distillery that uses other distilleries’ casks most. And I’m not talking about bourbon casks being used in Scotland, but Scottish single malt distilleries’ casks being reused at other single malt distilleries in Scotland. I know of some others, but from the top of my head, Ardmore is the one that does this most.
Mostly, when disregarding Ardmore, it’s distilleries reusing casks from other distilleries, when they reusing distillery doesn’t make peated whisky and they want to do something with a touch of smoke. Balblair has a ‘peaty cask’ range, Tormore has some ‘Islay casks’ out there, and even Balvenie does, even though they also make a portion of peated whisky themselves.
Strangely, Ardmore is already a peated whisky, and they add more peat. Different peat, I might add. Ardmore is a Highlands distillery, using a highland style of smokiness. Heather and moss instead of sea week and marram grass, so to say. And then they use Laphroaig casks, like in this one.
Let’s say I’m a bit skeptical.
Sniff: Straw, barley, vanilla and a hint of dark chocolate. Smoky, but with a more salty tang than usual for Ardmore. A bit more sweet than I expected, with sponge cake, lemon drizzle.
Sip: The palate is really hot with a mountain of chili peppers and alcohol heat. Straw and smoke, slightly salty again. Dark chocolate, pound cake, and a bit of porridge.
Swallow: A short blast of peppery heat again, before it gets very dry, and a tad cardboardy.
My skepticism is not unwarranted, I think. It’s a bit like they took a rather decent Ardmore (because which bourbon matured Ardmore isn’t at least decent?) and then it got messed up. Of course, it’s impossible to tell where the original whisky ends and the Laphroaig cask influence begins, but compared to what I know of the distillery’s output, this one is too dry, too harsh and that cardboardy note on the finish doesn’t sit well with me either.
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a bad dram, but I just don’t get it. I don’t see the point. There’s quite a lot to like, but there are some aspects that don’t sit well with me.
Malt Fascination 