Of course, this is an undisclosed single malt whisky. Adelphi has (or used to have) a slew of them in the ‘Breath of…’ series. Islay, Speyside, the Highlands. The only two regions not covered are the Lowlands and Campbeltown, for some reason.
I first tried this whisky at Whisky Live, back when it was still in Leiden. Based on the year of bottling for this one, it must have been 2007, possibly 2008. And while this is technically an undisclosed whisky, consensus is that this is Talisker. Back at the stand at the festival this was very explicitly not denied.
It just so happens that I like Talisker, and there’s not that much available at cask strength. Currently there’s the annual special release, but that wasn’t the case for years. Of course, there used to be the 57 North, and there’s a handful of rare releases that are way out of my league. So, things like this nicely fill that gap.
Sniff: Very classic Talisker that has been tamed by a long time in a half empty bottle. There’s a whiff of vanilla in the background, but otherwise it’s all barley, oak, coastal salinity with sea weed. Also a bit of heather, a very gentle smokiness with a touch of black pepper.
Sip: The palate is far less tame than the nose. Quite some bit with a lot of dry pepper. Sharp notes of barley and oak shavings. Coastal notes of washed wood, fishing nets, but also with a heathery sweetness.
Swallow: On the finish the smoke is most pronounced, and with the pepper, heather, oak and barley it becomes a true Talisker.
On the nose the smoke is so gentle I’d almost start thinking it’s Highland Park, which would still fit the bill of being a Breath of the Isles. However, the black pepper and the kick of smoke on the finish makes it all okay again.
This is one of those whiskies that if you like the distillery’s character, you’ll love it. If you don’t like Talisker generally (those people exist, I’ve heard), you won’t find another perspective here. This fits the distillery character to a tee.
Even though I rarely go there anymore, I always love(d) visiting The Old Pipe in St. Oedenrode. When I lived in Den Bosch it was relatively close and I went there occassionally. Since I moved away it’s more than a 90 minute drive, and so out of the way that it’s been years since I’ve been there. Of course, they do have a web shop and I sometimes know how to find the button to buy a bottle or two.
Last week, however, they announced a new single cask bottled especially for the shop. They had such things before, with an Arran, and some bottlings by Claxton’s. The Arran was very good, the Claxton‘s I found less convincing. There was another Claxton’s which I haven’t posted my review for yet.
Now, initially, I wasn’t too concerned with this GlenAllachie. Mostly because there are so many ‘Allachies available that one more or less wouldn’t make a difference. But for some reason, their marketing engine did their job because when things got closer to the release date, last Thursday if I recall, I wanted a bottle for sharing. What also helped was that Bram, of ‘The Whisky Nerds’ stated ‘I would have liked a cask like that for the Nerds’.
I know how high his bar is. I know he doesn’t say stuff like that on a whim. That got me over the line and I ordered a bottle for sharing, and even though there’s a one per person limit, I got someone else to get me a second bottle.
Of the first 70cl, I shared 63, so only 7cl for myself. When I sat down to try it yesterday, I immediately knew that that first bottle was going to be empty by the end of the night.
Image from The Old Pipe
Sniff: Dry sherry notes with a lot of nuts and dried fruit. It’s not very sweet with an almond bitterness and hazelnut dryness. Very much an older style of sherry. Dark chocolate and mocha. Later on the oak and roasted malts start coming through. Even some cherries and blackberries.
Sip: The palate lets you know it’s a cask strength dram! It’s not ridiculously hot or sharp, but there’s a definite intensity to it. The blackberries and even some cassis are more prominent than before. Cherries and a variety of nuts. Pecans, hazelnuts and almonds. Some raisins after a little while. Although it’s not overly sweet still, it still is a tad sweeter than the nose was.
Swallow: The finish, once again, is a bit more sweet than what came before. The dry notes still win, though. Riasins, the nuts and a wet kind of sponge cake. A bit like sticky toffee pudding, but interestingly with more focus on the almond flour than on the sticky toffee.
I agree with the marketing engine in this case. This is a cracking whisky, with a more old fashioned approach to sherry cask maturation. It’s not the more contemporary focus on sweetness and dried fruits, but veers towards the bitterness and nutty aspects of it all.
It’s quite a remarkable whisky and I am very glad I got another bottle. With almost 700 bottles coming from that single cask it is still available, and if you are in the business of buying bottles of whisky of € 100, this one is highly recommended!
This Kilchoman finished, not matured, in a Tequila cask is one of the many bottlings for The Nectar‘s 15th anniversary. Where I thought The Nectar was a bottler, they are also a sizeable importer for Belgium, focusing on all kinds of independent spirits.
This bottlings is on of their celebratory ones, which I managed to pick up in Luxemburg when I was there in October. Most people in The Netherlands know that Luxemburg generally is fairly cheap when it comes to alcohol and other excised goods. Cigarettes and petrol come to mind, of course.
For groceries, and because of the quality whisky selection I went to Shopping Center Massen instead of staying in Belgium and selecting a supermarket equally distant, but not across the border. I was there 3.5 years ago during our summer holiday, when I thought their whisky selection was decent. Apparently things have changed since what they then had as a whisky selection, they now had as rum selection, and their whisky selection had quintupled in the meantime.
Prices are also very decent, but you’ll have to keep an eye on Whiskybase since not everything is cheaper there. Generally it is, but there are exceptions. This one was, though. The cheapest it is available through Whiskybase, at the time of writing, is € 105, and at Massen I picked it up for € 85. Quite a difference, if you ask me.
Anyway, back to the whisky at hand. Kilchoman has been experimenting quite heavily with Tequila and Mezcal casks recently, and they have been popping up all over the place. Of course, using a new kind of cask is interesting, but not necessarily good. I can imagine Tequila and Mezcal clashing quite hard with whisky, but you can’t knock it till you rock it, so here we go!
Sniff: Upon pouring the whisky the peat comes forward straight away. It’s definitely not a shy dram! When you start sniffing the whisky it brings all the typical Kilchoman scents. Brine, peat, seaweed, straw and some oak. But, if you pay attention there’s a green ‘zinginess’ behind it all. The fattiness of agave is present too.
Sip: The palate packs quite a punch and its youthfulness makes itself known. Kilchoman tends to be quite a clean whisky with lots of barley and peat leading the way and this one is no different. But, again, if you pay attention there’s something different. The agave is noticeable but it’s not a high note. It’s slightly syrupy and fatty, but these notes are trying to hide, or so it seems.
Swallow: The finish is a bit more liberal with the ‘strange one out’ notes than before. There’s definitely some agave greenness, although still subtle.
The good is that this is still a very well made whisky, which is rather typical of Kilchoman. The tequila notes aren’t bad either, but you do have to pay attention to pick up on them, which I think is a bit of a miss. When trying something new I understand the restraint, but the ‘newness’ should be a bit more noticeable in my book.
So, I guess we’ll have to try some Tequila or Mezcal cask finished drams to really have something to say about the usage of these casks. However, if you spend some money on this, you won’t be disappointed in the quality of the dram. You might be disappointed in how much Tequila you’re getting though.
I don’t often review Cognac on my wee blog, but when I do, it counts. Of course, with my very limited knowledge of the distillate, and it being completely off my radar, this is because the people at Passie voor Whisky (Passion for Whisky) were kind enough to send a sample of their 50 year old (!) Cognac for reviewing.
I know Domaine Jean-Luc Pasquet is a popular one with whisky lovers because it’s been popping up at shops like Passion for Whisky, with a 1967 one being available a couple of months ago. I still need to review that one, as well as some others that I’ve lying around.
Interestingly, the Cognacs that have been coming out recently, from those people who love whisky, is quite different from my experience with Cognac over the last couple of years. Before, Cognac was that 40% drink with a lot of boisé forced woodiness, without it adding much depth. My father in law loves his Cognac, and I’ve tried some from him over the years. None of them were convincing.
However, these new releases from Jean-Luc Pasquet, Vallein Tercinier and Prunier that have been popping up are nothing like what I had before. There’s a lot of complexity and layeredness. There’s also a lot of maturity without it feeling forced. And, not to its detriment, there’s diversity. I’ve had quite some old, sometimes very old, Armagnacs, but for some reason those start to taste like oak and not much else after about three decades.
As an added benefit there’s that little bit of being more affordable than old whisky. Of course, € 250 (which the bottle that’s about to be reviewed costs) is nothing to scoff at, but at 50 years old, it’s a fraction of what a similarly aged whisky would cost.
Image from Passie voor Whisky
Sniff: There’s quite some oak, but it’s not overpowering. It’s more like a canvas for the other scents. A lot of rather crisp fruity notes, with orange peel, tangerine. It’s slightly buttery, a bit beurre noisette like. Roasted almonds, too.
Sip: The palate is rather gentle, with oak, a bitter almond note and slightly burnt butter. Toasted bread, even. Orange peel with a bit of pithiness, with a bit of a marmalade sweetness too. It gets a bit more zesty with a minute on the palate. It’s more tropical than the nose with a hint of mango.
Swallow: The finish is slightly more typical with a bit more oak, and more focus on the grape fruitiness. There’s a bit of a syrupy sweetness, with thick grape pulp, as well as the orangy notes from before.
Honestly, this is a ridiculously tasty Cognac. It also makes me feel a bit incompetent by not getting more specific flavors out of it, or at least, not being able to describe them appropriately.
Having said that, the tangerine and orange notes in combination with the oak and a lot of maturity makes for a very Christmas-y drinking experience. It’s soothing, it’s complex and fit for the season, although I can see this working in summer too. Highly recommended!
This bottling, which I bought in 2014 is finally empty. I opened it ages ago, and then it got forgotten. As in, it just sat there on the shelf waiting to be tasted, reviewed and emptied. A recent sample request from a friend reminded me I should go ahead and drink the last 10-ish centiliters.
Of course, a fresh bottle is different than an almost empty one, but generally it gets a bit better with a bit of time. I don’t know if six years of air counts, but I’ve seen people take 20 years to finish some special bottles, so it shouldn’t be bad.
Some years ago I really had Willett on my radar, and even did a massive bottle share with it when I found a slew of their bottlings at The Old Pipe. They even had the XCF, which has become some kind of rarity that goes for ridiculous amounts in the meantime. I had fun with that share, although it was a rather expensive one, compared to hooch-quality (that’s an official term).
At some point, some years before 2014 Willett changed from Family Estate Bottled to Distilled, since their own distillery came on steam. Before that they were mainly a bottler with a very old brand name. Nothing wrong with that, they were always very straight forward with that information.
Sniff: A very crisp rye whisky, with menthol and a lot of oaky spices. It gets a bit dusty withdry autunn leaves, cigars and sawdust.
Sip: The palate is dry and rather hot as a first dram. It quickly mellows enough, with toast, marmalade with a pithy edge. It gets slightly jammy with a bit of time.
Swallow: A medium long finish, with gentle flavors. Some spices, but syrupy oak flavors and a bit of orange marmalade, but sweeter than before.
So, this is a bit of a weird one. Not in regards to flavor, though. The flavors are very straight forward and very typical of a rye whisky. It’s even a tad predictable. What I’m trying to say is that this is very drinkable, but it will not blow you away and you’ll probably not remember it a year later.
There are a million different versions of this, based on their bottle-code. Apart from identifying which specific version you have, which is mostly important for geeks like me, this should be of no importance. Wild Turkey are quite skilled in making these all taste the same, and that’s good for consistency. It makes it so that I can go to any random shop, pick up a new bottle and replace this one which I emptied a little while ago.
Of course, if you wait ten years, there are going to be slight differences. If you wait longer, those differences will increase, but still, batch-to-batch, this is rather consistent stuff.
Wild Turkey are a bit of a go to bourbon, if you ask me. Over the last decade or so, there have been several additions to their product line, but the old fashioned 101, or even better, the 101 8 years old, are great bottles of affordable whiskey.
It’s been over a decade, but when camping throughout the United States I was very happy with a bottle of this to drink at the campfire, after dinner before it got too cold to stay outside. And in locations where the cold wasn’t a thing, it was just nice to drink before going to bed, and not having to think too much about what you’re having. All in all, very good stuff.
Then there’s this amped up version. Pushed to eleven, Spinal Tap style. Since all batches are at the same strength, I’m not what the idea is. It seems hard to make this ‘batch strength’ and then be this consistent, but it’s not unheard of (Glenfarclas 105, anyone?).
Image from Whiskybase
Interestingly, this stuff keeps popping up all over the world in ‘Top X Bourbons of <year>’ lists, especially when tasted blind. It just punches above it’s weight, or in this case, price class.
Sniff: It starts right away with a big, deep and autumnal bourbon. There’s rich notes of corn, an oaky sweetness, cigar leaves. A bit of nutty bitterness, a mustiness even. There’s a bit of a dry sawdust aroma too.
Sip: The palate is quite strong, especially if this 58.4% drink is the first whisky of the day, and there’s a bit of a gritty mouthfeel to it. Almost like there is sawdust or cornstarch in it, which obviously isn’t so. The sweetness isn’t too strong, but the oak, corn and almond flavor is. Cigars, brittle leaves, some cherries. A sort of quintessential bourbon experience, so to say.
Swallow: The finish is warming too, with that ‘Kentucky hug’ when it goes down. You’ll understand the face Clint Eastwood makes when he drinks a whisky in those westerns. In a good way. Quite long and dry, with a bit of a leather feeling to it, because of the strength.
With this clocking in at about € 35-45, it’s just too good to pass up, in my opinion.
88/100
Available almost everywhere, in 0.7l and 1l bottles.
A few weeks ago Whiskybase announced that they had a private cask of Daftmill in the works. The caveat was that you had to ‘prove’ that you would open yours instead of seeing it as an investment whisky.
To do that, they wanted you to upload a selfie with your opened bottle of any previous Daftmill that came out. Of course, with all the bottle-sharing that’s happening, my previous bottle was long gone.
Luckily they weren’t too strict and me having a blog post with it, and a picture of the empty bottle (without me in the picture) was enough. I didn’t have to buy one in the two minutes the rest of the cask was available. Literally two minutes, by the way, until what wasn’t allocated to selfie-providing people sold out.
Of course, any future proof had to be recorded, so this happened:
In the end, with all sharing of the Daftmill, this bottle is already empty as well, and in the bin. Time for a review, I’d say.
Sniff: Herbaceous and floral, but with quite a lot of vanilla behind it. Hints of dried wildflowers and straw, quite meadow-y. But, with a bit of a dessert pastry like sweetness. The sweetness does dissipate a little with a few minutes time. Fresh oak, wet grass, slightly floral notes with a whiff of black pepper remain.
Sip: The palate is rather unique with pastry and vanilla, but not too much of the sweetness that typically goes with it. Grass, ferns, pine needles, vanilla, fresh oak. Very Lowlands-like. A certain austerity, in a way.
Swallow: The finish is quite dry, with more austere notes than before. Baked apple, ferns, fresh oak. Some iron, even. Still not much sweetness, and that’s quite nice.
So, this whisky has the good things going on from an old fashioned Lowlands whisky. It’s not unlike some Rosebanks I had some years ago. On the other hand it’s rather modern with a lot of cask influence and therefore vanilla. That does take it down a notch. Luckily, there’s not too much sweetness.
88/100
Since it sold out in minutes people are trying to make some money off the bottles that are still closed, and it’s currently available in the Whiskybase Marketplace for € 600. Expensive, but a fair bit lower than some idiot trying his hardest to get through winter on the back of one bottle…
The last leg of the Blind Tasting Competition, or maybe the last tripod, since there’s another three reviews below.
In this batch there are two bottlings I had before, but only one of them I recognized. That made up for some points, but nowhere near enough to get me anywhere. Of course, scoring zero points on day 10 and eleven doesn’t exactly help either!
Highland Park 11, 2008-2020, European Oak Sherry Butt 2519, 66.4% – OB for The Netherlands
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: A hint of rubber band, but also some young and spirity edge to whatever this is. It’s quite timid on the nose, with hints of dried apricot, some sulfur, and some menthol. Some blue grapes, perhaps.
Sip: The palate arrives quite fiercely again, much like the 9th dram. Dry, with lots of oak, some bitter notes of fruit stones. Cherry, date or plum stone. Drying notes of chili pepper and some burnt brown sugar.
Swallow: Again, those youthful notes, or not-so-well-integrated alcohol. The finish lasts rather long, but it’s mostly the dryness and the peppery burn that lingers.
Much like the Glen Scotia, this tasted like on those younger Highland/Speyside bottlings with too much wood influence and not enough maturity. Those two aren’t the same thing!
Generally I can be quite the Highland Park fanboy, but this one doesn’t sit well with me. The bottlings didn’t cross my mind, but it did remind me of those Ultimate Edradours with sherry-on-steroids cask maturation. Another low scoring one…
80/100
Old Rhosdhu (Loch Lomond) 29, 1990-2020, Refill Hogshead 416, 48.2% – WhiskyNerds with Wu-Dram Clan
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Old carpets and old wooden furniture, a whiff of paint and caramel too. Very, very old fashioned. Somehow this reminds me of De Whiskykoning’s tasting room. There’s a bit of a crispness, something wintry. Like a creek running over stones with frosted edges. Somehow…
Sip: A very smooth and mature arrival, with just a little bit of bite on the edge of your tongue. It’s slightly drying but it doesn’t nip like the previous two did. Oak, with hints of cracked leather, old carpets and furniture. Some paint, some corky apples, walnut shells.
Swallow: The finish continues down the same line although it’s a little bit more sweet with a hint of wine gum. Still there’s the walnuts, apples and wood.
My mind went to Speyside based on some older Longmorns that I’ve had in the past. As in, I associate the very old-fashioned character this whisky has more with some older Speyside distillery than the rather industrial complex at Alexandria, Loch Lomond. Still, this is a cracking dram. I absolutely loved it and in this case the score is at least consistent with my previous experience with this whisky.
Kilchoman 13, 2007-2020, Fresh Bourbon Barrel 69, 55.5% – OB for Max & Julia
Image from Best of Wines
Sniff: I’ll be damned if this isn’t an Islay whisky. But, statistics show me I’m more often than not, so there’s that. There’s some old lemon, straw and a definit briny note. Coconut and dried pineapple.
Sip: The palate is a slow builder, but it gets to notes of white pepper, dry oak and a bit of alcohol heat. Quite dry, with dusty notes of old lemon and dried pineapple. Straw, grist and some crunchy muesli.
Swallow: A long finish that mellows rather quickly, but does leave a nice tingling feeling. It’s warming and salivating. So there’s some heat, but not that ‘I burnt my mouth on a too hot toasty’ sensation.
Of course, this one could be verified. Since Best of Wines is a shop, they have to state the alcohol percentage of the products they sell. And since this is the last whisky you can calculate the exact ABV this one must be at before entering your guess.
Having said that, I did recognize this one before hand. Of course, I started second guessing myself and took some meanderings before settling on this one. That was before we knew the ABV. JP and I tasted these drams a few days ahead, so not all information was known at the time of trying it.
Still, this is still a cracking dram. One of the best, no, the best Kilchoman I’ve had to date.
And with that the Blind Tasting Competition of 2021 draws to an end. First and foremost I have to thank Best of Wines again for sending the pack of samples. I know for sure I’m joining again next year. The level of the whiskies is amazing, and it’s awesome to do this, especially if you’re not doing it all by your lonesome.
The Springbank, the Old Rhosdhu and the Kilchoman are absolute belters in all positive ways imaginable. There were some duds in the competition, but those were very fun to taste nonetheless (looking at you, Highland Park and Glen Scotia). I was mostly surprised that the two least favorite whiskies were from distilleries I have on quite the pedestal.
It goes to say that blind tasting like this is the better way of going at it, since it removes most prejudice. However, part of the whisky drinking experience is the anticipation, the exploration of that new bottle you just picked up. So while tasting blind is fun, I don’t think it’s something I’ll be doing ‘from now on’.
The penultimate post on Best of Wines’ BTC, with another batch of three interesting drams. Interestingly, there was another on in here I should have recognized, and another that I have in my collection but haven’t gotten around to yet.
That last one got a lot of positive reviews when it came out, and I was anticipating with some level of hype. However, the way tasting whisky blind can sometimes open your eyes to something disregarded, it can also allow you to try some stuff that you’re not as thrilled with as you’d hoped or thought.
Anyway, here we go!
Ben Nevis 10, 2010-2020, Shiraz Cask 1800020, 56.7% – The Duchess
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Engine fumes, with a whiff of grease and diesel. Some brine too. All combines with smoke, of course. Some vanilla and some pastry sweetness too.
Sip: A bit more charcoal than there was on the nose, but otherwise there’s still that greasy note. There’s diesel, a bit of a creamy texture and defnitely some smoke. Some pear, some butter, quite some vanilla. Apple crumble, maybe, with custard. It takes a while for the alcohol to kick in.
Swallow: The finish is a bit more dry, and shows more notes of oak. Strangely, the spirit gets through a bit more and that shows a bit of some cleaning product that I can’t put my finger on.
Caol Ila from the get go. Of course, I was wrong, but this shouted Caol Ila at me. The engine fumes and such always send me in that direction. Interestingly, knowing what it is now I find this one much more smoky than it was when I poured it from the bottle a while ago.
Sniff: Rather sweet with some strange cask notes. It could be sherry, but a very sweet bourbon cask or a rum cask is also not impossible. Molasse and some candied fruit. Sweetened orange, with some overly sweetened dough as well. It’s all rather sweet. A creamy note as well, almost like a Bladnoch.
Sip: There is a bit of heat happening, with a hint of chili pepper, even though it’s still creamy. Creamy vanilla custard, but also something slightly funky. The heat keeps building, albeit slowly. Apple sauce, soft pear, all rather sweet. Still a hint of molasses too. I no longer think it’s a sherry cask. Some dried tropical fruits like pineapple and papaya.
Swallow: Somehow, it gets more sweet and more funky. Dried pineapple, apple and vanilla custard. All very sweet, but there’s interesting flavors.
JP and I tasted this and while it sent us to the Lowlands based on the character of the whisky, we thought it would be Bladnoch. Mostly because of the yeasty, creamy flavors that we found.
Littlemill is one of those distilleries that has gotten hugely popular since it’s been closed. And while I’ve had some great examples, in general it’s not a character or style I’ll get out of bed for. Still, this is a pretty decent one, although at € 600, I’m skipping it. I would also skip it at € 200.
Glen Scotia 11, 2010-2021, Heavy Charred Finish, 56.8% – OB for The Netherlands
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Lots of virgin oak and spirit, combined. It suggests a young whisky from a very fresh cask. So there definitely is oak, and a greenness from the spirit. Some ferns, but also a hint of red fruits. Brown sugar, and some cherry.
Sip: There’s a belyingly gentle arrival, but soon after you think ‘this isn’t too strong’ there’s a massive alcohol burn that pops up. Of course, it’s the first dram, so that’s a factor. It’s very dry with a lot of rather nondescript oak. Some sherry-like dark fruits, but without the spices and the sweetness. Mostly oak, some foresty notes, and peppery alcohol.
Swallow: The dryness lingers very long, and it also doesn’t mellow that quickly. It leaves a feeling like you’ve burnt your mouth. Oak, some minor fruity notes.
With the oak being so incredibly pronounced, with those rather roasted flavors, I figured it was one of those 6 or 7 year old Aultmores, or Glentauchers. They often taste like this, and it’s not something I really enjoy. Unfortunately, this is that bottle that I still have to taste, although it can be quite different when poured from a largely empty bottle (due to sharing) and with some time to mellow. In the line-up JP and I had, we didn’t thoroughly like this one.
Part two of the four part series in which I quickly go over the whiskies we had in the Blind Tasting Competition by Best of Wines.
As said before, and in previous years when I participated in The Usquebaugh Society’s version of it, I really suck at this. So don’t expect many points earned. Let’s just focus on the reviews and their inconsistency.
Springbank 17, 2002-2020, Rum/Bourbon mix with a Madeira finish, 47.8%
Image from Whiskybase
Sniff: Even though it smells aged, there’s quite a lot of spirit. My mind directly wanders towards refill casks of some kind. There’s a gin-like thing. A very light fruity thing, with lots of grapes and some citrus. Something very crips, like moss and slate in a forest creek. Red currants, somehow. And, a whiff of something grassy.
Sip: The palate is a touch more sweet than I expected, and arrives very gently. After a few seconds a dryness comes up, but it’s never sharp. Some white grapes, granny smith apples and that crispness of the nose is here too. Somehow, a specific type of brittle paper I once used at a Saturday job to straighten plywood. Something lemony, grassy.
Swallow: Utterly fascinating on the finish with a bit more funk, a bit less crispness. Still grassy, hay, white grapes and golden raisins. Some oak, and it seems to last for a very long time. White chocolate.
Somehow, I found this one quite different from when I tried it. I expect that my bottle being open for a while before reviewing it might have had some effect, but apart from that, the reviews are quite far apart. What wasn’t too far apart, is how much I like this whisky. What helps when reviewing it blind is that you miss out on the ridiculous hype surrounding it, and my review ended up being slightly higher than it was before.
I had no idea what to go for, so I picked something from a region we hadn’t had yet, and ended up going for Highland Park. In my mind the gin-like spirity quality is something not unheard of for that distillery, and I don’t associate it with Springbank.
Sniff: Ethereal with hints of mineral. Apple, iron, some slate. Treebark and a whiff of autumn leaves. Something waxy, after a few minutes with candle wax, and a bit of honey. Strangely, after some more time there suddenly is a hint of chocolate.
Sip: The palate is a bit thin, but quite intense. Definitely some cask strength heat with a hint of chili pepper. The waxiness continues here, as does the apple. Although, the apple is more a dried apple thing than the crisp ones from the nose. More oak than before too, but there still is a bit of a honey sweetness.
Swallow: The finish focuses a little bit more on the oak instead of the wax and the apple, but does bring back the hint of minerals.
It’s a bit thin, initially. After that there is quite enough happening, and it somehow reminded me of Clynelish. What they did very well is make this taste quite a bit older than it actually is. The initial review can be read here, by the way.
Sniff: Shoe polish and butter at first, hints of leather, dark sherry. Some dried fruits, but a lactic acid thingy too. Somethings strangely vinegar-like, like aged balsamic or red wine vinegar, a sweeter style. Old, lacquered oak shelves. A whiff of baking spices.
Sip: The palate is surprisingly gentle, with mostly a bit of a fatty, buttery arrival. Like melting Caramac bars and Werther’s Original. The leather note is toned down a lot and, unfortunately, it does go a little bit predictable. There’s some dried fruit, there’s some oak. There’s still that rancio, old oak, vinegary flavor though.
Swallow: The finish is rather long, which surprises me. There’s a bit more dates and plums, very typical fruitiness.
When tasting this one with JP, we both had the idea this could very well be some kind of wine cask. Unfortunately, there are no points for that. With this being rather gentle and calm, we went for a smooth Speyside whisky and I ended up picking Aberlour.
Malt Fascination 