Springbank 25 y.o. (2014)

46% abv

Score:  87/100

This is a perfect whisky to use as a model in illustrating the current state of single malt Scotch and talk about the ongoing allegations of declining quality and inconsistent brand releases.

Before we get started, let me offer up a word of clarification to temper the immediate assumptions that could be drawn from that first paragraph.  This is still pretty darn good whisky in its own right.  It’s not spectacular – especially at the $700ca mark – but it is a solid offering that is somewhat consistent with the distillery’s style.  Ok so far?  Alright…moving on…

This is 2014’s edition of Springbank’s quarter century milestone malt.  The last version of this whisky I tried (and the only one I know of, to be honest) was the 2006 release.  I loved that malt.  It wasn’t without its flaws, but it was singular and suited my palate perfectly.  Again, a pricey affair, but the rewards were tangible, if maybe not entirely in line with the outlay of benjamins required to score one.  What we have 8 years on is a mere shadow of this once princely dram.  Actually that’s not entirely accurate, as it sort of implies that the basic outline is the same as the old edition.  This is an entirely different whisky which, in my opinion, shouldn’t be this different from its forebears.  The reasons though, are likely very easily explainable.

The story, I would imagine, goes something like this:  In days gone by (let’s say up until about a decade or so ago) distilleries were producing distillate at a steady clip, filling and maturing barrels and feathering out releases with a regularity that cantered along nicely about in line with the rate of consumption.  Perhaps they were even able to put aside a little extra to gather dust in the furthest corners of the old warehouses.  When it came time to marry barrels together for the next batch of whichever edition was going to market, the ‘nose that knows’ at the distillery (read: master blender, or whatever title they’d claim) would have a decently stocked warehouse from which to pull casks.  Think of it much like a painter having a broad swath of colours on his palette.  Casks would be selected that aligned with the age they were aiming for and if the end product was not quite as glittery as hoped for, these vattings would be sweetened up with a few of the older, more spectacular barrels in bond.  Ergo, your ’18 year old’ whisky was quite likely built upon a fair bit of true 18 year old spirit, but with a decent amount of older and better whiskies mixed in there too.

I am, of course, simplifying things, but you get the idea as to how this relates back to an age where demand hadn’t yet outstripped supply.  Nowadays, in this burgeoning whisky market, distillers struggle just to reach status quo.  Hence the rise of the dreaded NAS malts.  I can almost guarantee that your current ’18 year old’ is just that.  I think you’d be lucky if it was 18 and a day.  You can call this a leap of logic, but it’s an easy inference, considering all of the evidence that has piled up as we’ve watched the times a changin’ for the last half decade or so.

Coming full circle to this Springbank 25 now, it, much like its younger siblings the 21 and 18, has become sadly almost entirely devoid of all the deeper subtle waxy notes, soft fruits and almost tropical nuances that made very mature Springbank a true revelation for many of us.  Its unique profile has been replaced with a more generic – albeit not bad – caramel-y simplicity.  All I can say at this point is…I guess it was inevitable.  Doesn’t make it any easier to swallow though (pun intended).

Nose:  Creamy caramel notes arrive first, then ebb, then return later.  Definitely not as fruity as I’d hoped for.  Smoke and peat are faded and subtle.  Some orange (and maybe other citrus hints?) and leather.  Orange candy.  Decent spice pantry notes, predominantly of the allspice kind of aroma.  Nice, but not overly special.

Palate:  Very nice arrival to get things going.  Hints of smoke and peat, as we’d expect, and an earthy or farmy backdrop.  Over time some sweet, artificial fruit notes emerge.  Leather.  Dried fruits.  Some coffee.  And more of those candy notes again.

Thoughts:  I think I said it all above.

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Springbank 17 y.o. Sherry Wood

52.3% abv

Score:  89.5/100

The old school charm of the malty and moderately-peated Springbank spirit meets the dense, dark punchbowl of heavy sherry.  The result is exactly what you’d expect.  Or exactly what I expected anyway: an almost oily, industrial smoky canvas with splashes of vibrant red and purple fruits thrown all over it.

Springbank has always used a substantial amount of sherry barrels in the maturation of its iconic single malts.  The sherry brings a sweet edge and tempers the more organic heft that comes from the phenolic influence of the peating process.  Don’t get me wrong, though, Springbank malts (excepting Longrow) are no peat monsters and temperance is not necessarily needed.  It’s merely a twist to the tale.  Smoke is integral, but it’s not the ‘be all, end all’ for Springbank.  In fact, I’ve heard the distillery’s peating specs to be anywhere from 8-20 ppm, so as you can imagine this would be a bit of a featherweight when held up against some of the Islay malts from the Kildalton region.

But in this case the sherry notes are not merely a softening tool, but the entire raison d’etre.  And it all works beautifully.  I fell for this one at a festival the first time it was poured for me.  It shone like a beacon against some of the rather dull and typical festival fare.  And while it didn’t resonate quite as strongly when lined up against some beautiful old editions of SB21 and SB25 in a recent tasting we did here, it still more than held its own.  A lovely whisky that brings a whole new dimension to the cabinet.  Hopefully Springbank elects to make this a more readily available bottling, and not simply a one-off.  I can see this one being in very regular rotation if that ever happens.

Nose:  Sweet and creamy.  Roman nougat.  Lush and fruity.  Deep sherry, as we’d expect.  Dark cherry and plum.  Dried cranberries, fresh out of the package.  Oily smoke.  Orange.  Pepper.  Earthy and organic.  Kinda farmy and slightly peaty.  A faint rubber note too.

Palate:  Oily.  Big viscous arrival.  Pepper and peat and bucketloads of dark, dried fruity notes.  Again, I’d use the word ‘lush’.  Malt and hints of coffee.  Leather saddles.  Licorice.  A coastal saltiness about it as well.

Thoughts:  I keep thinking there may be just the vaguest note of sulphur flitting around in there, but when I try to nail it down, I can’t.  So let’s just say this one is clean.  Either way…love it.

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Springbank 21 (2013)

46% abv

Score:  88.5/100

A few years back (2005, to be precise), the good folks at Springbank released a very special 21 year old single malt.  That dram is still one of the 50 or so whiskies that make up my all time top 10 list.  😉  And while that early incarnation of the official 21 may not have initially arrived on the scene with trumpets and fanfare, it was soon heralded as the revelation it truly was.

Fast forward to the present day and we have finally been blessed with a few additional versions of this iconic expression.  Nowadays these 21s (and even a new 25!) have been hitting the market with annual regularity.  This is great news for whisky lovers, as for several years the ‘official’ story (unofficially) was that Springbank had simply exhausted their stores of older casks.  That we now have these sassy gold boxes in hand speaks volumes for Springbank’s careful cask management and current eye to maturing stocks.  Good recovery, folks.

For today’s purposes, though, we’re looking at the 2013 edition.  Let’s check in on what we have now compared to that glorious aforementioned old-enough-to-drink-itself expression.

Hmmm…immediately cause for reflection.  This is definitely not the SB21 I know and love.  It is still somewhat recognizable as a Springbank, but if poured for me blindly…I’m not sure I’d correctly identify it as coming from Campbeltown.  The only true hint is the DNA of farm and lower mid range peat.  It’s not that it veers far from the distillery character, but it definitely plays a little standoff-ish and restrained.  I like this one, but I certainly don’t love it.  Oh well.  Kinda shores up suspicions I had that the 2005 edition was likely built with some casks older than 21 years.

Nose:  Very soft right off.  Fruit flan.  Melon (honeydew and overripe cantaloupe).  Faint smoke, but it’s more like charred wood than peat smoke.  Some polish.  Hay and floral notes.  Oak.  Maybe a touch of creamy chocolate and faint whiffs of leather.  Turkish delight too perhaps?

Palate:  Quite juicy at first.  Slightly tannic as it develops, hinting at the depth of sherry influence.  Waxy and oaky.  Fruity still, but not as soft as the nose; leaning more to dried fruits.  A little bit of bitter almond.  Now we have a hint of peat.  Orange peel and licorice.  Oak is fairly forward.

Thoughts:  A far cry from the glorious older edition of Springbank 21 (2005), but still good.  The sweet and lowdown though…no way in hell is this worth the ~$350ca it will set you back.  Oh yeah…almost forgot…the Golden Girls called…they want their gold lamé back.  This is some gaudy awful packaging.

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt