Category Archives: Whisky Reviews & Tasting Notes

Dalmore Age Of Exploration Vintage 1995 Review

Leave a reply

Dalmore Age Of Exploration Vintage 1995030

45% abv

Score:  88/100

 

Why, hello!  What have we here?  Gotta admit I didn’t expect to like this one even half as much as I did.  I’m not the biggest Dalmore fan.  In fact…I actually despise much of what they stand for:  Premiumization for the sake of itself; generic, weak and adulterated malts; countless overpriced expressions, etc.  This is one of the companies very much responsible for the rising costs of whisky today. 

Having said all of that…there is a basic truth I adhere to above all others when it comes to whisky:  Basic Aristotelian thought.  A is A.  A good whisky is a good whisky.  If my nose and palate gravitates toward something, so be it.  Much like guilty pleasures in music, why not just embrace something that appeals instead of adhering to preconceptions of what it is ok to like?  I don’t suspend my moral judgements in cases like this, but I do concede quality where it is to be found.  Distill it down to its bare essence and the approach I take is that if I enjoy it, that’s all that matters.  Chill-filtration, artificial coloring, age-statement or no, cheap or expensive, blend or single malt.  All of these, though I may still take exception, become secondary factors if the whisky is good.  This Vintage ’95 is certainly that.

Unfortunately, for both the good folk at Dalmore who may want my money, and for myself, who simply can’t afford most of them, the only Dalmore releases I’ve ever really cottoned to were the very mature ones (read: pricey).  I think that’s probably why I find so much to like in this accessable and affordable 1995 Age Of Exploration.   

The specs on this one say it spent time in three different barrels: American white oak, Madeira and Oloroso.  And, while I’m having trouble finding an age or the actual release date for this one, I’ve read a few suggestions of 15 years, but can’t seem to find any basis for that number.  So let’s say this isn’t an age-stated, nor a non-age-stated malt.  It is a Vintage release.  Limited to a mere 1800 bottles too.

This, to me, is quintessential ‘Scotch’.  Like the prototypical, Platonic ‘form’ version of what a single malt is supposed to be.  So…now that I’ve been pretentious enough to name drop two of history’s most reknowned philosophers in one post, let’s move on to tasting notes…

Nose:  Chocolate ganache.  Cinnamon.  Cherry coulis.  Great jammy fruits and smoky toffee.  Orange and some grapefruit zest.  Great, clean lumberyard oak notes.  Eucalyptus.  A lot of spice, almost like a heavy rye or bourbon cask influence.  I’ve read a few opinions that mention sulphur, but with all due respect, them folks are off their rockers.  I’m fairly sensitive to the stuff (not JM sensitive, but still fairly attuned to picking it up), but am not finding even a whiff.

Palate:  Chocolate.  Oak.  Cinnamon sticks.  Very juicy arrival before the slight tannic notes take charge.  Again…a lot of spice, almost like there’s been a bit of bourbon poured in here.  Very dark dried fruits lead into an orchard fruit mix of mealy pear and crunchy apple.  Pepper and ginger.  More oak.  Not the best of finishes, but not bad either.

Thoughts:  This is a really incredible surprise.  Not every note is perfect but the odd bit of dissonance adds character to the overall tone.  A very likeable malt from a distillery that is easy to look down upon.  One final note…this was incredibly priced.  I think it was about $85 or so locally.  

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

SMWS 127.26 “Student Party Aftermath” Review

Leave a reply

SMWS 127.26 “Student Party Aftermath”004

65.5% abv

Score:  91.5/100

 

Aka ‘Student Party Aftermath’.

Ok.  By now you know it as well as I do: I am an unrepentant peathead.  It should come as no surprise that a frighteningly huge young whisky from Bruichladdich’s Port Charlotte line would score high in my books.

This bottle isn’t really a Port Charlotte or Bruichladdich release though, of course.  It is an SMWS ‘numbered-not-named’ bottling.  The SMWS, as you likely know, is an independent bottler/members-only whisky club.  They source casks, sex ’em up a bit, add a dash of flamboyant wit and turn out some of the most aesthetically pleasing (to my eyes, at least) bottles on the shelves.  For this, their 26th cask of Port Charlotte, they really managed to score a winner.

Port Charlotte has never really been a brand for the faint of heart, and this lumbering beast is arguably the most extreme representation I’ve seen yet, tipping the scales at a monolithic 65.5% abv.  This is an absolutely enormous whisky.  One of the biggest I’ve ever encountered, in fact.  It sorta leaves me wondering how the hell this abv is even possible.  I’m pretty sure Bruichladdich casks their new make at 63.5% (like most distilleries), and Scotland doesn’t exactly boast the sort of climate that leads to a higher water than alcohol evaporation rate from the barrel like some of the more temperate locales.  Hmmmm….curiouser and curiouser.

Independent Port Charlotte releases are relatively few and far between.  This is primarily due to two factors, I think.  One…that it’s still early days for this whisky (just about a year ago we finally saw a ten year old variant), and two…the ongoing whisky boom makes the idea of selling off barrels to independents much less appetizing to distilleries who could likely do better bottling and peddling their own juice.  This makes it a bit of a treat to find an expression like this 127.26.  Independent bottlings often help show us a sort of ‘celebrity-without-the-makeup’ view of the malts we love.  It allows a different appreciation.

Enough natter.  Suffice it to say, this is good whisky.  More than good, actually.

Nose:  To quote the great Billy Connolly: “Jesus suffering f*ck!”  Smoky, peaty and earthy.  Licorice and lapsang souchong tea.  Rubber and road tar.  Quite intrinsically sweet too.  There is some wax and citrus fruit.  Some hard candy sweetness as well.  Slightly farmy and some of that Port Charlotte buttery character.  Camphor-like medical notes and a deep thread of thick, dark vanilla.  Bundle it all together though, and what it really smells like is the most ferocious Mike Tyson uppercut distilled and bottled.

Palate:  Oh wow, what an attack.  Phenols from hell.  Feels bigger, smokier, peatier than any Octomore I’ve ever sparred with.  Under-ripe Granny Smith apples.  Lime Jolly Ranchers.  Ashtrays (I imagine, though I’ve never licked one).  Oaky, toothpick notes.  Slightly meaty…like a peppered salami maybe.  Salty and licorice-like again.  Sen-sen would be the closest parallel.  The finish lasts longer than a Viagra-induced….errrr…you know what I mean.

Thoughts:  I had an absolute blast doing this one.  Wish I had 6 or 8 bottles of this sitting on a shelf somewhere for future days.  Sadly, not so.  Not necessarily a balanced whisky, but who the f*ck cares?!  It is quite deep, though, with a myriad of swirling flavours though.  One of the best PCs I’ve ever tried.  (Feel free to slightly correct the score above to accommodate my personal bias, but believe me when I say I stand behind the mark.  It really is a strong outing for Team McEwan et al.)

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Talisker 20 y.o. (2003) Review

Leave a reply

Talisker 20 y.o. (2003)004

58.8% abv

Score:  90.5/100

 

This may be a review not worth reading, in some senses.  Not because the whisky isn’t worth reading about, but because I can’t guarantee that the whisky I’m writing about was pristine at the time of sampling.  This Talisker 20 year old was tasted as part of a brilliant stratospheric range of Talisker limited releases.  I think it was the first malt of the night, and it definitely stood out from the rest in some rather conspicuous ways. 

This one had a slightly more aggressively peaty and farmy side to it than any of the other Taliskers we tried (or that I’ve tried before or since).  In and of itself?  No big deal.  Let’s face it, there are many malts out there that have a presto change-o kind of personality.  But here’s the rub…even as this bottle was opened, the fellow who owned it voiced immediate concern about the condition of the cork.  It looked dark, sodden throughout and…let’s just say ‘less than immaculate’.  If this was a ‘nowadays’ bottle, it likely could have been returned to the shop and spelled out for another.  As it stands though, this was a bottle from about a decade back, long gone and probably sourced intercontinentally to boot.  All you can do is cross your fingers and hope for the best in these sorts of situations.

So…if this was indeed a compromised bottle there’s not a lot of value in sharing notes on it.  On that I’m quite sure we agree.  But the question lingers…was it a faulty cork or is this simply a very different Talisker release with a cork that only looked like it had been through the wringer?  Without a second bottle to compare to, there’s no way to be sure.  Here’s my opinion though:  The cork was certainly ugly, but the whisky was proably pure.  I say this because the malt was exceptionally bright and vibrant in terms of nose and taste (no ‘dead bottle’ dullness to it), and because it was a damn good drink, showing no signs of off-notes.  Unique in the portfolio, yes, but not ‘off’.  And all the more special for it. 

Think about how ‘Revolution 9’ stood out from the the rest of ‘The White Album’.  It may not be everyone’s favorite track, but it certainly struck a dissonant chord that resonated and lingered long beyond the final fade.  Here’s my reaching analogy for the day: This Talisker 20 = Revolution 9. 

Whether what I drank that night was the whisky that was originally bottled is now incidental in my mind.  What matters is that I enjoyed the hell out of it.  This indifference is the reason I suggested in the first line of this review that it may not be worth reading.  I leave that up to you.

Nose:  Whoa!  What have we here?  Brora?  Longrow?  Nope.  It is indeed Talisker, but wow, what a variant.  Peppery and farmy.  Some smoke and peat, to be sure.  Notes of eucalyptus and spruce.  Damp hay.  Crabapple tartness.  Salt black licorice.  Lots of spice.  Salted caramel.

Palate:  Earthy and peaty.  Pepper and licorice.  Very salty.  Notes of damp hay and sour apple.  Almost a wine-like note towards the back end as well.  Finishes with long and pleasant oak overtones.

Thoughts:  Very Brora-like.  Surprising as hell.  Yes, there was some concern about the quality of cork that came out of this one, but if this is a flawed bottle (and I’m not sayin’ it is), I’m more than ok with this kind of blemish.  Way better nose than palate, I should add.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

A.D. Rattray Benrinnes 13 y.o. Review

1 Reply

A.D. Rattray Benrinnes 13 y.o.010

56.8% abv

Score:  70/100

 

First Benrinnes review for the site.  It’s always fun to cover a new one, as there aren’t a lot of Scotland’s fine distilleries we haven’t shared a few words on at this point.  Benrinnes is a Diageo distillery in the heart of the Speyside region, responsible for the production of a couple million litres of spirit per annum, most of which makes its way into blends such as J&B and Johnnie Walker.

Y’never really know whether or not the decision to blend away most of a distillery’s production is due to the spirit having a decided lack of personality or simply because they have gross needs and some distillery or other needs to take the bullet.  Having now tried some special casks from most of Diageo’s lesser known holdings, I can say with some assurance that there are definitely some solid malts being relegated to obscurity on the vatting floor.  Sad, but true.  Until the wider world develops the palate and appreciate (and income bracket) for single malts, this will continue to be the case.

Unfortunately though…this particular Benrinnes is not one of those solid malts.  In fact, aside from the presentation aspect of this one (strong and naked), there isn’t much to like here.

This is a hard lesson learned in ‘try-before-you-buy’.  Independent bottlings are always a gamble.  The simple fact of the matter is you always have to be prepared that you may have a hefty outlay of cash in return for a mouthful of ‘not awesome’.  Unfortunately there isn’t always an open bottle available for sampling and informed decision making.  When curiosity gets the better of you, sometimes you simply have to take a flyer.

On a positive note…I find there are waaaaaaay more good ADR releases than bad.  I imagine the warehouses are fairly teeming with great barrels.  In the name of research I vow to keep trying ’em.

This, though…this is not a nice whisky.  Great bottle to try, not a great bottle to buy.

Nose:  Sulphur.  Toffee.  Prune.  Raisin.  Citrus zest and tart red berry.  Tomato.  Pepper and cinnamon.  Caramel apples.  Sweaty leathers.  Walnut.  Wine-heavy (not far off some of the more aggressive Jura releases.

Palate:  Cinnamon, oak and perfume.  Mint.  Ash and sulphur.  Tangy and rather rich in deep chewy dried fruits.  There’s a pleasant mid-note before it bitters out into tannins and tea leaves.  Some cereal hidden at the very back as well.  Finally…apple and plum skins on the finish (contributing to that tart, tannic feel)

Thoughts:  There’s honestly not a lot of ‘pleasant’ going on here.  Let’s find something nice to say.  Ummmmm…gorgeous colour and texture?  Yep.  That’s about it.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Bowmore Tempest (Batch 3) Review

8 Replies

Bowmore Tempest (Batch 3)

55.6% abv

Score:  84.5/100

 

Having now shared a few words on the first edition of Tempest, let’s contrast a little against a more recent version.  This is Batch 3.  Currently, a rebranded Batch 4 is sitting on the shelves here in Alberta.  I’ve yet to try that most recent incarnation, but will hopefully get to it soon. 

Bowmore has been doing a lot of things right in recent years.  Some neat one-offs and some new editions to the range have been welcome additions.  While I can’t necessarily get behind some of the younger NAS releases, such as Surf and Legend, I can say that the distillery is winning me back one bottle at a time.  For a while there I was a little disillusioned. 

Seeing as I spilled most of the beans in the previous review (linked above), I imagine I can be a little less wordy here, and simply dive in.  Tempest Batch 3 is still a fierce dram, of course.  Big and flavourful, rich and full of character.  While it may not tick all the boxes the first batch did, I do still like it enough to buy and drink.  This time ’round though, I believe you need to be a little more of a died-in-the-wool peathead to immediately cotton to this one.  Batch 1 had a rounded sweetness that likely would have worked to broaden the appeal.  Here you have a slightly sharper and more prickly Islay malt at a hefty abv.  Highly possible that this one is not for the faint of heart.  The peat and smoke are loud and obnoxious.  That’s right up my alley, personally, but may make for a narrower target market.

While Batch 1 was an ‘old soul’ of a 10 year old, this a youthful 10.  So be it.   If you chance upon the different batches on the shelves anywhere though…I would highly recommend grabbing  the first edition over the later ones.  Just my two cents. 

Nose:  A lot of chocolate.  Some hay and herbal notes.  Dusty barn.  Smoke.  Lemon.  Fish and brine.  Some caramel pudding.  Salt and pepper.  Sea water.  Maybe just a touch floral.

Palate:  Big, sharp attack.  Fishy notes and burning barley.  Chocolate and licorice.  Very ‘naked’.  Ashy.  Does somewhat bitter out a bit unfortunately.  Lacks the balanced creaminess that made the first such a charmer.

Thoughts:  A fairly one-dimensional malt that doesn’t hold a candle to the first batch.  Having said that…it’s still a very fine dram.  Expect something along the lines of Caol Ila or very young Port Ellen in terms of mouth attack.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Bowmore Tempest (Batch 1) Review

Leave a reply

Bowmore Tempest (Batch 1)

56.3% abv

Score:  89/100

 

I think this was released in 2009 or 2010 (forgive my lack of research).  Does that make me fashionably late?  Or maybe just the slacker who slept in, and now shows up all disheveled and interruptive?

While I concede that I’m not certain of the exact year this was released, I do recall my excitement upon hearing there was to a young, entry level cask strength Bowmore on the shelves.  Of course, like everything else, it would have hit Canadian shores much later than other markets, effectively rendering the release date moot anyway.  Either way…a few words on the first batch of Bowmore Tempest:

With all of the shitty, negative trending going on right now with NAS (No Age Statement) bottlings, there is one trend that I can absolutely get behind.  That of more and more distilleries releasing cask strength malts into their core ranges.  Over the past few years we’ve been lucky enough to see the likes of Glenfiddich Distillery Edition, Glenlivet Nadurra, Auchentoshan Valinch, GlenDronach Cask Strength, nearly every Ardbeg, etc.  Of course, there are also the familiar faces such as Aberlour a’bunadh, Glenfarclas 105 (not CS, but BIG nevertheless), Laphroaig CS, Lagavulin 12, the Port Charlotte PC series, etc.  Good times for flavour junkies. 

At one time Bowmore used to have a cask strength release as well, but that’s a malt I haven’t seen in years, aside from a dram from an old bottle on Islay a couple years back.  Fortunately, however, they’ve now opted to give us the goods as we want ’em: big, bold and relatively unadulterated.  Namely, this 10 year old Tempest and the 15 year old Laimrig.  These whiskies…man…if I had my way these profiles would be the future of the distillery. 

Bowmore has worn many masks over the years.  It’s sort of like the Gary Oldman of Islay malts.  Highly malleable…infinitely chameleonic.  Usually interesting enough to win you over.  The true Bowmore profile is sorta hard to pin down, to be honest, but in the Tempest and Laimrig, Bowmore have really managed to knock it out of the park, and bring back a familiar style that has seemingly been supplanted by a more floral elegance in recent years.  Laimrig carries the sherried heft of smoked Bowmore with flair and a depth of jammy-ness that is a return to an older, more fruity style.  Tempest, on the other hand, brings a more naked (primarily bourbon cask matured, I would assume).  I’m a fan of both, but the Laimrig, in particular, is a showstopper.

As for the Tempest itself…

We’re looking at Batch 1 here.  It’s a deep whisky, balanced and hiding a surprising maturity (beyond 10 years, I’d say).  Subsequent batches are substantially different unfortunately.  Not bad, by any means, but not the same, and definitely not quite as good.  If only this particular dram were replicable and consistent in this incarnation (which it has obviously proven not to be), Tempest would be a rather perfect young whisky.   

Nose:  Smoke and peat, o’course.  Chocolate.  Coffee.  Cracked pepper.  Orange and Lemon.  Some notes that aren’t far off from an Ardbeg.  Caramel and pear.  Some unexpected creaminess.  Baked Alaska. 

Palate:  Sweet candy arrival, through smoke and into licorice.  A lot of fresh squeezed citrus and more cracked pepper.  Either very active bourbon casks leveeing these spicy notes, or a bit of sherry influence.  Either way…crackling with nifty ‘Pop Rock’ surprises.  There’s an earthiness here that hints at Garden Burgers, interestingly enough.

Thoughts:  Hmmm…much like many first editions of named releases, I have a sneaking suspician this was a ‘best foot forward malt’.  (Read: there are some older, better casks in here than we’ll see in future editions.)  Great balance.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Black Bull 40 y.o. (Batch 3) Review

Leave a reply

Black Bull 40 y.o. (Batch  3)063

41.6% abv

Score:  89/100

 

Time for another high end blend.  This time at a rather remarkable 40 years of age.

Black Bull 40 is a batch production whisky, and at the time of writing (May, 2014) I believe batch 4 is the most current expression to hit the markets.  I’ve tried this whisky a couple of times over the past few years, generally at festivals and such, but this is the first time I’ve been able to sit down and jot some proper notes on it.  Further…I truly have no idea at this point which editions I may or may not have tried in the past.  (Odd how fuzzy some details are after a night at a whisky festival, huh?)

Sitting down with this striking old blend in a controlled environment is quite a treat.  To cop a redneck term of measure, there’s a shit ton of good on offer here, and you don’t have to dig deep to find it.  In fact…at first nosing, I’d be hard-pressed to guess this was a blend.  Primarily due, I imagine, to the incredibly lopsided ratio of malt whisky to grain whisky in this one.  There has been no attempt at striking any sort of middling balance between the two (usally a cost-saving effort) and that is a-ok with us.  The character of Black Bull 40 is built almost entirely on the malts.  If the stories are to be believed, this has anywhere from a mix of 85.6% malt to 14.4% grain ratio to a straight 90% malt to 10% grain.  Not sure which exactly is correct, but either way this is an unprecedentedly large variance, and one that benefits the consumer more than the producer.

The distilleries represented in the alchemy of BB40 apparently include Ben Nevis, Bunnahabhain, Caperdonich, Glen Grant, Highland Park and Invergordon.  Not that you’d recognize and of these distillery’s charactereistics, but nevertheless, awareness of bloodline is always appreciated. 

There’s one other thing that bears mentioning here.  This is an outrageously priced whisky.  And for once I mean that in a good way.  I think we in Alberta can buy this for around $250 locally.  $250?  For 40 years?  Who else is releasing whisky at that kind of price point?  Short answer:  No one. 

For those out there looking to mark a milestone birthday or such, this is undoubtedly the most affordable 40 year old on the market.  A helluva bang-for-your-buck bottle.  More importantly though…it’s just really, really good whisky.

So…let’s see what a 40 year old blend is like…

Nose:  Rather tropical.  White pepper and pineapple.  Some peach and orange.  Butterscotch pudding.  Some wax.  Maybe a bare whiff of smoke.  Eucalyptus.  Light, clean and lovely.

Palate:  The palate doesn’t scream ’40’ like the nose does.  More assertive oak now.  Touch of latex paint and wax.  Tart, fruit notes.  Maybe still some pineapple.  Some lemon and honey.

Thoughts:  A little thin on arrival, but beautifully struck.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Talisker 25 y.o. (2008) Review

2 Replies

Talisker 25 y.o. (2008)055

54.2% abv

Score:  90/100

 

Let’s get back to some of these wonderful older Talisker releases, shall we?  This is another of those limited Diageo runs, but from back in 2008 this time.  As I’ve already mentioned here a couple of times, whenever these do hit the shelves they’re few and far between and rather pricey.  Having now tried a bunch of ’em, I can swear that they’re definitely worth both the effort to track them down and the hefty outlay of cash.

Talisker has a profile that serves just like a barbed lure.  Once it’s passed the lips, you’re hooked.  The 10 year old is a gateway for so many, but the distillery doesn’t truly show it’s brilliance till you hit the 18 year expression.  That’s where the magic begins.  But it certainly doesn’t end there.  By the quarter century mark, as expected, all of those softer fruit notes begin marching forward to center stage and the smoky, peaty and peppery edges become less the stars and more just solid character actors in this incredible production.   Makes for one hell of a cohesive whole, I must say.

Nose:  Coastal and maritime meets peppered peat.  All downwind from a beachside campfire.  Briny seaside notes.  Smoked oysters in oil.  And a touch of smoke, in general.  Grassy and herbal.  Chocolate and honey…kinda like a Toblerone, I guess.  Honeydew melon and cantaloupe.  Citrus.  Graham cracker crust.  Paint/latex.

Palate:  Great arrival.  Peaty, peppery and perfectly Talisker.  Granny smith apple and lemon juice.  Some licorice.  Nice firm oak notes.  This one is a stayer.  Hangs around for eons.

Thoughts:  Another absolutely great Talisker, but I prefer the ’05 edition to this ’08.  Now just need to try any in between…

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

GlenDronach Grandeur 31 y.o. (Batch 3) Review

3 Replies

GlenDronach Grandeur 31 y.o. (Batch 3)092

45.8% abv

Score:  90.5/100

 

Generally speaking, any little whisky write-up I do will have some sort of pithy angle to it.  That’s just me trying to keep it interesting for myself, and hoping to entertain a litte while we get our ‘geek’ on.  But, like it or not, sometimes the best approach is a straight forward one.  (Having now conceded this, does that now make it an angle in and of itself?  Hmmmm.  Let’s just move on…)

A good mate of mine contends that GlenDronach are the big dogs when it comes to sherry casks nowadays.  Forget Macallan…forget Glenfarclas…forget Aberlour.  It’s tough to admit he’s ever right, but at the same time it’s becoming increasingly hard to argue the point when the distillery puts out drams like this.  Simple fact of the matter is that all of the best mature sherry bombs I’ve tried in recent times have all borne the ‘Dronach moniker.  Spending a couple hours in the distillery’s warehouses is now one of those bucket list things for me.  Would make a hell of a write-up too, if I ever get ’round to it.

GlenDronach Grandeur is a 31 year old distillery bottling.  Or was, I should say.  This Batch 3 from a wee while back is apparently the last of this grandfatherly old malt to bear this unique age statement.  After a period of fallow, Grandeur is now to be resurrected as a 24 year old.  A sign of the times, unfortunately.  Especially as I can’t imagine we’ll see a compensatory price drop when this happens.  Time will tell, I suppose.  We’ll hold to optimism, however, that the end product continues to be held to the same standard of near flawless Oloroso butt vatting, ’cause let’s face it…this is exceptional.

Nose:  Dried tropical fruits and rich jammy notes.  Oiled leather.  Figs.  Espresso.  Sandalwood.  Furniture polish.  Sticky toffee pudding.  Bitter, high cacao chocolate.  A vaguely waxy, latex note.  All with a berry coulis sweet thread throughout.

Palate:  Very mature fruity notes on arrival.  Some coffee again and chocolate fudge.  Glosette raisins.  Almond paste.  Maybe even raw almonds as well.  Or toasted almonds.  Walnut.  Oily savoury notes too.

Thoughts:  Great cask selection.  A couple of well chosen barrels…and absolutely no ‘blending away’ of crap.  This is what mature sherry should taste like.  I find I actually crave this flavour profile some evenings.

*Big thanks to my mate, J Wheelock, for the opportunity to try.  Ahem.  More than once.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Glenglassaugh Torfa Review

3 Replies

Glenglassaugh Torfa008

50% abv

Score:  79/100

 

Here we have the third official Glenglassaugh from the recently revived distillery.  It started with ‘Revival’ a couple years back…continued with ‘Evolution’ last year…and now we have ‘Torfa’.  ‘Torfa’ comes from the Old Norse word for ‘Peat’, according to the distillery’s website.  (Wondering if others will others follow suit now with these Scandinavian naming conventions.  Highland Park blazed the trail, of course, and now ‘Glassaugh has blown the Viking horn in turn.  Have we now moved laterally from our Celtic roots to our wider Germanic lineages in choosing names for our malts?  Meh…so be it.  Some fun for the linguists out there, I suppose.)

First things first…I have to raise the same concerns here as I did in the review of Revival.  Basically, that it’s too young and maybe hiding its true self a little (here it’s the peat, there it was the Oloroso).  Now…before you think I’m down on this one, hear me out.  This is actually quite a decent spirit.  There is a lot of potential in the glass here.  At the moment it’s kind of like a young colt chomping at the bit, but given the right amount of time and attention, it very well could be a winner.  And likely will be.  In fact, this peated variant is like a more syrupy version of a young Kilchoman, which bodes very well for the future of Glenglassaugh.

Pre-distillation peating for Torfa was apparently to about 20ppm, but as you likely know, that level of phenols does not necessarily translate directly to the bottle.  Irrespective though, the fact remains that this is a relative smoke monster.  It’s youth ensures that its feisty claws are firmly dug into the billowy cushions of smoke and that those peat notes are bold and forefront.

In briefest summation: This seems like a bit of a novelty bottling.  I’m more interested in seeing what the distillery’s true naked profile will be in a few years.  In the meantime, we’ll have fun with these releases and watch patiently as it comes into its own.

BTW…do note that I’ve scored this a full six points higher than the ‘Revival’.  Nice upward trajectory in a mere two years, wouldn’t you say?

Nose:  Dry smoke and ash.  Pepper.  Dusty asphalt.  Lemon, lime and dry pie crust.  Slightly nutty.  Brine.  Hay.  A touch of custard.  The smell of a cast (as in plaster, fabric and some vaguely sweaty medicinal notes).  Not dissimilar to Kilchoman new make.  Some creamy vanilla notes come out after a while.

Palate:  Thankfully tastes a little more mature than it noses.  Pulpy apple.  Smoke.  Citrus, as we’d expect.  Wet rocks and salt water.  Some sweetness.  A touch of oatmeal.  Granny Smith apple and Bartlett pear skins.  Sauvignon blanc.  While this may be mainland peat, it certainly tastes like the more oceanic Islay bog matter.  Rather neat.

Thoughts:  This was not ready to be bottled.  Smells younger than it is even, if that’s possible.  I’d guess a year or two if blind.  The thing is…you can’t fault the whisky here, only the decision to bottle it in its infancy.  Generating cashflow is imperative in a fledgling operation (or revival), but you gotta balance that against the currency of your reputation in future years.  I look forward to what this will be in another 5-10 years.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt