Category Archives: Whisky Reviews & Tasting Notes

BenRiach 15 y.o. Tawny Port Finish Review

1 Reply

BenRiach 15 y.o. Tawny Port FinishBenRiach_15YO_Tawny_Port_Finish

46% abv

Score:  85/100

 

So…having just shared a few thoughts on what could almost be considered a ‘sister bottling’ to this release (a GlenDronach similarly finished in tawny port and also dished up at a respectable 15 years old), let’s take a peek at how BenRiach holds up when afforded the same treatment.

I refer to these releases as ‘sisters’ in that BenRiach and GlenDronach are both owned by The BenRiach company.  Having the distilleries elect to release such similarly engineered whiskies is actually quite a stroke of genius.  Particularly for those out there with a knowledge of, or affinity for, these two Speyside artisans.  It allows a rare opportunity to speculate on the merits of the finishing process (and choice of finishing casks) by direct contrast between a couple of familiar and high quality single malts.  Coincidentally or otherwise, these are actually two of my favorite distilleries, particularly in their more aged expressions.  (I find the ’70s were particularly good to both distilleries, with a bunch of great early to mid ’80s ‘Riachs also being rather exceptional).

Now that I’ve highlighted the relationship between distilleries, I should note that the whiskies produced therein are very much unique fingerprints.  BenRiach is a distillery with much less of a bent towards the heavily-sherried than GlenDronach, and possibly a more adventurous approach to single malt alchemy.  The backbone of the malt seems quite sweet and clean in all of the expressions I’ve tried, irrespective of how heavily ‘made up’ some of the individual releases may be (Curiositas, Authenticus, Solstice, etc).  Perhaps that’s what makes the spirit seem so malleable and succesful in so many of its guises. 

This dram was tasted side by side with the afore-mentioned GlenDronach Tawny and absolutely took the higher marks.  The profile is a little broader and more balanced.  Seems a touch sweet for my liking, but all of the individual notes are quite exceptional.  Neat whisky.

Nose:  Pepper and jam.  Chewy white nougat candy (Roman Nougat bars with fruit gums and all).  Chocolate fudge.  Toasted coconut with tangy pineapple.  Dusting of cinnamon.  Damp tobacco.  Notes much like a strawberry perfume.  A bit of grape.  Very sweet.  Great profile, but maybe the sweetness needs to be dialed back from 10 to 6.

Palate:  Grape skins.  Dark dried fruit tannins.  Oak notes.  A bit of chocolate orange and old ginger.  Much less on the palate than the nose.  Coffee and dark chocolate.  Even some milk chocolate.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  BenRiach

GlenDronach 15 y.o. Tawny Port Finish Review

5 Replies

GlenDronach 15 y.o. Tawny Port FinishTP4

46% abv

Score:  81/100

 

This GlenDronach Tawny Port Finish is not so much a good whisky as it is an interesting one.  

GlenDronach is a Speyside distillery known and revered for the stunning depths of its sherried malts.  Its accolades are many and well-earned, and its trajectory is only on the upswing since the owners (BenRiach) began investing plenty of time, attention and money to bring the distillery back from a five year silence in the late ’90s and early ’00s.  For that, of course, we’re eternally grateful. 

Regular readers will know I’m a big fan of this distillery.  It’s a profile perfectly suited to my proclivity for bold flavours and flawless use of sherry maturation.  Of course there is the occasional dud of a cask with hints of sulphur, but for a distillery so heavily reliant on these barrels, they are surprisingly few and far between.  Marry that standard of excellence with a spate of beautiful older single cask releases in recent years and I find myself in sherry heaven. 

So…having said all of that…to see a GlenDronach release floundering under the weight of this experimental ‘finish’ is somewhat disappointing.  At the risk of offending the purists, at the heart of the matter sherry and port are not dissimilar.  They are both brandy-fortified wines.  The actual ins and outs of regional regulation requirements, maturation processes, fermentation, etc absolutely make these two beverages unique, however I’d be hard-pressed to always be able to identify a port-finished whisky vs a sherry-finished whisky. 

I suppose what I’m driving at is simply an articulate way to voice the following question:  is this whisky’s profile defined primarily by the 15 year old malt itself, or by the finishing period in port pipes?  I ask this in light of one particular fact: that port should be sweeter than sherry, by nature, and this whisky is not nearly as sweet as I’d expect in even the most basic of unfinished GlenDronach releases. 

Just my two cents, folks (and not even worth that).  Either way…not a bad dram, just missing the soaring highs I’ve come to expect from one of the most exciting distilleries out there.

Nose:  Maltier than I’d expect in a 15 year old GlenDronach.  Where are the big fruits?  Some dark breads here and maybe a touch yeasty.  Whole unground nutmeg seeds (milder than the pungent ground spice).  Raisin and caramel.  Fine dark chocolate.  There’s simply not enough going on here.  Kinda disappointing, really.  Expected a lot more fruit.

Palate:  Malty bread notes.  Currants.  Lots of spice.  Maybe some bitter grapefruit.  Citrus pith…with none of the sweet accompaniments.  Some woods and bold red wine notes at the back.  Behind the coffee aroma, that is.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Ballantine’s 17 y.o. Review

2 Replies

Ballantine’s 17 y.o.061

43% abv

Score:  89/100

 

Fuck.  Seriously.  Can’t tell you how disappointed I am that I can’t come in here with both guns blazing – Yosemite Sam style – and raise a hella pile o’ ruckus.  I desperately wanted to lambaste a certain whisky writer who decried this 17 year old blend as ‘world whisky of the year’ a couple years back.

Let me be explicitly clear:  this is certainly no whisky of the year.  Having said that, I’d be less than honest if I didn’t confess outright that this is a really good blend.  I’d almost guess malt over blend, to be honest.  There are some fabulously clean and pristine sweet/candy/fruit notes that suggest components much older than 17 years too.  I’m not certain as to the bottling date for this particular edition I have, but perhaps it pre-dates the ongoing whisky boom by a few years, in coming from a time when there was enough mature whisky available to the blenders that it was in fact possible to find whisky older than the age statement buried in the vatting.

Either way…just speculation.

The bottle I have in hand (as seen in photo above) is much older than the edition said writer led us to believe was the intoxicating tears of Dionysus.  If there is in fact a WWOTY-worthy release of the Ballantine’s 17, I hate to say it, but this is not it.  I’d love to get my hands on that particular edition, but I’m sure the shelves were wiped clean within hours of the press release.  You’ll notice though, there aren’t a lot of folks out there waxing rhapsodically about how amazing that B17 was from a couple years back.  Hmmmm.  Interesting. 

Finally, I’d like to add that logic (and god knows mine is skewed) tells me that older versions of most any whisky would likely be better for the very reasons listed above, but, of course, with whisky y’never really know.

What it boils down to is that I’ll not go on the offensive here to the degree I initially thought I would, but I am certainly on record doubting the validity of ANY blend earning whisky of the year honors.  Malt snobbery?  Perhaps.  I prefer to call it ‘reality’. 

Nose:  Sweet pears in sugary syrup.  Pink bubblegum notes.  Sugar cookies and biscuits.  Buttery maple syrup.  A little bit of orange.  Clean grains.  Almost Lowland pure and light.  Most distant hint of smoke.

Palate:  Straw and grass.  Anise, ginger and cinnamon.  Reminds a little of a stunning 2007 Jameson Rarest Vintage I tried.  Not quite as exceptional, but some very similar notes.  Also reminds a tick of Ardbeg’s Serendipity from a few years back.

I have a bit left of this one.  Would love to share and solicit some other opinions.  Anyone? 

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

The Naked Grouse Review

4 Replies

The Naked Grouse417

40% abv

Score:  88/100

 

Ummm.  Yeah.  Not sure what just happened here, but I’m dumbfounded.  This is not a bad Grouse.  It’s not an ok Grouse, nor even a decent Grouse.  This is really, really tasty stuff.

Being honest here.  I generally like this brand less than a good hard kick in the junk.  OK…it’s maybe not that bad, but it’s still certainly far from a hot commodity in my place.  Like most blended whiskies, Grouse is one I have tried oodles of times (yes…that is a proper measure, about as accurate as my interpretation of ‘dram’), in various incarnations, and almost always found to be somewhat repellant (the exception so far being the 12 year old blended malt). 

I like being able to put down my sword and shield for a moment and embrace this one, instead of the continued sparring with the FG brand.  Goes to show you that blanket statements (i.e. ‘Grouse sux’) are the tool of idjits (and yes…I use ’em) and simpletons.

Joking aside, this is a good dram.  If what I’ve read is correct, there is a higher proportion of both Macallan (carrying its sweet high quality sherry influence) and Highland Park (bringing some heft and a slightly malty, smoky edge) here than in the standard offering.  The Naked Grouse is being positioned as a slightly more ‘premium’ blend.  I’m behind it wholeheartedly.  Certainly not your average young blend.  In fact…I think I’ma put a couple of these aside for rainier days.

Nose:  Malty caramel.  Raisin scones.  Buttery, with some nice dried fruits (figs and apricots).  Plum and milk chocolate.  Spiced nuts.  Vanilla.  Just a faint fanning of smoke.  Finally in a Grouse I’m getting those notes of Macallan that should have been front and center in all other editions.

Palate:  Sherried tartness meets sherried sweetness.  Neato.  Almost like a neutered (40%? c’mon) sherry bomb.  Grape juice.  Spices are well-balanced.  As unbelievable as this may seem…there are hints of watermelon.  And a little cantaloupe.  Beautiful accents.  Grape, oak, chocolate and apple.  One of the better blended whiskies I’ve ever tasted.  Lovely stuff.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Aberlour a’bunadh (Batch 36) Review

8 Replies

Aberlour a’bunadh (Batch 36)002

60.1% abv

Score:  88/100

 

Aberlour a’bunadh is consistently listed in whisky lovers’ ‘top ten’ lists (which are more often that not comprised of twenty or thirty whiskies), so it’s not surprising I get a lot of requests to review more of the batch releases of this expression.

The simple fact of the matter is that this is damn good whisky, and fairly consistent in terms of quality, if not exact flavour profile.  Batch variation is substantial with this dram, and if I’m to be dead honest, that’s a good thing.  Keeps it interesting and shows that there is still some blender’s art happening here, and that these aren’t simply being batched to recipe-like homogeneity.  There’s something intrinsically pure about these releases that wins me over.

As a rule with a’bunadh, one can expect a thick and monolithic sherry monster, redolent in spices, dried fruits and sweetness.  Usually some leather and tobacco as well.  I’ll try to continue knocking out a few more batches here on the site with a bit more regularity in order to show the nuances between releases.  To date…Batch 28 holds a spot in my heart as a favorite.  That was the only release I squirrelled away a couple extra of.  This is a whisky that I simply can’t imagine anyone not appreciating.  More faithful than ol’ Trigger, this is one of my sidekicks.

Batch 36 here, while not my favorite a’bunadh, is still certainly a great dram and better than almost anything in its price range.

By the way…I do take exception to the ignorance on the label (which you can see in the picture above), referring to ‘single cask’.  These batches are in no way ‘single cask’.  Oh well.  Nitpicking now.

Nose:  Rummy raisin and chocolate. Jam covered straw and hay.  Cinnamon raisin toast and bread dough.  Dried fruits, of course, but also some macerated berry notes…with pepper.  Creamy sherry and a touch of eucalyptus.  Light florals too.  Nice clean casks.  Nary a bad butt to be found in this vatting.

Palate:  Thick and syrupy.  Cough syrup too.  Nice fruit notes of plum, blackberry and…dunno…something bold and jammy.  Fudge with black cherry in it.  A little bit of pear or apple skin.  Huge mouthfeel.  Thick and chewy as hell.  Awesome, awesome mouthful of whisky.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Dalmore Ceti 30 y.o. Review

Leave a reply

Dalmore Ceti 30 y.o.Ceti

45% abv

Score:  90/100

 

Paterson really likes his malts bold and uncompromising.  Big sherries…long finishes…a lot of cask play.  All well and good, I suppose, but personally I’d love to see a few slightly more naked Dalmores.  I’m curious as hell to see whether or not this spirit would age gracefully in a simple bourbon cask.

Anyway…here’s another sassy old (read: pricey) Dalmore, served up after 30 long years of slumber.  To be a little more accurate: this whisky spent its first twenty-three years in ex-bourbon barrels before being re-racked into Oloroso sherry butts for an additional seven.  That’s a pretty thick icing on a 23 year year old cake.  Since seven years is a little too long to refer to as ‘finishing’, I’m actually ok with calling it a ‘double-matured’ whisky.

Now let’s pretend for a few moments – just as friends over drams – that this bottle wasn’t priced only for the rawk stars, athletes and CEOs of this world, and simply speak to the details, merits or faults, be they as they may. 

This is Dalmore Ceti, apparently so named for the Kappa1 Ceti star in the Cetus constellation.   Kappa1 Ceti is approximately 30 light years from earth (hence cribbing the name for this 30 year old malt), and is thought to be a candidate that may host terrestial planets.  Awesome.  That will, of course, do us a world of good when we exhaust our resources on this third stone from the sun, and migrate that wee convenient puddle jump of 30 freaking light years!  (I should note…that is also approximately the same length of time that will have to elapse before my wife lets me buy a bottle of this whisky.  Sorry…couldn’t resist.) 

Interesting (if inane and rather esoteric) naming convention aside…I quite like this one.  Dalmore with age and I…we get along alright, I guess.  Younger Dalmore?  For the most part I can take it or leave it, but when the spirit is left to mellow and hibernate for a few extra years, well…there’s no denying some great whiskies are sleeping on in the Dalmore warehouses.

A solid four-figure bottle, this, and limited to 1000.

Do note…I’m going to mention several tropical(ish) fruits in my tasting notes, but this is not what I would consider a ‘tropical fruit’ profile.  If not for the Oloroso re-racking perhaps it would be more in that range.

Nose:  Orange zest, apricot and tangerine.  Florals and mild nutmeg.  Cigar or pipe tobacco.  Furniture polish.  Rye bread and saltines.  Some wine-y grape notes.

Palate:  Spicy arrival.  Oranges in behind.  Tobacco notes and chewing on leather.  Sweet green grapes and a lot of dried tannic fruits as well.  Odd, but pleasant sour candy notes.  Some dried potpourri and grass.  Hmmm…a little dry and almost, almost over-oaked, I think.  If not over-oaked, well…a little too much oak influence.  Splitting hairs, maybe, but different enough.  Still very nice though.  Towards the back there are some lovely peach overtones.

Thanks to my mate, J Wheelock for the taster of this one.  Neato.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Dalmore

The Famous Grouse 12 y.o. Blended Malt Review

Leave a reply

The Famous Grouse 12 y.o. Blended Malt004

40% abv

Score:  80.5/100

 

Here’s a whisky that is not going to score outrageous marks or anything, but will certainly hold a bit of a special spot in my dark, shriveled l’il heart.

Any constant readers here will know that the Grouse and I…we ain’t exactly tight.  Both the standard expression and the Black Grouse are bottles I wouldn’t even consider levying on my enemies, let alone pouring for mates.  With that in mind, I concede that I walk into any new Grouse expression with a skepticism and tripidation almost paralleling the optimism with which I embrace new Ardbeg or Amrut releases.  Right or wrong, it is reality, and sort of hearkens back to an expression an old boss of mine likes to use: ‘You are what you’re perceived to be’.  Meaning, of course, that the Grouse, to me, will always be defined by those initial foul encounters, until I can taste enough decent ones to change my overall perception of the brand. 

So…imagine my surprise when I find this 12 year old blended malt (‘vatted malt’, damn it!) is actually pretty damn good.  First things first, there is obviously no grain whisky in here.  This is a polygamous marriage of nothing more than single malts.  With a stable of whiskies including the Macallan, Highland Park, Glenrothes and such to work with, it shouldn’t be stretch to come up with something decent.  And thankfully, that is exactly what has happened.  Finally…one of my least favourite brands releases a whisky I can really get my teeth into.  Nice!

Now if only they’d take some ‘lessons learned’ from this and apply them to the standard Grouse expression.

Nose:  Orange and crunchy red apple right up front.  Prune and chocolate.  Some nice smooth sandalwood notes and a little clean oakiness.  Maraschino.  Could be something with a little age in here, I think.  Nice balance and very surprising.

Palate:  Orange and other fruit mish-mash.  Somewhat bubble gum-like somewhere in there.  There is some malt and characteristics of some sherried malts buried herein (i.e. rich, if underpowered, and bearing echoes of fruitcake, not to put too fine a point on it).  Fades to grains.  While still quite  good, the palate can’t deliver what the nose hints at.  Either way…I’m happy with this one.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Caol Ila Distiller’s Edition 2011 Review

Leave a reply

Caol Ila Distiller’s Edition 2011047

43% abv

Score:  86.5/100

 

Here’s one I’ve tasted on multiple occasions now, and have finally come to terms with.  To be honest, it was the slightly better 2012 edition that led me back to revisiting the last of this 2011 release that I had squirelled away in a wee sample bottle.  Recognizing that there was something kinda special about the 2012 left me thinking back to what it was that hadn’t ticked all the boxes for me with this expression from Islay’s most prolific distillery.

I’m happy to say  the whisky was much better than I recall.  I’m somewhat saddened to say, however, that my initial assessment still stands: Caol Ila 12, the flagship in the range, is a better whisky (and much cheaper).  If we want to get into the comparison game, let’s go one step further.  While somewhat maligned by many out there, the Caol Ila 18 is a sparkling example of a lovely mature Islay malt, and possibly my favorite in the core range.  If you can find it, I’d highly recommend that one as the cornerstone of any love affair you may opt to pursue with Caol Ila.

This Distiller’s Edition is a mature Caol Ila (12 years, I believe, that has been re-racked into ex-moscatel barrels for a final period of maturation (6 months or so, I’ve read).  Though the term itself is occasionally frowned upon by the industry, we call this ‘finishing’.  I think the assumption being, if one reads between the lines, that the whisky is not quite complete without this step.  Undoubtedly in some cases this is exactly the case, where a sweet cask finish can hide off-notes and immaturity, bringing the whisky up to a more easily-marketable finished product.  I have no real issues with the concept, but I’m also not 100% behind it either.  C’est la vie.  If the juice is good…I’ll drink it.

In the case of the Caol Ila DE, what we ultimately end up with is a malt that is surprisingly rich in smoked sweetness (think BBQ sauce), but by no means is it what we often refer to as an ‘Islay heavyweight’.  Easily approachable, this one, but do take heed…you gotta have a sweet tooth to fully appreciate its layers.  Decent, but not entirely successful in my eyes.  The following year’s edition strikes a more harmonious whole.   

Nose:  BBQ sauce, as mentioned above, and quite sweet.  Smoky, peaty and iodine-rich.  There is a hint of what the evenings smell like on Islay when you walk the streets of Bowmore.  Anyone who has been there will know what I mean.  Chocolate and fresh coffee beans.  Lemon zest and a bit of orange rind.  Toasted woods.  Smoke and char.  Slightly top-heavy actually.  

Palate:  Chocolate.  Oyster sauce.  Ju-jubes.  Smoke and dark earthy notes.  To be honest, the wine notes don’t really help here.  Think wine and perfume meets rubber and smoke.  As expected…apple skins on the finish.  Better palate than nose.  Also a better palate than the later 2012 edition, I think.

Under-powered, though I see the faintest hint of a Port Ellen-like promise here.  Left to mature longer, perhaps this would become what an older PE is.  Nice but too much wine-weighting for my liking, and certainly too little ‘oooomph’.  

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Caol Ila Distiller’s Edition 2012 Review

3 Replies

Caol Ila Distiller’s Edition 2012141

43% abv

Score:  88/100

 

Well, now.  This was a pleasant little surprise.  The 2012 edition of Diageo’s Distiller’s Edition Caol Ila came right out of left field for me.  Not that the whisky itself was unexpected, you understand (I believe these are annual releases), but the quality of the dram was a treat. 

Rightly or wrongly, I tend to look at the Distiller’s Edition range as sort of ‘surplus to requirements’ for the most part.  I’ve tried a couple that were quite decent, but I find more often than not the marriage of what Diageo dubs its ‘Classic Malts’ with a short period of quirky cask finishing (moscatel, amontadillo, amaroso, etc) feels somewhat contrived and not necessarily leading to an integrated whole.  To be blunt…a couple I’ve tried seem almost concocted by an amateur.  There is a disconnect in there somewhere that leaves me wanting.

I think a lot of these cases this has to do with the decision to mutate a rather delicate spirit in the first place.  It’s kind of like throwing a heavy pack on a scrawny l’il guy and telling him to head for the summit.  The heft is simply too much in some cases.  I’ve tried at least three (and if I recall correctly, a fourth) of these Caol Ila DEs (2009, 2011 and this 2012), and can happily say that this one bears the burden of an extra weighting of sweetness the best of the bunch.  Maybe a shorter finishing time on this edition?  Dunno.  Either way…yep, we like.  Not quite as much as unadulterated Caol Ila, but a worthy addition to the rather slim range available from this distillery. 

Here we have an Islay malt that manages to retain the sweet, citric clarity of Caol Ila, but dresses it up with a little bit of spice, fruit and sweetness.  Good execution, even if I’m not entirely behind the concept.  Grab a bottle of this one if you can find it.

Nose:  Very sweet smokiness.  Peat, as to be expected.  A bit of BBQ sauce (likely via the meeting of smoke and tangy sweetness).  Rock candy.  Iodine.  Citrus zest and juice.  An odd out-of-character jammy note.  Nice balance struck between some very disparate individual notes.  Overall…a rather great nose. 

Palate:  Apple and just the faintest hint of banana candy.  Smoke.  A little barley and sweet wine notes.  Some wet rock (y’know…that flinty, dusty flavour).  Grilled seafood.  Some Granny Smith apple at the back end brings it full circle.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

Hazelburn 12 y.o. Review

1 Reply

Hazelburn 12 y.o.053

46% abv

Score:  86.5/100

 

Mmmm…Springbank Lite.

Settle down, settle down…I ‘m only kidding.  While this may seem like a sound logical assumption, it’s actually quite a stretch.

Hazelburn is one of the three streams flowing from the stills at Springbank, Campbelton’s most recognized distillery.  Springbank, as many of you are likely aware, is famous for producing the old school, malt-heavy and mildly-peaty namesake Springbank line, as well as the more heavily-peated Longrow, and finally the virtually (or possibly even completely) peat-free and triple-distilled Hazelburn.  Yes…triple distilled.  Much like you’ll often find in the Lowland malts or Irish whiskies.  Triple distillation generally maketh for a lighter, cleaner spirit, but you’d be mistaken if approaching this one as comparable to an Auchentoshan, Rosebank or Jameson’s.  There is definitely some heft here.

Hazelburn first ran off the stills in 1997, appearing on store shelves, albeit in limited quantity (I read up on this a little while back, but can’t quite recall the number…think it was 6,000 bottles), as an eight year old expression in 2005.  And while that eight year old was a decent drop, we’re now starting to see what Hazelburn is capable of with a little bit of free rein to grow up and stretch its gangly limbs.  Personally I’m a little bit partial to Springbank’s two beefier older brothers, but I can’t help but smile in recognition of a distillery at the height of its craft.  Springbank is doing it all…doing it traditionally…and doing it well.  From light to heavy, all of their malts are imbued with a sense of identity and quality.  Love it.

I hate to get ahead of myself here, but both the Springbank and Longrow expressions are dynamite at 18 years.  I’ll be waiting for Hazelburn to come of age too.

Nose:  Pleasant…very pleasant.  Lightly creamy and grassy.  A little bit of lemon pepper.  A little ginger and some licorice.  A squeeze of sweet  mandarin and tangerine.  Some dried fruits, nuts and woody notes (definitely sherry casking of some sort).  Still seems to be just the vaguest hint of smoke irrespective of the ‘unpeated’ label that is levied on this one (maybe just cask charring residuals?).  Really good already, but so much potential for additional ageing.

Palate:  Pepper and malty cereal notes.  Grass and grains.  Orange marmalade on toast.  The lightest spread of a very fatty milk chocolate.  Toothpicks.  For a ‘lighter’-styled whisky (yet still surprising in its heft), but still kinda old school, Lowland-ish whisky…I quite like this.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt