Whisky Review: Glengoyne 18 Year

Glengoyne 18 Year sits right in the middle of their range, between the 10, 12, and 15 and the 21, 25, and special releases above. In keeping with the trend through that range, it is significantly more sherried than the expressions below it. While I can't find definite information, I've seen suggestions that it is aged entirely in refill- and first-fill sherry casks, with a significant proportion of the latter. Like the 10 Year, I purchased this miniature while I was in Scotland in 2013.

It is bottled at 43%, without coloring but with chill filtration.

Glengoyne 18 Year

Nose: strongly sherried, a little dank, stewed fruit, savory, moderate American/European oak, vanilla/cacao, herbal/grassy, malt in the background. After adding a few drops of water it is more or less the same, but somewhat diminished except for amplified vanilla and some floral notes come out.

Taste: alcohol reads as stronger than 43% - strong sherry up front, joined by oak tannins around the middle, reduced sherry near the back with more noticeable malt. After dilution it is sweeter up front, with less sherry and more savory oak near the back.

Finish: oak spices, savory notes, polished oak, orange peel

Much like the shift from Tomatin 12 Year to Tomatin 18 Year, this feels like an entirely different whisky than the 10 Year. It has more in common with the defunct Glengoyne 17 Year, which was also very sherry-driven. I'm not sure if it's about the casks or the spirit, but the finish on this whisky reads a lot like Ben Nevis to me, with the peculiar twist of savory oak at the end. That would put it a bit ahead of Tomatin 18 Year, which is the most comparable whisky I can think of, assuming they're roughly the same price. In the States, where Tomatin tends to be significantly cheaper than Glengoyne, I'd give the nod to the latter.

Whisky Review: Glengoyne 10 Year

Glengoyne is something of an oddity, being located directly on the line that separates the Lowlands from the Highlands, all of a few miles north of the definitively Lowland Auchentoshan. The distillery is owned by the independent bottler Ian Macleod, who also own Tamdhu. I meant to visit it during my trip to Scotland since it wasn't particularly far from where I was staying in Glasgow, but weather and burnout on distillery tours kept me away.

It's a little difficult to figure out exactly what's going on in this whisky. It's bottled at the minimum of 40%, presumably with chill filtration but without coloring. While the distillery's website references sherry cask maturation, the profile suggests that most of them must be refill casks or there is a small minority of first-fill sherry casks in combination with a larger number of refill bourbon casks.

Glengoyne 10 Year

Nose: dominated by clean, fresh malt - hints of melon, green apple/pear, citrus, roasted grain, maple syrup, vanilla, sherry. After adding a few drops of water it gets muskier and some honey and berry notes emerge.

Taste: sweet malt up front, continuing through with some sherried roundness, hints of citrus, and bitter grain notes underneath building towards the back - very minimal oak. After dilution the sherry comes in stronger, but the bitterness at the back is also more pronounced.

Finish: fresh malt, a little vanilla, bitter grain

Even for an entry-level single malt, this is somewhat disappointing. While there are no overt flaws, it's just kind of boring. There are some decent things about the nose, but even those take a fair amount of time and effort to tease out. The palate and finish are just flat, with no real development. It is somewhat improved by the addition of water, which may be intentional, but seems odd for a single malt that is meant to introduce people to the brand.

With all that said, I think it's a fine entry point for blend drinkers dipping their toe into the single malt world - there's nothing particularly challenging and it has something of a blend-y profile, but without the grainy character of blends. It also has an attractive price point for people moving up from blends, but a little bit more money will get you the more well regarded 12 or 15 Year expressions from the same distillery. This is enough to make me want to try more from the brand, but I'll give the 10 Year a miss in future.

Whisky Review: Chivas Regal 18 Year

Chivas 18 Year is the next rung up the ladder from their Extra expression, positioned to compete with the likes of Johnnie Walker Gold. It is claimed that the core component of the blend, much like the 12 Year, is Strathisla, there's really no way to know exactly what is going into it beyond the age.

This whisky was bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Chivas Regal 18 Year

Nose: malt/grain, floral, gentle peat smoke and oak, light sherry influence with savory notes and wood spices. After adding a few drops of water it becomes flatter, with less peat smoke.

Taste: a little flat - grain/malt, gentle oak, light sherry, vanilla, citrus/berry overtones, and a touch of peat with oak tannins at the back. After dilution it becomes even flatter - mostly grain with a little vanilla and a touch of sherry at the back.

Finish: oak tannins, a touch of sherry

While a perfectly competent blend, there is little here that makes me want more. The touch of peat sets it above the 12 Year, but the lack of complexity in the flavors keeps it from being a good value. For something with similar structure but more robust flavors, Johnnie Walker Green Label is probably the better choice. With that said, I think this comes close to Johnnie Walker Blue Label at a fraction of the price, though the latter is more flavorful.

Whisky Review: Chivas Regal Extra

One of the consistent themes in the scotch whisky world these days is that if you need to pep up a release, throw more sherry at the problem. This is the conceit of Chivas Regal Extra - it exists at roughly the same price point as the standard 12 Year, but puts more sherry casks into the mix at the expense of an age statement.

This whisky is bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Chivas Regal Extra

Nose: initially almost nonexistent - vague malt/grain and caramel, opening up into richer sherry with a nutty/savory edge and orange peel. After adding a few drops of water the sherry recedes slightly to reveal the malt and grain as well as some vanilla.

Taste: thin and watery up front, opens into caramel, malt/grain, and a strong overlay of sherry with a touch of something floral in the middle, with a bittersweet fadeout through greener notes and moderate oak tannins. After dilution it becomes flatter/grainier and the sherry recedes significantly.

Finish: bittersweet caramel and grain, sherry residue

When I first cracked the mini I thought it might be defective because the nose was so weak and the flavors were so watery. It was somewhat better on the second pass, suggesting that it needed some air to open up. But even at that point I found little to recommend it over the standard 12 Year - while the sherry gave it a little more interest, it was nothing spectacular or complex. For the same price I could get a well-aged, sherry matured single malt from Glenfarclas that will have far more richness and depth. Bottled at a more respectable 43% I think it could offer something more compelling, but as is I can't see the point.

Whisky Review: Dewar's 12 Year

Dewar's is the flagship blend for Bacardi's clutch of scotch whisky distilleries, which include Royal Brackla, Aberfeldy, Aultmore, Craigellachie, and Macduff. While there have been efforts over the last few years to raise the profile of its malts, the core of their business is still in their blends.

This whisky is bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Dewar's 12 Year the Ancestor

Nose: a lot of grain whisky, wheat bread, creamy malt, distant sherry notes, dirty lemons, a little bit of funk, pine, and herbal character, a touch of floral vanilla. After adding a few drops of water it becomes even more dominated by the grain component, but more vanilla comes out.

Taste: rounded grain and malt sweetness with a sherry overlay up front, something floral around the middle, becomes grainier with continued flashes of sherry and sulfurous funk towards the back, very little oak. After dilution the grain becomes dominant but more sherry comes out.

Finish: lingering grain and earthy notes with creamy floral overtones

Wow, that's a lot of grain whisky. While there are bits and pieces of something interesting in this whisky, much of which I'm inclined to ascribe to Craigellachie, the grain whisky muscles almost everything else aside. It's not bad, but there's very little to make me recommend this, even as a cheap blend. It's pretty much a toss-up if you're choosing between this and Chivas Regal 12 Year, but I might give a slight nod to the latter. Something like Cutty Sark Prohibition is about the same price and offers significantly more robust flavors, if you need a cheaper blended whisky.

Whisky Review: Chivas Regal 12 Year

Chivas Regal is one of the most well-known blends in the world, owned by Pernod Ricard. This is the second biggest conglomerate in scotch whisky, with fifteen distilleries, including some of the biggest such as Glenlivet and the new Dalmunach. It is claimed that Strathisla is the 'home' of Chivas Regal and presumably this forms the biggest malt component in the blend, though it is likely that grain whisky from Strathclyde forms a much larger share.

This blend is bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Chivas Regal 12 Year

Nose: very light - basic grain notes with a bit of malt, caramel, vanilla, a little solvent, herbal notes underneath, a faint hint of peat. After adding a few drops of water it goes even flatter.

Taste: simple malt/grain sweetness throughout, a little sherry roundness in the middle, and a surprisingly lack of oak tannins at the back. After dilution the grain whisky sticks out more and gives a bit of a bitter finish, but some fruit notes emerge (apples, pears), the sherry becomes bigger in the middle, and the oak becomes more noticeable.

Finish: grain, light oak, a bit of sherry residue

Well, it's a blend. As these things go, it manages to hit what I think was its mark: more or less inoffensive. Unlike Johnnie Walker Black Label, its most obvious competitor, there is little in the way of peat. This seems unsurprising since Pernod Ricard does not own any distilleries that regularly produce peated malt. Given the high demand over the last decade, that would not have left them in a position to trade for it in a regular fashion. So we're left with a much lighter whisky, without the dirtier backbone of JWB. With that said, it's not a bad blend by any stretch. It's just that you can get more interesting blends, like Isle of Skye 8 Year or Cutty Sark Prohibition, or basic single malts from Glenmorangie or Tomatin for only a few dollars more, so I don't think this is one I would buy again.

Whisky Review: G&C Pearls of Scotland Auchentoshan 16 Year 1998/2015

While most of Auchentoshan's lineup is not particularly well-regarded, the Three Wood gets far more love in the whisky community. This is likely because almost any malt with a big whollop of sherry will have significant appeal these days. While I wasn't quite so fond of it, I figured I would give this one a try anyway.

This whisky was distilled in September 1998, filled into sherry butt, then bottled in May 2015 at 55.3% without coloring or chill filtration in an outturn of 590 bottles.

G&C Pearls of Scotland Auchentoshan 16 Year 1998/2015 Cask #2197

Nose: fresh, not a ton of sherry, clean malt, a little sour, grilled pineapple, savory, cured meat, creamy herbs, gentle oak. After adding a few drops of water the freshness turns into new make character briefly, then the savory character and oak become stronger.

Taste: rich but not overwhelming sherry, subdued sweetness, savory undertones, mild oak, barrel char, chocolate, and raisins start around the middle and grow slightly towards the back, herbal/grassy notes in the background throughout. After dilution some nice savory character is layered on top up front, with the oak becoming chocolate-y near the back.

Finish: dry sherry, raisins, oak tannins, leather

Unlike the bourbon matured Auchentoshans I've reviewed, this one is mostly about the sherry cask rather than the distillery. While there's nothing particularly wrong with this whisky, there's nothing very gripping either. The savory character is probably the best part, but isn't enough to make this a winner. I appreciate that it's drier than a lot of sherry casks without being overly tannic, but I think this one could have been left for another 5-10 years to develop more fully. It's OK, but that's not enough to make me shell out $100. $70, maybe, but I don't think it's going to go on sale like that.

Whisky Review: Old Malt Cask Auchentoshan 15 Year 1997/2013

Auchentoshan tends to be a hate it or love it malt, with relatively few in the latter category. While some dislike it because they find it boring, others find it a strange and inconsistent malt. I tend to be a fan, especially when aged in pure bourbon casks, but there are still exceptions.

This whisky was distilled in December 1997, filled into an ex-bourbon cask (probably Nth-refill), and bottled in May 2013 at 50% without coloring or chill filtration in an outturn of 211 bottles.

Thanks to Florin for this sample.

Old Malt Cask Auchentoshan 15 Year 1997/2013 Cask #9807

Nose: a fair bit of residual new make character - green malt and solvent, popcorn without butter, floral perfume, pink bubblegum, horse manure with partially digested hay/grass that turns somewhat peat-y with time, brine, berry jam. After adding a few drops of water the farm-y notes resolve more clearly into peat.

Taste: fairly sweet up front with a layer of caramel throughout, dirty lemon peel, vanilla, and a thick layer of dusty floral notes begin around the middle fading slightly towards the back, earthy and sour oak going into the finish. After dilution the palate becomes flatter but loses some of the more unpleasant notes in a cheap blend-y kind of way, generic sweetness and minimal oak but less grungy.

Finish: muddy floral notes, vague sweetness, cardboard, lemon furniture polish

The first time I tasted this I couldn't really understand why it was bottled. There wasn't anything that made me think it was ready for primetime. The second tasting was more positive as the younger elements had largely blown off, leaving a more pleasant but not particularly remarkable malt. Blind I might have picked it as a youngish and reasonably competent blend with a little bit of something peated. This makes me wonder if this was a cask that didn't fit any of the profiles for Auchentoshan's lineup and was sold on. It certainly doesn't seem like any other Auchentoshan I've tried before. It's still available from some shops in the EU and while I wouldn't actively dissuade anyone from buying a bottle, it wouldn't be at the top of my list. For younger Auchentoshans the 1999 bourbon barrels seem to be a better bet.

For a different perspective, check out Michael's notes from the same bottle.

Does Anyone Actually Want Complexity?

When people bemoan how much whisky has changed over the last few decades, one of the points that often comes up is that modern spirits aren't as complex as they used to be. This raises two important questions - how much have they actually changed and how much is driven by changing tastes?

The mostly commonly cited factor for why spirits used to be more complex than they are today is

A decidedly uncontrolled washback at Springbank

production methods. What most of them come down to is less control - more fallible humans operating maltings, washbacks, and stills, strains of barley less optimized for yield, more floor maltings, longer fermentation times in wooden washbacks, direct fired stills (especially if they were heated with coal) instead of steam coils, stillmen making cuts by feel, more dunnage than racked warehouses, etc. Compared to modern methods that have relentlessly focused on increasing yield and consistency, older methods were more prone to mistakes - floor maltings could operate at the wrong temperature or turn the germinating barley at the wrong time, insufficiently clean washbacks could introduce bacterial infections into the wash, direct fired stills could burn the wash and create off flavors, and improperly timed cuts could let heads or tails into the hearts.

To quote Bill Lumsden of Glenmorangie and Ardbeg and Ed Dodson of Glen Moray:

"The ‘good old days’: ‘A large proportion of the whisky made 30, 40 and more years ago was horribly inconsistent… Ed Dodson, the former distillery manager at Glen Moray, laughs and says: “Bill, you know, the reason we closed the floor maltings down was because the malt we made was [crap], because we couldn’t do it properly, we just didn’t have the facilities to do it.” The whisky was all over the place.’"

At the same time that variability could occasionally come together to produce accidental brilliance - uncontrollable factors that made a uniquely good cask or batch that would be less likely to happen in today's far more controlled environment. This creates a trade-off - we're less likely to drink overtly flawed whisky now because there are fewer dud casks, but there are fewer of the soaring accidents of yesteryear.

With all that said, there is nothing stopping modern distilleries from reverting back to previously used production methods. Many distilleries retain these kinds of features - floor maltings, worm tub condensers, direct-fired stills, and the like. There were rumbles a few years ago that Ardbeg might rebuild its floor maltings, which have been silent since the early 1980s, but it appears that the powers that be decided not to greenlight the project. All of this suggests that distillers do not believe that the costs of less efficient production will be offset by increased sales of higher quality products.

If anything, the malts that have become popular over the last decade suggest that less rather more complexity is what many drinkers want. In 2008 Bruichladdich kicked off the Peat Wars with Octomore, which featured higher phenolic PPMs in the malted barley used to make the whisky than anything that had come before. Ardbeg responded with Supernova in 2009, which, while somewhat more modestly peated than Octomore, more than held its own. Since then an increasing number of distilleries have released heavily peated whiskies, often following in the footsteps of Octomore and Supernova by being NAS and likely young, thus retaining more of the peatiness that drinkers are looking for. While these whiskies can be good in their own terms, I have joked that the only way for them to push the envelope would be for the next release to be a ticket to Islay where someone would shove your face into a peat bog.

We have seen similar trends when it comes to sherry maturation. While it is unquestionable that many of the whiskies that led this trend, including Aberlour A'Bunadh, Glenfarclas 105, and Macallan Cask Strength, were and often are quite good, the singular focus seems to have led to increasingly unidimensional whiskies. They are bombastic and often enjoyable, but the combination of more and more first-fill sherry casks coupled with increasing youthfulness as stocks are strained means that they often end up being little more than high-proof sherry, with much of what we think of as malt whisky character subsumed by the wine. I think this can also be seen in the rapturous praise that is heaped on extremely dark whiskies that have not been colored with spirit caramel, as many believe this suggests a particularly active sherry cask. In my own experience these are often too sherried, with little else to recommend them.

My personal feeling is that the decreases in complexity are driven by both of these factors. Tighter stocks and more consistent production methods have decreased the scope for complexity, leading to few complex whiskies available on the market. At the same time, the influx of new drinkers has brought in many people who are looking for bold, comparatively simple flavor profiles, which has encouraged producers to cater to those tastes. While this is good for distillers, who can now move younger whisky more easily and a happy coincidence for the drinkers who enjoy those spirits, it leaves the people who are looking more more complex, subtle spirits in a bind without clear solutions.

New Cocktails: the Great Satan

I found this Negroni variation through Cocktail Virgin that piqued my interest. Mezcal, much like peated whisky, can be a difficult ingredient to work with because it is so bold, but the heft of a strong amaro and an equally powerful vermouth in the form of Punt e Mes seemed like they could tame it.

The Great Satan

1 oz mezcal
1 oz Ramazzotti
1 oz sweet vermouth

Combine ingredients, stir with ice for 15 seconds, then strain into a chilled cocktail glass and garnish with orange peel.

The nose is dominated by the smoke and plastic from the mezcal, backed up by herbs and mint from the Ramazzotti. The sip opens sweetly with cherry and faint smoke in the background, which becomes stronger towards the back. Herbs and orange peel pop out in the middle. The finish is balanced between the sweet vermouth and plastic-y smoke.

This is a rather peculiar drink. It took a while to grow on my and the plastic notes from the Mezcal Vida continued to through a bit of a wrench in the works. However, the cherry, citrus, and herbal notes provided an excellent counterpoint. I'd be interested to try this again with either a slightly more refined mezcal or possibly a peated whisky in its place.

Whisky Review: Signatory Un-Chillfiltered Bruichladdich 19 Year 1992/2012

While I have a complex relationship with Bruichladdich, there are just enough expressions that I really enjoy to keep me on the lookout for more, however many of them end up being stinkers. So I was pleasantly surprised when The Party Source had a well-aged Bruichladdich at what looked like a killer price (subsequently jacked up significantly). After working my way through a number of other expressions without any kind of fussy cask finishes, this seemed like the next one to try.

This whisky was distilled on November 20th 1992, filled into an ex-bourbon hogshead (probably refill) #3627, and proofed down to 46% without coloring or chill filtration on March 5th 2012 in an outturn of 342 bottles.

Signatory Un-Chillfiltered Bruichladdich 19 Year 1992/2012 Cask #3627

Nose: malty, green, a touch of seashore and vanilla, honey, distant oak. After adding a few drops of water the oak becomes a little more present, some banana and berry notes emerge, and the malt becomes more grainy.

Taste: malt and wood sweetness up front, trademark Bruichladdich salinity with honey and mild bourbon cask fruit esters in the middle, fades out through malt with a touch of bitterness, citrus, vanilla, and oak. After dilution it is largely unchanged, though possibly a little smoother and sweeter.

Finish: fresh malt, a touch of seashore/salinity, vanilla, hints of oak

The best I can say for this whisky is that there's nothing to actively dislike about it. Well, except for the part where I shelled out ~$90 for a whisky that is kind of boring. While I had hoped that Signatory was slipping us a bargain in comparison to OB Bruichladdichs of comparable age - usually double or triple what I paid for this - it appears that they decided to bottle it to catch the Laddie hype with something that wasn't going to get any better if they continued to sit on the cask. Just goes to show that sometimes a deal that seems too good to be true actually is. Unfortunately at the time I bought it the TPS review "It's a great study in malt character, if a bit basic in that regard." hadn't been posted or I might have more wisely given it a miss.

For a slightly different take on this whisky, check out Michael Kravitz's review.

Whisky Review: Bruichladdich 15 Year First Edition

Bruichladdich 15 Year was part of the first wave of releases after the distillery was reopened by Mark Reynier and Co in the early-2000s. This was a fairly standard set of releases, including a 10 Year and a 17 Year, which were fairly standard combinations of bourbon and sherry casks that had been distilled under the previous regime.

The whisky was bottled at 46% without coloring or chill filtration and released in 2003. This miniature was purchased at the Islay Whisky Shop in 2013 during my trip to Scotland.

Bruichladdich 15 Year First Edition

Nose: rich, buttery fortified wine character, dried fruit, light vanilla, solid oak (American/European), background malt, orange/lime peel, floral. After adding a few drops of water the wine and malt notes are amplified, softer overall, and some cinnamon notes come out.

Taste: wine-driven, sweet fruit (grape) and honey up front, growing acidic and floral towards the back, grassy/oak bitterness into the finish. After dilution the fruit becomes brighter, there is more citrus and less acidity, plus increased oak tannins.

Finish: acidic, grape, light European oak, grassy malt

While I think this is a good whisky, I found it a little hard to find the 'Laddie character underneath the wine. In a lot of ways this is surprising since the first edition was a very sensible mix of bourbon and sherry casks, but it is in keeping with their style at the time.

In an interesting demonstration of the influence of expectations, I originally thought that this was the second rather the first edition, which would have meant that it had a sauternes cask finish rather than the sherry. Lo and behold, I interpreted a lot of the wine notes as sauternes, à la Glenmorangie Nectar d'Or. When I corrected this impression, the wine notes were more clearly sherry. So mistaken beliefs about what you're drinking can radically alter your perceptions.

Whisky Review: Whisky-Doris A Speyside Distillery 23 Year 1992/2015

Single malts from unnamed or obviously pseudonymous distilleries are one of the great mysteries in the whisky world. Most of the time though a bit of detective work can track down the source. In the case of bottles labeled "Probably Speyside's Finest" or "A Speyside Distillery" the finger usually points towards Glenfarclas, which is one of the few distilleries that normally bars independent bottlers from using their name. This is especially true when the casks are ex-bourbon rather than the ex-sherry that forms their house style, which might give consumers a mistaken impression of their OBs.

This whisky was distilled in December 1992, filled into a bourbon hogshead, then bottled in November 2015 at 48.7% without coloring or chill filtration.

This sample was purchased from the WhiskyBase Shop.

Whisky-Doris A Speyside Distillery 23 Year 1992/2015 Cask #7376

Nose: lots of berry esters, banana, peach, melon, orange, moderate American oak, clean malt, vanilla, floral, green/black tea. After adding a few drops of water it becomes more malt-driven, the fruit recedes a bit, the oak is amplified, and some honey/caramel notes come out.

Taste: moderately sweet malt with berry, peach, and citrus notes up front, a little coconut in the middle, fades through light oak tannins through spices (cardamom?) and vanilla malt at the back. After dilution the fruit notes spread across the palate but become less distinct and the oak it muted.

Finish: berry, citrus, moderately tannic oak, clean malt

This is a really nice example of an ex-bourbon cask that was filled with quality spirit and allowed to age for a good but not excessive amount of time. It's not flashy, but the nose especially shows some nice flourishes. As currently priced the quality level isn't quite high enough to make me pull the trigger, but if it was about 20% less I might be wiling to bite.

Whisky Review: Alchemist Springbank 10 Year Port Cask 1995/2006

IB Springbanks, while once a fairly common sight, are becoming thin on the ground as stocks from the 1990s dwindle and many hold back casks for further aging to sell at ever increasing prices. So here is one from yesteryear, a younger port cask from the bottler Alchemist.

The whisky was distilled in December 1995, filled into a mix of first-fill ex-bourbon and first-fill ex-port casks, then vatted and bottled at 46% without coloring or chill filtration in April 2006.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for splitting this bottle.

Alchemist Springbank 10 Year 1995/2006 Port Cask

Nose: rich but not overwhelming port cask berry/grape, dry malt, savory, sawdust, oak in the background, wood smoke. After adding a few drops of water it becomes softer and the port influence recedes, while the oak and peat smoke gaining ground.

Taste: bittersweet port throughout, oak tannins and dirty peat come in around the middle, becoming more bitter towards the back, clean malt underneath everything. After dilution the structure remains largely unchanged while it becomes softer, except for amplified oak tannins and a sour note near the back.

Finish: berries, savory oak, mild peat

Port cask whiskies have been extremely hit or miss for me. I've enjoyed a few of them, but most end up being too sweet. While this one didn't excite me too much, it also wasn't bad. The cask influence was present but didn't completely stomp on the spirit, though I could have done with a bit more peat as counterpoint. Where this succeeds I think it does so because it fits one of my preferred methods for adding fortified wine casks to whiskies - the ex-bourbon casks help to restrain its overall influence and give it a more rounded profile.

Whisky Review: Cutty Sark Prohibition

This whisky was created largely to capitalize on the popularity of the Prohibition era in the current cocktail world. It has all the hallmarks of the current moment: a round and bartender-friendly 50% ABV, a respectable price point, and a grossly exaggerated story.

So what's actually in here? While no specs have been released, as a blended whisky it's a mix of malt (with what seems like a higher proportion than many) and grain whisky that were in all likelihood mostly ex-bourbon, with possible a few sherry casks in the mix. Given that this is produced by Edrington, the most probable malts come from Glenrothes, Glenturret, Macallan, and Highland Park (probably the source of the peat in the mix). There are good odds that it has been colored with caramel and it may still be chill filtered despite the higher strength.

Cutty Sark Prohibition

Nose: balanced malt and grain, toffee, mild dry peat, floral vanilla, jammy berries, a little chocolate. After adding a few drops of water more peat comes out but it's also softer and ashier,

Taste: slightly bitter oak tannins throughout, citrus peel and citric sourness with dirty/earthy peat beginning around the middle, bitter grain with mild oak near the back. After dilution it becomes much sweeter and the oak tannins are subdued up front, the peat largely disappears into the oak near the back, and the citrus notes are mostly lost.

Finish: slightly sweet grain, vanilla, bitter oak, berry and peat residue

While this is far from being the best whisky I've ever tasted, it is undeniably a good value. There are not a lot of blended whiskies under $30 in the States right now that I would consider to really be drinkable, but this one is really quite good. The malt content makes itself known and the grain is not overly obtrusive. It has more peat than, say, Chivas Regal, so I think it would hold its own for a Johnnie Walker Black fan. Isle of Skye 8 Year remains my standard in that category, but this is a solid pick if you can't find that in your area. All in all a good effort by Edrington that I'm glad to see on the shelves. Hopefully more companies follow suit in releasing blends at reasonable price points that have more heft than the standard 40% ABV releases.

Whisky Review: G&M Mortlach 15 Year

Mortlach is one of Diageo's workhorse distilleries that produces primarily for blends. However, unlike many of their Speyside distilleries, its output has far more character and tends to be used in small amounts to provide richness to thinner malts and grain whisky. This is due both to its exceptionally complex distillation process and the fact that it is one of the few remaining distilleries to use worm tub rather than shell in tube condensers, which reduces the amount of contact the spirit has with copper. These help to give Mortlach its distinctive 'meaty' character that is likely to do an increased concentration of sulphur compounds in the spirit.

While I was in Lyon I stopped by The Whisky Lodge, which is an absolute delight of a shop (I had a great conversation about the oddities of American liquor sales with one of the employees). I was looking for a smaller bottle to drink while I was in France and one of the few they had in stock was a half bottle of G&M Mortlach 15 Year. Since I had been looking to try it for some time, this seemed like a perfect opportunity. While most of the bottle was drunk in about a week, I did manage to sneak a 2 oz sample home with me for further review.

As with the licensed Linkwood 15 Year, this whisky was aged exclusively in refill sherry casks, then bottled at 43%, probably with chill filtration and possibly with coloring.

G&M Mortlach 15 Year

Nose: a pleasant but not overwhelming sherry influence, berries, fresh grapes, melon, savory/meaty, dry and a little sharp sulphur, light oak, malt, fresh hay, blond tobacco, and mint in the background. After adding a few drops of water the notes become more integrated and some extra complexity comes out in the form of vanilla, more tropical and green (apple/pear) fruits, plus a hint of smoke and allspice.

Taste: bittersweet throughout, sherry and malt richness beginning at the front, some minty/floral top notes and tobacco in the middle, which is made less sweet by rising oak tannins, black pepper, and sulphur near the back. After dilution it becomes softer and sweeter, the sulphur integrates into the sherry, some vanilla joins the oak, and the oak tannins only come out right at the back.

Finish: sulphur, sherry residue, malt, light oak tannins, grassy, yeast-y savory notes

While this is not the first Mortlach I've ever tried (I got to sample the G&M 21 Year several years ago), this is the first 'classic' Mortlach I've tried. It hits all of the notes I expected, from the savory character of the sherry to the rather present sulfurous notes. So my willingness to recommend this whisky rests almost entirely on your tolerance for sulphur - if it's something you are OK with or enjoy, this will probably tickle your fancy. If you can't stand even a little bit of struck match, then I would give this a wide berth.

Whisky Review: G&M Linkwood 15 Year

Out of the blend-oriented Speyside distilleries, Linkwood has to be one of my favorites, though I will admit that it doesn't have a firm empirical basis as it comes to me partially by extrapolation. Whisky drinkers are most likely to encounter it as a component of the nerd favorite Johnnie Walker Green Label blended malt, a comparatively bright star among the dullness of the rest of the JW lineup. I've also quite enjoyed the single cask from Signatory that I tried, which had a lot of the character I enjoyed from JW Green without the associated Diageo muddiness. So I was interested to see how the spirit would fare when subjected to more active sherry casks rather than more neutral refill bourbon casks.

This whisky is aged for a minimum of fifteen years in refill sherry casks then bottled at 43% with chill filtration and possibly with added color.

This was sampled at the Wallace Bar in Lyon.

G&M Linkwood 15 Year

Nose: richly sherried, more sweet than savory, raisins, a slightly burnt edge, creamy, lightly perfumed/floral. After adding a few drops of water it is largely unchanged except for a bit of funk that comes out.

Taste: sherry-driven and moderately sweet with a floral background throughout, fades into creamy malt near the back. After dilution the sherry becomes brighter up front, but the fade into the finish is more bittersweet.

Finish: bittersweet, sherried, lightly tannic, creamy malt

First, some caveats. I tried this whisky at a fairly noisy, crowded bar and the pour was from the bottom of the bottle, so I'm not particularly confident that it was showing its best side. With that said, I found it fairly boring. Its extremely generic with little to make any Linkwood character clear. The sherry casks are the star of the show and while they are technically flawless, there are no flourishes either. So while it's a perfectly competent sherried malt that would make for an easy-drinking whisky when you don't want anything challenging, it's also not something that I will go out of my way to buy.

Whisky Review: Amrut Kadhambam Batch 3

Amrut was the first distillery in India to produce single malt whisky. When distillery began making malt whisky in the 1980s it was used exclusively for producing blended whiskies. It was not until 2004 that they launched a single malt whisky, targeting a profile similar to that of Scottish malt whisky. Since then they have released a panoply of different whiskies using both local unpeated malt and imported peated malt as well as an extraordinary variety of cask types.

Much like Bruichladdich in the early to mid-2000s or, more recently, Kavalan, it's somewhat unclear whether the popularity of Amrut is primarily driven by quality or novelty, both from the rarity of Indian single malt and the creativity of their production methods.

This whisky was distilled from 90% local unpeated malt and 10% imported peated malt, then aged in ex-sherry butts, followed by ex-brandy casks, then finally ex-rum casks and bottled at 50% without coloring or chill filtration.

Thanks to MAO for the sample.

Amrut Kadhambam Batch 3

Nose: maple syrup/molasses/rum, oatmeal, malt, grape brandy, baked apples, orange peel, sherry, spicy oak in the background, a thread of wood smoke, a little herbal. After adding a few drops of water the rum and brandy come to the fore, some berry notes come out.

Taste: sweet oak up front, becoming more tannic towards the back, picking up some of the various cask notes on top from the middle - but everything is kind of indistinct/muddled - and herbal notes peek out at the back. After dilution the elements integrate and flatten - the oak is less sharp and bitter, letting the cask influences shine a bit more, and a touch of peat comes out at the end.

Finish: maple syrup, moderately tannic oak, oatmeal, a touch of brandy and sherry, a little sour

I feel like Amrut's most significant accomplishment is to have produced a relatively young malt without any of the green notes that I expect from younger whiskies. At the same time, there's a lack of integration that seems spot-on for younger malts - the casks have each left their mark, but haven't had enough time to develop into something more. All of that comes with the caveat that I'm tasting from a sample that may have degraded, but given the price these releases command, I don't think they're something I would spend my own money on.

New Cocktails: La Voiture

Sometimes classic drinks almost hit the mark, but miss by an inch. That's how the Automobile Cocktail was for me. The combination of scotch, gin, vermouth, and bitters looked like an unlikely combo on paper, but I was willing to give it a go. While it almost worked, the various elements never quite seemed to come together. But thinking about what worked and what didn't made me wonder if I could tweak it into something more agreeable. Giving it a little French twist did the trick.

La Voiture

1 oz cognac
1 oz London dry gin
3/4 oz sweet vermouth
1/4 oz Bigallet China-China Amer

Combine all ingredients, stir with ice for fifteen seconds, then strain into a chilled cocktail glass.

The nose is fairly subdued, but some grape from the cognac and brighter orange notes from the Bigallet peek out, with hints of bitterness from the gin and amer. The sip opens with moderate grape sweetness, sliding through bittersweet in the middle and bitter at the back as the gin and amer team up. The finish is long and lingering with juniper and spices.

Whisky Review: Bruichladdich Laddie Ten Second Edition

The first edition of Laddie Ten was met with a significant amount of fanfare, representing the distillery coming into its own. Its loss was equally significant, demonstrating that not all was right in their warehouses.

When Bruichladdich announced a second edition of Laddie Ten, it was met with significant excitement, albeit tempered by the knowledge that it was explicitly labeled as a limited edition, as opposed to an ongoing release.

This whisky was constructed from ex-bourbon, ex-sherry, and ex-red wine casks, then bottled at 50% without coloring or chill filtration.

Bruichladdich Laddie Ten Second Edition

Nose: fairly lean overall, a healthy dose of European oak, caramel, dusty red wine and sherry, plum, malt, herbal, baking spices. After adding a few drops of water the wine and fruit notes become jammier and more sherried, the malt and oak are more balanced, and the herbal notes become more peaty/new make-y.

Taste: red wine and berries with a malty, caramel thickness throughout, increasingly tannic at the back with underlying notes of peat and chocolate. After dilution it becomes more balanced, with the wine and malt notes complementing each other and the oak integrating into both.

Finish: red wine residue, chocolate, European oak tannins, dry malt

The red wine component of this vatting really shows through. While less disjointed than some other Laddies with a similar treatment, it does seem a shame to cover up the spirit with a coating of wine. With that said, Bruichladdich seems to have ironed out whatever problems it had with its spirit back when the first Laddie Ten was released. On the other hand, this one seems to benefit from water in the same way as the Laddie Eight, so it's unclear to me why these were bottled at 50% instead of 46%. Hopefully we'll see less tinkered with Laddies in the future, because this has promise even if it's not my jam in its current form.

Whisky Review: Bruichladdich 8 Year

The period after Bruichladdich was taken over by Rémy Cointreau saw the disappearance of nearly all of their age-dated single malts, ostensibly because aged stocks had been run down by the previous lineup of 10, 16, and 22 Year olds released near the end of the Reynier era. The (almost) all-NAS lineup that replaced it allowed them to use younger whiskies while they rebuilt.

Within the last year we have started to see hints that this hiatus may be coming to a close. Within that period they have released a number of age dated single malts, albeit ones with single-digit or low double-digit ages. This almost feels like an attempt to bring some closure to the missteps that were made just before and during the takeover, suggesting that they are entering a new era of stability. But the important question is whether the whisky is any good.

This whisky was aged in a mix of European (presumably sherry or some other kind of wine casks) and American (presumably bourbon and sherry casks) oak, then bottled at 50% without coloring or chill filtration.

Bruichladdich 8 Year

Nose: fresh malt, new make, a touch of sherry/vinegar/sour red wine, berries, herbal, vanilla, cinnamon, a little coastal and nutty, lightly charred oak. After adding a few drops of water the sherry is amplified alongside the sour notes and more European oak comes out, but the new make mostly fades.

Taste: creamy malt throughout, a touch of sherry, sour wine, berries, and lemon peel in the middle, increasingly strong/bitter oak with some herbal notes and sherried roundness at the back. After dilution it becomes more herbal, the oak at the back gains more European character and is balanced with a bit of peat, while the sherry/sour notes in the middle become stronger but more integrated.

Finish: tannic oak, sharp and drying but not unpleasant, creamy herbal malt, a touch of funk

Contrary to much of the younger releases during the Reynier era of Bruichladdich, this one appears to have had some moderately aggressive casks in the mix. While this is closer to the first 10 Year made from pre-purchase stocks that I liked, it still feels underdone - while the spirit is cleaner and lacking in the unpleasant funk that I found in the Laddie Ten First Edition, the oak has added too much and become overly tannic at full strength. Some of that can be mitigated with dilution, which makes me think that this would have been better off at their standard 46%. This gives me some hope for the future of Bruichladdich when they have a more stable balance between production and sales, but I'll give a full bottle a miss right now.

Whisky Review: James Macarthur Clynelish 12 Year 1997/2010

For whatever reason, a lot of Clynelish from 1997 has made its way into the hands of independent bottlers over the last ten years, most of it from ex-bourbon casks. These provide an interesting glimpse into the range of flavors from this distillery, in comparison to the slightly muddy OB 14 Year.

This whisky was distilled in 1997, filled in what was almost certainly a refill bourbon hogshead, then bottled in 2010 at 45% without coloring or chill filtration.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for the sample.

James Macarthur Clynelish 12 Year 1997/2010 Cask #11828

Nose: malty, some wood spices, a little musty vanilla, orange peel, banana. After adding a few drops of water it becomes simpler, but picks up a little waxiness and feels more traditionally Clynelish.

Taste: sweet malt up front, undertones of new make spirit and caramel thickness throughout, strong apple notes in the middle, a few tannic prickles near the back. After dilution it becomes sweeter throughout and the apples become raisins, but what oak there is becomes cardboard-y and it also picks up some citrus-y sourness and a little bit of wax.

Finish: apple/pear, clean malt, caramel

This is a very naked Clynelish. I thought that was the case in the BBR Clynelish I tried several years ago, but this is even more so. While the new make character isn't oppressive, it is clear that the casks weren't active enough to smooth off those rough edges after a dozen years. Ultimately I don't think this is significantly better than the OB 14 Year, despite that one's flaws. There's just not enough going on around the youthfulness to make it really engaging except as an academic exercise.

Whisky Review: Craiglodge 8 Year 1998/2006

Loch Lomond is hands down the most peculiar distillery in Scotland. With a wide array of pot, column, and the eponymous Lomond stills, they produce a wider range of products than any other distillery. This has put them on the outs with the SWA, but it doesn't appear to have affected their business as they've recently released a wide array of single malts, blends, grain whiskies, and silent malts that have generally been well-received. But they're still one of those distilleries that tends to be looked askance by many single malt fans because of how downright peculiar many of their previous bottlings have been. This is one of those from an earlier era when they didn't get much respect.

This whisky was distilled on March 26th 1998, filled into a Spanish oak hogshead, then bottled on June 12th 2006 at 45% without coloring or chill filtration.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for the sample.

Craiglodge 8 Year 1998/2006 Cask #139

Nose: lots of oak, charred wood, ashy peat in the background, savory sherry, cured meat, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water, the oak and peat integrate, while the sherry becomes sweeter.

Taste: creamy sherry throughout, charred oak and fruit ester overtones in the middle, fading into ashy peat the back. After dilution the sherry is drier, the oak is more aggressive, and the peat is a little more assertive.

Finish: ashy peat, sherry residue, moderate oak, creamy

While not particularly complex, I have to say that I enjoyed this whisky. The sherry and oak were very present, but not overwhelming, and the peat had a unique character, unlike anything else I've tried before. Benriach is close, but not quite the same. Looking over Michael's review, I have a feeling this mellowed somewhat coming from the end of the bottle, but I wouldn't mind something with a few more rough edges.

Hepburn's Choice Glenlossie 17 Year/1997 for K&L

Much like my review of a Whisky Galore Glenlossie earlier this week, there's not much to say about this one. So let's get right to the tasting notes.

The whisky was distilled in 1997, filled into a hogshead, then bottled in 2015 at 55.4% without coloring or chill filtration.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for making this split possible.

Hepburn's Choice Glenlossie 17 Year/1997 for K&L

Nose: very oak driven, buttery wood, peanut butter, herbal, sweet malt, vague fruitiness. After adding a few drops of water the oak becomes more assertive and drier, something like soy sauce pops out.

Taste: sweet oak up front, a fair amount of heat with fruit esters on top around the middle. After dilution the heat in the middle dies down, the fruit notes become stronger and more distinct, and the oak takes on a savory character around the back.

Finish: lingering sweet oak, malt, ethereal fruit, savory

For once I have to say that this was exactly what the K&L notes suggested that it would be - a fairly simple, oak-driven malt. If that's a style you enjoy, this was a pretty decent buy at $70, which, as they note, is comparable to what Glenlivet Nadurra 16 Year used to be priced at. But personally I'm not too broken up about the fact that I only went in for a third of a bottle - this is a more oak-heavy style than I usually enjoy without big fruit notes or peat to balance the tannic elements.

As I usually do with cask strength whiskies, I tried diluting this down to see how that changed it.

Diluted to 50%

Nose: moderate oak, honey, oats, roasted peanuts, a little vanilla and plum/sherry

Taste: balanced sweetness, vanilla, and oak throughout, a touch of generic fruit in the middle, a little drier towards the back, not much development

Finish: moderate oak tannins, sweet malt

While there's nothing overtly wrong with this strength, it's kind of boring. The oak isn't acerbic, but it dominates both the aromas and flavors, without much fruit to give it some interest. It's like thinner bourbon with a shrug.

Diluted to 45%

Nose: gentle toasted oak, caramel, a touch of generic fruit, light vanilla, something savory

Taste: gentle buttery oak throughout, solvent-y fruit esters in the middle, creamy malt and oak at the back

Finish: dry malt, a little sharp, moderately tannic oak, vague fruitiness

While still pretty oak-driven, this is a much softer mode for this malt. It's not something that gets me excited, but it's nice and easy drinking. A solid component for a blend.

Whisky Review: Whisky Galore Glenlossie 10 Year 1993/2004

Glenlossie is another one of Diageo's semi-anonymous malt distilleries that primarily produces for blends. While there are official Glenlossie single malts bottled in the official Flora & Fauna line, you're more likely to encounter it from an independent bottler as a bit of what gets sent off for blending ends up in their hands.

This particular whisky (cask?) was distilled in 1993, filled into what was likely a refill hogshead, then bottled in 2004 at 46% without coloring or chill filtration.

Whisky Galore Glenlossie 10 Year 1993/2004

Nose: lots of fresh malt, lightly floral, creamy vanilla, a little caramel, peach and unripe pear, solvent (ethyl acetate?), pink pencil erasers, somewhat yeast-y, barrel char but barely any oak, green spices. After adding a few drops of water the fruit moves forward and some orange notes resolve themselves, the solvent moves backward a bit, and the spices become dusty.

Taste: malty sweetness throughout with a solvent-y roundness up front, and overlay of vague fruit/berries - overall a little flat without much oak or development. After dilution the malt and fruit move forward and push the solvent into the background, more oak tannins come out giving a bittersweet finish with a touch of incense.

Finish: green malt, a little solvent, very light oak, yeast, thin fruit esters (peach, pear, apple), kind of sharp

This is a bit of a weird whisky, not quite like anything else I've ever tried. Almost certainly from fairly well-used refill casks, this is almost all spirit, but without too much of the new make character that I would expect in these circumstances. Without the solvent notes this would be a somewhat underdeveloped but otherwise pleasant whisky, but the ethyl acetate is too intrusive a lot of the time. Testing this with water makes me think that it might have been better off being bottled at 43%. The solvent is much less present after dilution and diminishing that quality, even at the cost of a little complexity, which feels like an acceptable trade-off.

Whisky Review: Glenmorangie Ten Year (2005)

Glenmoranige Ten Year (now Original) has been a staple of the distillery's lineup longer than any other on offer right now. And in contrast to the sometimes complex and esoteric cask manipulations they have become known for, the it is a un-fussy construction of ex-bourbon casks and nothing else. There have been some changes as the experiments with bourbon casks that led to the original Astar have been incorporated into makeup, but the basic formula has remained the same.

This whisky is bottled at 43%, probably with chill filtration and maybe with coloring.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for the sample.

Glenmorangie Ten Year (2005)

Nose: classic Glenmo malt, moderate but not obtrusive oak, light woody caramel, gently floral, a little orange creamsicle. After adding a few drops of water it becomes more aromatic/herbal/floral with bolder malt.

Taste: malt and oak sweetness up front, fairly constant oak with a tannic edge from the middle back, floral/citrus/apple/pear overtones in the middle, bittersweet near the end, citrus/berry undertones throughout. After dilution it is similar but more oily and with stronger malt character.

Finish: berries, oak, malt, caramel, floral, vanilla ice cream

Much as with the Glenfiddich 12 Year I reviewed recently, the most remarkable thing about this whisky is how consistent it is with the current releases. Glenmorangie's stocks were presumably deeper a dozen years ago, but my impressions have remained fairly consistent over the years. While I'm not always a fan of Bill Lumsden's work, he has managed to make a solid whisky at a solid price that doesn't change in quality. My personal guess is that this is easier for whiskies that are more spirit-driven than ones requiring more cask influence, but it's still an accomplishment.

How Economic Inequality is Contributing to the Spirits Boom

Astute observers will have noticed that the rising interest in spirits has coincided roughly with the radical increase in economic inequality in developed nations over the last few decades. But the question is whether this is cause or coincidence - I would argue that they are at least partially related.

Spirits largely languished during the 1980s and 1990s, possibly as a reaction to the liquor-soaked decades that had preceded them. Distilleries closed and a glut of stock was established in the aged spirits world as producers were unable to find many willing buyers. The resulting low prices made quality spirits accessible even to folks of relatively modest means.

This began to shift in the 2000s, as interest in spirits grew in tandem with the cocktail revival and both broke into the mainstream around the housing collapse. While much of this is simply the cyclic nature of interest in drinks, the exponential rise in prices and concomitant decrease in availability of single malts and American whiskey are likely to have been driven by broader economic trends.

The obvious element is that the increasing concentration of wealth at the top has created a class of people for whom money is literally no object. For those with hundreds of millions or billions in the bank, spending thousands or tens of thousands on a single bottle of spirits won't even make a noticeable dent in their net worth. This effectively unlimited wealth makes it possible to bid up the prices of exceptionally rare spirits to stratospheric levels. With the rapid appreciation of many expressions they can even convince themselves that these mega-expensive bottles are investments like their other assets. The rising prices have a trickle-down effect on the rest of the market as distillers and retailers raise prices to capture profits that had been going to secondary market sellers and convince everyone else that they must be worth the now-inflated prices that were once within reach escape the grasp of less affluent buyers.

The other end of the market is a more complicated situation. While simple supply and demand factors explain much of the changes in prices, the question is what drives that demand since there are only so many rich people in the world and they can only drink so much. My personal belief is that the rise of high-end spirits owes much to the reduced circumstances that many people find themselves after the financial collapse of the late-2000s. Put simply, while traditional status markers such as homes and cars have moved out of reach for many, budgets can still stretch to encompass other luxury markers. So maybe you're stuck renting and taking Uber, but you can cover a $20 pour at the bar or a $100 bottle to show off to your friends. Brands have capitalized on these desires with increasingly grandiose claims of rarity for their new expressions, touting everything from 'lost' casks (from large corporations with legal obligations to keep track of their stock) to rococo production techniques that make the bottles seem difficult to obtain (often from distillers with little experience but good marketing chops), while keeping the prices just within reach of the average person with a bit of disposable income.

The real question is whether this is all sustainable. There are already indications that scotch whisky distillers are pricing themselves out of the low end market, with blend sales - making up the bulk of their profits - slipping. While sales of higher priced single malts are helping to keep profits from tumbling too far, it is unclear whether a $50+ floor is realistic over the long term when it is generally accepted that most spirits buyers consider a $25 bottle to be expensive and much more to be a splurge. American whiskey seems far healthier at the moment, with prices and sales continuing to rise with not apparent limit. While many of the once-staple bourbons in the $20-30 range have moved up-market, there are still good things to be had that that magic price point, albeit of often decreasing quality and selection. The increased production coupled with a shorter amount of time necessary to bring aged whisky to market (3-5 years for bourbon vs. 8-12 for single malts) may help to keep supply and demand more evenly matched, though the fetish for elevated age statements will likely continue to pump up that end of the spectrum. More broadly, it's unclear whether interest will be sustained if the steadily improving economy makes home ownership available to a broader section of the populace again and redirects their spending habits. As they say, time will tell.

Whisky Review: Whisky-Doris Bunnahabhain 33 Year 1980/2013

Until fairly recently Bunnahabhain didn't command a lot of attention for an Islay distillery. Its revival is due to two things: the reformulation of its core malt, especially the 12 Year, and a tidal wave of independently bottled single casks at extremely reasonable prices for their age and quality. This upsurge has finally pushed them into the kinds of stratospheric prices that are seen from other more famous distilleries (see: the OB 25 Year and older releases), but there are still a fair number of deals out there simply because the distillery produces so much whisky and sells so much to blenders and IBs that some of them end up being priced competitively. I purchased this one as a thesis bribe after reading a glowing review from Michael Kravitz to get myself to finish my PhD and celebrate when the dissertation was turned in.

This whisky was distilled in May 1980, filled into a sherry butt, then bottled in November 2013 at 45.6% without coloring or chill filtration.

Whisky-Doris Bunnahabhain 33 Year 1980/2013 Cask # 92

Nose: Strong floral sherry notes over a malty core, raisins, malmsey madeira, green herbs, yeast/savory notes, a nice level of American oak in the background, vanilla, butterscotch/cream frosting, a touch of smokey incense. After adding a few drops of water it falls a little flat, with the malt moving forward and the sherry and oak retreating significantly, plus a kind of dusty overlay on it all.

Taste: bittersweet sherry up front with a solid backing of oak tannins/American oak, mint, vanilla, and orange peel in the middle, not a lot of development until the finish. After dilution the sherry gets brighter, clean malt comes out, and the oak is pushed back significantly, but the alcohol becomes more apparent.

Finish: Ben Nevis-y savory herbal notes, fresh mint, citrus, light tobacco/cigar, flowing through American oak, a little molasses, sherry residue, and fading out through clean Bunnahabhain malt and more mint. After dilution the savory herbal notes become dominant and spread out over the experience, pushing a lot of the development aside, and leaving a hotter/ethyl note rather than the pleasant minty fade.

This is a peculiar whisky in many respects. I think Whisky-Doris chose to bottle it at the right time, both because the spirit was on the edge of being overwhelmed by the cask and had hit a significantly reduced but not weak strength. The flavors are unlike anything else I've ever experienced, with not too much happening on the tongue, but an array of complex notes that unfold after the whisky is swallowed. While I didn't like it too much with extra water, this may be because I'm writing the review from the last few pours of a bottle that has been open for roughly a year. With that said, undiluted it still had plenty of power and this has held up better than a sherried whisky has any right to. I'd say it's been diluted by time to an almost perfect strength and any more water breaks its perfect poise.

Whisky Review: Kilkerran 12 Year

Kilkerran, otherwise known as Glengyle, has been leading up to this moment since the distillery was first opened in 2004. The Work in Progress series chronicled the development of the spirit, all with an eye towards a 12 Year set for 2016 that would establish a regular, standard release. Given the quality of the WIPs, this were rather high expectations for this.

This is bottled at the standard 46% without coloring or chill filtration.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for the sample.

Kilkerran 12 Year

Nose: earthy/pine-y peat, coastal, fresh herbs/pine, old motor oil, leather, dry malt, sherry, soy sauce, and cured meat around the edges, vanilla and bourbon cask. After adding a few drops of water it becomes softer, with the malt balancing the peat, some treated lumber notes come out, and the sherry is mostly pushed into the background.

Taste: opens with moderate malt sweetness backed by leather, which slowly transforms into dry peat from the middle back, sherry, vanilla, and black pepper in the background. After dilution it remains largely the same, with some acidity coming out and maybe a little less punch and definition.

Finish: a little sharp, malt, peat, a touch of sherry and oak

The good: this is an extremely competent Campbeltown malt at a respectable price that isn't a special/limited edition. I think it's a worthy match for Springbank 10 Year and might get the nod from me over the other entry-level malts from its sister distillery next door. The bad: it feels less unique than previous releases in the WIP series, which had character that clearly set them apart from Springbank. In other words, it's good, but it's sort of generically Campbeltown good. Blind I might have pegged it as either Springbank or Glen Scotia. Water does it no favors, stripping down a lot of the complexity and leaving it even more generic.

So while this is a perfectly good whisky that I would have no compunction about drinking, it's also not one that I particularly want a whole bottle of. Thankfully there is also an 8 year old, cask strength Kilkerran hitting the market which I have somewhat higher hopes for.

Whisky Review: Hepburn's Choice Bowmore 14 Year/2001 for K&L

I have a very mixed history with Bowmore. When they come out right, they can be a nearly transcendent balance of malt, peat, and fruit. When they fall flat, they're downright awful. That track record is even more mixed when it comes to cask picks from K&L Wines - the 11 Year Exclusive Malts cask they picked up a few years ago was a horrific mess. But when this cask went on sale the price was finally low enough for me to go in on a bottle split.

This whisky was distilled in 2001, filled into a refill sherry cask, then bottled in 2016 at 54.4% without coloring or chill filtration.

Hepburn's Choice Bowmore 14 Year/2001 for K&L

Nose: rich Bowmore malt with a solid but not overwhelming layer of dry peat, sherried fruits sit underneath alongside freshly treated lumber and sawdust, gentle floral overtones, coastal notes, vanilla, and almonds in the background. After adding a few drops of water the oak gains ground and becomes roughly equal in intensity with the malt, the peat becomes ashier, and a little bacon comes out, but it retains distinctly Bowmore character overall.

Taste: big sherry sweetness up front, quickly overtaken by a wall of oak tannins with a bit more of an edge from the dirty/earthy peat and a touch of black pepper, overtones of tropical fruit and berries in the middle, fading out with prickly tannins over sherried richness. After dilution the oak and sherry become more balanced and spread out across the palate, giving it a distinctly bitter cast, the peat becomes a bit ashier

Finish: bitter, almost astringent, oak tannins, sherry residue, dirt, earthy peat

From the specs, this sounds almost exactly what I like - an independently bottled full proof Bowmore from a sherry cask. The younger sherry cask from Exclusive Malts of the same vintage blew me away, but was too expensive ($100) for me to justify. The Hepburn's Choice cask was older and more attractively priced, but ultimately turned out to be over-oaked, which goes a way towards explaining why it was so cheap compared to other sherried full-strength Bowmores of comparable age.

I feel like this might appeal to fans of Laphroaig Cask Strength Batch 005 - a group of which I was not a member. The strong oak and sherry seem similar to what that was bringing to the table, albeit in a somewhat softer mode despite the almost equally high alcohol content. Speaking of which, this reads far lighter than its actual ABV, making me think of something in the 46-50% range than the bruiser it claims to be.

With all of this said, I think this whisky will appeal more to fan's of Bowmore's Devil's Casks releases - a review over at The Whisky Jug bears this out. But I was also curious if dilution would tame this cask into something more enjoyable for me.

Diluted to 50%

Nose: kind of closed - balanced sherry, peat, and oak, savory but indistinct overall, growing a bit stronger with time in the glass

Taste: big rounded - but not overly intense - sherried savory/sweetness up front, berries, sliding through prickly oak tannins to a more rounded and aromatic woodiness near the back, hints of peat going into the finish

Finish: juicy oak, sherry residue, very little peat, but kind of dirty

This strength is a kind of reverse-Goldilocks - there is little it offers that can't be found more effectively at full strength or 45%. The palate is superior to the nose, but never completely comes together. The difficulty is finding the remaining peat means that there isn't enough counterpoint for all the oak.

Diluted to 45%

Nose: lots of oak, barrel char, dirty peat smoke underneath, vanilla, a little green and floral, hints of sherried malt underneath

Taste: mild sherried sweetness up front, quickly picks up significant oak - becoming more aromatic and savory around the back, a little floral starting around the middle, green/vegetal peat and dry sherry shading into vinegar fading into the finish

Finish: long-lasting, savory oak, juicier sherry, slightly sweet malt, a little peat around the edges

This whisky becomes fairly peculiar at this strength. The oak is even more dominant on the nose, edging out almost everything else. At the same time the big aromatic twist going into the finish on the palate shows what the oak can be and reminds me a bit of Ben Nevis. Overall this is the least Bowmore-like strength since the peat is so hard to find, but it's appealing in its own way.

The Importance of Negative Reviews

"If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything" is a maxim most of us heard repeatedly while growing up. And while it might be a useful way to make children think before they speak, it becomes more complicated as we get older.

All good? Some? None? Well, probably not the North Port

Unless you're lucky enough to be fantastically wealthy, most adults have limited resources and are
regularly forced to make all sorts of decisions about how to allocate them. These decisions ultimately all come down to value - what am I getting for what this costs?

The problem in the spirits community is that we have more cheerleaders than genuine critics. With rare exceptions, on blogs and social media there is nearly always someone willing to chime up and speak favorably when someone asks "Is this any good?" It's reached the point where certain expressions are nearly unimpeachable, whether that's Four Roses Single Barrel bourbon, Aberlour A'Bunadh, or in certain parts of the rum community nearly anything distilled from sugarcane. While that's perfectly fine if people are primarily looking for validation, it's less useful if the question is earnestly asked to decide whether to spend money on something they may or may not like.

I think there are a number of factors at play. One is that people are often looking for and want to give validation. You spent your hard-earned money and want to believe that it was worth parting with those precious dollars/euros/pounds/yen/etc. With rare exceptions, no one likes to feel that they bought a stinker. And humans are nothing if not good at rationalization. Telling other people that they bought something good reinforces our own sense that we have made good decisions.

This tendency can become self-reinforcing as anyone with a contrary negative opinion feels disinclined to pipe up either because they implicitly feels bad about yucking everyone else's yum or explicitly as dissenters are shouted down. Further reinforcing this tendency is the fact that there is no accountability - few are going to keep track of everyone who chimed in and if they come back to report that something wasn't good (which, given how heavily many of us stock up, may be months or years after the initial purchase), it can always be claimed that tastes simply haven't aligned or that an expression has changed since they last tasted it.

Negative reviews are an important way to push back against these tendencies. Even when you can't sway anyone's opinion, negative reviews are still worthwhile simply to normalize dissent. No one reviewer can say that a particular expression is definitively bad or a poor value, but being willing to say "This wasn't worth the money I spent on it" or "This doesn't fit with my tastes" are both critical pieces of information when drinkers are trying to decide how to spend their own money. I can't condone telling someone else that they're wrong in enjoying what's in their glass, but when someone is asking whether they should buy a whisky that I didn't like or thought was a poor value, you can bet that I'll speak up. And I wish more people would do the same.