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.

Whisky Review: Glenfiddich 15 Year Distillery Edition (2013)

Glenfiddich's Distillery Edition has gone through a few phases - first released in the 1990s, it disappeared until the 2000s when it was reintroduced. It has been produced regularly since then, but the bottle itself went through a refresh some years ago, while the liquid inside has nominally stayed the same.

While superficially similar to the standard 15 Year from Glenfiddich, the DE is composed from a mix of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks married together, instead of the solera system of the standard 15 Year, and bottled at 51% without chill filtration.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for this sample.

Glenfiddich 15 Year Distillery Edition (2013)

Nose: fresh honied malt, light fruity sherry, raspberry/blueberry, a touch of chocolate, floral vanilla, a little mint/pine. After adding a few drops of water the sherry gets kind of sour and washes out most of the other components.

Taste: mildly sweet up front, undergirding malt throughout, sherry roundness balanced with moderate oak starting around the middle, a little mint at the back. After dilution it gets a little bit softer with much more sherry influence and expanded oak, while the mint slides in behind the oak at the back and gives more vegetal character going into the finish.

Finish: sherry residue, light chocolate-y oak, dry malt, a touch of chili pepper and mint, a little drying

While my perception of this whisky has changed significantly since I first tried it more than five years ago, it remains the one and only Glenfiddich I would buy with my own money. It reminds me a lot of Balvenie Doublewood or Founder's Reserve, with the moderate sherry influence over clean Speyside malt, but with much more presence from the higher bottling proof and lack of chill filtration. And considering the price inflation from its sister distillery Balvenie's releases, Glenfiddich DE has remained rather reasonable given its age and strength (compare to Balvenie 12 Year Single Cask, which is younger and lower proof for about the same money). While I wouldn't call it flashy, this is a solid malt at a respectable price if you can get your hands on it. Quite a shame that Glenfiddich's importer has stopped bringing it to the States, so our only chance will be in duty free shops abroad.

Whisky Review: Glenfiddich Special Reserve 12 Year (2002)

Glenfiddich is, well, Glenfiddich. The best selling single malt in Scotland pumps out volume like almost no one else, though Glenlivet is certainly trying to give them a run for their money.

This version of their 12 Year was bottled in 2002, back when practically no one cared about single malt and the current boom was practically unimaginable. Then as now it was bottled at 40%, almost certainly with coloring and chill filtration.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for the sample.

Glenfiddich Special Reserve 12 Year

Nose: ranges from almost non-existent to moderate weight - light honied malt, slightly dank sherry, a little fruit (apples, pears, oranges), a touch of something floral/soapy - that are all difficult to pull out. After adding a few drops of water it opens up with more floral notes and more sherry.

Taste: moderate malt sweetness with a bit of sherried roundness, a little sour in the middle, floral overtones throughout, more grain than oak bitterness at the back, and a feeling of tired casks throughout. After dilution the sweetness becomes more cane sugar, the malt becomes drier, some fruit (apples, pears) comes out, and the floral notes are amplified.

Finish: sherry residue, light malt, a touch of oak-y bitterness

For all the depth of stock Glenfiddich was presumably sitting on in 2002, there doesn't appear to be any older, more complex whisky in here. Honestly, it's pretty remarkable how similar this is to their current bottles, which, if you want to look at it that way, speaks highly of their master blender's abilities. So while this was interesting as a curiosity, it is mostly forgettable.

Whisky Review: Archives Glen Scotia 20 Year 1992/2012

While Glen Scotia has been getting more attention since its latest relaunch of its lineup, it still exists firmly in the shadow of its more famous Campbeltown brethren. In no small measure this is because, while it often produces good whisky, its output is rather inconsistent.

This was distilled in February 1992, filled into a hogshead, then bottled in May 2012 at 50.4% without coloring or chill filtration. The outturn for this release was only 80 bottles, which suggests that it was a cask split with one or more other bottlers.

Archives Fourth Release Glen Scotia 20 Year 1992/2012 Cask 08/71

Nose: very oily - mix of olive, fish, and motor oil, roasted malt, earthy, mild peat smoke, light caramel/nutty oak, toffee, savory, green (apples, pears) and overripe fruit (banana, berries, apple). After adding a few drops of water the dirt becomes worn leather, the malt becomes cleaner, the smoke becomes incense.

Taste: fairly sweet up front, quickly joined by oak that becomes increasingly strong and tannic towards the back, vague fruitiness in the background, light grime and peat come in near the back, with more bittersweet character. After dilution it becomes sweeter up front, maltier throughout, and the oak and peat/dirt fade significantly.

Finish: tannic oak, fresh peat, seashore tang, soy sauce, malt,

All the Springbank fans who didn't buy this really missed out. While distinctly Glen Scotia, it has that dirty Campbeltown character with a touch of peat smoke that folks love so much about Springbank. With a rather austere profile I can't imagine this being a crowd pleaser, but if you like your malts to be something other than monochromatically sweet this should be fun. Sadly, for as long as it stuck around at the WhiskyBase Shop, it's all gone now.

Diluted to 45%

Nose: gently woody, fresh vegetation/hay, creamy berries, vanilla, leather, floral, a little citrus peel

Taste: generally the same, but softer - dirty sweet malt with grapefruit peel overtones throughout, overlaid with slightly tired oak, drier malt, and a little peat around the middle, more funky/grimy/tannic near the back

Finish: Campbeltown malt, a little dirty, soft oak, bitter tannins

Dilution seems to bring out the softer side of the malt, especially on the nose. Many of the dirtier elements are tamed, bringing out more gentle cask influence. The flavors get a little simple and flat, but not unengaging. While it's a wilder ride at full strength, I don't think it would have been terrible to bottle this at 46%.

Whisky Review: Hepburn's Choice Strathmill 24 Year/1992

Strathmill is another one of Diageo's many semi-anonymous Speyside distilleries that produces whisky almost exclusively for their blends. While its history goes back to the late-19th century whisky boom, there's little to mention beyond its slightly complicated ownership and management over time, which I'll leave to Malt Madness to explain.

This particular cask was distilled in 1992, filled into what I'm guessing was a refill ex-bourbon hogshead, then bottled in 2016 at 47.9% without coloring or chill filtration for the Hepburn's Choice label exclusively for K&L Wines in California.

Hepburn's Choice Strathmill 24 Year/1992

Nose: clean malt, a touch of vanilla, light oak, light molasses/graham crackers, grass, slightly metallic, fresh herbs/wildflowers. After adding a few drops of water it remains largely the same, but loses some oomph.

Taste: malt sweetness up front, fading into bittersweet oak, muddled fruit (green apples/pears/raisins?), drier malt, and some alcohol heat near the back. After dilution it remains largely the same, but the oak becomes a bit bigger and more tannic, giving it a more bittersweet profile overall.

Finish: gentle oak, raisins, malt residue, stewed fruit, dried flowers

The charms of this whisky are subtle and never reach wild heights, but it's a solid example of a refill cask that hasn't stomped on the spirit. For the price and age, this was a perfectly decent buy, but would probably be a little disappointing for someone expecting more. I think you could find very similar casks from any number of Speyside distilleries using unpeated malt, so I wouldn't worry about not getting your hands on this one if you missed it. I was mostly excited about getting my hands on this for my project to build a better version of Johnnie Walker Blue Label from 20+ year old Diageo-owned distilleries, so in all honesty I was hoping for something that wasn't too bold. Though as the addition of water showed bringing the proof down much at all tends to bring out the oak, this makes it a bit difficult to work with.