The label of this brand-new Eiling Lim release tells us it’s “artisan blended malt whisky, older than old and 100% premium quality”. Very honest and clever: pretty much the same level of information we get from distillery releases these days, hehe.
We’ve heard some of the contents goes back to the 1970s but remember, officially we can only tell you the youngest component is from the 1990s.
Blended Malt ‘older than old’ (46,5%, Eiling Lim 2015, not so many bottles)
Nose: aromatic sherry up front. Fruity (oranges, apricots, plums) with light savoury touches and a pleasant acidity. A little Earl Grey and linseed oil. Chocolate. After a while there’s more tobacco, honey coated roasted nuts and a light earthy hint. Delicate spices. Beautiful. Mouth: more plums and sherry. Kumquats. Wee touches of herbal liqueurs. Tobacco leaves again. Orange zest and fruit tea. Fades on nice spicy notes (pepper, nutmeg, cinnamon). It’s a little thin maybe, like old whisky can be (Glenfarclas and such), but also very elegant and not woody. Finish: medium long, clean, honeyed and delicately spicy.
A nicely old and old-style dram. A great sipping whisky that doesn’t break the bank. I believe it will be presented at the upcoming Lindores Whisky Festival. Around € 90. There are “not so many” bottles available…
Arran The Bothy is a brand-new NAS bottling from Quarter casks.
These smaller casks are working well for Laphroaig and other distilleries, and The Arran used them to finish this whisky for at least 18 months after the initial maturation in first-fill bourbon barrels. Smaller casks means more wood contact (around +30%) and supposedly a wider aromatic range.
A bothy is a basic shelter in the Scottish mountains, usually left unlocked for anyone to use.
Nose: rich and fruity, with lots of vanilla and apples and an instant exotic touch of tinned pineapple, tangerine and sweet banana. Some waxy Riesling notes and hints of sugar bread before it becomes spicier (cinnamon, pepper) and lightly floral (orange blossom). Mouth: creamy and fresh, with the same fruity core (pineapple, pear, grapefruit, lemon) and spicy notes (chilli, ginger, liquorice). Some grainy notes in the background, vanilla syrup and a light herbalness towards the end. There’s also a fragrant hint of new oak shavings but it works well here. Finish: medium long, with malty notes, peach, flowery notes and a hint of salt.
This is my kind of Arran, I love the combination of the bright fruitiness, the exotic edge and the punchy spices. Some youngish elements but great value. Around € 65.
First released in 2006, Flaming Heart combined whisky matured in new French oak with the smoky Islay character. It was a popular blended malt and there have been four bottlings so far.
The latest fifth release is called ‘15th Anniversary Edition’ and celebrates the creation of Compass Box in 2000.
When it was launched, Compass Box provided the exact composition :
38,5% of Caol Ila 14yo from refill American oak hogsheads
27,1% of Caol Ila 30yo from refill American oak hogsheads
24,1% of Clynelish 20yo from rejuvenated American oak hogsheads
10,3% of married Clynelish / Teaninich / Dailuaine7yo which was finished in new French oak hybrid barrels for at least two years
Apparently the Scotch Whisky Association received a complaint about the disclosure of this information. A maturation period or age may only be specified in the description, presentation or labelling of a spirit drink where it refers to the youngest alcoholic component. Although I get the reasoning behind this rule (i.e. to avoid producers claiming a blend is composed with Caol Ila 30yo when it contains only a couple of spoons), I see no harm in being completely open and disclosing the entire formula. In fact we should applaud such openness when most producers choose to go NAS and hide all details altogether!
In the meantime a whole list of distilleries and bottlers signed an open letter to the SWA asking for a change in regulations. I really hope it will only be a matter of time before this stupid rule is revised. Until this happens Compass Box can’t mention the ages of the components in official communications.
Nose: mostly the (older) Caol Ila profile. Very refined ashy notes, whiffs of antiseptics and worn leather. Some sweeter apples and marzipan in the background. Cinnamon. Light maritime touches, which nicely marries with the waxy Clynelish notes. Maybe not as full-bodied as a single malt Caol Ila, but excellent nonetheless. Mouth: less delicate now, sharper, with much more peaty notes, smoke and pepper. Still quite leathery. Apples and berries. Hazelnuts. Then back to sooty notes and eucalyptus before it fades on waxy and oily notes, with a very light herbal bitterness. Finish: quite long, smoky and medicinal, with an underlying fresh citrus note and a nutty dryness.
As a blended malt, this is brilliant stuff, although I guess you can’t do much wrong when 65% is solid Caol Ila. Complex, mature and well composed – if anything it confirms that Compass Box is the king of premium blends. Around € 135.
I’ve reviewed 13 whiskies this week, from 10 bottlers and always in a direct comparison between similar vintages / ages. It was more or less an experiment. Most bloggers (like me) do one whisky at a time, but others (most notably Serge) totally rely on direct comparisons. I’m not saying one method is better than the other, but I’d like to share some thoughts. Feel free to comment.
Comparisons highlight the differences
True enough: whenever you try similar whiskies head-to-head, the differences stand out more. However I’m not sure this is an advantage. Of course it makes the reviews more interesting: casks from the same batch can really be close together and reviews can be boring if you publish them separately.
It is also a nice way to present multiple profiles from the same distillery: unpeated, lightly peated and heavily sherried Bunnahabhain. But then the differences are obvious.
On the other hand, I think direct comparisons make you exaggerate things. Take yesterday’s Bunnahabhain from Whisky-Doris for instance. When sipped on its own, the rubbery sherry notes didn’t really bother me, but once they are highlighted next to a fresh bourbon cask, it’s hard not to focus on it. I’m convinced it even prevents you from picking up other aromas.
After all, I mostly drink only one whisky per evening, so I’d like to know how it is like that. A specific tasting line-up certainly shapes the appreciation, and what are the odds that you’ll end up trying the same line-up as me?
Forced tendency to differentiate
I think there’s also a tendency to differentiate in scores. When you have four Glen Keith, some better than the others, then you’re trying to express a little ranking in the score. It may separate the different expressions more than they actually deserve. More often than not, they evolve in the glass, they take the lead for a while, each has its own qualities and in the end you’re left with a feeling they’re all good and it’s nearly impossible to choose. Nonetheless you want the score to express your final preference, and it might end up a little distorted.
Visitor statistics of the past few days weren’t spectacular. It may have been a coincidence (after all there were no stunners or big surprises) but I’ve also noticed the average time spent on the website was the same as before. People spend two minutes to read one review, and it turns out they also spend two minutes if you review four whiskies in a row. I’d prefer to give one whisky all the attention (and hope they read it entirely in two minutes).
Back to normal
I might do direct comparisons in the future, especially between bottlings of the same whisky (e.g. Springbank 10yo bottled in different years). For regular reviews though, even of whiskies from the same batch, I prefer singular reviews.
What style of reviewing do you prefer? What do you like to read on a blog?
ps/ Kudos to Serge. Reviewing one whisky a day is hard enough already. I couldn’t possibly review 10 or 15 every week.
Nose: peated Bunna. On its own this doesn’t come out that much (it’s rather a heathery, softly smoky style) but in a direct comparison it’s definitely peated. Also moderately fruity: oranges, pear, subtle hints of roasted pineapple. Light vanilla. Honey and hints of pastry dough. Mouth: a nice, creamy mix of sweet marzipan, yellow apple and very mild pepper. Sweet lemon again. Hints of apple seeds. The smoky / sooty notes are gentle, with a faint maritime edge. Finish: medium long, smoky, with a vague fruity sweetness and subtle pepper.
Quite a perfect starter: it’s very gentle (maybe a tad too soft) and very balanced, with plenty of all-round qualities (maritime notes, sweetness, gentle peat) that are typical for Bunnahabhain in my opinion. Very similar to a 1989 from Whiskysite.nl. Around € 100 back then. Sold out.
I thought this was a 1989 as well. It is only while looking up the details that I found out the bottle says ‘distilled in 1990’ although my sample (provided by Whisky-Doris) says ‘distilled 12/1989’.
Nose: unpeated Bunna. It seems more quiet than the Abbey Whisky release, with more dusty notes and some hints of rubber and gunpowder (probably amplified in this direct comparison). I do get plums and hints of melon, but not the exotic fruits that Whisky-Doris suggest in its own notes. Quite some acacia honey and aniseed. Dusty malt and damp earth. Waxy notes as well. Rather restrained. Maybe a Fino butt? Mouth: stewed fruits, berries, yellow raisins, indeed with a couple of tropical touches now (guava). Again hints of butter pastry. It then becomes slightly drier and spicier (pepper, ginger), moving to liquorice and mildly salty, maritime notes. Finish: Medium long, half sweet, half spicy, never loosing its maritime “terroir”.
Different story: less peat, more sherry notes, but in a Fino way rather than the classic Oloroso dried fruits. I’m not the biggest fan of the nose, but I have to say it picked up nicely on the palate. Sold out.
Bunnahabhain 25 yo 1989 (46%, Duncan Taylor ‘Single’ 2015, sherry cask #388337, 90 btl.)
As far as I can tell, the cask number and the yield of the Duncan Taylor bottling suggest an Octave cask finish.
Nose: yet another style. More classic, aromatic sherry now. Red berries, hints of stewed raspberries and plums. Melons. Nicely combined with Bunnahabhain’s flowery honeyness. Add a few minty / eucalyptus note and subtle maritime hints. Pretty excellent. Mouth: sweet and fruity, like the others, but with more dried fruits like apricots and prunes. The balance of fresh fruits and Oloroso fruits is just right. The marzipan and toffee notes are there as well. However towards the end it becomes a tad too winey (like a red wine finish) with hints of clove. Finish: medium long, a bit winey and oaky again. Lingering red fruits and soft pepper as well.
I really like the added hints of (Oloroso) sherry on the nose, but on the palate you sense the “high-pressure” wine influence of an Octave cask which cools down my initial impression. No stunner after all. Around € 290 (is that the box?). Still available in a few places.
Nose: quite classic in the sense that it’s rather fruity (lemon, peach, banana, a slightly Irish combo) while also adding mineral notes (limestone) and whiffs of coconut oil. Floral honey. Wood shavings. Light grassy touches as well as a vegetal edge. Mouth: again quite an Irish profile. Banana and citrus notes, (pink) grapefruit. Vanilla custard. Lightly bittersweet hints of ginger and green oak. Faint waxy notes. Finish: medium long and rather oily, with grassy notes, oak spices and lingering fruits.
Nose: similar lemon notes, but in this there are more buttery notes. Hints of sweet muesli. Marzipan. Traces of smoke underneath, almost a Caol Ila touch. Light minty notes. The vegetal side is also present here, more prominent than in the Sansibar, making this the slightly dirty one. Mouth: this is funny and rather unique with the obvious smoky notes. This is in fact similar to (sweet) Coal Ila. Hints of sweet engine oil, something gingery, something acrid and light liquorice before it develops nice mocha / coffee flavours. Not the obvious Auchentoshan, great fun. Finish: medium long, mostly on sweet roasted flavours.
Around € 145.
I can’t deny the Irishness of the Sansibar bottling works a treat. But then again the 1990 from The Whiskyman is much more unconventional, slightly nervous and deviant (which suits this label well). Both really interesting and so not what you get from official releases.
Two Inchgower 1991 bottlings today. When independent bottlers share a cask, one of them bottles it and sells part of the bottles which are then labeled by both. In this case the colour of the cap foil is identical.
Nose: initially a bit closed. Malty notes and muesli. Dusty grains. The alcohol seems to block some aroma. More fruits after a while, garden fruits like pears, apples and peaches. Grassy notes, light chalky hints too. Mouth: again some mineral and chalky notes at first, then overtaken by ripe fruits. Apples, pears and greengages. Lots of eau-de-vie notes. Picks up spices along the way (pepper, ginger) and mineral notes. The fruity aftertaste reminds me of some (younger) Irish malt whiskey (very light maracuja). Finish: medium long, loosing its fruity notes and fading on spices and mocha.
Nose: maybe a bit sweeter and fruitier, maybe not. Same mix of grainy notes, common fruits, hay and subtle minerals. Touches of Haribo. Maybe identical whisky (although the age is different) anyway so far very hard to set apart. Mouth: rather more spirity at first, or make that more eau-de-vie-like. More punch, more spices, or so it seems. Nice unripe pineapple, then some lemon zest and these minerals. Slightly more oak perhaps, which makes it hotter and more closed. But very tiny differences, if any. Finish: same.
Around € 130.
We’ve had some excellent old Inchgower (1974 and 1982 spring to mind) but these two don’t come anywhere close. I see a couple of really nice touches but overall they’re rather closed and spirity. Probably identical (or very very similar) whiskies.
Three sister casks of Glen Keith 1992 in a direct comparison today. All of them are 21 years old and bottled in 2013-2014. I had some other 1992s lined up but I feared it would become too boring, so I decided to throw in the new Glen Keith 1995 in the Liquid Treasures series.
Glen Keith 21 yo 1992 (50,9%, The Nectar of the Daily Drams 2013)
Nose: half fruity, half grassy. Pear, apple and gooseberries. Soft vanilla and marzipan. Then some hay and dried yellow flowers. Hints of clay as well. The grassy touches are joined by mild spices from the oak. Mouth: the wood becomes more prominent now. It’s still fruity but there’s also ginger, pepper and liquorice. A bit of a tangy alcoholic kick as well, which limits the space for other aromas. Fruits and grasses. Finish: medium, with sweet herbs, marzipan and lemon candy.
Around € 115. Maybe still available if you look around.
Glen Keith 21 yo 1992
(48,2%, The Whisky Fair 2014, bourbon barrel, 201 btl.)
Nose: slightly warmer, more honeyed and beehivey, with less of the dried grasses. As if a little Caperdonich 72 was added to the Daily Dram. Hints of tropical fruits and vanilla. Traces of strawberries and mirabelles. Nicer but maybe a bit simpler. Mouth: shopping in the fruit department. Banana, juicy pear, tangerines, papaya. Slightly Irish actually. Vanilla marshmallows. Melon candy. Light ginger and pepper from the oak. Great surprise, utterly fruit. Finish: quite long, still very fruity en seductive, with a hint of drying oak.
Around € 120. Still available in some places.
Glen Keith 21 yo 1992
(49,5%, Tasting Fellows 2013, bourbon barrel #120610, 180 btl.)
Nose: again a warmer, fruitier version. Apricots, yellow plums, a little pineapple and papaya even. Nice beeswax and oak polish in the background. Touches of bubblegum as well. Great fruit basket. Mouth: a mix of the above, which means a lot of warm fruity notes, with a bit more oak spices. Mocha and a hint of caramel too. Vanilla cake. Nutmeg and pepper towards the end. The fruits becomes slightly more zesty / grapefruity now. Finish: long, fruity and spicy, with the return of grassy notes and firm oak.
Around € 100 back then. Sold out.
Glen Keith 20 yo 1995 (48,6%, Liquid Treasures ‘Travel to Mars’ 2015, bourbon hogshead)
Nose: quite different. There’s some pear and yellow apple, but it’s missing the warm fruits of the others. Instead it’s full of malty notes, coupled to unripe banana and some vegetal notes, as if it hadn’t lost it new-make notes yet. Funny how maturation can work out so differently. Lemon peel as well. Mouth: similar green, unripe fruits. Pears and green banana. Icing sugar. Malt cookies. Barley sugar with hints of pepper and ginger. Finish: medium short, grainy, with candied lemon and pepper.
Around € 120. Still available.
The Daily Dram bottling comes last in the trio. It’s the most alcoholic and it misses the exotic touches of the other 1992s. The other two are virtually the same on the nose, but the Whisky Fair bottling seems the fruitiest on the palate. Both excellent whiskies though, if you fancy fruit bombs.
The 1995 is entirely different, it seems so much more immature although it’s only one year younger.