In another glass, I have the original Octomore 1.1 to compare.

Octomore 5 yo 04.1
(62,5%, OB 2010, 167 ppm, 15.000 btl.)

Nose: the new one is hotter and sharper than the first release. I wouldn’t say it seems peatier, on the contrary, the sharpness blocks some aromas and brings out a more biscuity side. It even seems younger (with more apple peel and synthetic sweetness). No ashtray blast, no garage smells. Some almonds, soft vanilla and herbal notes instead (heather, juniper). Rounder, more citrusy, more aromatic, but less smoky and peaty (yes, that may sound contradictory). Mouth: very clean, oily and intense. It feels like it has an anaesthetic effect? Tarry and grassy with a peppery hotness, but again a less mind-boggling intensity than Octomore 1.1. Heather notes again with herbal tea. Faint anti-septic notes. More plain smoke now, still accompanied by a slightly artificial fruitiness. Finish: medium long, with a veil of smoke and the lingering candied notes.

I wouldn’t have guessed this is the peatiest dram around. Not sure why, but the first release seems smokier and peatier, on the nose as well as in the mouth. Even though it’s not a bad dram, shouldn’t we conclude the new one is less impressively experimental and less true to the concept? Around € 100.

Score: 84/100

In Europe we can now find limited quantities of three White Oak versions: a blended version at 40% and the 5yo and 12yo single malt versions.

Akashi White Oak 5 yo (45%, OB 2011)

Nose: smooth with lots of yellow apple, powder sugar and angelica fruits. A bit synthetic. Honeyed tea. Corn flakes. Unfortunately there’s also a yeasty / rubbery side to it which doesn’t seem to fit, a strange mixture of plastics and cookie dough. Mouth: sweet with a rather weak attack. A simple malty core, with plenty of apple flavours again (cider) and grainy notes. Ginger maybe, but that’s about it. Not exactly raw but pretty immature and synthetic nonetheless. Finish: very short and rather grainy.

Although Eigashima is proud of its oldest Japanese license to distil whisky, this White Oak is a far way from more experienced producers like Yamazaki or Karuizawa. Around € 45.

Score: 67/100

Moneymusk was one of the oldest plantations in Jamaica. It was recently closed down. This pot-still rum was given an additional 3-month maturation in a Tempranillo Cask from Ribera del Duero.

Moneymusk 5 yo (46%, Renegade 2009, tempranillo finish, 3960 btl.)

Nose: sweet banana pie. Apricot and tinned lychee. Some marzipan and nougat. Yellow raisins. Nice balance between the grapes and the sugar cane molasses. The tempranillo wine doesn’t overpower the typical Jamaican rum profile, which is nice. Mouth: a little less enjoyable – the grapes and the alcohol kick give it a kind of cheap brandy profile. A pity. Some toffee notes, spiced up with mint and pepper. Finish: short but elegant finish.

A light rum with the wine finish luckily in the background. This doesn’t make me a rum fan, but it’s enjoyable.

Around € 40.

The distillery already jumped on this “terroir” wagon in 2004, when whisky was distilled from Chalice barley grown on the Kentraw farm, less than a mile from the distillery. For Feis Ile 2010, this first Islay grown whisky was released as a five year-old.

Note that using local barley was obviously very common in the past, so this Bruichladdich is more precisely the first local Islay whisky in the past few decades.

Bruichladdich Islay barley 2004 (57,5%,
OB for Feis Ile 2010, fresh sherry butt #1667, 1060 btl.)

Nose: sweet and sour notes. Redcurrant, gooseberry… Rhubarb pie. Pêches Louis with brown sugar. There’s also a burnt element in the background and a winey overtone. Mouth: sweeter now, with notes of red candy and milk chocolate. Quite sour and sharp nonetheless. Roasted peanuts and bittersweet notes of caramel. A hint of soft pepper. Finish: warm and sweet.

A Bruichladdich with a big malty profile and highly acidic fruit notes. Not too bad but a nice marketing concept rather than a nice drinking whisky.

Score: 76/100

This was bottled at a 40% while my 1974/1979 version was bottled at 43%. As far as I know, 1979 was the only year in which Glen Grant decided to bottle a higher strength version (in a cardboard box) together with a normal version.

Glen Grant 5 yo 1968 (40%, OB 1973, 75 cl.)

Nose: this one is a bit more spirity and mineral than the 1974 version. The apples are still here, but most of the fragrant fruitiness is missing. A tad flatter and more grainy. A bit more sooty maybe. Mouth: weak start again. Malty. Apples again, but less expressive than the 1974. Simple with a herbal development towards the finish. Finish: not too long and quite grainy.

These old Glen Grants share the same profile. They’re simple but not bad. I prefer the 1974 edition, the nose is more attractive and the higher strength makes it more flavoursome. 

Score: 77/100

ps/ While these scores may seem rather low, I suggest to try them if you have a chance. They’re like oldtimer cars: to modern standards they may not be as complex or polished, but they have a character that we don’t see any more.

This is a good occasion to mention the Old Bottle Effect. While whisky will not change after being bottled, after many years the glass can start to interact with the spirit. There are a lot of doubts about this OBE (was it related to old distillation methods like direct firing, does the air inside the bottle have an effect or is it just the glass, does the light have an influence, etc.) but there seems to be a general consensus that there is an effect. Common OBE changes include lower peat levels, a certain dustiness / mushrooms and metallic notes.

Glen Grant 5 yo 1974 (43%, OB 1979
for Sileno Portgual, 75 cl.)

Nose: starts on porridge with a few mineral notes. Slightly metallic as well. Quite a lot of lemon. Wet books. Faint hints of motor oil. Interestingly, these notes are mixed with a nice tropical fruitiness of lime, apricot and passion fruit. Mouth: quite weak, with mostly the malt speaking. A few herbal notes come out, a few flowery notes and some liquorice (the wood, not the candy). Develops on apples. Not a high-flyer but not bad either. Finish: completely on apple juice (rather spectacular) but quite short.

Difficult to score. On the one hand, this is not up to modern standards in terms of density and flavour complexity. On the other hand I love those old noses and it drinks like lemonade. Sadly, I’m not living in Madrid any more, because this would have been perfect for a hot summer day.

Score: 81/100

Glenburgie was refurbished in 2004 and is still contributing to Ballantine’s. There is an official single malt bottling of Glenburgie 15 yo 1992 in the Chivas cask strength series. The bottle we’re reviewing here is a 5 year-old distilled in 1965.

Glenburgie 5 yo 1965 (43%, OB 1970, 75cl)

Nose: hints of orange juice. Slightly fragrant notes of coriander seeds and apricots. Develops on sweet yellow apple. Holds the middle between fruity, grassy and mineral notes. Not very complex or expressive but very nice for a 5 year-old, quite old-fashioned and perfectly enjoyable. Mouth: less sweet than I expected, even a bit weakish. Watery malt in the centre. Big hints of tea, a few woody notes and something vaguely metallic. A peaty / smoky hint in the background? Finish: long on fragrant apples with a hint of smoke.

Maybe not the most impressive old malt, but still nice as a standard malt from the 1960’s. Auction value around € 150.

Score: 84/100

There are quite some private owners of Bruichladdich’s Port Charlotte casks. Most are small bloodtubs (32 liter) but this one is from a bigger cask (first fill sherry hogshead) shared by three Italian guys (Giorgio d’Ambriosio, Franco di Lillo & Nadi Fiori, who was behind Intertrade and is now behind High Spirits). The spirit was matured for 5 years and filled into 3x 134 bottles with 3 resembling labels.

Port Charlotte 5y 2002
(46%, Nadi Fiori 2009, first fill sherry)

Nose: peat and barbecue ashes but with a fruity, sherried side (citrus, tangerine, melon). Hints of wet stones, slightly burnt bacon and eucalyptus. Tobacco. Very powerful and expressive but I thought it was a tiny bit young (read new-makeish) maybe, in the same way PC7 was better than PC5. Mouth: quite clean smoke with a salty edge. Sweet peat, some pears covered in chocolate. Lemon juice with lots of sugar. Keeps getting sweeter. Finish: long, sweet and peaty. Notes of roasted peanuts with a sugar coating. Barbecue ash again.

The peat in this Port Charlotte is really countered by the very sweet sherry. If Glenfarclas was ever to produce a heavily peated bottling, could it be similar? An interesting battle between two powers. Around € 115.

Score: 86/100

Some may notice that this score is slightly higher than the blind score I gave earlier. I know most reviewers tend to pursuit “objective” scores (i.e. based on the liquid regardless of distillery, price, age, packaging or “uniqueness”) but personally I find it justified to give one or two bonus points if it turns out to be exceptional value for money or unusual / invidiual whisky compared to its region or age. Think of it as school results: a first grader can get the same score as a sixth grader, although “objectively” they don’t have the same level of knowledge of course.

The original price was around € 100. If you want one now, prepare to pay at least twice as much on eBay. That’s a really nice profit for a 5 years old whisky, less than 6 months after its launch.

The Octomore has a magnificent packaging. The bottle is black with a matte finish and shiny black print. Very minimal and an instant classic.

Bruichladdich Octomore 01.1 5y 2001
(63,5%, OB 2008)

Nose: barbecue with olive oil. Some marine notes (seaweed), lemon and heather. Of course, these flavours are dominated by the ashes, the peat smoke and the alcohol. Although, I have to say, the peat is not that huge as I thought it would be. Really tarry though. With water, you get more garage associations: motor oil and diesel. Cigars. Grassy notes. Mouth: very powerful impact, creamy with a strong peatiness. It’s not often that whisky burns my throat, but this one managed to do it. There is a wave of white chocolate and roasted nuts which I found quite impressive and unexpected at the same time. Very unusual. A bit of salt as well. Tar again. With water, walnuts and lemon. Slightly peppered. Finish: barbecue with salty liquorice. Long aftertaste, rich and “condensed” peat.

I’m afraid this Octomore experiment was a starting point and the end at the same time, because it’s on the edge of becoming too peaty. There’s no room for further evolution unless they’re going to soften it and allow more flavours – I’m sure a lot of people will find it unpleasant already. Overall I appreciate the experiment and the end result.

Score: 87/100

  Bruichladdich 3D3
  Port Charlotte PC6