21 February 2017 Ruben Tullibardine

Tullibardine The Murray

Name: Tullibardine The Murray
Brand: Tullibardine
Rating: 3 (2 reviews)

In 2016 Tullibardine distillery created a Marquess Collection which honours Lord William Murray, the Marquess of Tullibardine.

first release is Tullibardine The Murray, matured in first-fill bourbon barrels for around 12 years and bottled at cask strength.

Tullibardine ‘The Murray’ 2004 (56,1%, OB 2016, Marquess Collection, first-fill bourbon, 6000 btl.)

Nose: curious. First there’s a dusty side to it, but it opens up nicely on soft fruits (nectarine, apple, lemon, a little mango eventually) and oak spices / shavings. Vanilla custard. A bright, rather blossomy nose.

Mouth: quite hot and spicy, sweet, with plenty of barley. Lemons and grapefruit. Some floral touches and (rose) pepper. Vanilla again. Clove and ginger. A little sweeter and more fruity with water, but the floral oaky side remains.

Finish: long, malty, still floral and spicy.

The high strength and the prominent bourbon oak give The Murray a certain floral, almost perfumy edge. Fairly simple whisky, not bad and in any case reasonably priced: around € 50.

Score: 83/100

6Comments

Add yours

1

Nick on 21 February 2017 at 10:04

50€ is a reasonable price for a mediocre NAS-whisky from a no name distillery? I guess somebody enjoys free samples a tad too much
2

WhiskyNotes on 21 February 2017 at 10:16

Ah, Nick, welcome back 😉

It says 2004 man, it’s not a NAS whisky. It’s also cask strength 56% and nicely packaged. I’ve seen higher prices for stuff that was much worse.

Also, here’s the receipt of my latest order from Whiskysite, it includes over half of the whiskies that I’ve reviewed lately: https://www.whiskynotes.be/whiskysite.jpg

I won’t publish all my receipts on line, but rest assured that I still pay for the majority of samples (especially distillery bottlings) but some people simply won’t believe that because other bloggers rely on freebies so much. Even then, stop whining, I try to be as honest as possible in my reviews regardless of the source of the juice. This is a well-made whisky, have you tried it yourself?

Feel free to comment or ask for explanations about my assessments, but don’t jump to conclusions right away. Have a nice day.
3

Nick on 21 February 2017 at 11:52

Well, 83/100 that’s not a world beater. From the description it more in a 105’s and A’bunadh’s class, which are cheaper and better according to you. And compared to Aberlour and Glenfarclas, not a grad cru distilleries themselves , Tullibardine is a no-name.

As for the free sample remarks, it might souded a little bit harsh, but from outsider’s perspective, your reviews got much industry-friendly after you got this medal. Or maybe you’re lucky and just taste only good stuff 🙂
4

Tabrulavubeg on 21 February 2017 at 11:58

From my POV, no need to justify your way of handling things, Ruben. Although I do understand why you make things clear in this matter. The day I don’t believe in someone’s ratings to be “honest” anymore, I’ll simply stop visiting their site, instead of making allusions.

Sound like an idea to you, Nick?
5

Nick on 21 February 2017 at 12:14

Why should I, Thomas? I still enjoy Ruben’s writing, and I don’t care much about ratings. It’s more stuff like above that annoys me.
6

WhiskyNotes on 21 February 2017 at 13:38

“not bad”, “fairly simple”, “reasonably priced”, of course that’s not a world beater. And yes, there are better whiskies, should that stop me from being mildly positive? Again, have you tried it? You can buy a sample from Whiskysite.nl

You’re right, I focus on good stuff (make that “interesting” stuff). I have too many samples already and I’m not planning to alter my schedule of “only” five whiskies a week (I do more head-to-heads though). There are loads of mediocre whiskies these days, but I will stop right away if you expect me to remind you of that week after week.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related posts