4 Highland Parks (partially peated)

What I mean by partially peated is that Highland Park are only doing about 20% of its maltings themselves, which comes out at about 40ppm. The rest they get from Tamdhu or Simpson courtesy of the Edrington Group, and that holds little to no peat whatsoever. Roughly estimated it makes for about 8ppm in Highland Parks core products. This doesn't mean all HP's have the same peat level and I think both higher and lower amounts of peated whiskies in a vat occurs now and again, and maybe even some 40ppm or 0ppm bottlings can be found(?). Anyway, lets see if these ones have any peat in them.


Highland Park 10yo 1992-2003 45% Blackadder cask#20569

This one comes from a refill sherry cask and has the pale color of tap water, which makes the "no coloring" statement on the label a bit excessive, but it's good to know anyway. The taste is dry and peaty, far from any other HP I've ever had, kind of reminds me of some of the very bad batches of Bowmore 12. After resting for awhile it may have changed a bit? No, not much, still kind of raw, rubbery, spirity and very dry. Water might do the trick? Water just provokes it and it now makes for a mean and angry whisky. Spirity, dry and rubbery. There should be a warning against adding water to this one on the label.

Foul stuff, a cask that never should be bottled as a single: 2


Highland Park 24yo 47.6% Vom Fass

I don't think I have tried a cask strength whisky from Vom Fass yet. I believe Vom Fass is a whisky shop up by the northern German border to Denmark. A pale golden color, perhaps a bit more palatable than the Blackadder? Let's hope so. It smells light honey, vanilla, choriander and cinnamon, sweet, light and all to pleasant so far. Could it be one of those deceivingly light and sweet whiskies that you can drink as if it was water, until you suddenly hit the floor? (drink responsibly!) The taste is hot cinnamon and sweet ginger, nice and playful. Too bad it lacks a real finish, it's just like when the palate get over the initial shock over this light and comforting sweetness, there's nothing more there. There is a small hint of peatiness in it, and it's perhaps one of the lightest and easiest whiskies I have ever tried.

Something you'd expect at an old gentleman's club as an aperitif to caviar: 7


Highland Park 35yo 1975-2011 51.6% The Whisky Agency & The Nectar

A joint bottling, something that I'm not too familiar with other than that two IB's contributes in a vat for different reasons. To push the end result of one whisky above 40%, or to try and form some collegial bond between businesses? I have no idea. Darkest color so far today, yet this is from an ex-bourbon cask, shows that color most often tells you little to nothing at all about what kind of whisky you're in for. It smells bitter and way more peaty than the prior two. Smoke, herbs, eucalyptus and gruel, fruity baby food.. yuk! But on the other hand, the peaty and herbal/bitter stuff are interesting. The taste is full on cinnamon, reb bell peppers, peat, kind of grainy, orange peel, lemon seeds, sour green grapes, leather, complex stuff.

So much going on, I like it more than I think some of the purists will: 7.5


Highland Park 20yo 1989-2009 51% Malts of Scotland cask#10521

This one is called triple wood, my only other experience with such a mature method, as far as I know, is the Laphroaig triple wood, which now is back on the market. But not my favorite though. Maybe this one will change my mind? However, I do not know what kind of casks have been used in this one, but I'm assuming sherry, bourbon and perhaps port? It holds an orange hue which to me can be translated to the bourbon wood not being the biggest contributor. The nose shows signs of some oloroso sherry notes, sweet honey and cinnamon on top of red bell peppers, light peat and rubber. The taste is sweet and light, more bourbon notes now, sweet vanilla, cinnamon again, egg cream liqueur (Bol's), thick and creamy, egg fluff, a real sweet dessert treat.

This one is immensely sweet, just a bit too much, otherwise splendid: 7



Next distillery: Port Ellen Distillery

What to come after the Peaty Sessions?

Lately I have embarked on a journey through tastings of most of the peaty distilleries in Scotland, with many highlights, Ardmore was a great surprise, Laphroaig did well in the first tasting, while Bruichladdich, Talisker and Lagavulin were right on the money. Others such as Bowmore, Caol Ila, Port Ellen and Ardbeg didn't perform up to my expectations this time. This streak will continue throughout February with some Highland Park tonight, followed by some Port Ellen before rounding it all off with some peated Highland malt from Benromach.

But then what?

It's not more than about half a year back that I decided to do mostly verticals instead of just putting together random sessions with random whiskies. And it has been a pleasant change as I now feel that I get a much better understanding of what "style" each distillery contributes. Doing verticals is recommended, so I'll continue down that road. But having done so much peaty stuff, its now time for a change. And moving forward after the peaty sessions are done, there will be tasted 10 different distilleries that I will for now call the "Off the Beaten Path"-Sessions. Sláinte!

4 Caol Ilas, 3 of them at wild strength...

Wild strength? 60+%? What I mean is that when a whisky surpasses 60%abv at time of bottling, there are two factors that always plays in as far as I'm concerned. As always, one of these are if it's any good? If yes, then all problems are solved. What I find if the answer should be no, then that whisky is often helped by a small drop of water, especially if it's an old whisky, or a whisky from a very active cask. But if it's what I call a "young & spirity" whisky, I most often find it to be no or very little help in dilution whatsoever. It's all down to the spirit. So I hope the two high strength 12yo's from Caol Ila finishing this tasting will prove to be very well made spirit, or they might take some water and prove me wrong anyway. We'll see.


Caol Ila 10yo 2000-2011 54.6% Malts of Scotland cask#309876

The youngest one, and the one with lowest strength in this vertical, from a bourbon hogshead. I know that there are many Caol Ila fans out there, and that it's one of those whiskies that's receiving high expectations when given at tastings. I have never felt too sure about it, it seems to be one of those whiskies that's neither nor, never fantastic, yet never disappointing. Maybe this will be different? Color of white wine, typical bourbon wood. The nose is burnt, citric, acidic, burnt cotton and high on drying fish and salt water steam. Coastal, in lack of a better word. The taste is drying, sour apples, lemon jelly, vanilla, pineapple juice and greasy chicken skin. A lot fruitier than what the nose suggested, with an almost fat and greasy finish. I'll add a few drops of water to see what happens. Now it turns worse, and even though this is perhaps the first glimmer of peat so far, the water makes it dirty, sort of glue-like and spirity.

A nice whisky, but there's no coherence between nose and palate: 5.5


Caol Ila 25yo 1982-2007 60.8% First Cask cask#741

I have not yet tried a whisky at cask strength from First Cask, but the ones that I have already tried have all been decent. It's rare to find bourbon-matured whiskies keeping above 60%abv after 25 years in oak. Distilled two years before my vintage... Good times. One that I've only purchased a sample of, a said to be, 3cl sample from whiskysamples.eu. Good stuff, but what kind of puts me just a bit off is that in my tulip-formed whisky glass which holds cl-measures, it barely reaches 2cl. This isn't the first time this has happened to me, but thankfully it's not the standard of whiskysamples.eu, which I most often find, are doing a very good job. But just so it's known, the level was about a third down from what it should be in this one. It smells sweeter and thicker than the MoS version, mahogany wood, honey, a bit rubbery, choriander, lime, ginger bread dough, fresh bakery, pleasant! The peat kicks in after a while and releases some smoked lambs meat and sweet korma (indian cuisine). Nothing much Islay-ish about this tasting so far. The taste is intensely citric, again grapejuice, lime peel, orange zest, more bitter than sour this time, and I think it's gonna need some water. With additional water it turns more creamy, the bitterness becomes more like a mustard bitterness, thick, vanilla, hints of guinness stout and ribs crisp (Norwegian christmas holiday traditional feast food, I just couldn't find a translation that fitted, but anyway, it's the crispy, salted and extremely greasy and fatty outside of the pork ribs). Anyway, it's thick, fruity, oaky and spicy.

A very nice Caol Ila: 6.5


Caol Ila 12yo 60.2% James MacArthur's

Why do I have this whisky after the rather higher in strength 25yo? I just gave you the answer, it was a 25yo. Most often whisky does tend to tame a bit when aged over such a period of time, and with such a small difference in %abv, I thought this might have a more expressive character. A nice light color, smells thick and dry, sort of like some salted butter biscuits and smoked parm ham. dry pork ham or sausages would be my guess if nosed blind and I didn't know it was whisky. Deceiving whisky!!! But ever so good, so far. The taste is sulphury, intensely, rustic, red paprika powder, cinnamon, cloves, beeswax, smoked herring, and intense ginger. Amazing, Old CS samples from James MacArthur's never seizes to amaze me.

Amazing old rustic and intense stuff: 7


Caol Ila 12yo 64.8% James MacArthur's cask#560

As you see, this is the second cask strength Caol Ila at 12yo and 60+%abv at this tasting, and they're both from the Fine Malt Selection... Dunno what that means, but I'm hoping this crazy strength will make all my dream come through, or at least this one, that is. And by the way, this one is from a single cask. Wait, I must say that, imo. you don't get an impression of a distillery tasting the 12, 15 and 18yo OB in one tasting, as they're all designed to fit a pretty big audience. I think, and I don't mean to sound as if I know it all, that you really get to a distillery's core and soul by trying a vertical of some likely and some unlikely whiskies by different bottlers, including some IB's of course. You will of course taste something good and something bad(not that good), but all in all you will see a much more widespread display of that distillery's capacity than what you do by just drinking standard original bottlings. Anyway, back to the tasting now! This one smells Mostly peppery and peaty, a pretty harsh presentation, The smoke is exceeded by the peppery notes, and it's almost a bit overwhelming. The taste is, if ever so peaty and spirity, quite dull. I think it needs some water(!!!). The taste now becomes more of a crossbreed between a peaty Islayer and a vanilla-infused Highlander. It's very fresh, sweet, thick and juicy whisky, but it has huge peaty note hanging on the backdrop. It seems I have been misguided by myself in my presentation of this session. This one is definitively better when diluted. That being said, it will never be a winner in my book...

It goes from mediocre to good when diluted, but for a single cask bottling: 5.5



Next distillery: Highland Park Distillery (Discreet Peat)

4 Laphroaigs at cask strength distilled in the 90's. Peaty!!!

This should be interesting, as there's only one distillery in all of Scotland that I'm consistently never buying anything other than Cask Strength whiskies of. It's Laphroaig. This is first of all because it seems to me that the what happens when I dilute my Laphroaig, it almost never gets any better. And almost all Laphroaig that I've ever had at cask strength has been kinda spectacular. I have had one or two nice samples of bottlings at about 40%abv, but never anywhere close to the good CS versions. There, I said it, and I'm sure many will disagree, but that's my opinion.


Laphroaig 20yo 1990-2010 50.6% Creative Whisky Company cask#5928

It has been said that Laphroaigs distilled in the middle to late 90's seemed to a bit less expressive, to use a finer word, than bottlings from before that. I have however only tried one Laphroaig distilled in the 80's and that was amazing, and a couple ones distilled in the early 00's, again splendid stuff. So, all of these have been distilled in the 90's, but only this one prior to the aforementioned "down-period". This one is light in color. The nose is classical Islay stuff, peaty, coastal, turpentine, gasoline, smoke, wet moss, honey and burnt fabric. The taste is kind of prickly on the tongue, again these huge burnt acidic notes, turpentine, gasoline and burnt rubber, the peatiness is fighting with all weird and sort of chemical notes, and all in all, though I wouldn't say it's a bad whisky, it's certainly for the ones that prefers the whisky for the mouth to be like a Pollock painting is to the eye.

I think this whisky will make more sense the more time you spend with it: 6.5


Laphroaig 12yo 1998-2010 52.4% The Whisky Agency

The Whisky Agency usually doesn't bottle whiskies at this young age, but seeing how much alcohol has left already, I think it's probably a clever move on their part. From an ex-bourbon hogshead. What is the difference between an ex-bourbon hogshead and a bourbon hogshead, as I see both cask descriptions are being used. I think it's the same, but the latter sounds a wee bit better as very few things that are good starts with "ex-". White wine color, the nose is sweet, all on aniseeds, vanilla and cumin. Some peat in the background, but it's more like a sweet smokiness than Islay peat as I know it. The taste is full of black pepper and licorice, pretty bland for such a young Laphroaig, I'm afraid this is pretty much it of what I can give you so far. The aftertaste is burnt and peppery. I'm afraid this was a bit of a letdown, or maybe my expectations were to high?

Pretty one-dimensional and light Laphroaig: 4


Laphroaig 13yo 1998-2011 52.5% Malts of Scotland cask#11007

Well, the bad news first. It has the same vintage and almost same strength as the Whisky Agency version. The difference is that this one comes from a sherry cask. But it's a sherry hogshead, which to me, means it's a small cask that they've refilled with old sherry, something many do nowadays as the prices on the cask market rises. I've been a bit skeptical to this procedure, but perhaps this one could help change my mind? It's a bit darker than the bourbon-matured ones in this tasting, but not much. The nose is heavier, honey, peat, dried paprika, chopped onions, mint leaves, cinnamon, a crisp and clean sherried one. The taste is burnt, dark chocolate, toffee, walnuts, dry wheat bread, intricate and alluring, it gives me the impression I can handle A LOT of this whisky. The aftertaste is of licorice and sunflower oil.

Again very simple, but I think the cask adds a dimension or two: 5.5


Laphroaig 13yo 1996-2010 57.6% Malts of Scotland cask#7307

This one, on the other hand, is from a bourbon hogshead, and it's pale as straw, but what intrigues me the most is that it has a noticeably higher %abv. Which is always a good thing when it comes to Laphroaig, at least I think so. The nose is huge on marzipan, roasted almonds, balsamic vinegar, dried sage, smoke, gunpowder, bonfire and a very light and easy sweetness, sort of the one you get when pan-frying spring onions. The taste is again, much bigger than what were in the prior two, massive peat attack, honey, roasted almonds, pickled anchovies, cinnamon, feta cheese and sun-dried tomatoes. A rich, smoky, sumptuous and playful Laphroaig, just the way I like them.

The definite highlight of this tasting: 8



Next tasting: Caol Ila Distillery

Cask project: Work in progress

A couple months or so back, I told you I was going to do another cask project, which means putting new-make spirit on casks myself and see what happens. An now, after about 8-10 weeks of fino sherry (left side), and amoroso sherry (right side) in cask, I have emptied the small casks and added the Tullibardine spirit of 69%abv. As you might be able to spot, the fino sherry has gotten quite a hue, but that's mainly caused by the cask holding cherry wine in last cask attempt. But what's more of a mystery to me is why the fino sherry seems to gave evaporated so much more than the amoroso, as the contents were equal and so has temperature and all other things been. Anyway, let's see how this goes. I won't set a time limit as I'll be sampling along the way this time to try and perfect the result as much as humanly possible. Remember: Things do happen at a rapid pace in small casks.

4 Bruichladdichs distilled in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.

Bruichladdich's is the second to least peated Islay malt, after the unpeated Bunnahabhain. But newer versions from the distillery, called Port Charlotte and Octomore are plenty enough peated to make up for what could be lacking in the Bruichladdichs. I am going to have a Port Charlotte Vertical later on, but this will do for now. And btw, the question I asked a post or two ago, on wether Ardmore is a Highland or Speyside distillery.. Well, many sources seems to say it's a Speyside Distillery, and just as many claims it to be a Highlander. (yes, and I know Speyside is in the Highland district, but you get my point...) Since I'm no geography expert I've just let the distillery decide, and they do refer to themselves as a Highland distillery. But back to Islay, and Bruichladdich, and 4 different decades of distillation.


Bruichladdich 14yo 1991-2005 46% OB WMD II The Yellow Submarine

One named to pay tribute to a Submarine discovered on the shores of Islay, probably from the 2nd world war. It has got nothing to do with that beatles song. Honey golden color. Smells light and herbal, some smoke and some cinnamon as well as milky way and toffifee, a sweet sensation. The taste is again very herbal, notes of bitter herbs like aubergine, yarrow and dandelion. There is little to no peat and coastal flavors in this one, and to say my honest opinion, it's sort of boring. After a while it becomes sweeter, more mustard and honey notes as well as plenty more herbs. This is interesting, if I were to forget it's a Bruichladdich and try it blind, I think I'd put my money on Glen Scotia or Littlemill, or even Auchentoshan. A good whisky, but way on the other side of the palate spectra than what I usually find in a Bruichladdich.

Herbal quality stuff: 6


Bruichladdich 18yo 1970-1989 46% Signatory Vintage cask#20354-20359 btl.206/1000

This one is from the Invergordon Distillers Era, later to be bought by Whyte & MacKay, current owners of Dalmore, Jura, Fettercairn and maybe a couple more. These were the owner's which mothballed the distillery back in 1995. Now the distillery are seeing better days. This is a miniature I purchased from The Whisky Shop in Edinburgh some years ago. Has a very slight evaporation, but content is still reaching well above the neck line. Golden brown color, smells much peatier than the "boat". Smoky, peaty, waxy, salty, fish sauce(asian alternative to soy sauce), cigars, fried duck liver and burnt wool. Sounds a bit excessive maybe, but that's what I'm getting, and its all good so far. The taste is amazing, the peatiness follows a rustic, musty, oaky, cheddar cheese and smoked sausage style. It's not as powerful as the nose suggested, but it's so refined. You can immediately, not just by the nose, but also the palate, instinctively tell this is a whisky-style which is getting harder and harder to find nowadays. The finish is sweet, definitively sherried, or at least some of these casks have held sherry prior to this whisky. Oloroso sherry, wax and honey. It's layer upon layer of old rustic, sherried and sweet. W&M must've been fools to mothball this distillery.

It doesn't get much better than this: 9.5


Bruichladdich 40yo 1964-2004 43.1% OB Forty

One from even further back in time, when the owners were Associated Scottish Distillers Ltd. And 40 years of age. Despite the relatively (keep in mind 40yo) low strength, this is a cask strength bottling. There were only 550 bottles released from this series, so I'm one of the lucky ones who gets to try this malt then. I think this bottling is a result of what can happen when new and ambitious owners buys a distillery with lots of old stock left. We all know what has happened at Bruichladdich since. Oh, the color is again this beautiful golden honey color. The nose shows me this needs some time by itself to open up. After about 15 minutes it tells me that it's a minty and oaky whisky, not much going on here so far, but the fragrances can be misleading. The taste is burnt, caramel, peat, low fat milk, salty licorice, dried oregano and garlic. I think this one needs a drop of water. With some water added it opens up a bit on radishes, plums, cinnamon and melon, a sort of fruity and spicy combination, with small hints of peat in the background. It's not that far from the Signatory in some aspects, but it lacks the sherried style, and where the S/V excels with greatness, this one holds back and just lets me frustratingly linger the content in my mouth on while I desperately hope there's more flavors to come. When that's done, I swallow and what aftertaste might could've been has vanished into an indecisive mixture of peat, oak and dry notes. It's a hard mountain to climb after the S/V, maybe it should've all been bottled earlier?

Maybe a cask or two in the vat wasn't all that good: 6


Bruichladdich 14yo 1986-2000 55.6% Scott's Selection

The last one in the show, and the only one to pass 46%abv in strength. I usually like my peated whiskies at a higher strength, especially the likes of Laphroaig and Caol Ila. This is the lightest one in color, white wine. Scott's Selection is a brand that really doesn't have a reputation at all I think, probably due to the fact that it's not much talked about and rarely found outside the UK. It smells light, hay and banana liqueur, sweet and light stuff alongside some peat that's not very coastal, reminds me a bit of the Old Ballantruan. The taste is full on cinnamon and honey, bananas and vanilla, leather and stimorol bubble gum, a multi faceted whisky. Finished with one layer, there's another one to discover. Although it lacks some finesse, it's a whisky that's hard to say any other negative about. The aftertaste is short and spicy, peppery, chili, dried paprika, dried onions and glue(!).

Shows that these small IB's can be great if you dare try them once in a while: 8



Next tasting: Laphroaig Distillery

Another go at Port Ellen, 5 this time

I had a Port Ellen vertical not that long ago, and then it was, like now, a majority of Signatory bottlings, and I was a bit disappointed then. This time around the bottlings are both older and higher in alcohol strength. Except for one sinner that I've decided to give another shot at redemption as I think there might have been some flaws with the container last time I had it.


Port Ellen 26yo 43% Signatory Vintage

I had this one in last PE tasting as well, but from another decanter that time, and it was rubbish. Tasted like some stale tea, if such a thing exists. Tame and nauseating. I hope that this one can prove my suggestions of a whisky ruined by exterior circumstances to be true. Okay, this is pretty devastating, it says on the label that the container, which is a ceramic decanter, contains 5cl, yet the content is approximately 3cl. The smell is light, grass and apple juice. The taste is Light like 20% vanilla liqueur, subtract the vanilla.

No nay never no more: 1


Port Ellen 26yo 1982-2009 50% Old Malt Cask Douglas Laing cask#5398

Actually, I wasn't going to try this one today, but it came on as a substitute due to the 26yo S/V hitting the toilet even before dramming reached one fifth of content. Light in color, smells of sea salt, brine, licorice, peat, oaky, engine oil, gasoline, reminds me somehow of very young Laphroaig (not a bad thing though). The taste is peppery, peaty, coastal with brine, sea salt, smoked oysters, burnt juniper and leather. Very nice. The aftertaste is red onions, leather, licorice, balsamic vinegar and cloves. A weird, but very good Port Ellen. If the distillery weren't shut down I can never imagine this one being bottled at this age by an indie. But again, it's fun to try a Port Ellen that's so "different".

Not for PE nostalgias, but a wonderful malt it is: 7


Port Ellen 28yo 1982-2010 53% The Nectar of The Daily Dram

I have been looking forward to this one, with all the CS Port Ellens roaming around at the end of last decade and forth, I've heard that many superb bottlings were released from german and belgian bottlers. Let's see. Smells more withdrawn than the OMC, maybe it needs a small drop of water? I'll give it a rest. A few minutes later it has started opening up on light honey, butter biscuits, sage, salty butter, green paprika and mild peat. The taste is sweet and light, vanilla and grassiness, not what I was expecting, I think it needs some water. With about 1 1/2 teaspoon added water, to be precise, it turns fresher, more floral, more spirity and that cream crackers/butter biscuit notes comes to show. I must admit I'm a bit disappointed with this one.

Light, easy, little to no peaty notes, I was expecting a bit more: 3.5


Port Ellen 27yo 1983-2010 55.7% Signatory Vintage

This one from Signatory should be a bit better. What I like about Signatory's cask series is that it seems such a safe bet. Not always outstanding, but almost never a disappointment. Same light golden color as the other three. Smells much bigger, salty, briny, salted cod liver, smoked salmon, dried seaweed, reminds me of summer fishing along the coast of Norway in my childhood. Ah, the memories... But back to the tasting. The flavors are rather explosive, lots of peat and black pike caviar, salty and bittersweet. It sure has a lot more balls than the prior tow, or three for that matter. the aftertaste is burnt and phenolic.

More Islay character in this one, a rugged one: 7


Port Ellen 27yo 1983-2010 59% Signatory Vintage cask#517

Impressive strength after 27 years on wood. I like my whiskies potent. And the stronger, the better often, as it allows me to play more with water and such. The nose reminds me of sweet marzipan and peaty smokiness, rather simple yet very bold. The taste is jalapenos, peat smoke, red paprika, honey, waxy, dark chocolate, orange peel and bonfire. This is one of those that simply doesn't need additional water. I know there is a chance even the most perfect bare whiskies will improve by adding water, but if it's standing so well on it's own I most often find water to decrease instead of increase quality. The aftertaste is extremely rustic, like peppery chorizo and smoked ham, reminds me of some italian meat delicacy shops I've been to when on holiday. Also lots of fresh herbs, basil, chives, tarragon and rosemary. The finest one in this session by far, but also the most complex.

This one is amazingly rustic, quality on all parts: 8.5



Next distillery: Bruichladdich Distillery

4 peaty Speysiders/Highlanders(?) from Ardmore Distillery

So, is Ardmore from Speyside or Highland? According to the Norwegian whisky-wikipedia www.whiskywiki.no it's a Speyside Distillery, but according to www.whiskybase.com it's a Highland Distillery. Jury's out on this one until more research's been done. I'll come back with a conclusion in my next tasting notes. Anyway, a more prolific producer what peated whisky is concerned on the scottish mainland is hard to find, maybe Springbank, Ben Nevis or Benromach can be put in the same category, but I don't think their palates are as peat-dominated even though ppm levels might suggest so. I think this one will be interesting...


Ardmore 14yo 1981-1995 40% G&M

I may have very little experience with this malt, but I hope it doesn't taste just of peat due to the low strength. Golden and probably artificially adjusted color. The nose seems sweet and light yet peaty. A good one so far. Peat and lots of vanilla. The taste is sweet, all on peat and vanilla once again. It would be too easy to claim that it lacks complexity, but the flavours in this one are so clean it makes for a perfect starter whisky warming up the palate for even more peat.

I think this is a perfect peaty lightweighter: 7


Ardmore 14yo 1982-1996 50.9% James MacArthur's

Distilled one year after the surprisingly good 1981 from G&M, and at same age. Maybe this one can climb a point or even two more because it's cask strength? Not necessarily though, let's see. After just 14 years in the wood 50.9% aren't much. Shows to be a bit of a leaking cask? Pale golden color, about 50/50 diluted apple juice. It smells of hay and peat, old barn smell, musty, green chilies and dried peat. This is interesting, there are few other Speyside/Highland whiskies that carries so much character. The taste is again very sweet, but more on honey than vanilla this time, honey, butter, bitter white wine and cough syrup. A very good one indeed, I have to say it shows there's whisky on the mainland (or the biggest Isle if you like) that can carry peat just as well as any Islayer.

Seems Ardmores reputation is put way under the quality it holds: 8


Ardmore 18yo 1977-1996 59.3% Cadenhead's

The first of two Ardmore's by Cadenhead's tonight, both distilled in 1977. Thi should be something else, at almost 60%abv. Lighter in color than the prior two whiskies in this tasting. Nose: This is the stuff, heavy peat, smoky, cigar smoke and a dry white wine again, oregano, herbal extract, balsamico vinegar. These whiskies does have a nice peaty, dry white wine scent that I haven't found in any other whiskies so far. Lots of character that I appreciate as the whisky seems to have a lot to offer even looking past the peat. The taste is again sweet, honey, vanilla, extremely good. Nice and easy like the 1981, yet all flavors seems ten times more intense. Again, some might say it lacks complexity, for me that's rubbish, this is great whisky and that's all that really matters to me. A whisky of a bygone era I suggest, or are today's Ardmores just as good?

Perfectly balanced: 8


Same distillation vintage, same bottler, nearly same strength and only one year on wood apart. Rating this one and the previous should be like splitting hairs. Maybe even the casks share similarities? Or it could be completely different? Oh yes, this one is all white, no color at all quite amazing after 17 years in the wood. The lighter side of white wine color. It smells burnt and peaty, no sweetness in this one. Bitter like cheap deodorant and paint. Let's taste this monstrosity. It tastes burnt and bitter, from a bad cask I'm sure. When waters' added it just becomes even more bitter.

I'm wondering why this one was even bottled as a single malt: 2



Next tasting: Port Ellen Distillery

4 Bowmores continuing my peaty streak

I know I said I was gonna have some Bruichladdichs today, but as I now only have some crazy high strength PCs and some very old Laddies I think it might be a bit too weird a setup for a vertical. This means I'm instead doing a 2012 premiere with these Bowmores, one oldie and 3 youngsters.


Bowmore 21yo 1973-1994 43% OB

This should be amazing, I don't think I have ever been let down by a Bowmore distilled prior to 1980's. Where did they go wrong??? Well, at least they are now improving a bit with some nice batches, the Tempest being one of my highest recommendations if you are looking for a quality Bowmore fairly priced. Light bronze color, smells musty, peaty, phenolic, some sherry notes definitively, tannic, a bit acidic, cinnamon and mustard. Splendid! I'll give it some time to settle down even if the initial nosing was rather superb. Time opens it up a bit and it becomes a bit lighter and more perfumy. The taste is not the cleanest I've ever had, still musty and perfumy, also earthy notes, salt damp, beef stock, not much sherry influence left, neither any peatiness that I can detect. All in all it's a downward spiral from here on and out. The finish is grainy and light, not much going on now. It's a good malt, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't display the same volume on the palate as the nose promised.

All in all a good malt, not much more to say really: 5.5


Bowmore 13yo 1998-2011 49.7% Asta Morris cask#003

From a bourbon hogshead comes this whisky that's bottled at cask strength, but after only 13 years are already down below 50%abv. According to online information, Asta Morris is not a car, but an independent bottler. A new one, let's see what they have to offer. Golden hue. Smells light, sweet, vanilla, freshly chopped ginger, mint leaves, coconut juice, nothing wrong with this one although the style is perhaps as far from traditional Bowmore as you might get. The taste is Overwhelmingly sweet, coconuts juice again, flour sugar, mint drops and oak. A bizarre whisky that easily could've been mistaken for being white rum or any other sweet white spirit. Even though it's perfectly sip-able, it's just not what you'd expect from a Bowmore, or even a light Speysider for that matter.

Aperitif: 6


Bowmore 8yo 1999-2008 57.4% OB Feis Ile 2008

A dark whisky bottled for the Feis Ile festival. I think that Bowmore is one of these whiskies that does much of itself if bottled at young age and high strength, much like Laphroaig or Fettercairn. Red/brown hue, nice color, inviting. The smell is smoky, cinnamon, licorice, orange peel, port wine, dark chocolate and roasted garlic. I like it a lot so far. The taste is peaty, licorice and way too oaky for a whisky at this age. Needs some water. Water gives it a boost and creates hints of dry sherry, licorice and lime peel before it gives way to a blast of peat in the finish.

A peat bomb: 6


Bowmore 12yo 1994-2006 57.8% James MacArthur's

Ahhh, James MacArthur's, perhaps the most underestimated independent bottler on the market. Has a massive range of both rarities and quality, often combined. But one thing they do that I admire is that they buy casks at young age and bottles them even though maybe just 10 or 12 years old at cask strength. It's not about age, cask types, distilleries or price speculation, it's purely about quality. But what about this one, that's distilled right at the end of Bowmore's down period of the early 80's to early 90's. Light white wine color. Smells of peat and burnt sugar, rather simplistic but interesting. An honest malt, in lack of a better word. The taste is burnt, peaty and bitter. far from a connoisseurs treasure, but it has this sort of charming old style. The aftertaste is peaty and bitter, but in an unexpectedly good way.

reminding me of early-to-mid 2000's 12yo OB's, depart the spirity notes: 6.5
(And thank God for that!!!)



Next tasting: Ardmore Distillery (A peaty Speysider!!!)