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