Review #110: Ben Nevis 21yr 1992/2013, 46% abv, Van Wees, ex-sherry butt, Cask #2312, 695 bottles

that's a lot of bottles

This is from Ben Nevis, which promises to be a little weird and possibly good, and Van Wees ("The Ultimate"), which is often curiously cheap. It's from a well-stuffed sherry butt, but very pale, so probably very refill.

nose: gristly malt and brown sugar. a dollop of tangy yoghurt, fresh green herbs, and then some faint sherry fruit and walnuts come out. hazelnuts and vanilla and citrus rind, too -- like a flavored coffee without the coffee.

palate: much bigger than I expected. bitter almonds and herbal notes, caramel, and vanilla.

finishes: sweet and grassy, oddly enough


I like this one a lot, actually: it's a pretty plain malt with a couple complications and some nice sherry seasoning, it's youthful despite its age, and it's big-bodied for 46%. So no bombshells here, but straightforward goodness.

score: 86

Review #109: Strathmill 37yrs 1974/2011, 44.5%, Archives, ex-bourbon, Cask #1231, 180 bottles

the mostly anonymous Strathmill

Saw today the new Supernova is going fast for US $180. I can't justify spending that much -- that's an Auriverdes plus an Oogie, or better yet, something with some real age. Like this Strathmill (admittedly, sold out a long time ago). Strathmill produces a lot of juice for Diageo; I don't know where it all goes. (J&B?) I have trouble keeping track of which distillery it is, but whiskyfun reviewed a couple recently.

nose: a little quiet, with lots of dried grass, but then also: apricots, lychee, peonies, pineapple, white chocolate. Some ginger tonic and wood spices. Lovely, gentle old ex-bourbon nose.

palate: like some fruit-infused old wood. yellow fruits and tonic reappear, but most of the flavor and the structure are woody -- dry tannins, cinnamon stick, a little vanilla.

finish: honeyed, short but spicy, still very oaky.


I like all the oak! The rest of the whisky doesn't hold up to its elegant, beautiful nose, but it's still a great whisky, and the days of 37yr olds are probably winding down.

score: 89

Unnumbered review?: some honeys

wild honey try


A while back I noticed the appearance of "acacia honey" in tasting notes (for example, here and here and here.) Of course, I was immediately stricken by panic and fear: I have no idea what acacia honey tastes like -- maybe I've been tasting it all the time without even knowing it, or maybe -- even worse -- I haven't been tasting it at all, just emptiness where there should have been flavor, for lack of recognition. And then, of course, I was also confused, since I associate acacia trees with koa wood and things that giraffes eat, neither of which seemed appealing in whisky.

The last part I figured out, sort of: "acacia" is apparently used to mean locust, which makes a little more sense as a kind of honey. As for what it tastes like, I'll have to try. It was hard to find, but now I'm set. I'll try it along with a couple other kinds because it's honey and what the fuck they all taste alike.


Honey#1: store brand Clover Honey

Darkest of the bunch. (I'll put a picture below.) It's, um, sweet. Like honey. It does have a strong, direct flavor, almost demerara-like, and maybe some nettles, and it finishes with a bright apple note.

here's a picture, to show color:

Honey #2: "Pure Honey" (Spring)

This is from a lady at the Farmers' Market. Come to think of it, she was sort of near the Farmers' Market rather than at the Farmers' Market. You could see the farm stalls from her folding table, anyway. She said that this one was from a springtime batch. It's the one on the left.

This one is really fragrant -- like jonquils and damask roses. (The clover honey had almost no aroma at all.) Hyacinths, too. Very rich, spicy floral nose. Tastes like it smells but more so, with a much silkier mouthfeel than the clover honey. Slightly citric finish, but mostly it's like swallowing a very soft, sweet bouquet of spring flowers.

Honey #3: Breitsamer Acacia Blossom Honey

This is the one on the right. Hey, look it has a bottling code, just like whisky: L1741241. It says "mild" on the label, but I think that's just a descriptor rather than a separate category of acacia honey. (It also says "pure natural mild").

Faint floral nose, with just a tiny spicy-musky-lemony scent. A very tiny version of locust blossoms, I guess. Has a much cleaner, brighter taste than the other two -- it's like a archetype of honey, just pure honeyness, without much else going on. It such a blank slate you can almost taste the beeswax. But it abruptly becomes a little dull and cloying on the finish. 

Bonus honey: squeezy bear Orange Blossom Honey

I found one more, so I guess I'll try this one, too. I have to say, the squeeze bottles make tasting a hell of a lot easier, so I think I can handle this without the keyboard getting too sticky.

Faint but distinct floral note. I guess that must be orange blossom. (The closest I have around here is philadelphus and a potted grapefruit tree.) Noticeably more unctuous texture than the others, although that might be storage conditions -- but it really is thicker on the spoon and on the palate. Spicy-orangey flavor. 

I found #2 completely amazing, although I'm not sure how I could use it to take advantage of its flavors. #1 and #4 were intense but a little rough and single-minded (like foxy American grapes, if that means anything to anyone). #3 had a nice straightforward flavor -- it wasn't very floral compared to #2, and I don't think it's going to help with whisky tasting. (Based on this one example, I think what everyone's been calling "acacia honey" is what I meant by "honey".) All good stuff, though, even the stuff in the squeezy bottles from the supermarket.

Review #108: Highland Park "Einar" NAS, 40% abv, OB

duty-free blogging

Duty-free kind of sucks. You end up having to go through extra security checks. The prices are worse than back home, and the special bottlings are mysterious and generally inferior. (I should put in a link about that.) Maybe this is just the result of my particular situation: buying in the UK in general is lousy -- it's a shame, really, that it's so expensive.

Anyway, sometimes you end up with some currency left over, and it's certainly better to pick up a bottle of Highland Park than to get a few post-commission dollars back. This one is part of the inscrutable "Warriors" series. As far as I can tell, the more you pay, the higher the ratio of Spanish oak to American oak. None of them have an age statement.

The whisky has a rich copper color that probably came out of a bottle.

Nose: Canned fruit in syrup and some stinky peat. The fruit is pleasantly rich -- mostly peaches and pears, I think. The official notes say "pineapple," but that seems aspirational to me. The peat is somewhere in between fresh stable and old ashtray, leaning toward the latter, so that's good. There's a bit of sulfur, but so little it works as a seasoning. There are some winey dried fruits, too, and dry oak spices. A little bare alcohol, too, but overall it feels older than it probably is.

Palate: Nice oily/syrupy texture. There's probably some alcohol in there, too, but it's hard to tell. The peat stings a little and there's some marshmallowy fruit, but otherwise very very little is happening.

Finish: It's probably better to just drink some more.


This goes down very easily, and has its interesting moments. I don't know why they bottled a liter at 40% instead of a decent strength in a 70cl or 75cl bottle, but maybe it's more drinkable this way. In any case, very well assembled from probably very young stocks, so not a total waste of money (about GBP 45). An easy, enjoyable dram.

score: 83

(I like it better than the 12yr, actually.)

Review #107: Images of Islay "McArthur's Head Lighthouse", NAS, 53.2% abv, Malts of Scotland, 236 bottles

let's call this Caol Ila

Caol Ila is on the Sound of Islay and so is McArthur's Head Lighthouse, albeit at the southern end. Still, CI is the closest distillery, and I imagine the view of Jura is pretty similar, so Caol Ila should be a pretty safe assumption.

Wow, this stuff is clear like water. Well, maybe it has a little color to it, but against my maple desk it looks like young tequila.

Nose: smells like Caol Ila. Lemon, sooty peat, some shellfish, and also some candied sweetness. It smells young without being spirity: there's some ricola herbs, the sootiness is a little aggressive, and maybe there's some burnt plastic that hasn't quite settled down yet.

Palate: soft and lemony for a moment, then like chewing on a peat brick that's still burning. There's a little bit of meatiness to it, but that might just be my mouth.

Finish: eventually -- eventually -- the smoke clears and some sweet oyster brine is left.


Good entertaining stuff, if you like young peat a lot. Keeps its distillery character, too.

score: 84

Review #106: Bowmore 12yr Islay Single Malt, 40% abv, OB

independence day blogging

Today's vote merits something more momentous, but I have a bottle of Bowmore and a plane to catch. So the solution is to finish it off.

nose: very pleasant -- opens with some plums and savory spices before fairly soft, woody peat takes over. faint winey notes. but really soft and balanced in general: coastal notes (salt, shellfish) + citrus (grapefruit) + vegetable oil (?).

palate: well, it's 40%. the peat tries to assert itself, but decides to sit back down. slightly phenolic and slightly sweet.

finish: longish but not boldish. peat and grapefruit with bunches of small elements, settling down to chewy malt with a touch of sherry fruit.


This is very well done. Tastes like a truly great whisky that's been watered down to 40%. A nice choice for a standard bottling. I think they still make it.

score:84

(bottling code:
08:35 067
112084)

Review #105: Amrut 2008, Blackadder, 62.7%, Cask #BA 1/2008, oak cask matured, 277 bottles

I have no idea when this was distilled.

It was bottled in June 2008 in Scotland. I wonder if it was aged in India, though -- that's a pretty high abv. Nice coppery color, anyway, despite its presumable youth.

Anyway, I was saying yesterday that I think Amrut can be overrated because it's unusual. I don't mean to say it isn't good, but I think it plays better to people who give ratings than it should. But I haven't tried any of these Blackadder casks yet.

nose: I kind of like this: it's a nice combination of sour and greasy before the phenols really kick in. If there are any fruit, they're pretty lean -- maybe some grapefruit rind and some plums that shouldn't have been picked yet. Then there's the part I don't like: a gristly, sour milk note, like youth that is where it doesn't belong. Some nice sweet apples and a little meatiness come through at the end -- maybe I just need more patience. Really starts opening up -- starts to become spicy and floral.

palate: not that big a monster -- more like two sharp blows: first peat smoke and then spicy, woody apples with vanilla. slightly numbing.

finish: the vanilla fades, the peat and alcohol are still numbing, and an odd (for me) gristly, sour, greasy note reasserts itself. not my favorite part.


This might be a little at odds with itself, but it turns out I was wrong about it being overrated. (Although I still don't like the Cask Strength.) There's a lot going on and it packs a punch.

score: 88

Review #104: Balcones "Brimstone" Texas Scrub Oak Smoked Corn Whisky, 53% abv, batch BRM 11-10

now seems like a good time

I've been meaning and not meaning to write notes on this, but in light of the recent and ongoing kerfluffle at Balcones, now seems like a good time. [editorial note: I am completely ignorant of the situation, and almost 100% certain that Chip Tate is right, whatever the dispute is about. Also, the link is from spiritsjournal.)

This is good stuff, but I also think it's benefitted -- with good reviews here and here and here, for example -- from a particular phenomenon. That phenomenon is: people who taste lots and lots of whisky (or any one thing) tend to overvalue the ones that stand out just because they stand out. Of course it's possible to stand out on the basis of quality, but it's possible to stand out just by being weird, too. And of course being weird can itself be a value, but it's more of a value to someone who drinks hundreds of whiskies in 3cl increments than it is to most people.
(I think Amrut benefits from this, too, sometimes.)
(I think Brimstone also benefits from the weird mitteleuropaische fascination with Texas and barbecue, too, but that's another story.)

So I really like this whisky, too, actually, but I never find myself drinking it. (My bottle is dated 9-9-11.) It never fits with anything I'm eating or drinking or doing. Maybe if I were a cowboy.

nose: mainly soggy campfire -- it's an intense smoke that less phenolic and more old leaves and soup stock and roasted meat. lots of wood, maybe some nettles, too. there used to be something fruity, like plum liquor, but I can't find it anymore.

palate: When first opened, it had the strongest taste of fresh-roasted corn, lots of sugar and campfire smoke. Now the corn isn't so strong, letting more chewy woody-meaty notes come through, plus vanilla

finish: When first opened, like having a bitter campfire made from soggy wood and wet leaves slowing burning down in my mouth for hours. It's mellowed now: the smokiness burns a little, but there's plenty of sweet oak, and spicy, warm corn -- like the child of a red-hot and a candy corn. Still a long finish, but not overpoweringly bitter and persistent.


hard to score something that I like but not enough to drink much. It is interesting, though!

score: 83

sadness

Review #103: Clynelish 16yr 1996/2012, 52.3%, Whiskyman and Lindores, refill bourbon hogshead, 239 bottles

looking for the wax

It seems like it's been a while since I've had any Clynelish; I'm not sure that's true. My current worry is that Clynelish will become a generic apple/hay/vanilla malt, and lose its distinctive character. But this one is from 1996, so it should be safe.

nose: some sour apples, some nice dark smoke, mown grass, a little linseed oil ... and then finally opens up to to some nice sweet beeswax. (it actually didn't take that long.) still quite smoky, and has some nice Loire-wine notes, too.

palate: beautifully waxy palate, grass and smoke are very sharp in contrast, with lots of malt sugars and honey, bitter herbs, a little lemon pepper.

finish: long, more of the same.


I could imagine someone not liking this -- maybe it's not fruit enough or smoky enough or needs more flavors. But I can't imagine me not liking it.

score: 88

Review #102: Vizcaya VXOP "Cuban Formula" Cask #21 Rum, Dominican Republic, 40% abv

last gasp of summer

There's a bunch of stuff I've been meaning to try, but right now it's hot. Still. So one last rum, until next summer.

I like the website on this one, mostly because it just asks if you were born >21yrs ago, not what day you were born on. It also suggests that this is an agricole and aged in oak (ex-bourbon). I saw somewhere else that it's at least 8yrs old, but that's not on the label or the website. Nice bottle. I don't know who makes it or who owns the brand.

nose: like the Zaya, curiously enough -- a lot of cream soda and sasparilla flavors. not quite as intense or sweet as the Zaya, and a little more interesting, too: there's some fruit (apricot), and a little sharp, almost smoky grassiness. but then buckets of vanilla overwhelm everything. I thought there was a (nice) violet in there for a second, but it's all molasses now.

palate: nice woody body for 40%. like a grassier, but just as sweet, version of the Zaya.

finish: vanilla, molasses, vanilla, vanilla, vanilla.


this is a pleasant, enjoyable dessert that I like slightly better than the Zaya.


score: 73