Tastes

Bottled for The Whisky List for their American Whisky Show virtual tasting event, 2021 Nose: Mint, cinnamon, dill pickle, thyme, sage, dusty oak. Large but a little harsh neat – water adds depth, a pillow-like softness, and much improves the oak notes in the background. Palate: A very sweet arrival with hot cinnamon and peanut brittle. Cherry, peppermint and a lot of black pepper in the development. The texture is good. Water transforms the palate by reigning in the heat, providing desperately needed balance, adding sweet notes and further expanding the density of texture. Finish: Short. Big peppery and spice notes from the palate but they tail out surprisingly fast. An enjoyable enough rye. The nose is the best part, having an enfolding density that promises an interesting palate, particularly once watered. However this promise is unfulfilled in the mouth and the whiskey proves to be merely hot and intense, overly so, and unbalanced when neat. A dash of water is imperative and works miracles by substantially softening and sweetening the palate. There is some development but no length when neat, the intense palate fading quickly and leaving almost no residual taste apart from a peppery tingle. However, once again, water greatly improves the finish. As a neat dram I’d describe this as barely average but once watered it is far more enjoyable and gains at least a whole point in rating, however it is overpriced in our market. Tasted from a 20ml sampler. “Above Average” : 82/100 (3.25 stars)

Bottled for The Whisky List for their American Whisky Show virtual tasting event, 2021 Nose: Earthy, stewed apples, cinnamon sugar, cornbread, a hint of wintergreen and musty oak. Palate: Fruity and spicy arrival. Sweet but with a lot of dry baking spice which amplifies in the development. Overbrewed black tea and a little lemon extract. The texture has weight but is drying to the point of astringency and so seems lighter. Finish: Short. There are toasted oak and burnt marshmallow notes but it’s not what I would call a long finish, just a lingering aftertaste of char and citrus. A nice enough bourbon but less interesting than I had expected. What is there is good but on the whole it seemed two-dimensional, even hollow. A dash of water improved it by softening the presentation and allowing both nose and palate to expand, but it never gained substance and certainly did not seem like a 10 year old whiskey. I’d be happy to taste this again and it’s probably a good mixer but I would not buy a bottle, particularly at the outrageous local price. Tasted from a 20ml sampler. “Good” : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Mild grassy, cereal aromas for the most part. A little vanilla and some floral/fruity orchard notes but it’s a bit too laid-back for its own good and you can easily smell the grain whiskey component (especially on the dry glass). Given time in the glass it expands, but not a great deal, and a drop of water helps as well. Palate: Sweet, cereal, malty arrival that is pleasant but one-dimensional. Butterscotch and barley sugar show up in the development but overall the palate is lacklustre and a bit thin. The texture is silky but watery. Finish: Short, fast. The palate quickly dies out into a simple ethanol aftertaste. A generic lower-mid shelf Irish blend that displays all the better profile characteristics of its class and mercifully none of the faults. Boann distillery only ran their first spirit in 2019 so this is a sourced product. They are coy about this aspect of their operations and don’t divulge their sources, but it seems to me very much like a blend of Bushmills malt with grain whiskey (which could have come come from almost anywhere). Although pot-still whiskey is not listed as a component on the label I did get a characteristic aroma of unmalted barley on the nose, but maybe this is coming from the grain whisky. Anyway, this is average and underachieving stuff, but it is admittedly very easy to drink. Adding water makes it even more accessible and also amplifies the sweet notes throughout, bringing out a caramel fudge flavour. This is a perfectly acceptable session whiskey but at the price it is directly competing with Bushmills Black Bush which is a better whiskey in every respect. While I was tasting this I kept thinking how much better it might have been if the malt content had been 35% instead of only 20%. With a bit more presence it would score a whole point higher. “Adequate” : 74/100 (2.25 stars)

Nose: Polished floorboards, waxed wardrobes, cigar boxes and cedar chests. An intensely cask-driven nose. Beneath the wood veneer you find a hidden compartment containing dried fruits, walnut liqueur, chocolate toffee and coffee beans. There is a wisp of ethanol from the grain whisky that slices through the heavier aromas. When watered the nose becomes much softer but be careful as it can drown in the blink of an eye. Palate: A semi-sweet but astringent entry with bright citric spice notes. It’s almost like barley sugar sprinkled with orange oil and crystals of citric acid, it’s so sharp. Tannin suddenly emerges in the mid palate accompanied by toffee, brown sugar, hot cinnamon, ginger and white pepper. Fruity oloroso sherry notes come through next and the texture is waxy (but the palate is so forceful you almost don’t notice it). Water softens the palate but the tingle of tannic spice is still present with dilution. Finish: Long. Spicy and lingering with sour apple and bitter marmalade. Tannins prickle the tongue well into the aftertaste, which is drying but just on the good side of bitter. A very big, loud, blended scotch that is a million miles away from the introductory bottlings of Dewers, Johnnie Walker, Ballantine and their ilk. However I would not call this an “old-school” blend with a soft character. It is far too extroverted and intense and bears no resemblance whatsoever to something like Old Parr, Haig Gold Label or Nevis Dew. The closest blend I can think of is Black Bull, but that has a more rounded profile and is not nearly as tannic. The nose is not unlike that of a malt whisky, the only thing betraying its nature as a blended scotch being raw, thin alcohol from the grain whisky component, but it’s not at all intrusive. The palate is big and bold with an aggressive thread to its character and for all its forceful personality it feels a little young. You can enjoy this whisky neat but I’d recommend ice and a splash of water or club soda. It responds well to dilution, the bright tannic notes preserving its balance at lower strength. It’s not my favourite upper-shelf blend but I’m certainly enjoying it, however I think this bottle will be enough and I probably won’t replace it once it is done. Then again, having written that I’ve just poured another dram. Hmm. “Good” : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Green apples, pears, ethanol. It is slightly feinty and has an aroma of acetone and fruit salad that is starting to go off. There is no complexity. Palate: Warm, sweet arrival, a little yeasty and cardboard-like but pleasant. The fruit notes from the nose are apparent in the mouth as well but there is no development, the arrival just flows into the aftertaste. The texture is creamy in the same way vodka is creamy. Finish: Medium/short. It has a mildly herbal and very faintly metallic character. There is that almost-spoiled fruit note again, like apricot segments from a tin that has been opened for several days. Quirky, but not unpleasant. Vit Hund is Swedish for “white dog” and that is exactly what this is … sort of. White dog usually refers to new-make bourbon or rye spirit but this is malted barley spirit which has traditionally been called clearic or just "new-make". However I’m splitting hairs and I don’t think anyone would fail to understand that this is raw, unaged proto-whisky straight off the still with no cask maturation … sort of. It’s actually “tempered” new-make as it has been diluted down from still-strength to 46.1% abv. You can’t compare this directly against whisky so it must be judged in isolation or against other samples of new-make. The nose will seem familiar, but simultaneously alien, to any whisky drinker. The wood contribution is missing and we are so used to that in our whisky it seems weird when it is absent. I’ve seen reviews comparing this to grappa, vodka and other white spirits but what it most clearly resembles is a jonge genever with a very low botanical content. If you are familiar with such spirits you will instantly recognise the similarity. However genever has a softer and more complete character whereas this seems unfinished, which of course it is. Tasting new-make is something I’d encourage every enthusiast to do at least once (and frankly whenever the opportunity arises). You are most likely to have the chance when visiting a distillery or at a tasting event. It will give you a singular impression of what the distillate is contributing to a whisky, and it will also make obvious the reason why whisky is universally matured in wood. This is a pleasant spirit to take neat or over ice, and it is a good mixer. I tried it in a variety of drinks that are usually based on whisky, bourbon, rye, gin and vodka and it worked fine in each, but it did not work better than the correct spirit in any situation. I enjoyed this as an experiment but it will not become a staple in the bar. Although a taste of new-make is a good thing, buying a whole bottle is a different matter. I went through half my 500ml bottle in a week, trying it in different ways and I gave away two 30ml samples to friends. Since then the bottle has sat untouched and I imagine it will remain that way for the rest of time. “Above Average” : 81/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Yeasty bread, uncooked oatmeal. It’s dry and feinty rather than sweet. Apple skins, lemon zest, ginger, cut grass and sawdust. I don’t detect any peat smoke at all, maybe just a hint of barrel char. It’s a rather nervous nose but curiously flat at the same time, at least when neat. Maybe a dash of water helps it? Oh yes, that’s better. The nose relaxes with a teaspoon of water. Palate: Spicy, hot malt with beer-like fermentation notes in the arrival. A sour development follows with astringent orange peel and rolled-oats the dominant flavours. The texture is OK but watery. A teaspoon of water improves the palate, adding balance (and texture, curiously) and smoothing off most of the prominent youthful roughness. A thread of wood smoke comes out in the palate and the heat is mercifully subdued. Finish: Medium/short. Sour, hot and slightly bitter cereals fading out to a sour tannic note that borders on metallic with wet cardboard overtones. With dilution it becomes more acceptable and the harsh notes are tamed, but the aftertaste is the same. Age is not a guaranteed indication of quality. Here is the proof. The nose on this is unusually bright and sharp for an 18 year old single malt and there is a significant lack of positive cask involvement. It does not suggest either maturity or complexity. The palate is similarly young in profile and does not offer a great deal. If you gave me this in a blind tasting and said it was 5 years old I’d believe you. Water improves this malt significantly. Drink it neat at your peril. I can see how this profile would appeal to some but it’s way outside my comfort zone. Add to that the fact that this costs an outrageous AUD$130 in Australia right now and I would certainly not recommend it. To me anyway, it is less impressive than the 12 year old, which in turn was less enticing then the much cheaper Original (malt) and Reserve (blended) offerings from Loch Lomond. Over here, for $130 you can buy Argbeg Uigeadail, Port Charlotte 10, Laphroaig Triple Wood, or Kilchoman Sanaig so why on earth would you buy this poor sad thing? “Adequate, just barely, but definitely not recommended” : 70/100 (2 stars)

Nose: Leathery malt, orchard fruits, a little vanilla and the beery note I get in almost all Loch Lomond. Pencil shavings and fresh-cut planks. It’s a good nose but a little shy. Palate: Sweet initially but very quickly turning quite hot and developing a sharp, uncontrolled spiciness that is not to my taste. Hot cinnamon and chili spice, apple and some unfortunate sour notes that continue into the finish. The texture is lightly oily. Finish: Medium. Sour IPA beer and apple vinegar. The nose is the best part of this, having a pleasantly fresh malty profile, but sadly the palate fails to live up to expectation. I last tasted this just over 3 years ago (the original review is now appended to this one - see below) but I don’t think this current edition is as good. It’s raw and the spicy heat on the palate has become intrusive and is not corrected by dilution (that just dials up the sourness). Loch Lomond is a very large distillery that runs a variety of still types. Each produces a distillate with a different profile and these are mixed in various combinations to produce their array of whiskies. The curious thing is that I much prefer their bottom-shelf blended scotch (Reserve) and the bottom of their range of single malts (Original) to their more expensive age statement expressions. This is generally around AUD$75, which is reasonable for a 12 year old whisky over here, but I don’t think it is particularly good value at that price and I have seen it for as much $100, which is crazy. Their NAS "Original" single malt is only $50 and for me it has better balance and no trace of the sour finish you find on this. It would be interesting to know the proportions of their various distillates in this as opposed to the Original, and whether the difference between the two expressions is due to the spirit or is coming from the casks. Tasted from a 3-pack of 50ml official distillery samples. “Adequate” : 74/100 (2.25 stars) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Review from 2019: Nose: Malty, leathery, dark honey, orchard fruits, a whiff of smoke, some caramel, brine and vanilla and even a little cinnamon spiciness. It's a well-balanced, multi-faceted and pleasing nose that orbits a forceful heart of cereal/malt notes, and there's a beeswax presence that is reminiscent of Clynelish. There's also an oaky hint and an almost metallic intrusion, but it's not a deal-breaker. Palate: An entry that is sweet but forceful, like the sweetness of blackstrap molasses combined with mixed tropical juices. It's a little hot and spicy on the palate, but agreeably so. A very light anise note appears in the development along with some white grape juice, dried peaches, dried apples, and preserved lemon. The texture is on the oily side, but only slightly. Finish: Medium/long. Malty, cereal and mildly tannic. There is a light lingering aftertaste of oily, sweet lemon thyme and something hot (chilli? white pepper? galangal? stem ginger?). It's good but marred by a very slight sour note in the finale. The nose is particularly fine and opens out very well given some time in the glass. This is my third tasting after opening the bottle yesterday, and it has developed surprisingly well in just that time. I'll predict right now that this will be very good indeed by the time it's half-way down the bottle. The palate is enjoyable if you like a full-bodied whisky. If not you could reasonably call it "hard". A dash of water amplifies the spicy notes and considerably lengthens the palate. I enjoyed this and at the price it is fairly positioned. It shares some features with Springbank, Clynelish and Ben Nevis, but it's not in the same league as any of their expressions. Another reliable malt from the rejuvenated Loch Lomond. "Above Average" : 80/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Warm, oily malt extract, over-ripe fruit, rich dark soil. There’s a background note of orange but I don’t get any peat smoke from this – maybe an ashen or dusty aroma from either the distillate or barrel char, but it is very light and completely overshadowed by the big fruity malt character. Palate: Creamy, oily, sweet malt arrival with background notes of stout or porter. In the development there is toffee, dark fruit, oatmeal biscuits and a hefty, meaty flavour like spinach stewed in beef bouillon. Towards the finish I tasted buttered raisin toast, a pinch of salt and faint smokiness. This has very good weight … it’s a very full-bodied dram with mouth-coating oiliness. Finish: Medium. Sweet with a touch of balancing earthy sourness. Very satisfying. This is a surprisingly big whisky with authority and a mature quality that is unusual to find in an inexpensive NAS. It's malty, dense and very west-coast highland in style. It seems to be better than the last time I tasted it a few years ago. I doubt very much they are using older whiskies in the blend but something has changed. It has a similarity to Ben Nevis and it makes me suspect that Loch Lomond is the undisclosed supplier of malt whisky for the contemporary Nevis Dew blended scotch that is made by Ben Nevis using largely outsourced whiskies. I like this a lot. It has honesty, a down-to-earth quality and is lip-smackingly satisfying. It’s not a delicate, nuanced whisky but rather a big-hearted malt powerhouse that is pleasant to sip but cheap enough to use as a mixer. If you tasted this a few years back and were not impressed I'd recommend giving it another try. Tasted from a 3-pack of 50ml official distillery samples. “Above Average” : 81/100 (3 stars)