Tastes

Nose: Fireplace ash, a whiff of sea-spray, sage, mint and a complex melange of lemon aromas not derived from lemon (think lemon verbena, lemon balm and lemongrass). Subtle, light, sprightly and crisp. The peat-smoke character intensifies as it sits and opens. A dash of water releases barley-sugar, earthy notes, sweetness and a definite hint of ex-wine cask that rounds-off the citrus aromas. Palate: Sharp, angular and assertive when neat but not hot or aggressive. Brine and smoked lemon. Lemon pepper. Water considerably softens the profile with tar, ashy smoke and sweet cereal moving forward to balance the salty-lemon flavours. The texture is oily but dry and exquisitely balanced. With time the diluted palate evolves ever greater complexity. Finish: Long. Preserved salted lemons, ash, multi-faceted brush-fire smoke. Lovely stuff. I can sit with a glass of this all night, enjoying the story as it progresses. There is a special quality to this distillate-driven whisky that sets it slightly apart from the peat-smoked expressions from the south-east coast Islay distilleries. Something about Bruichladdich smoke is particularly fresh and delicate whilst simultaneously having an intense purity of profile. They buy their peated malt from Port Ellen, as do almost all the other Islay distilleries, so the individuality is arising elsewhere. It would be from a combination of factors, of course, but I’m sure the complex and highly nuanced wine-cask element in their maturation regime plays a major role. This tasting is from a 2019 batch but the consistently high quality of this whisky is remarkable and any Port Charlotte 10 year old can be taken as typical of the expression. Personally I think the 2016 Port Charlotte 10 year 2nd Limited Edition is yet to be equaled, but this is not far behind and for a core-range product that’s most impressive. Highly recommended. At the price this is a bargain and it should be on every enthusiast’s “to do” list. For enthusiasts of peated whiskies in particular it is a compulsory rite of passage. “Excellent” : 89/100 (4.75 stars)

Appearance: Clear amber-gold Aroma: Oak planks, herbal notes, orange oil, aromatic bitters. A pre-mixed whiskey cocktail. It's also oddly reminiscent of young malt whisky that has been matured in resinous first-fill bourbon casks. Flavour & Texture: Spicy-sweet arrival that grows as it sits on the tongue. Herbal, honey-sweet but not cloying. The orange note is prominent on the palate and cuts through any heavy sweetness, eventually dominating the agreeably bittersweet finish. This is an OK whisky-based drink but I don’t think it is accurate to class it as a liqueur. Liqueurs should be able to stand alone as an aperitif or digestif regardless of their use in any other context, and they also customarily have a greater sugar content than is found here. This is more properly classified as a "flavoured whiskey". Whilst this is palatable neat it benefits from being served with a big chunk of ice or a mixer such as dry ginger ale. It's OK but a bit "meh" and I'd never buy a bottle. The official tasting notes are on-target but I don’t think this is worth anything like 88/100. Thanks to @KT66 for the tasting sample “Average” : 76/100 (2.5 stars)

Nose: Malt extract, toasted cereal grains, fresh and stewed fruits, orange liqueur, leather and hints of sweet floral aromas and ash (but no peat smoke). You sense the cask presence but it is earthy rather than woody. Palate: Well-balanced and full-bodied arrival. The flavours are mild and reserved, featuring the same fruity compote that is in the nose together with a generous helping of malt. Creamy cereal and citrus flavours appear, like brioche with lashings of butter and Dundee marmalade. The mildest possible ginger note shows up on the later palate which is sweet and just faintly spicy in character. The texture is satisfying, being both robust and delicate. Finish: Medium/short. Trail mix soaked in Cointreau, fading to a slightly bitter aftertaste. A most enjoyable whisky with a pleasantly old-school malty character. The distillate shows aromas and flavours of malt, walnuts and oranges in several forms – zest, concentrate and oil - and the cask influence is well handled with a restrained intensity. You could be forgiven for thinking there is an oloroso influence on this whisky but the distillery uses only ex-bourbon refill hogsheads. The leathery, fruity qualities come from a particularly cloudy wort that is fermented in wooden washbacks, and its character travels through the production process into the new-make spirit. This malt is surprisingly reminiscent of good blended whisky. It has the same balance and complexity I associate with a skillful blend of malt and grain whiskies and there is the sprightly lightness of profile I also usually get from a blend. There is a similarity of nose to Johnnie Walker and it comes as no surprise that this is a Diagio workhorse distillery, and Knockando almost certainly features as a component in JW blends. More than acceptable as a neat sipping whisky, and with a dash of water it becomes sweeter and almost dangerously easy to quaff. It also stands up to ice and dilution in long drinks and is excellent in a whisky & soda. To cap it all, it is almost embarrassingly affordable. Highly recommended – the next time you are replacing a bottle of blended scotch in the bar take a tip and buy this instead of your usual suspect. It is about the same price as an upper-middle shelf blend and more versatile. You will not regret the choice. However don't take that as an inference that this is a lower-grade of single malt - nothing could be further from the truth and it would be an estimable session whisky. “Good” : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Shellac, hints of sweet vanilla, some rye spice (mint and caraway), a touch of caramel. Straightforward and not particularly complex but with a fresh, clean presentation. Palate: Sweet dusty corn syrup with fruity notes (mildly bittersweet black cherry and orange peel). A very light spicy development but the palate is semi-sweet, relaxed and very easy to drink. The texture is good, slightly oily, and there is a tiny hint of oak. The mild mint and aromatic-seed rye spices noted in the nose show up in the palate as well. Finish: Medium/short. Caramel and corn syrup sweetness. A pleasant and entirely acceptable everyday bourbon. This is, of course, the 40%abv version that is exported to Europe and most of the world. It’s well-balanced, perfectly drinkable and works fine as a mixer. At higher proof it would have a little more presence but for once I’m not complaining about the almost universal tendency for US mass-market spirits to be watered down for export. In this case it means we get a reasonable everyday quaffing bourbon at a good price, so that’s fine. In comparison to the world of blended scotch I’d equate this with something like Ballantines 12, Grants 12 or Loch Lomond Reserve so I’m giving it the same rating. “Average” : 76/100 (2.5 stars)

Nose: Soft autumnal peat smoke with woody and vanilla overtones. There is a maritime quality but it’s certainly not “medicinal” or iodine-tinged. Maybe it’s actually more of a farmyard quality. Hmm. Ok, it’s a creosote-soaked driftwood barbecue fire on a farm by the sea shore. Palate: Briny on the arrival, turning surprisingly sweet as it develops with vanilla and honey clearly noticeable. Light, smoky, but like the nose it’s not at all medicinal and totally unlike an Islay peat flavour. Fruit, barley-sugar, butterscotch and that same autumn-dusk tinged woody character. The texture is agreeably soft with just a touch of brine. Finish: Short. Soft, sweet fruity smoke that drifts off and quickly dissipates. I have to confess I was not expecting much from this whisky but it was surprisingly satisfying and enjoyable. It’s not a coastal smoky whisky at all – banish any thoughts of Islay, Mull or Skye from your mind. The most similar whisky I can think of would be Ardmore however this is from a lowland distillery (the official Distiller scope notes do not mention it, but this is from Ailsa Bay distillery, located at the Girvan plant in Ayrshire). This is a pleasant dram, but the official Distiller rating is far too high and the official tasting notes are absurd. It’s nothing earth-shattering - just an agreeably mild (in fact very mild) lower-shelf peated whisky. It good for the inexpensive price point and a good introduction to the style for novices. More experienced whisky enthusiasts should try a pour before buying as it may seem a little tame or even watery to them. Tasted from a 30ml sample (thank you @KT66) “Average” : 75/100 (2.5 stars)

Nose: Musky, floral maltiness, sandalwood sawdust. There is an earthy, grassy, hay-like note. Palate: Sweet and fruity arrival, a very light touch of malty spice in the development and some mild white pepper towards the finish. The texture is good. Finish: Medium/short. Fruity, trailing out to spicy/sweet notes. This is a young malt, I’d guess maybe 4-5 years old at most. It tastes like new-make that has had just the briefest kiss from a cask and it lacks the character that comes with maturity. However the new-make was of good quality and it’s an easy-to-drink dram. There is a sweetness to it but it’s crisp, grassy and more like barley-sugar than syrup. You won't find Spey River distillery on any map or tourist route because it doesn't exist. Spey River is a brand name owned by Quality Spirits International and is one of several such brands they produce. Brands like this only serve two purposes. They are either a way to offload surplus stock and experimental barrels, or else they are a way to market very young spirit without any association with a major brand name. I can tell you with certainty that QSI is a subsidiary of William Grant & Sons and they only distribute spirits made by WG&S distilleries, so the consistency and quality is going to be pretty good. This is most likely very young teaspooned Glenfiddich or Kininvie, but whatever it is the quality is there and it's good value at the price. Tasted from a 30ml sample (thank you @KT66) "Above Average" : 82/100 (3.25 stars)

Nose: Apple, pear and malt on the initial nosing, maybe an orange peel aroma as well. The leathery Darjeeling tea and floral sherried oak that is common to all Johnnie Walker blends is present. Ginger, treacle and yeasty wash, and there is an ashy note – not quite peat smoke, more like soot. Complex and interesting for a blended scotch nose. Palate: On the entry there is sweet gristy cereal, malt extract, orchard fruits, thinned honey and red berries. This sweet arrival flows into the development, gradually accumulating more spicy and bitter notes. Cinnamon (both sweet and hot), pepper, a drying flavour like unsweetened cocoa and tannic oak all appear and the ashen note from the nose is present here as well. The texture is excellent, with silky and creamy highlights from the grain whisky component. Finish: Medium. The fruity and malt notes fade quickly (very quickly in fact), but there is a bright, crisp grainy flavour that lingers. The bitter tannic tinge remains until the end and there is a little white pepper and brine in the aftertaste. There is a particular quality to all Johnnie Walker blends that is instantly recognizable, and this certainly has it. It’s very much like a mixture of Red Label, Black Label and Gold Label turned up to 11. I can immediately recognise Cardhu in the blend and I bet there is some Teaninich as well, but that's all I can spot for sure. The hot and bitter notes combined with 51% abv would make it a challenging whisky for a novice, but to anyone with some experience I would think it should be most interesting. It does not taste "hot" as such, but the ethanol concentration amplifies the spice notes and tannins. Certainly anyone who likes Johnnie Walker should try a pour. So, the elephant in the room – is this REALLY what 1860s blended whisky would have tasted like? It is impossible to say for sure as there are no surviving samples of such whisky to analyse. There are recipes and blending records in the Diageo archives but the fundamental problem is that the style of malt and grain whisky that is produced today is very different to that of 150 years ago. The best that a blender can hope to do is make something that is an honest hommage, and approaches what we think it may have been like. On that score it's interesting how much this reminds me of Old Parr blended scotch, another Diageo brand that has a very old-school recipe, and I think that answers the question. Whether or not this is genuinely like something that would have been made in the 1860s it is most definitely a very “old-school” style of blended whisky, and that’s good enough for me. In reality, I'd bet good money that this is more like JW from the 1960s than the 1860s. Where does it sit in the JW lineup? Somewhere between Double Black and the 18 year old. It's more interesting then the lower echelon Red, Black and special finish blends that I've previously rated at less than 3 stars, but not quite up there with Blue Label or the old Platinum 18 that rate 4 or more. I agree with the official Distiller rating of 89, but the official comments leave me scratching my head in confusion. I’m not convinced that he and I have tasted the same whisky. At the usual price of $100 in Australia it is questionable whether this is value for money, however when I bought it on special for $75 I bought 2 bottles, and I’m glad I have one to keep in the short-term stash. “Good, not far short of Very Good” : 84/100 (3.75 stars)