Tastes

Nose: Initially the nose displays a finely balanced combination of deep fruits, apple cider and malt extract. There are oloroso sherry aromas of nuts and autumn leaves with honeyed and mild aromatic oak notes. The oak has a sandalwood quality. The nose acquires a leathery fragrance over time as the initial sweet tones subside, and over extended time it gains a dark toffee note. Palate: A rich, finely structured sherry oak arrival that at first shows delicate spice and then eventually more grippy tannins as it develops. This oak contribution gives it a slightly bitter but oily nutty character, and there is also the flavour of coffee grounds, dark chocolate and bitter marmalade. The texture is moderately oily, but not heavy. Finish: Medium/long. The mild coffee and dark chocolate notes linger into an aftertaste of dilute over-brewed black tea. The nose is well balanced and multi-faceted, but in it's soul this is a woody aroma - it's just that the oak is so well tempered and soft that it never overtakes any of the other notes. The cask management was perfect and over time the nose gains a pillowy, luxurious nature without ever becoming cloying or syrupy. For me it's a textbook example of a well done sherried Speyside nose, and very typical of old Glenlivet. The palate is more assertive than the nose and has more oak dryness. This is tempered by an oily, nutty quality that lends balance without veering into sweetness. It's an interesting palate because from the entry you think that it will progress sweetly but instead it evolves towards dry, woody characteristics that almost border on astringincy. These notes continue to build into the the finish. With extended time in the glass the palate gains tobacco notes. Water considerably mutes the nose and the whisky suffers, fracturing rapidly into a ghost of its true self. At 43% this cannot take much water and I much preferred the character of the neat nose. The palate fares similarly, becoming insipid and developing a one-note simplicity with water. Although I generally prefer my single malts with a drop of water, this is one that I would encourage you to take neat as for all its seeming strength of presentation it is quite fragile. Elegant, dry and bordering on austere. This is a very good whisky but I did feel that it is way overpriced and consequently I won't be seeking out a bottle. Tasted from a 30ml sampler. "Very Good" : 86/100 (4 stars)

Nose: Gently aromatic smoky brine, honeyed ash and chilled fruit juice. An onshore wind blows distant, skudding smoke from a steam boat across the strand. It's low tide on a shingle beach, with smells of drying kelp reaching you as you stand in a grove of pine trees eating slices of sweet grapefruit. The far-away smoke is not intense, but integral and essential to the landscape. With time the nose deepens. Palate: A stunning entry of fresh smoky brine, alive with honeyed notes and mild sweet cinnamon. As it develops more brine emerges, but always balanced by fruit and sweet smoke until it reaches a crescendo and overflows unchecked into the finish. The cask is almost undetectable - this is young and intensely spirit-driven whisky, and irrefutable proof that young does not necessarily mean inferior. There is maturity to this whisky beyond simple years. Finish: Medium. Brackish fruit, a little honey and pepper, with seawater trailing into the aftertaste. However this is not a dry whisky and a sweet brine note lingers, particularly if water is added. Take one part young Jura whisky, add equal quantities of Highland Park and Arran so that their combined fresh honeyed-fruit notes precisely balance the brine of the Jura. Then finally add a dessertspoon of Caol Ila. That pretty much sums this up, but to criticize it for simplicity would be to entirely miss the point. If this were music it would not be a symphony, but a lone piper. If it were a painting it would be a seascape by Dufy. It is delicious, bursting with life and impeccably balanced - a tour de force of the blender's art. It is also brawny and can take a good dash of water with no trouble. Dilution is not at all necessary, it is delightful neat, but water softens, sweetens and broadens it to create an experience that is different but just as enjoyable. There is something about this whisky that brings to mind Kilchoman Machir Bay, and it is equally as good. Have you ever eaten an oyster straight from the sea? Not bought from a store or a boat, but prised from the rock, shucked immediately and eaten on the spot? This whisky is somehow irresistibly evocative of the oyster liquor in which the flesh resides, together with a dash of deliciously warming and subtle smoke. Sadly, Douglas Laing have capitulated to market pressure and renamed this blended malt "Rock Island". I guess I can understand them not wanting to alienate potential buyers but it somehow seems a shame. At the asking price this is very good value, and recommended. The official Distiller rating seems a little miserly. (Interestingly, the rating for Rock Island here by another reviewer is more like I'd expect). "Very Good" : 87/100 (4.25 stars)

Nose: Crisp, malty and lightly fruity. There's a sweet note that is a little like a combination of butterscotch, barley sugar and coconut ice. It's not an overt rum aroma, but there is something unmistakably reminiscent of rum, and even more suggestive of raw sugarcane juice. As the whisky rests in the glass this sweet character intensifies. Water brings out grassy, more agricole-like notes. Palate: A raw-sugar and mildly spiced fruity arrival. A little more warm spice emerges in the development, which is also where the rum cask influence becomes much more apparent. The texture is full and the profile velvety soft. Adding water makes the palate even softer, and almost dangerously drinkable! Finish: Medium/short. Warm and sweet with rum and demerara sugar strongly apparent right through into the aftertaste. Duncan Taylor's blended whisky does not seem to have a big presence in markets outside the UK and Commonwealth countries. "Black Bull" is a brand that was registered in the 1860s and its particular claim to fame was the high malt content of the blend. When the name was resurrected by Duncan Taylor in 2009 they wisely decided to stay true to the blend's origins and position it as a high-proof range. Although they do not advertise the fact I'm certain that this blend contains no added caramel, as it is a very pale straw colour, however the constituent malt and grain whiskies are almost certainly chill-filtered. As a test I added a good deal of water to a dram and left it, but after an hour there was no louche. An interesting and enjoyable blend that certainly shows the effect of the rum casks in which it was finished for 16 months. The sugary sweetness of rum is never far away and it is a much more apparent rum finish than I've tasted on any other whisky. The only criticism I have is that this sweetness is a bit one-note and the lack of complexity makes you lose interest fairly quickly. It's nothing spectacular but a good honest everyday sipper or session whisky, and at the very reasonable price it is certainly competitive. Interestingly, the best way I've found to take this is in cola soft drink, in which it bears an uncanny resemblance to a light-bodied gold rum. "Above Average" : 80/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Fruity (pear and apple) and lightly malty - sweet and delicate rather than bold, with an almost confectionery note like bubblegum or boiled sweets in the foundation. There is a white grape juice note and over time as it rests this evolves into tinned tropical fruit-salad. There is a little creamy vanilla-tinged oak also apparent. Palate: Sweet, creamy, cereal arrival - exceptionally welcoming and easy. The development is slow and assured and over time there is a subtle broadening of the palate into deeper sweet cereal notes together with orchard fruits, baked pineapple and honey. The texture is voluptuous and enfolding. With time the palate gains body and a more malty quality. Finish: Medium/short. Sweet cereal and barley sugar with just a trace of honeyed oak and apple juice in the aftertaste. The nose bears a resemblance to some Irish whiskies I've tasted and over time as it rests in the glass it "blooms" and gains depth. The same thing happens with the palate which is unbelievably approachable on first sip and only improves with further tasting. Again, this reminds me a lot of quality soft Irish blended whisky - it's reminiscent of Midleton Very Rare, in fact. One of the delights of slowing down my whisky purchasing is that I'm starting to delve into my stash and open bottles I've been sitting on for a while. I purchased this particular BenRiach in 2012 and the batch imprint says it was bottled on 2011/09/12, which means it was casked in 1991 and therefore produced prior to the mothballing (and subsequent closure) of the distillery's own floor maltings in 1998. This is easily the most approachable and stylish BenRiach I have ever tasted, and it is completely different in character to anything in the contemporary range. It certainly confirms the fact that the modern success of BenRiach is based squarely on the huge inventory of excellent old whisky that Billy Walker acquired when he bought the distillery. There has been a 20-year old expression of BenRiach since just after Walker bought the distillery in 2003. Up until 2018 these would all have been blended from pre-mothballing stocks, but the expressions went through significant profile changes over time and the contemporary "dark label" 20 year old bears no resemblance to this or any of the other old "blue-on-white label" bottlings. For this reason I created a new listing here on Distiller for the earlier bottlings. It is an elegant, soft and demure whisky but it is neither shy nor lacking in character. She is a lady of maturity and poise, and should be treated as such. Do not dilute her - let her manifold charms enthrall you, au natural. The price quoted is what I paid in 2012 - it would now only be available on the secondary market, probably at several times that price. "Very Good" : 87/100 (4.25 stars)

Nose: Oloroso sherry, right from the start - unmistakable and prominent. Earthy (almost burnt) malt extract, dark dried fruits (dates, figs, raisins), roasted nuts and a little lemon oil. There is a briny minerality to the nose that emerges after a while resting in the glass. A dash of water relaxes the nose considerably and a host of honeyed aromas emerge. Palate: A mild bitter spiciness on the arrival, gaining sweeter notes over time. The development brings a sweet/brine combination and the same dark dried fruits and lemon peel that was in the nose. There's a black coffee/dark cacao note in the mid palate that lasts through into the finish, and a leathery taste. The mouthfeel is creamy and full. As with the nose, the addition of a little water relaxes, deepens and sweetens the profile considerably and reveals some excellent tropical fruit notes without damaging anything. Finish: Medium. A dry and mildly spicy end. The dark roasted malt and espresso base characters take on a more herbal form in the aftertaste. If watered this is sweeter and slightly honeyed. An enjoyable companion-piece to the 12 year old expression rather than a supposed replacement. I never quite believed that story, as the two whiskies are completely different in character, and I'm suspicious of comparison tastings that approach this as if it were a younger NAS version of the same juice. The 12 year old is largely bourbon matured, whereas this whisky is a solid young, dry, sherry beast. The 12 year old was also never withdrawn from sale or even reduced in supply so it's likely that this was introduced so the distillery could offer a 100% sherry matured expression at the bottom of the range. It was released at the same time as two other NAS expressions and it's a NAS itself simply because 12 years in the casks they are using would be overkill (I'd guess it is 7-9 years old) and there is prejudice against single-digit age statements. I'd strongly recommend watering this whisky just a little because it completely transforms it, and at the abv it can take some water in its stride. Neat I'd score it at 3, but with water it realizes its potential. "Good" : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Red berries, vanilla biscuits, and a woody note but it's not the aroma of oak cask - it's more like freshly sawn planks. There is a brisk spirity quality to the nose. Palate: Sweet winey notes turning almost instantly very dry with heavy tannins. As it develops it turns a little towards sweetness and evolves flavours of nuts (almonds, hazelnuts), sour cherry, unripe pear, unripe greengage, orange oil and white pepper but it is always dominated by the cask tannins. The texture is pleasant. Finish: Medium. Mildly spicy, trailing into a woody, winey aftertaste. Milk chocolate lingers on the tongue. The nose is slightly floral, but only a trace. The overarching aroma is of young red wine cask. Everyone seems to mention milk chocolate in connection with this whisky but I only noticed it on the finish as a relatively strong aftertaste. There is an overall woody quality but like many light whiskies conditioned in wine casks it's thin and "planky". There is no barrel char to perform extractive maturation, and it's young to boot, so the aroma and taste of lightly toasted oak is never far away. There is a certain resemblance between this and G.Rozelieurs Blue Label and also Hellyer's Road Pinot Cask matured whisky, but both of those expressions have more depth. This whisky does not have a demonstrative personality and you need to let it breathe for a while in the glass to open up. For that matter, the bottle level needs to get down to well below the shoulder before it becomes really attractive. A dash of water definitely improves this whisky but it is very easy to drown so don't overdo it. An average but unmemorable single malt that is not of a style I particularly enjoy. I would neither buy it again nor recommend it and it has not inspired me to taste anything else by this distillery. If you want to taste red wine cask maturation done with style pay three times the price and buy any Longrow Red - it's more than worth the expense. "Average" : 78/100 (2.75 stars) ------------- Addendum: After posting this I looked over the official review and previous member reviews which mostly indicate that this used to have greater presence and richness of presentation. I don't know whether this expression has changed, but it seems like it may have. I certainly wouldn't rate it at anything like 87/100.