Tastes

Nose: Very dry apple cider, so bright it's almost like cider vinegar. Some light cereal notes and a little oak in the background. A drop of water mellows the nose considerably and deepens the overall tone. Palate: Very bright, almost effervescent arrival with the same apple cider character as the nose but here on the palate it is sweet and you can just barely taste some cereal notes. The texture is watery and there is no development at all, the initial flavours pass directly into the finish. However a drop of water broadens the palate and gives it a little more texture. Finish: Like lightning, there's a quick spicy flash and then it fades out to empty blackness with only a watery cereal aftertaste. A most curious blend - exceptionally easy and mild, almost dangerously easy to drink, but also thin and pallid. The overwhelming character is reminiscent of a dilute version of that type of hard apple cider that has a spirity vinegar-like aroma which is not unpleasant, but miles away from soft fresh apple juice. This is also very possibly the fastest profile I've ever tasted. Seriously, 30 seconds after you swallow there is hardly a hint it was ever on your palate. However on the plus side there are no off-notes at all , no metallic or sulphur stain, and no bitterness. Water greatly improves this blend and I'd guess the good folks at the Craigellachie Hotel commissioned this specifically to have a profile that works particularly well as a soft, easy drinking session whisky with ice and soda water. There's not much substance to it and I'd never buy it again, but on the other hand it's in no way offensive. The quality is just as good, but the profile is insipid. "Average" : 75/100 (2.5 stars)

Nose: Sherry, dark malt, mixed peel, mixed dried fruit, nutmeg, walnuts, scorched almonds, a touch of vanilla and lots of caramelised sugars. This is a rich, moist, dark fruitcake laced with lots of sherry. Palate: A malty arrival that is remarkably understated. The development expands this simple character with dark sugar, mild chocolate, crème anglaise, nutmeg and other mild spices, nougat and caramel fudge. There are also some very agreeable berry and red grape notes and the texture is creamy with a juicy, mouthwatering quality. Don't add water - it is completely unnecessary. Finish: Medium/long. Pleasantly warming and gentle with a pronounced brown sugar aftertaste. This is obviously 10 year old Tomintoul with additional finishing in some rather buxom oloroso casks. The base profile is precisely the same as the 10 y.o. and the subtle sweet cereal and floral grassy notes, whilst hidden beneath an obscuring blanket of first-fill sherry, still give the expression its essential character. However it is the sherry component that is immediately dominant. The nose is larger than that of the 10 year old and the palate, which starts very slowly, expands gracefully into a surprisingly long finish. This is where the full intensity of the sherry comes forward. It's a placid and slightly unusual progression into a very warm, sweet and lush conclusion, and it would probably be at its best when paired with equally sweet and rich foods rather than taken in isolation. This would make it an excellent substitute for a digestif sauternes or sherry, perhaps with dried fruit and a well-ripened brie or camembert. If that was the intended way of serving this whisky then at the asking price it does represent good value. As an everyday dram however it might be a little cloying. Tasted from a 30ml sample. "Average" : 77/100 (2.5 stars)

Nose: Lemongrass, chamomile tea, some honey and touch of fresh briny breeze. As it rests and opens in the glass the clean, light aromas are joined by a warmer caramelised barley presence and a hint of baked banana. It's not a particularly complex nose, but it is crisp and refreshing. [The dry-glass aroma is the scent of meadow-flowers in spring]. Palate: Sweet and gentle cereal with flowery honey notes - leatherwood honey in particular - and a very slight hint of vanilla. Golden malt and sweet red apple in the development, plus some sweet-hay barnyard aromas. The texture is light but not watery. Don't add any water - it is a fragile malt and can't take dilution. Finish: Medium/short. Crisp and nutty with a semi-sweet grassy aftertaste and a distant echo of licorice. The nose is demure and takes a good 10-15 minutes to wake up, and even when it does it remains a subtle and elegant pleasure. Don't come to this whisky expecting to be bombarded with forceful aromas, that's not at all what it is about. This is a gentle, laid-back whisky to enjoy neat with friends on a warm day. The palate is soothing and primarily cereal/grassy in nature, but it's not herbal. The top-notes are instead floral and sweet, like a fine honey the bees have crafted from meadow flowers or eucalyptus blossoms. It has a limited range but again that is intentional - just don't expect this to have intensity. As for the finish, I disagree with the official tasting note that the finish is simply drying. It's demi-sec and strongly reminiscent of a young and slightly oaked white wine. The soothing and gentle quality of this whisky can't be overstated. It's a combination of sweet herbal, honeyed and floral elements that works very well. I enjoyed it more than I had anticipated and it is good value for money. I'd certainly add it to the list of recommended first single malts for the novice. Hmm, maybe I should make just such a list here on Distiller. Tasted from a 30ml sample. "Average" : 78/100 (2.75 stars)

Re-review All of the comments I originally made are still valid but when tasting this in direct comparison with Glen Grant 10 year old yesterday I noticed something. This is actually the more balanced of the two malts, but it sacrifices depth to achieve its balance. The 10 year old is oilier and more malty in character and it has greater texture and mouth-feel. However this malt (which is a blend of ages and casking) has more variety of aromas and flavours and a more fruity profile. In the end they are very much equivalent in quality so I’m increasing my original rating for this one to equal the rating I have given the 10 year old. Tasted at the distillery, 2nd May 2024 “Above Average” : 80/100 (3 stars) ———————————————————- Nose: Peaches and apricots, nectarines and pears, apples and lemons. A nose that is similar to many other fruity NAS Speysiders at this price point. There is a faint zephyr of honeysuckle as it rests and opens in the glass, but it's a shy and low-key experience. Adding water lowers definition but makes the nose broader and sweeter. It also brings out a soapy note and so is best avoided. Palate: Cereal, grassy and fruity with a very small spice note. The arrival gives way quickly to a development that is all about lightly malted cereal. Biscuits and a little thin oatmeal porridge with a spoon of honey. The texture is a bit watery. Adding water does nothing good for the palate at all - it brings out a cardboard note and renders the whole affair flat. Finish: Short. Cereal and a trace of bitterness in the aftertaste. The finish is the only place where there is any improvement with water, due to a little sweetness that balances the bitter aftertaste. The nose has a resemblance to both the Glen Grant 10 year old and The Major's Reserve (and also to Glenfiddich 12 in some ways), but it has less presence and is less cereal/malt in character. It has a more fruity focus and lacks the nutty richness that is usually found in Glen Grant whiskies. It's not a bad nose but it is very reticent - sort of one dimensional and overly easy - but there is certainly nothing objectionable about it. The palate is basic and frankly too understated. It's not what I'd call subtle, just faint and seemingly over-diluted, but there are no specific faults worth noting. It is what it is - a simple, basic NAS malt that is just barely up to neat tasting and is best used as a mixer with soda or soft drink. This is priced between Glen Grant The Majors Reserve and 10 year old and that's just where the rating places it. "Average" : 78/100 (2.75 stars)

Nose: Oak cask - that's the first note - old oak cask, and that aroma permeates everything else on the nose. It's a rich, almost funky aroma of dark fruits, stone fruits, nuts, berries, toffee, wine, dark honey and old leather trousers (!), but everything has been aged almost to the point of decomposition. I don't think you could let this sit in the casks for one month more before it fell apart. There's a singular mustiness about the nose that you either love or hate, and after a while the aroma tends to fall into a brown-sugar amalgum. Palate: There is this thing that old Irish whisky does that transports you away on a wave of silvery, satiny, glistening cereal flavours and it happens here in spades. Peaches and apricots, mangoes, guava and soursop on the arrival, served on a day-old barley-meal trencher with caramel sauce. The texture is silken, velvety and gripping from the oak presence. Slightly drying and oaky as it evolves, very elegant and even more dry towards the finish with an autumn-leaf/tobacco character. Finish: Medium. Dry, almost astringent, dark chocolate and oak. The aftertaste is all dark chocolate and funky mustiness. An interesting and slightly unusual nose coupled with one of the most indulgent palates I've tasted. There is nothing demure about this whisky - it's Mae West dancing to Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer as covered by Madonna. Yummy and singular stuff. I remarked in my review of Bushmills 16 that it was the first Bushmills that I had tasted that I really liked, and this is definitely the second, but to be honest it's in firm second place behind the 16. There is something that tries too hard about this whisky. I very much enjoyed tasting it but whereas I'd buy a bottle of the 16 at $120, I wouldn't be seeking out a bottle of this at the asking price of $240. It's wonderful, almost mandatory to taste, but not something to own, particularly given the penny-pinching proof. I'm rating it as equivalent to the 16 year old expression, but for completely different reasons, and in my opinion the official Distiller score here is amusingly doe-eyed and inflated. Tasted from a 30ml sampler. "Very Good" : 85/100 (4 stars)

Nose: Apples! Pears! Bright shiny unmalted barley - begorrah, we're back in Ireland again. Ahem, sorry. Over time the nose settles into a nutty, soft oak and subtle sherry character which is pretty nice. Warm and well balanced with red berries coming to the fore, it's a very relaxing and attractive nose. As it rests, several container loads of vanilla appear and later dark fruits and raisins are noticed. Palate: Sweet and mildly spicy arrival with an excellently balanced cereal, malt and dark fruit character. The development is an interesting intensification of the arrival - everything seems to become a shade darker, richer and more malty and the presence of some good quality sherry casks is apparent. Hazelnuts and chocolate praline appear and you can taste the presence of the port pipes through the rich red, plummy berry flavours that permeate the spirit. Not bad - not bad at all. The texture is slightly creamy and dulcet. Finish: Medium/short. The dominant malty personality fades into a berry and chocolate aftertase. There is a brown sugar/treacle note coating the mouth that lasts and lasts. This is the first Bushmills whiskey I've tasted that I really liked. No only did I like it, I would consider buying a bottle for the luxurious profile if nothing else. This is several light years ahead of the banal Bushmills 10. Apart from the entire orchard of apples in every bottle of both you can barely sense that the two expressions are from the same distillery. I could happily adopt this as a nightcap dram. I get absolutely no smoke on this whisky at all. I'm not sure where other folks are finding it. Maybe the slightest hint of barrel char? At the asking price this is good value, and one of the few Irish whiskies at this price point that I'd consider buying instead of a Scottish single malt. Tasted from a 30ml sampler. "Very Good" : 85/100 (4 stars)

Nose: Honey, malt, sweet cereal, some dried red apples and orange peel - it's reminiscent of a muesli snack bar. There are oak notes but they are light and more like sawdust than old cask. There is also a minty presence that comes out as it rests, and a little toffee. The nose never gains great complexity but it is very well balanced and enjoyable. Palate: Soft arrival and a luscious texture, fruity and malty with a touch of gentle spice. Relaxed development with apricot, a little light honey, some trace vanilla and a touch of sweet weak black tea. Creamy but slightly dry. The more you taste it the more you become aware of the oloroso presence and the fact that the palate and finish are fundamentally of a sherried character, but the wine presence is never overt and this is nothing like a sherry-bomb. Finish: Medium. Fruity/malt notes fade into a pleasantly sweet aftertaste with trace flourishes of warm cinnamon, clove and orange. This is a lighter, crisper style of Balvenie than the 12 year Doublewood, and indeed most of the core range. The nose is very pleasant but the palate is superior and where the real personality resides. If you find the Doublewood a little too heavy on the caramel and sweet fruity notes this may well be more to your taste. It would be an over-simplification to say this is the Doublewood with additional oloroso cask maturation, but not entirely inaccurate. I've never had a bad Balvenie and this very pleasant expression carries on the tradition. 3% higher abv could be interesting, but might also make it less approachable for some palates. At 40% it can't take much water so if doing so just add a drop or two, but it's not really needed. This is fine as it is. The only issue I have is the price which at 150% the cost of the 12 year Doublewood is too high for my liking. However if you can find it on special it's a recommend buy. To misquote the late, great John Martyn "some whiskies are just plain good". "Good" : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Dried stone fruits (apricot, peach, nectarine) and tropical fruit aromas. Vanilla and lots of malty cereal. It's almost a little beery - like a fruity IPA. There's a facet of the nose that is unsurprisingly similar to Johnnie Walker blends. Palate: Sweet cereal on the arrival - you can clearly taste barley - and vanilla. A laid back development of soft caramel, berries and honey - it's sweet but not syrupy, a little like a blended tropical fruit juice or a fruit-flavoured toffee. The texture is velvety, rich and satisfying. There is some ultra soft spice (cinnamon, nutmeg) and over time you notice a faint wisp of smoke or char on the palate that continues into the aftertaste. Finish: Medium. A flash of dry cacao followed immediately by sweet honey. The aftertaste is very gentle and soft. An easy and accommodating dram that would be an ideal introductory or second whisky for novices, but may be a little tame for more experienced palates. Then again, sometimes a soft and relaxing dram is most welcome and I wouldn't turn my nose up at a pour of this. It also improves noticeably after resting for a few minutes in the glass. It's certainly not flawed or devoid of character, but I keep getting a nagging feeling that the nose and palate are closer in character to those of a good blend rather than a single malt. It's probably due to the ground-floor level abv, but I don't think this would work as well at higher strength. This is another cosy dram that sits comfortably alongside the likes of Strathisla 12 or Royal Lochnagar 12, and it is a small but definite step up from the regular Cardhu 12 year old. The only issue I have is with the price. Tasted from a 30ml sample - I didn't try it with water because it seemed unnecessary. "Above Average" : 80/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Initially spicy with galangal and tumeric, clove and anise. Lemon juice and zest slowly appear together with pears and a little vanilla. Light grassy and faint oak aromas float in the background and the longer you nose it the more you become aware of a flinty, mineral maritime quality - it's like the smell of a clean pebble beach just as the tide is ebbing, and it dominates the nose for a while. Give it a little longer and polished wood and bitter orange notes move to the front. Adding water brings out a more toffee-malt character, which is also the dominant dry-glass aroma. Palate: Sweet and savory arrival - salted honey with some brisk hot spice. The development shows waves of alternating spice, heat and sweetness which is quite singular. Dark honey, bitter cacao, and red peppercorns. After a couple of tastes, as the palate becomes accustomed, the complexity is identified as briny in nature with an overlay of herbal sweetness. This facet reminds me a little of Ricola Swiss herbal lozanges. Adding water smoothes out the ripples in the development. The texture is nothing outstanding. Finish: Medium. Spiced honey notes fade away into a slightly saline malt aftertaste, reminiscent of salted toffee and bitter coffee. It's a good malt but takes time to settle and compose in the glass. It also has a complex and "interesting" character that is not immediately approachable so it's not one I'd recommend to beginners. If it seems overly hot, spicy or bitter you have not waited long enough. Give this at least half an hour in a covered glass before tasting. Water makes only a small difference to either the nose or palate, adding just a little sweetness. 46% abv is a good strength for this so if you want to open it I'd add just a couple of drops of water right at the start. I'd be really interested to taste this at 60% abv with a teaspoon or two of water added. There's been several Glen Scotia 18 expressions since 2012 when the new OB range was introduced and they vary quite a bit in strength. The main ones you'll find are the old "blue bull" bottling and the more recent and current "classic Campbeltown" which looks like the photo that appears on this listing. These are both 46% abv but they really should have separate listings as they are completely different in character. The expression I'm tasting is from 2017 and while there is a common profile to all the recent "classic" bottlings it is batch-variable. This is one of the better ones I've had. The more recent examples are softer, more fruity and easier to approach but arguably less interesting. Tasted from a 30ml sample. "Good" : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Malt, caramel, pencil shavings, dunnage floor, dry hay, milk chocolate, coffee grounds, old furniture. Over time it gains a buttered toast aroma. Very laid-back and suave. [The dry-glass aroma is strong maple syrup with a little vanilla and milk chocolate] Palate: Dark malt extract dissolved in strong, cold black tea. Marmalade, dark chocolate, black coffee, toasted almonds, tobacco, licorice and a little oak come forward in the development. There are some notes in the palate that remind me of porter or stout, but it's not particularly ale-like, and there is also a hint of walnut bread. The texture is creamy but dry. Water expands the background oak too much and spoils the balance. Finish: Medium. Dry, but not hard or astringent. A warm dryness. Nutty and earthy with a final faint sweet note. The nose on this is dry and it's entirely composed of dark, weighty malt aromas. There are no estery floral or fruit top-notes, no phenolic smoke whatsoever and no creosol maritime or mineral character. There is a sherry presence but it's subdued and not overly sweet. The palate is earthy, malty and has a lot of strong flavours like tobacco and black coffee, but they are reserved and almost aloof at first. This is a very quiet whisky that takes a good while to open up and in several ways it reminds me of Glenfarclas. The main difference is that this has a dark chocolate and coffee personality whereas Glenfarclas has a fragrant heart of sandalwood and honeysuckle. This whisky is like a painting executed entirely in earth-tones. I was uncertain at the start but it really grew on me as I tasted it. In fact I was enjoying investigating it so much I almost forgot to leave enough to try with water. I did remember just in time, but to be honest I wish I hadn't. This is much nicer neat. Tasted from a 30ml sample. Would I buy a bottle of this at the asking price of $165? No probably not, but I wouldn't turn down a pour of it and it has certainly made me interested in exploring more of their expressions. It has character. "Good" : 84/100 (3.75 stars)