Tastes

North Star Spirits tasting event, Sydney, February 21, 2020, Whisky #1 Nose: Sweetly fruity and floral, but not intensely so. A gentle aroma of red apple, apricot, rockmelon, red berries, vanilla and musk. There is a mildly oily quality to the nose like tanned leather and it also has an earthy note. As the dram rests and opens there is a tiny hint of menthol in the background and a mild hint of sherry, but it's well restrained. It is a little spirity, but not unpleasantly so - maybe zesty is a better description. Palate: A sweet and almost effervescent arrival with a crisp, fresh cereal quality mellowed by a slight buttery note. As it develops the sherry cask becomes a little more obvious with some dried fruits emerging along with sweet malt. The texture is lively but rich. Finish: Medium. Sweet malty and fruit notes that fade out into a gentle aftertaste. For oloroso cask maturation this is surprisingly like an ex-bourbon cask, and I'd believe you if you said it was bourbon for 12 years with a moderate sherry finish. The fortified wine is well in the background providing a subtle framework and it's not at all a sherry bomb. Excellent - just how I like it! The nose is fragrant and full and the palate is polite and very welcoming. There is something about this expression reminiscent of Bruichladdich Classic Laddie - it has that same fragrant/floral red-wine cask character. The nose is a touch spirity but a tiny dash of water (just a few drops) dispels this completely. As I came back to this dram throughout the night it became progressively less impressive, but that was only because it was being compared to some stunning old whisky. Taken on its own merits it's a really enjoyable teenage Authroisk that displays all the best aspects of this workhorse Diageo malt that you don't get in the OB Flora & Fauna bottling. This is a cracking good single cask release and it's reasonably priced. I bought a bottle on the night. "Good" : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Oak, honey, vanilla, caramel sauce, popcorn, cherries. A very fresh and well constructed nose. It's sweet, approachable and honest. Palate: A sweet and mild arrival with brown sugar and soft rye spice. Seed-cake and fennel seed, peanut brittle, a hint of sweet licorice, vanilla, mint, sweet corn and a little tobacco. There's a slightly candyish nature to the palate, but it's not sickly. Finish: Short. Sweet and woody caramel flavours. This is an odd one, and I’ve not been able to find out much about it. Jim Beam Bonded has been around for a while and has gone through a lot of label changes and bottle shapes, but the profile has remained fairly stable. It’s always had a hefty, tannic and raw edge with peppery notes. However, this “Bonded Number 12 Formula” is nothing at all like that. It has a soft and honeyed presentation – still with good weight, but it’s much easier. If anything, it is more similar to the Signature Cask 12 year old, however in this case the whisky is not 12 years old – Number 12 Formula is just a marketing name and it does not have the class of the Signature Craft. This may have been an Australian-only release, I don’t know. I picked up a few bottles a couple of years back and just finished the last of them. Unfortunately it seems to be no longer available. It was briefly replaced by the standard modern label Jim Beam Bonded, but that is now also unavailable here. I suspect it was withdrawn because being a bonded whiskey it had to be exported at 50%, and that was too expensive to import given Australia's ridiculously high excise rates. It's a real shame because this was a good mid-shelf bourbon that was enjoyable neat as a sipping whisky and also made a great mixer. If you see a bottle anywhere don't hesitate to grab it. “Above Average" : 80/100 (3 stars)

Bakery Hill tasting event, Sydney, 18 February 2020, Whisky #1 Nose: Bright, gristy cereal, fresh yeasty white bread, lightly fruity and floral, a touch of honey. Intensely spirit driven with barely a trace of cask. Fresh and crisp – almost brittle. Palate: Firm, bright arrival that again focuses squarely on a clean cereal profile. Very crisp with some malty notes but I thought there was little development apart from considerable heat that arises in mid-palate and obscures things a little. The texture is on the oily side of neutral. Like the nose, the palate is spirit-driven. Finish: Medium/short. Light, dry semi-sweet flavours that trail out into a sweet cereal aftertaste. I’ve only tasted one Bakery Hill prior to this (the Sovereign Smoke which I enjoyed a lot and rated at 4 stars here) so I’d expected a little more from this core-range whisky. It’s certainly a very clean and direct spirit but also rather simple. My immediate thought on tasting it was “so what’s all the fuss about?” and I couldn’t shake the feeling that something was somehow missing. Adding a dash of water initially improved things by expanding the profile and adding a little sweetness (as it so often does) but over time a feinty wet-cardboard character emerged. I thought this whisky was just on the better side of average, but not by much. At the asking price (US$110 for a 500ml bottle!) I really didn’t think this represents good value. “Average” : 79/100 (2.75 stars)

Nose: Strongly smoky, of the highland type. Not medicinal or coastal - more bonfire. Some winey notes in the background, but primarily smoky. Water changes the nose slightly, bringing out plastic aromas. Palate: Smoke on the arrival, rich and blanketing. Red berries and some faint jammy notes in the development. Again, adding water unleashes a lot of plastic notes and after a while the palate veers towards sourness. Take this one neat. Finish: Medium. Sweet and smoky with a little bitterness in the aftertaste, particularly when watered. An interesting smoky dram, but not one of great stature. The nose is very forceful when neat and certainly not constrained by the 59% abv. Water mellows it but at a cost. The palate is not of the same standard as the nose, and pretty average, really. BenRiach releases these cask strength, single cask expressions regularly. There were 24 in this Batch 16 release, with 12 only available in Europe, and 12 in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I don't believe there was any U.S. allocation. These batches always strike me more as interesting detours than anything else. Something to be enjoyed at tastings rather than purchased for pleasure, although that said I'm sure there are dedicated BenRiach collectors who eagerly await these releases and snap up the whole set. Many thanks to @Soba45 for sending me some samples of the latest batch, but this is the only one I'll be reviewing here. The nose is good, but the palate only average. I'm splitting the difference and scoring it at 3.25. "Above Average" : 82/100 (3.25 stars)

Nose: Lightly resinous wood, cedar, some vanilla, a chocolate note. Malty and grainy and more satisfying than any other Auchentoshan I've nosed. There's a fresh white bread / madeira cake / panettone note along with bergamot and ginger. Pleasant and fresh rather than mature. Palate: The palate does not hold up to the promise of the nose. It's similarly fresh but the arrival is a simple combination of young cereal flavours, green grass and mild herbs that tastes very young. Had I tasted this blind I would never have guessed that it was 21 years old. There are agreeable malty notes but no complexity and like every Auchentoshan I've tasted the wood influence seems intrusive. It's simultaneously juvenile and confused. The texture is OK, a little oily and silken. Finish: Short. Ginger cake, pine resin and some grassy notes. I have to confess that I'm not at all fond of Auchentoshan whisky. There is a particular note in their new-make spirit that reminds me of pine-tree sap and I find it permeates every aspect of all their expressions. When this is combined with cask influence the resinous note is amplified, and the more varied and complex the casking the worse it becomes for me. I'm sure that this is not a common perception as many folks enjoy this distillery's offerings. It's probably some obscure association I have with a particular ester that triggers my resin-phobia. However once again I'm confounded by Auchentoshan. The nose is very pleasant, hardly commanding but time has muted the resin note considerably. However on the palate it's just a young and forgettable malt. There is nothing at all actively bad about it, but there is nothing that I could find that was worthy of high praise either. Tasted from a 30ml sample, thanks to @Soba45 for the tasting sample. It's not a whisky I would ever have bought as an experiment, particularly at what seems an unusually high price. "Average" : 79/100 (2.75 stars)

Australian Single Malt Whisky Tasting (Part 2), The Oak Barrel, Sydney 17 January 2020, Whisky #7 Nose: Deep sherry, warm baking spices, ginger biscuits, orange oil, cocoa. Palate: A warm, rich Christmas cake arrival with a hint of spice and oak. Fortified wine, brandy and cherry liqueur become apparent as it develops, together with an amplification of the dark cake flavours into treacle tart, fruit mince pies and stewed pears in port. Balancing this huge palate are some bright spice tones and bittersweet fruit notes (grapefruit and kiwifruit). The texture is creamy, full and dense. Finish: Medium. Fortified wine and honey trail off into a sweet malty aftertaste. This was the last dram of the two-night tasting of Australian single malts and it was a great finale. Unlike the 18 year old Smith’s Angaston that we tasted at the end of the first night [see separate review] this whisky had good balance. The distillery that produced it was acquired by Yalumba (a massive Australian wine producer) in 1970 but it was immediately mothballed as they had no interest in whisky production. However the still was later recommissioned and ran for three years from 1997-2000 to produce a few experimental hogsheads. This expression was one of 264 bottles produced from cask No.970331 in 2019, which had been filled from one of the last spirit runs in 1997. The bottling was dedicated to Peter John Wall, the late production manager at the distillery, who was responsible for the brief recommissioning of the still and the experimental runs. “Very Good” : 85/100 (4 stars)

Australian Single Malt Whisky Tasting (Part 2), The Oak Barrel, Sydney 17 January 2020, Whisky #6 Nose: Peat smoke, caramel, honeyed citrus. A vegetal note in the background that is reminiscent of some Scottish peated whiskies. Palate: Smoke on the arrival together with sweet earthy citrus and salty caramel notes. The development is warm and focuses more on cereal and malt flavours, however in time smoke re-asserts itself and finds balance with the sweet notes. The texture is creamy and the smoke is gently omnipresent like a soft light blanket. Finish: Medium/long. A little oak, some sweet notes and mild peat smoke on the aftertaste. Although it has the statement “defiantly peated” on the label and was apparently produced at 45ppm level, this is a mild and elegant smoky whisky and no simple peat monster. It reminded me just a little of Laphroaig Select, but without any medicinal notes and with greater earthy sweetness. There’s also a slight similarity to some aspects of Longrow, which is no bad thing. However, first and foremost this has the typical Bakery Hill character. It’s a showcase variant of their new-make spirit but it still highlights the distillery’s signature profile of dry cereal with a touch of honey. Aged for 7-8 years in ex-bourbon barrels, which is relatively long for an Australian whisky, this is one of the better Bakery Hill expressions I've tasted. “Very Good” : 85/100 (4 stars)

Australian Single Malt Whisky Tasting (Part 2), The Oak Barrel, Sydney 17 January 2020, Whisky #4 Nose: Fresh oak, red fruits, butterscotch, raisin. Palate: Malty and dark red fruit arrival with a little honey and caramel. In the sweet development there are dark cherries, strawberries, and a chewy, malty plum-pudding with light brandy butter sauce. The texture is rich and enveloping and supported by good oak with just a hint of spicness. The high alcohol content is barely noticed. Finish: Medium. Fortified wine notes and some nutty tannins in the aftertaste. A well-balanced port-bomb, but with a definite leaning towards sweetness. Maturation was in 5 very small French oak ex-port casks that yielded a total of just 125 cask-strength bottles. The whisky is named after Rheban farm which is located south of the distillery and overlooks Rheban Beach. Note that "The Rheban" is the distillery name for all its cask-strength expressions. Port wood is the main maturation method but bottlings also exist that were matured in sherry and bourbon casks, although those are rare. “Good” : 84/100 (3.75 stars)

Australian Single Malt Whisky Tasting (Part 2), The Oak Barrel, Sydney 17 January 2020, Whisky #3 Nose: Sherry, raisins, mild spices, oak and a trace of floral notes in the background. The dry-glass aroma is all oak and sherry. Palate: A fruitcake arrival with mild baking spices. Slight tannin in the development (walnuts, black tea) but balanced by honey and fortified wine. A mild leathery note but on the whole it's a cask-driven sherry experience. Finish: Medium/short. Dark fruit and fortified wine in the aftertaste. Tasmanian Independent Bottlers acquires new-make spirit from a variety of Australian and New Zealand distilleries and matures it in its own warehouse in Hobart in 100 litre casks. The cask and new-make spirit are selected to compliment each other and a variety of wood styles and previous fills are used. This is the 3rd release of spirit acquired from Fleurieu Distillery in South Australia. Each release was aged in an ex-sherry cask sourced from the Hunter Valley wine region in New South Wales (this expression was from cask FL007). Although it is well crafted and there are no obvious faults in either the spirit or the cask I didn't think this was a very interesting whisky. Original bottlings by Fleurieu are typically big, fruity, sherried and have a signature salty caramel note whereas this dram was a little one-note sherried. In profile it is something like a cross between a young Glenfarclas and a young Aberlour, but without the character of either, and considering the price ($200 for a 500ml bottle) it's not great value for money. “Above Average” : 80/100 (3 stars)