Càrn Mòr Glen Grant 1992 (26 Years)

Nose begins with strong apples and pears like a typical Speysider, then berries, toasty malt, citrus, dried fruits and flowery notes join in. Delightful! Palate is supple, a little chewy and semisweet. The apple and pear notes are most prominent with citrus, pastry, nuts and dried fruits trying to make themselves known. Finish is long and spicy. Thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the sample.

Rating: 17/23 I decided I needed to review this again after using it as a benchmark in my review of Glenfarclas 28 1990 Cask Strength Sherry Hogsheads (or whatever it's called) and finding that I liked it better and could pull out more flavors than I before. N: Dry wood, spicy (cinnamon, ginger, pepper), a bit of a nectar-honey sweetness tying into a tad of robust minerals like crystalized sugar. Faint nuttiness and perhaps the tiniest hint of melon. This reminds me a bit of my Cadenhead's bottling of Tullibardine 25, but that has more robust spices, more tropical fruit (with a dash of cucumber), and a bolder, more bitter overall scent. P: More fruit than I noticed before. Sultana in with that nectar and honey flavor. There's more sweetness than I'd remembered too, though the spice (cinnamon with ginger) and dry, woody mellowness are still there as well. The minerality shows, but it adds an extra layer for the most part, rather than thinning the profile. A bit of vanilla. Some faint smoke. Really nicely balanced with a decent amount going on, but this is really going for the easy drinking category rather than the interesting, complex one. Cadenhead's Tullibardine 25 is more complex with a lot more spice, some melon, bits of other tropical fruits, and a full honey flavor, including the bitterness - all on top of a mellow spirit with plenty of wood (almost too much, actually). F: Dry wood and a bit of cinnamon with a little sultana that fades early on. Some faint vanilla richness lingering in the background. - Conclusion - I'm now starting to see why people sometimes get excited about whisky that spends a long time aging at low proof. I don't miss the higher ABV here because it's plenty full and has a nice profile. That said, I started this re-review expecting to go up to a 17 or 18, but I'm not so sure now. I'm thinking of a 16 or 17. Cadenhead's Tullibardine is better, but I gave it a 19 and I don't think the gap is that large. I might have overrated the Tullibardine though so it could actually be a 17 (it's more likely an 18 though). I think that means that this is a 16 or 17 though. The maturity and nice nectar here are growing on me - this can have a 17.

Nose - honey, vanilla yogurt, pear, strawberry, cereal grain, lemon zest, oat, apple sauce, green peppercorn, cinnamon, sweet oak, white wine, grape, hay, nectarine, sweet floral and bitter herbal notes, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - lemon, strawberry, orange zest, honey, pear, salted caramel, vanilla bean, tart apple, cinnamon, ginger, floral and herbal notes, white and chili pepper, hay, coconut, barrel spice, fruit blossom, cereal grain, moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium length with citrus zest, assorted floral and herbal, vanilla, and mildly tannic oak flavors. What a beautiful example of long, gentle Speyside aging. There’s a subtlety that belies its age, but there’s also a depth and richness of flavor that you don’t find in young whiskies as well. The nose is a veritable fruit basket of aromas, sweet and tart with a satisfying honey and vanilla component that complements the fruitiness nicely. It’s a bit like the smell of mixing vanilla yogurt with oats and honey and an entire refrigerator drawer’s worth of fruits. Understatedly delicious and inviting. The palate follows suit, with deeply tart fresh fruit dominating the arrival. Next come the gentler floral notes which give way to some cinnamon, dry herbs and spices, and soft, yet tingly pepper. The finish continues with these notes but also brings some tannic wood, not unpleasant but just enough to immediately turn your mind to the next sip. The tart, slightly salty, electrolytic remembrance of the palate ignites a mouth watering, Pavlovian response that is quite remarkable. This dram seems to continuously quench and rekindle your thirst for it, until the glass is empty and you’re left with but a memory of the encounter. Overall, this is delicious. There is a non-trivial amount of maltiness that I feel detracts from the experience and holds this back from true greatness, however it certainly decimates all other Speysides I’ve tried and ignites my interest in a region I don’t often consider all that exciting. It’s also my first real taste from an independent bottling, which is a category I look forward to exploring more in the future. Many thanks to @ContemplativeFox for providing the sample and allowing me to have this wonderful experience.

16: First tasting after the long drive back from the Bay Area and fist scotch tasting in 4 months. The nose is mellow with lots of vanilla nectar and light barrel spice like cinnamon and pepper. A bit like an oaked Chardonnay. There's a subtle apricot scent with some even more subtle strawberry and cherry flavors. Some just more plain and simple wood scent comes through too. Not as flat as I initally thought, though perhaps it's just faired well with the bottle open. The palate has some really nice peppery wood notes at the front mixed with some smooth nectary vanilla. It's more tart than I expected with some surprising bitter mintiness from the wood. That isn't a bad flavor for it, but it sure isn't what I expected or remembered either. I'm getting some more herbal flavors from the long slow aging in bourbon barrels now too, but they're surprisingly subtle. This still sure doesn't taste 26 years old. The mouth feel is moderately viscous, but not too much. It's quite enjoyable, but it's hard to push past the 16 or maybe 17 range with this profile given the minimal complexity. A few drops of water make it a bit smoother and bring out a bit more nectar to help balanced the herbal flavor, which the water also gives more presence too. This is an extremely subtle scotch that ultimately showcases a nice side of aging in refill bourbon barrels with its mild yet mature herbaceous, spicy, and vanilla elements. Still, it's hard to believe that it's worth putting in 26 years in those barrel for this result and the degree of subtlety could perhaps best be described as "excessive". With the water added, I do pick up some smoke and eventually a hint of tobacco from the herbal flavor. The contrast and balance with the sweet nectar vanilla is actually quite enticing. I'm going with a 16, but I can imagine bumping this up to a 17. It's more peppery but has less harshness from the alcohol than Dalwhinnie 15. Its flavors are also less interesting given the minimal smoke and red fruit, but there is definitely less sulfur too and the balance is better.

The nose has that richness of a scotch that has been aged long in a mildly flavored barrel. Honey and citrus immediately come to mind with a rich maltiness underneath. This is scotch pure and simple. It reminds me of Glenmorangie 18, but more mellowed with a bit more tangerine (not apricot) and less citrus. The nose promises a terrific dram, though likely not a mind-blowing one. It reminds me a bit of how Bushmill's 22 smells, but with less richness and none of that Irish whiskey grain oiliness. The nose does promise a well-executed flavor. First tasted on 2020-02-29 - a great day to provide my 1000th (for real - Black Raven Trickster IPA is in row 1000, but is 999th considering the header) alcohol rating. And this sure is a fitting choice since it was distilled and barreled the year I was born (1992), aged 26 years (26 was when I discovered I liked scotch after drinking a glass of Macallan 12 at the CorpEng winter social at the Red Door), is from Speyside (where Macallan, the scotch that got me started, and Balvenie, the scotch I will always remember my Dad having at home, are from), is from the distillery that Jim Murray has most consistently given the world's best scotch award to, is bottled at cask strength, is independently bottled (these last two being qualities that I have come to appreciate more as I have tried more and more scotches, looking for new experiences, and as I have tried aging spirits myself), and is not available normally in the US (making it a rare and unique experience). There were only 197 bottles of this produced. Whether it's good or not, it's a suitable choice for number 1000. The nose doesn't have any hay, which I see as promising. There are some light floral scents that blend nicely with some vanilla smells, but it's all light. They work well with the fruit scents too. The honey scent isn't as great now and there might be a dash of coconut (though maybe that's just the increasingly strong vanilla. It has more body but less fruit than Green Spot does. Despite the bourbon barrel aging, there really isn't much in the way of spice on the nose (though there might be something aside from the vanilla that is a bit reminiscent of bourbon. Sure note: this is the first time I've ever made it through the first 2048 characters onto the second comment without getting past the nose! Sure, there were some side notes, but in the past I haven't gotten close. This is a bit of another Corsair Oatrage experience. It isn't something that I would smell for ages digging into the richness and complexity, but it does smell very good. On to the tasting! The palate is less sweet than expected, but is quite interesting with a richness they kind of grows with a lot of vanilla (a LOT of vanilla) bringing in some ambiguous nutty tones, but definitely some coconut (not toasted) and some hints of spice. It's tremendously smooth without tasting watery (the mouthfeel is moderate, but passable with the richness). The general flavor has a lot of a nectar presence to it, but also has some tempered malty notes mixed with some well-controlled bitterness and nice refreshing citrus that doesn't bite (the tangerine is clearly there, but is on the light, vibrant side). It's a very solid scotch that reminds me a lot of Tullibardine without the interesting finish. The palate is certainly nicer than that of Dalwhinnie 25 with less harshness and a more balanced flavor profile, but the overall result is not terribly exciting. Better than Glenmorangie 18 due to its smoothness, but not a tremendous improvement. It's too bad that cask strength is such a low ABV in this case. It's great that it doesn't taste like wet wood, though it does have a bit of a lightness coming out from the intense vanilla. More swishing and swirling really brings out the richness of the vanilla. It's a slightly unique experience and it's amazing that such a gentle whiskey can exist at such an age (i.e. it isn't strongly flavored and also has nothing wrong). It's an easy sipper, though it isn't the one whiskey I would choose to drink for the rest of my life. This is lighter, less rich, and less broadly complex than Glenfiddich 14 Bourbon is, which is generally not a place a premium whiskey would want to be found in (though it isn't a bad position). This has that deep, mild woodiness to it that the Glenfiddich doesn't, though I still wouldn't guess that this is 26 years old. I would definitely be more likely to guess that this was 15. The flavor is a bit mild for 18 and the complexity is a bit short, but it's too smooth for 12. Overall, it's a very solid dram that I'm happy drinking, but it really required digging into the subtleties to appreciate it. I considered as low as a 15 for this, but it definitely isn't below that. A 16 seems about right based on this tasting since it takes so much work to dog out the subtleties. Ultimately, this is smooth and balanced, but is quite mild. I can see raising it to a 17 or maybe even 18 in the future, but for now it's getting a 16.i do eventually get a bit of alcohol from it, though it's quite little for the ABV. The palate is executed substantially better than that of Dalwhinnie 15. Like a few points better. I'm looking forward to trying this with a clean palate to try to pick out more subtleties. Still, I think it's probably too subtle. It seems more subtle than Highland Park 18, which is already often a bit too subtle. Based on this last tasting directly comparing this with Highland Park 18, the Highland Park is richer with more butterscotch and spice. The Highland Park is substantially better, though also is lacking complexity, suggesting that my palate is shot. Still, the Highland Park does taste better. And does have a nice hint (just a hint though) of sea spray on its finish. Coming back to the Glen Grant, it's lighter, but with this lingering wood fullness that isn't bitter or super rich, but gives a nice backing of vanilla and a bit of light nuttiness without being oily. It's actually quite like a milder Green Spot, which is not good, though my palate is shot. This is a bit different from Green Spot, with more vanilla, which brings its own form of richness. Still, the comparison is quite apt. I like this, but it's very hard it justify at the price and it's hard to imagine how it was aged for so long and ended up with such a mild flavor. Still, for the reasons mentioned previously, this was absolutely a great choice for number 1000! No regrets :) Also, this definitely the longest single tasting I've written so far. That mostly because circumstances fit it, but it feels satisfying. After all of these tastings and comparisons though, I have a home-blend bourbon sitting here that is right on par with some added complexity and a bit less age than I'd really like. It's a $35 blend. For the money, I'm definitely better off just making bourbon blends based on Ezra Brooks. Subsequent tasting: it's to h and sweet with some nice honeyed nectar and floral flavors including vanilla. It's a bit more hedonistic than my first Ezra Brooks based blend, with a really nice fullness to it. It's quite enjoyable. Though not super complex and contemplative. Nevertheless, a very good scotch. I'm bumping it up to a 17. It has a lot of that Irish whiskey light fruitiness (largely pear, with a bit of apricot) and floralness, but without the disgusting oiliness. Despite having a bit less complexity, I do think I prefer this this for its graininess, fullness, and bit of spice. Still, I think that the two are quite close in quality and Green Spot is Clearly better for the money. I'm leaning toward a 17 for this, but if I give it that, Green Spot has to get a 16.