North British 1991 28 Year Cask Strength Collection (Signatory)

The nose is sugar crusted oak, that is to say oak with a sweetness over the top. There’s something slightly vegetal, but burnt. I get the sense that this may be more oak than I care for, but we’ll see. The nose is quite interesting, and I spent probably more time nosing than I typically do smelling this one. The palate shows lots of wood. Layers of wood upon wood. There’s some of the sweetness, some vanilla maybe, and then some more wood. It’s a little much for me, but in small doses it’s quite an experience. Wood flavored candy or candied wood? Probably not one I’d care to repeat, but I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to try. Thank you @ContemplativeFox for the sample!

Nose: Mature oak, lemons, leather, raisins, prunes and milk chocolate. Palate: Sweet & sour mix, medium dark chocolate, red grapes, dark berries, dried fruits, toffee, leather and cream filled chocolate cake. Some of those notes sound weird together, but they work for me. Finish: Long, somewhat spicy. The figgy/chocolaty/prune note hangs a long time but gives way to lemon bar at the end. Thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the generous sample.

Rating: 17/23 Today was an occasion for a special dram. The reason? It's now been 2 weeks since I got my second CoViD shot! I'm now free to lick doorknobs the world over, but I'll settle for this single grain whisky for now. I've had one other North British bottling in the past. It was only 7 years old, but it was surprisingly sweet, full, and smooth. Based on that, I have decent hopes for this despite not generally liking grain whisky. E: This is a fairly dark with a rich reddish hue. It's beautiful when held up to the light in the bottle as the variation in that bottle's thickness creates a color gradient such that it lightens a bit from the top to the bottom. The bottle itself is also really attractive, with the exception o the cheap paper labels that Signatory uses. Pulling the cork out, there's an enticing stain where the whisky had gone up the sides of the cork, leaving a darker, slightly red-tinged mark. N: After letting it sit for a few minutes, this is very rich. There's a slightly savory spiciness with the rich but tamed wood makes me think French oak That gives way to a clear tartness like oloroso sherry. A hint of a sweeter, red fruit note along the lines of strawberry or cherry comes out too, but it quickly vanishes. This is very full for such a low proof. I'm quite surprised, even given the age and cask type. I'm not getting much complexity, but the richness and fullness are intriguing on their own. P: Initially, it's sweet wood. There's that bitter yet sweet French oak fullness in spades, including some rich (not sweet) vanilla. This is dangerously close to being over-oaked. Actually, it might be over-oaked - but it does maintain substantial sweetness! Very quickly, a tidal wave of spice flows in. This is a grain whisky, so even at 28 years old and only 47.4% ABV it does burn. The spice is peppery to the point of harshness. Some tart fruitiness like lemon comes out as the spice recedes and unfortunately adds to the impression of harshness. It gets a little oily. A dash of leather comes through but not much. Some slightly caramely sweetness from the grain remains and melds nicely with the barrel, but aside from the burning spice most of the grain flavor has been removed. What continued to strike me is just how full and substantial this whisky is at only 47.4% ABV. I would have guessed it was closer to 60%. F: That burn sure lasts. There's some vague oakiness persisting as well and a bit of the tartness. I still feel and taste the boldness of the palate, but the finish doesn't add anything else or end with the most delightful flavor lingering for ages. - Conclusion - I like how prominent the core oakiness is. It reminds me of Pure Scot Virgin Oak in how it doesn't beat around the bush. You want French oak? Bam, you got it. I suspect that the sherry used here was oloroso because of that lemon flavor. Unfortunately, I don't think that aspect works out so well in this whisky. Some sweet fruits could have worked (though they might also have been overpowering), but what this really needed was something to add complexity and downplay its spicy burn, while also upplaying its fullness if possible. The oloroso character adds a little to the fullness, but the lemon really isn't good here. This has the big, brash flavors of something like Booker's Country Ham. It might not quite have the same level of heat, but it manages to have a fuller and more balanced flavor, with a comparatively large amount of red fruit. This is actually a great scotch to drink after a big, punchy bourbon because this one can hold its own surprisingly well. There's nothing subtle or delicate here, but that isn't entirely a bad thing. From a technically perspective, I can tell that there are serious problems here and it has a challenging nature, but it's bold in a way that I don't encounter often and it's this conundrum of highly concentrated essence. In that regard, this kind of reminds me of Kavalan Soloist Port Cask, which remains the most unbelievably concentrated whisky I've ever tasted. Seriously, 10 ml of that stuff is plenty with all of the flavor in it. This doesn't reach that level, but it's also only 47.4% rather than closer to 60%. They both also have that big French oak flavor. Another obvious comparison is Cambus 27 (also from 1991) aged in a sherry cask. The Cambus is more like 60% ABV and the alcohol is more present as a result, but it's taken on a lot less of the wood character. Both have a lot of that raw sherry character leaking in though. I think that this is clearly the superior single grain whisky. Pure Scot Virgin Oak has a similar oak profile to it, but it certainly tastes much longer. That isn't inherently a bad thing - sometimes I want something lighter and less challenging. I'd call this one clearly the better whisky though. Which it should be, considering the price difference at the very least. Garrison Brothers Single Barrel Cask Strength (just shy of 60%) strikes me as stronger in proof, but less full. And that's a bourbon with a lot of wood to it. Considering that, the tremendous fullness here is really something. Water is a huge help here, mellowing the experience out and giving it some better balance and depth. I wouldn't have thought that such a low proof whisky would need water so badly, but it really does. This is an odd one. And that's why I like it so much. It's clearly flawed deeply by normal standards, but it's also so bold and unique. I've considered anything from a 14 to a 19 for this, but I'm currently looking at a 16 to 17. Actually, I'm going with the 17. This has some really nice character and despite its rough edges, it's not out of the reasonably range for whisk(e)y - it just needs to be compared with bourbon. This ends up being a very straight-forward dram, but one that has a nice core with fullness and richness that make it feel like an indulgence.