Tomatin 12 Year Bourbon & Sherry Casks

By accident I ended up with both the new version that states it's aged in ex-bourbon and sherry casks (fatter black box with green trim), and the older version which just mentions sherry casks (thin black box with red trim). Since they're so cheap I might as well hang on to them both as something to sip mindlessly while watching TV, and while I'm here, why not compare the two? Both are 43%. Color is virtually identical, making me think there won't be any significant differences. Nose on the older version is saltier, more complex. Pancake syrup, wet cardboard, corn, a bit of sourness. Newer version has a darker, weaker scent, bourbony oak is there, also something like latex paint. Both of them have sub-par noses for single malt. Taste wise, older version is mildly sweet with a peppery finish, and has more of a bite than I expected. Newer version is a bit more complex, there's a winey sweetness, less bite and a milder finish. So, there isn't much difference between the two, the ex-bourbon barrel adds a bit of depth to the newer version, yet has a much lighter nose. Both of these are the cheapest ($31 ea.) and worst single malts I've had, yet both are perfectly drinkable and are not offensive. For another $10 you'd be better off with an Old Pulteney 12 or Laphroaig 10 or something else, but that's one of the great things about single malts, even bottles on the lower tier are decent.

French Oak version - Red Fruits

I decided to do a simple side-by-side tasting of two 12 year Highland single malt Tomatin: this sherry finished version alongside the French oak. The color is kind of light, but the nose is really promising: sweet fruit and honey with a nice whiff of the sherry cask coming through. I believe the bottle said it was aged on ex-bourbon barrels and finished for a short 6-9 months in unnamed Spanish sherry casks. On the palate it starts off very sweet but is quickly overtaken with oak- and lots of it. It washes away the sweetness a bit too quickly and finishes sort of harsh. It's a lengthy, yet hard finish. Boozy for only 86 proof. My initial impression is that it isn't offensive by any means, but it's suffering from a serious identity crisis: the nose leads you to believe this wants to be a poor man's Macallan (no offense), but the heavy oak burn and finish really keeps me from rating it higher. It's only $35 a bottle so in that aspect I guess it shines- a single malt that's cheap and readily available. I think if they had advertised it as ex-bourbon barrel and let the sherry be more of a pleasant surprise it would've worked better IMO. Cheers.

It’s cheap, yet delicious. Little bit of peatiness to it. Highland scotch.