Rating: 18/23 I had to pick something fitting for my 900th tasting on Distiller. I considered something 18 years old (because 9*2=18), something 45% ABV (because then it would be 90 proof), and various other forced numbers. Eventually, I landed on this because it being a 9 year old bottled at 64.2% ABV means that I can write 9 * (6+4)^2 = 900. Yeah, this is super weak justification. N: Surprisingly unpeaty. Sherry is what mainly hits me. I get oloroso tartness and nuttiness along with something a bit sweeter and faintly suggesting of red fruit that might just be the malt and wood. I like this nose, but I definitely expected it to be bolder and stand out more. There's some faint moldy cardboard in here too. P: Very forceful, but what else would you expect with this improbably high (for a scotch) proof. I get some rich, oily nuttiness with a sweet but piercingly tart red fruit and a substantial dose of leather. Some malty richness and sweetness come out and meld nicely with the oloroso (I realize there's no oloroso in this, but it tastes a lot like it) nuttiness. There's some big sweet and rich cinnamon spiciness with a strong peppery bite and a little bit of numbing clove. I do get some moldy cardboard and while I like the added complexity, the funk from it is a bit much. It immediately reminds me of Springbank 12 Cask Strength with its strength, leather, fruit, and funkiness, though I prefer the Springbank 12. I find the tartness here to be a bit excessive and the other flavors shout at each other a bit too much instead of cohering. It's still very enjoyable, but it certainly strikes me as a somewhat young whisky that was heavily finished in first fill casks to round it out. Side by side, the Springbank blows this out of the water. The other dram this reminds me of is my 27 year old bottle of Cambus. That bottle was aged in tired sherry casks and has nowhere near the complexity that this has, but it shares that tart, nutty, fruity oloroso character. I would say that this easily beats the Cambus. It takes a powerful whiskey to stand up to this with any complexity showing through, so I do have to give this a lot of credit for its complexity, at least in terms of having some big, forceful flavors that you can't miss. Others, like Springbank 12, have a lot more complexity, though many (unlike Springbank 12) have a much more subtle character that can easily get lost. The balance here though could use some work. With water, this retains most of the richness, but reducing the alcohol flavor helps to mellow the spicy bite and tartness. I think that a few drops of water make a big difference here. F: It's a rich finish with plentiful moldy cardboard and leather. Some spice and a bit of fruit remain, but the sweetness and tartness drop off. A dash of nuttiness helps to round things out. This is actually much more balanced, but less complex. I prefer the palate a little, but this is definitely better than the nose. - Conclusion - I like this quite a bit. It tastes like it needs some more maturing, but it is quite young. In contrast though, at only 12 years the Springbank 12 doesn't taste like it needs any more maturing. Springbank 12 is a poor choice for comparison because if I didn't know better, I'd likely guess that the numbers had gotten transposed and it was actually a 21 year old whisky. I would probably guess that this was about 12 years old. So I've stated that this is better than Cambus 27 (1991), but worse than Springbank 12 Cask Strength. That makes it a 14 to 21. Great. Well, I actually said that there was a large gap on both ends, so I don't think I would consider anything outside of the 16 to 19 range for this. Upon further contemplation and light side by siding, I think that a 16 is out of the question and an 18 seems to be the most appropriate. Hey, 9*2; look at that! Thank you @PBMichiganWolverine for the sample.