Rating: 12/23 I've never tried Glenglassaugh before, but I bought a couple of bottles because I heard good things. I'm skeptical because all of their offerings seem to be young. I don't just mean 12 years: I'm worried that there might be juice as young as 3 years in them. Let's see how they are. N: A lot of youthful malt with some sort of grassy nectar. Not much is happening here. It smells young and uncomplex. P: So the palate immediately reminds me of Ainsley Brae Burgundy, which is super weird. It seems on the thin and immature side, but there isn't the same degrees of weird, thin wine flavor, nor is there the same degree of sulphur and other impurities. It tastes like they took moderately interesting mash and threw it in a barrel without being sure whether they wanted it to be there for 3 years or 12. I get some nice, fresh bourbon sweet vanilla and spices. It's sort of like how Glenfiddich 14 has that nice bold bourbon barrel funk, but this is more youthful. This doesn't taste actively bad, but it does taste very young. It's a lot better than the nose suggests. Water really brings out the complexity of the profile. Some alcohol flavor does come through, but it's clear rather than harsh and there's 50% alcohol in this, so it's more reasonable to taste it than in a 40% whisky like Aberlour 12 (though Aberlour 12 does not show its alcohol). I get some Aberlour 12 vibes in here mixed with some of that standard bourbon spiciness and sweetness with the malt, but this is surprisingly fruity. And it's still very young. I'd prefer Aberlour 12, unfortunately. Still, it's clear that the barrels used here were of pretty decent quality and the distillate was as well (probably a lot of very usable heads and tails got thrown out). This tastes very youthful, which I don't really like, but that isn't inherently bad. In that regard, it's sort of like Pure Scot Virgin Oak, but with more personality in its distillate. Rather than using bourbon barrels because they're cheap, it's clear that Glenglassaugh sourced some quality, sweet, fresh barrels. They don't have time on their side, but they''ve done what they can with what they have. Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban 14 tastes fairly youthful - more youthful than I'd expect from a 14 year old scotch. This tastes much more youthful. There's just no way that this is even 10 years old (or at least not much of it could be that old). It doesn't taste muddled like a blend. It just tastes young. There's an odd fruitiness, to the maltiness (not quite tangerine- maybe nectartine or yellow peach?), but nothing nearly so fruity as the Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban 14, another scotch that tastes a bit on the youthful side. I could believe that this is up to 8 years old maybe. Intuitively though, I suspect it's closer to 3. It lacks a lot of the roughness raw distillate character that most 3 year old scotch has, but that could just be the result of some clean, rich distillate with some fresh barrels. Considering that, I'm skeptical that this is over 6 years old. Initially, I guessed that it was straight-up 3 years old. It seems a bit better rounded than Wolfburn, so I might guess a little higher now though. A weird problem with this palate is that it's rougher and less complex without water. Glenglassaugh straight-up picked the wrong proof for this whisky. Something around 45% would have been better. F: The sweetness largely disappears, though some maltiness remains, along with some grassiness. Wafts of the fruit come through from time to time. - Conclusion - This is a good start, but Glenglassaugh really needs to be bottling some older product. 13 is as high as I can imagine going here. 10 is the lowest. Actually, a 10 doesn't seem to fairly account for the nice cleanliness to the flavor here. I'm looking in the 11 to 13 range. Actually, it's going to be at least a 12. It's a 12 to 13 with a slim chance of a 14. What's so tricky here is that this is uncomplex and clearly young, but the distillate and barrels are both clearly good. It's eminently drinkable and would be a great intro to scotch with a little water added. Considering how water brings out the complexity here, I'm liking this better than Pure Scot Virgin Oak. Too much water brings out a bitter graininess, but just a bit reallyenhances the complexity. The profile's mellowness reminded me a bit of Dalwhinnie 15 (16), so I tried them side by side. This just pales in comparison - and Dalwhinnie 15 is not exactly great. The complexity is not as good here and there's more harshness. The balance is a bit off as well. Where I'm at now is there's no way that this is higher than a 14, but there's also no way that it's below a 10. I think I'm in the 11 to 13 range. I kind of like the mellow complexity of super aerated Sir Edward's 12 better side by side, but it's close and I can see it going back and forth. This seems really competitive with Pure Scot Virgin Oak and I think I might prefer this for its sweetness and easy drinkability. I think that means that I overrated Pure Scot Virgin Oak when I gave it a 14, unfortunately. This has an edgier personality with more youthfulness, but it's pretty tasty. I'm going with a 12. I just gave Sir Edward's 12 a 13 and it was maybe slightly better. Unfortunately, I'm likely heading toward dropping Pure Scot Virgin Oak to an 11 or maybe 12, but I'll get to rerating that one another time. This tastes like a 12 to 13. I might up it to 13 in the future, but for now I'm going with 12. Pure Scot Virgin Oak tastes about a point below this. For its (presumable) age, this is really good. I have hopes for Glenglassaugh. Still, I wouldn't buy another bottle of what they're putting out now at the prices they're charging.