dhsilv2
GlenAllachie 15 Year
Single Malt — Speyside, Scotland
Reviewed
July 11, 2021 (edited July 23, 2021)
This has been on my radar for a bit and I got gifted a bottle to review (by no means full, lol).
Nose - I'm already getting skeptical. Sweet sherry, overly oaked, and with this PX sweet candy thing that seems to contrast with harsh oak notes. Reminding me of some poorly executed Signatory single casks. That said the distillate isn't harsh,no off notes, and some malt character is coming through that seems to have a bit of meat and back bones to it.
Taste - I'm not sure what I expect for 15 years. The sherry is very much that not great or really special sweet, slightly medicinal character. The alcohol is here and a ***** punchy. The mouth feel by contrast is a touch thin. Some figs and dates give way to hints of grape and chocolates. The malt reminds there but I can't separate the end of the oak, sherry, or malt.
So how does it do vs balvinie 15 year? This isn't so dark and dusty bottle from some back cellar but it's likely an older bottle, and I did selected it based on being extremely dark. Still I don't think this is some early batch, and the barrel number is pretty high 4181. I'll leave the notes or review here and just say the nose is night and day better and while the taste does have some elements of harshness and it isn't some exceptional or perfect whisky, it's a much better combination of cask and malt.
If you want a bit more bitter oak, sharp, and somewhat bitter yet clear sherry bomb notes like you'll often get on a signatory single cask, this is going to be a great value buy. If that isn't really what you're after then this will be a bit young and a bit aggressive without much reward. I'd rather pay more for the balvinie.
1.5 out of 5 but I want to stress that if you really like this profile you'll be at 2.5 and on my scale 2.5 is a very very high score on bottle going for around that 100 mark. I just I see some of these flavors as flaws and failings of the whisky, but I can just as easily see these are things people I know and respect seek out.
80 out of 100 and a 1.5 for me today. Effectively, this is the starting point for a whisky I'd enjoy enough to happily have a bar with friends before I'd decide the section wasn't good enough and I'd just get a beer. I think a lot of you however will enjoy this more and I can't by any means not recommend it. I'm just not going to recommend it either.
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@LiquorLonghorn yep, that whole publication is barely distinguishable from a Beam Suntory ad.
@cascode There are a couple of reviewers to whom I pay attention, because I know from experience that their taste and preference are identical to mine. Consequently I buy blind on their recommendations and avoid what they rate poorly. Whisky Advocate is not in this group 🙂
@cascode I did find a wine rating that was similar to what’s described here: 1 star - very ordinary, 2 stars - casual drinking, 3 stars - good every day drinking, 4 stars - excellent, 5 stars -superlative. I like this and will use it.
@cascode totally agree, which is why I rather buy based on a few folks here than “pro” reviewers
@Greg-Courter There is no accepted “standard” rating system for whisky. Everyone, whether amateur or professional, devises their own approach. If I’m rating here on the 0-5 scale or if I’m conducting a group tasting I use 2.5 to mean “average” because I assume most people will expect that so it conveys my meaning intuitively. In my tasting journal I use a scale of 1-100 that is divided in the same way that Serge Valentin does it.
@PBMichiganWolverine I never refer to them as I’ve find that none of the reviewers there has similar taste to me, so their opinions are not helpful.
@pkingmartin now THAT tasting sounds awful. What a bait and switch.
@PBMichiganWolverine @LiquorLonghorn Agreed that it’s all business. I just don’t get Johnnie Blue getting a 97 and Lagavulin 25 a 93. Blue is tasty but not 97 nor better than Lagavulin 25. Plus a whisky fest by them one year promised 25, 27 and 32 Laphroaig, but none were poured that evening. Instead we got George Washington Distillery 2 year rye swill.
@PBMichiganWolverine and segue from $ back to ratings - a value scale on Distiller would be interesting and I’m sure another divisive way of looking at spirits. I’ve yet to reach a point where I would spend more than $300 on any spirit but it’s nice to learn about the experiences of people who are that brave/stupid/connected/lucky/etc.
@LiquorLonghorn not sure I trust anything recommended by Whiskey Advocate. They totally depend on ad revenues, so there’s a natural tendency to be biased. I don’t fault them for it...it’s business. I just don’t trust them.
@pkingmartin oh man I’m over Whisky Advocate. They were helpful when I was getting started but they’re too in kahoots with the industry to be objective. They need those advertising $$$ from Beam Suntory and such and a poor mark for Basil Hayden’s upsets that apple cart.
@dhsilv2 I also like your scoring system and use it as a buying guide for anything 4+. You’re a better buying guide than Whisky Advocate with their 90+ points given to garbage.
@PBMichiganWolverine thanks man. Yeah I'm pretty stingy with 4.5+ pours.
@dhsilv2 I personally like your scoring …when I see anything from you that crosses a 4.5 mark, it signals to me “ must buy , if I can afford it “.
@ctrexman lol, I got one guy who every 3-6 months tells me I should drink 40% entry level stuff when I give low scores to bottles, I legit didn't think anything of. never responds back to me though :( Cracks me up. @greg-couter I'm sure I've seen 5 star scores before but I don't see it that often.
@dhsilv2 I actually enjoy your lower scores. i didnt get it at first but caught on....plus they seem to piss a lot of people off
@dhsilv2 Sorry, I didn’t mean the giving of 5 stars, I meant the meanings of usage of the 5 star system. I’ve seen various meanings for the 100 point range so was wondering if there’s a common definition for the 5 star range. You’ve been most helpful.
@Greg-Courter I find the way 5's are given out here is pretty hapazard from one person to the next. Which is fine. If you think ECBP is a 5 and you've not had mitchters 20 then ECBP might be a good choice for a 5. I struggle with giving an ECBP however say a 4.25 or 4.5 and a mitchters 20 a 5. Or a lagavulin 25 a 5 and then a lagavulin 2017 12 year a 4. There's a bigger gap between those whiskies than a star imo. I'd much rather lump a lot of bad whiskies in with a narrow range than group all the great ones too narrowly. After all if it's less than 1 star, who gives a crap, just mix it in coke.
@dhsilv2 Thanks for your explanation. I figured it would more proportional but I get concept. Makes sense. Is that the normal method for 5 stars?
Just to add a bit more context Greg. Idea is to give this scale room to properly review great whisky and to acknowledge while most whisky by VOLUME would do poorly on this scale, in terms of raw bottles, there's a massive number of exceptional single cask and ultra premium whiskies being produced in tiny quantiles. The average "label" is far better than the "average pour" if you will and I'm scoring with that in mind. The 100 point scale sadly, doesn't lend itself as it's used today to really score things outside of 70-95 with the rare drop into the 50's or 60's for just swill. While I think this 5 star system, being a star off some other's scores is far less harsh feeling.
@Greg-Courter 2 5 star - exceptional the point it's changing how you view whisky and you're a bit shook. 4 star - 400+ whisky level stuff. It's amazing and among the best whiskies on the planet. 3 star - very good stuff, you're extremely excited to drink it and you'd be considing upwards of 200 for a bottle. 2 star - this is an average whisky lover's pour. It's got flaws, it's not wow, but it's well made through and through and you'll happily drink a glass. 1 star....it's not swill, but you're only drinking it because you were at a bar, they had terrible selection, and hopefully it was free. Still, you'll drink it. Under 1...my god...who thought this should be sold to consumers. This is the crap I drank in college to get drunk, not sip on to unwind. 90 is roughly a 4 star, 85 is roughly a 2 star, 75 is a 1 star. Done mostly to keep scaling with the 100 point scale more in line with how most do it...I'd rather use the full 100 point range but I get crap when I want to give Talisker 8 a 65 so I've just buckled.
I’m just wondering how an 80 out of 100 is equivalent to a 1.5 out of 5. How do your scales work? Or am I missing something? Thanks.