ContemplativeFox
Highland Park Cask Strength Release No. 1
Single Malt — Islands, Scotland
Reviewed
September 29, 2021 (edited July 29, 2022)
Rating: 13/23
I'm worried. I vaguely recall this getting less than glowing reviews. I also recently retried the Highland Park 12 and found that its youth brought with it a problematically strong sulphur flavor. I presume this is younger and more intense, so this might just be a blast of sulphur.
N: Full and oily with sort of a scent of roasted pork tenderloin. A bit of wood and earth, as well as some bitter herbal character (peat?). This smells a lot less sweet and maritime than Highland Park 12.
Given some substantial time to open up and putting it side by side with Highland Park 12, this has bigger meatiness with fairly similar sulphur. It lacks the sweetness though and has a bit more oil to it. The salt from the sea spray also gets folded into the pork instead. This is definitely less complex and further from the profile that I love in the Highland Park 18.
P: Strong with a burn. Oily, but fairly clean. As it goes on, the usual Highland Park maritime character and apricot sweetness start to come out, with a bit more orange added. There's sort of that highland light malty sweetness with a touch of tartness. Smoke with a bitter peaty herbal character that's a bit flat (but that helps fill out the profile) lingers. There's a rich, full grassiness to it - not fresh grass, but more bone dry. A Some cinnamon and ginger.
There's definitely a youthfulness going on here, with not a lot of wood or mature flavor showing through. Or at least there''s a clean, bland spirit a la Glen Grant happening here. Except there's also an earthiness with a few used green tea leaves and just a touch of oily coconut.
Toward the end of the palate, there is unfortunately a big plop of sulphur. I was getting a bit optimistic about this one until that hit.
The Highland Park 12 strikes me as more complex and balanced than this, but this benefits from the fullness and oiliness of the high proof, giving it a more rugged nature.
Water adds some complexity and balance to the grass herbal profile, brings out a bit more sweetness with the addition of a little vanilla, and reduces the sulphur below the level I found in the 12.
F: That rich, bitter smoke with sulphur. Some tartness from the peat. Occasional hints of sweet apricot.
- Conclusion -
Without water, this is pretty close in quality to Highland Park 12. I'm actually a bit relieved: I'd been afraid that this would be more intense and absolutely miserable. I'd probably put this a little below the 12, so it might land at 11.
Adding water is a game-changer though. It doesn't make this a great whisky, but it makes it a lot more drinkable. "Game-changer" means in this case that it might be as high as a 14. I'm thinking it's a 13 though. That will be my overall rating for it.
Thank you @ctbeck11 for sharing this. I'd been on the fence about it and decided against it, so it was great to get this opportunity to try it.
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@cascode I went searching for where I read that about Laphroaig. The article “New Laphroaigs and Laphroaigs You Knew” is absolutely fantastic journalism. On www.malt-review.com.
@cascode Thank you as always for sharing insight from your tremendous knowledge trove!
@angstrom Agree completely with regard to OP, HP and particularly Lagavulin. I’m not sufficiently familiar with old Laphroaig to offer an opinion, but I would not be surprised.
@cascode Ah. Now that makes sense. If I ever start buying vintage Scotch, I will target that era and earlier. Seems like Old Pulteney, Highland Park, and Lagavulin have seen a slide in my lifetime. Those would be high on my list for vintage, probably everyone else too. (Also curious about vintage Laphroaig, which supposedly had a much different profile than today).
Another note on that - the last genuine sherry transport casks shipped in the mid 1980s, and stocks of such casks were probably exhausted by the end of that decade. Given that HP18 that was casked then would be released around the middle of the first decade of the 21st century it supports the widespread feeling that a lot of whisky marques began to lose "something" around that time.
@angstrom Yes, I'd agree - Highland Park was uniformly pretty good pre-2010(ish). There is a popular perception (superstition?) that when a brand changes livery the juice inside the bottles was changed as well. It's not always the case, but sometimes ... yes. With Highland Park my feeling is that the age statements lost some magic around the time the current bottles with moulded Viking artwork were introduced, however some of the NAS expressions have been fine. My guess is that this is due to a slow decline in the quality of barrels available to them and the identification of any drop in quality with the new bottles is just coincidence. It's a brand where the OBs have been trading on reputation for a while now - certainly the HP18 should no longer have the absurdly high rating it has here - if ever that was justified it was only for the bottlings from last century.
@angstrom Unfortunately I’m not the right person to ask. I only started getting into whiskey two years ago, so all my experiences with HP have been with their viking regalia. I haven’t tried many of them though, but haven’t found one I really liked yet.
@ctbeck11 Shoot. How far back in time do I have to go to get the good Highland Park? Had the HP12 and HP15 circa 2007 and they were great. Is further back in time even better? I keep wanting to pick up a bottle and then is see these reviews. Had HP18 a couple years ago and it was good but not special.
Great analysis. Completely agree. This one was disappointing from the first pour and hasn’t gotten better over the months. I’m knocking my score down to a 3, as I think I was too generous initially.
@ContemplativeFox and @PBMichiganWolverine I do have to report I did mention meaty in one tasting which was the Barrell Batch 29 that is the only one thus far I recall having that flavor but I am sure the ones you two mention are far more meaty than that! Yes no raw meat for me lol would entirely want to avoid that. Thanks for the suggestions!
@ContemplativeFox @JoelyO I’ll second that recommendation—can’t go wrong with a Lag 16. If that peat is to intense, start with something less punchy…like a Talisker 10 or Kilkerran 12
@JoelyO If you want to try a good meaty whisky, I'd recommend Lagavulin 16. It has a roasted meaty savoriness from the balance of sweet and rich toasted malt with bitter, earthy peat. There's a different kind of meaty that I'd avoid though, which is a raw, fresh off the still sort of raw or slightly rotten flavor.
I am so curious when people describe whisky as "meaty" I have felt it in the mouthfeel but yet to get it in the flavor itself. So interesting. You almost had me at Pork Tenderloin lol