Rating: 20/23 N: Interesting. It's herbal and musty with a menthol character prominently on display. As I swirl it, I start to get farmyard and wood. It's a bold wood backing, but it doesn't come across as overly austere. Then some toasty grain with vanilla and a bit of cinnamon. And a low layer of smoke like soot that's just been there coating a bricks outside a fireplace that nobody can quite get off. An occasional faint hint of orange concentrate or something else kind of tart but also a bit full. There's also a hint of buckwheat (a faint hint) that then joins with the wood and adds a bit of light toasty and nutty character. This is a much bolder nose than that of Springbank 18 (2018), but I can't say that it's as balanced or enjoyable. Between the two, I would take the Springbank 18. P: There's a richness that jumps out here. It has a bit of virgin oak sweet richness and vanilla sweetness without having that same monotone flavor I expect from a young whisky aged in virgin oak. It just kind of adds that layer on top of the existing Springbank maturity, filling out the character. A little menthol with some fruit that's tart yet rich and sweet like lemons that have turned into plums and then prunes over many years. If there was any doubt about oloroso barrels. the nuttiness that follows erases it. The Springbank character is not entirely erased though - I get farmyard funk coming in from behind the barrels at times. Speaking of barrels: I do get plenty of the bold wood from the nose, with a bit of cinnamon, clove, and occasional white pepper coming through. It's a bit tannic (not just the clove flavor), but not overwhelming or out of balance. F: This is where that Springbank character shows the most. It's a reminder of where this came from. There's grain, a hint of malt, some funkiness combining earth and vegetal flavors. There are still those oloroso flavors and the syrupy prunes, and plums combine with the tart lemon and a bit of the bold wood to create almost a manuka honey flavor. - Conclusion - Hot take: this is an excellent dram, but Springbank 18 is better. This feels like it wants to be that rich, sherried, hedonistic whisky, but it also wants to retain its Springbank funk. Now, I've had some great whiskies that put a big sherry profile on top of a bold, funky distillate. Just look at Talisker Distiller's Edition, Ardbeg Uigeadail, or even Springbank 12 Cask Strength. These all benefited from some combination of a very strongly funky distillate and a comparatively short time in the sherry barrel. This tastes more like someone added the oloroso to Springbank, thought it was too lemony and aggressive, then doubled down until it turned rich and sweet. Now, to be clear, the result is delightful. The thing is though, that it seems like the wrong approach for Springbank to be taking when aging a spirit for this long. Some sherry could be awesome and long age can be great too - just see Springbank 12 CS and Springbank 18. Here, the mixing of the genres has not quite worked out as well as it could have. It's sort of poetic how the palate displays a bold new Springbank, but as it fades the original profile remains on the finish. I actually really enough the image that creates. But it still doesn't make me think that this was the right way to craft 21 year old Springbank. Honestly, I think the more bourbon-heavy approach with the greater cinnamon and sweetness that the Springbank 18 was pursuing had a lot of potential. But on to the comparisons. Cadenhead's Tullibardine 25 (1993) (low 19) isn't as complex as I'd like an it has some rough edges, but it has a freshness and confidence in itself that I really enjoy. This seems a bit more incoherent with some overly aggressive cask influence, but it's also more complex and interesting, and frankly enjoyable to drink. I find it a bit rough around the edges with the obvious fresh cask flavors, but I do wonder whether I would be so perturbed by those if I hadn't done so much home blending, causing them to leap out at me. I've had a similar dilemma with Garrisson Brothers, which always tastes a bit like sawdust from rapid wood chip aging to me and which I never tried before starting home blending. Anyway, these two are unfortunately closer than I'd expected them to be, but the win goes to this Springbank. Lismore 21 (19) is more complex and balanced, albeit a bit muddled and less strong with a touch of sulphur. I am finding myself strangely drawn to the Lismore here though. It seems like it knows better what it wants to be and it is comfortable being that. This is tough, but I think I'm leaning toward the Lismore. That puts this between one 19 and another 19, meaning that it should just be a 19, but let's do a couple more comparisons before calling it. Springbank 15 is still brasher with its flavors and its more out of place sherry cask (I'm actually getting some Pedro Ximenez sweetness in addition to the oloroso off of the 15 now). The cask is certainly more present here, but this one seems like its whole thing is that it went all in on the cask. Speaking of going all in on the cask: Glenfarclas 25 (23, though this bottle is a bit past its prime, so maybe a 22). The Glenfarclas is a decadent sherry bomb. Christmas in a bottle. Plus some tannins that may put some off. This has some more aggressive flavors, but it's increasingly reminding me of my own attempts to home blend and rapid age scotch. It isn't by a huge margin (though it isn't exactly small either), but the Glenfarclas is the definite winner. I mention that the margin isn't huge also in defense of my own home blending ;) Coming back the next day to finish this tasting, this still tastes over-finished, particularly in how the barrel squashes the flavors, but it's a bit less jarring. Side by side with the Lismore now, I'm leaning toward this. Springbank 18 is still substantially better than this is though. Conversely, the Tullibardine has a tighter, more coherent profile than this does, but it doesn't have as much going on. I'm now looking at a 19 to 21. Hmm, actually, that overfinished character is starting to hit me more again. One last comparison, and an odd one: El Dorado 21 (21). The two are close, but the El Dorado is more complex and coherent. I could imagine giving this a low 21 if the El Dorado were a high 21 or maybe a 22, but as it stands this seems solidly like a 20 to me. This really refines the sherry cask combined with maturity that Springbank 15 started. It balances multiple types of casks very well, making for a decadent and complex dram. This doesn't have that same taste of oloroso like someone just dumped some in the barrel that the 15 has. The combination of casks here is done very well. I'm sometimes tempted to give this a 21, but I'm sticking with a 20. This is an excellent whisky, but it just hurts to imagine Springbank taking a beautifully crafted 18 and overwhelming it with strong finishing (or whatever they did to this). The 10, 12, and 18 are definitely the Springbanks worth getting. Thanks so much @ctbeck11 for sharing this rare delicacy! Oh how I'd love to be able to have it as a staple.