...where distraction is the main attraction.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1984 Hart Brothers

So, apparently it's difficult to publish blog posts in an expeditious manner when one has a newborn.

"What? How could I ever be a distraction?"
This week I've been drinking Littlemill samples in honor of my new daughter, Mathilda.  Tuesday's Littlemill, bottled by Berry Brothers & Rudd, was decent, light on the oak and bigger on the malt.  Wednesday's Littlemill, bottled by the whiskybase folks under their Archives label, was very pretty; all light citrus, flowers, and butterscotch.  Today's Littlemill was bottled by Hart Brothers, an indie brand I've often seen but never tried.

This bottling is at 46% ABV, which is good, but I've never seen a Hart Bros. cask strength release even though in the U.S. their whiskies are often priced like they were full strength.  On their official site, they list 30 current(?) single malts, only one of which appears to be at high strength.  On a more positive note, none of those thirty whiskies is younger than 11 years.

My sample was obtained via a swap with Mr. Opinions (Thank you, sir!).  He found some curious notes in his review of his bottle, which he had picked up when it was on clearance at Binny's.  So let's see what I find...


Distillery: Littlemill
Independent Bottler: Hart Brothers
Age: 20 years (April 1984 - January 2005)
Maturation: ex-bourbon barrel
Region: Lowlands
Alcohol by Volume: 46.0%

NEAT
The color is a pinot grigio. The nose starts out with rolled oats and matza in rubbing alcohol.  In fact, that takes front stage for almost 15 minutes.  Then lemon sugar cookies and store-bought nectarines (you know, the out of season ones that sit on trucks for a week or more and never ripen well? Specific!) appear.  Something creamy and vanilla-ish.  Then, after more time, sour milk and (um) urine.  Meanwhile, there's still a whole lotta wet maztos in there.  The palate starts out a little soapy.  Lemon flavoring, mild graininess, geraniums, the aforementioned stone fruits. It's tart and a little "fizzy" (a borrowed descriptor).  Lots of dish soap in the finish.  A mild maltiness meets notebook paper.

WITH WATER
Fewer unusual notes in the nose.  More citrus and tropical fruits.  In the palate, the citrus and malt get bigger.  The soap lessens and the fizziness remains.  The finish gets bitterer and the tartness ramps up as well.

An odd duck indeed.  Despite the fact that the notes may sound off-putting, the nose is actually a lot of fun.  Lemon cookies, matza, rubbing alcohol, and pee?  Good times.  The soap on the palate isn't too tough and not a deal breaker, but the finish is tragic.  When is joy not joy?  When it is Lemon Joy.  Water evens out the nose but doesn't help the whole package that much.

As MAO mentioned at the end of his review, there's something reminiscent of the "FWP" Bowmore period in this whisky.  All it's missing is the peat, then swap out the geraniums for lavender and violets.  Like some of the indie "FWP" Bowmores I've had, it seems as if the cask was picked for its nose and no one actually tasted the thing.  Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh.  Perhaps the soap notes grew in the bottle; they certainly expand with air.  This isn't a total throwaway whisky, it noses well, but if you're soap sensitive, beware.

Availability - Released in the US, likely sold out
Pricing - originally $110-$130
Rating - 76

NEXT WEEK, the celebration continues with another "L" distillery, one with a character noticeably different than Littlemill's.  Hint: It's not Lost Spirits.

14 comments:

  1. Interestingly, I picked up a sample in Glasgow of another Hart Brothers Littlemill that was distilled in the same month, but bottled a couple earlier than this one. It'll be interesting to see how the two compare.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's cool. Whiskybase has an entry for one that was April 1984 - September 2004, I wonder if that's the one. I'd be interested to hear how yours fares.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, that one. I'm getting a sample of this one from MAO, so I'll be able to do a head-to-head.

      Delete
    2. Good idea! I wonder if it's the same cask they'd split in two or, hopefully, it's a sister cask w/o soap.

      Delete
  3. Where are the baby photos, man? That's what I'm coming to this blog for!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just lucky I can put too words two gether right now. The post has now been updated with the missing ingredient.

      Delete
  4. Same here, Florin! Gonna have to find another blog if he continues this trend!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people have spoken! And the post has been updated. :)

      Delete
  5. Same here, Florin! Gonna have to find another blog if he continues this trend!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people have spoken! And the post has been updated. :) :)

      Delete
  6. Another "L" distillery? Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Linkwood, Loch Lomond, Longmorn, or dare I say Ladyburn? For some reason I'm hoping it's a Ladyburn because I just know someone isn't going to resist making a dirty joke about that name....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I'd rather my daughter never experience any Ladyburn, we'll delay my imaginary Ladyburn samples for another time.

      Delete
    2. Lochside would be nice, but that *is* a lost spirit... and Linlithgow is in the same family as Littlemill. I guess I'll just have to wait.

      Thank you for the great photo, order has been restored!

      Delete
    3. I used to think Pittyvaich was the most unfortunate distillery name. Now I'm coming to realize Ladyburn has it worse....

      Delete