Single Malt Report: Imperial 17 year old 1995 Signatory Vintage for K&L Wines

Tuesday's 1995 Signatory Imperial was decent and drinkable, though much better with water.  That one was sold exclusively through Binny's.  Today's 1995 Signatory Imperial was sold exclusively through K&L Wines.  Please note: This is not the '95 Imperial currently on offer at K&L.  This is the bottling they sold in late 2013.

Imperial Distillery had a rocky existence.  Though it technically stood for 116 years (from 1897 to 2013), it only operated for about 46 of those years thanks to repeated extended closings.  As mentioned on Tuesday, I've found Imperial's single malt to be fruity, simple, and enjoyable.  It's a shame that Pernod Ricard closed and bulldozed the distillery because I could picture Imperial making for a pleasant unchallenging 12+ year old.  But knocked it down they did.

Today, the one on the right. The review for the one on the left
can be found here.

Distillery: Imperial
Ownership: Pernod Ricard
Bottler: Signatory
Retailer: K&L Wines
Age: 17 years (Aug. 21, 1995 - July 9, 2013)
Maturation: Hogshead
Cask #: 50135
Bottles: 44 of 168
Region: Speyside (Central)
Alcohol by Volume: 52.7%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
Sample courtesy of Eric S.  Thanks, Eric!!!

NEAT
Like Tuesday's Imperial, this one's color is light gold.  The nose is more vibrant though.  The esters read right between citrus fruits and flower blossoms.  Then vanilla bean meets dandelions meet confectioner's sugar.  With some air, small notes of wood smoke, pine, and cologne develop.  A larger note of peach skin emerges.  The palate is more of a puzzle.  There's a soap note positioned in the foreground and it takes me a while to find my way around it.  There's salt, wood spice, hints of lime and butterscotch and pastry dough.  With time a tartness develops and the soap fades slightly.  The soap shows up again in the finish, though things perk up a little.  Salt, pepper, roasted grains, canned peaches, and dried apricots show up.

WITH WATER (approx. 46%abv)
Honeycomb and beeswax combine with orange and lemon zests in the nose.  The vanilla bean note remains prominent, now combining with cream and bakery scents.  The soap's still in the palate.  Lemon creme and custard show up along with flower blossoms.  Some welcome tartness and herbal bitterness appear.  Less soap now in the finish.  More sugar, more lemon.  Hints of flowers and tartness.

So...the soap.  No one else has referenced this issue.  MAO (K&L zealot that he is) has no mention of it in his notes.  The review by a whiskybase member also doesn't reference it.  And that's about it for online reviews, unless anyone knows of another.

[On a side note, with these K&L bottlings selling out left and right, why are MAO and I the only bloggers reviewing them?  Is it because K&L doesn't send out free samples?  Did Driscoll hurt everyone's feelings with his blogger comic?  Are members of the blogging community not buying their exclusives?  Or are these bottles ending up in everyone's bunkers?  All of the above?]

Because there's no sign of the soap in the nose, I don't think actual soap entered the whisky at any point.  A hint of soap is not a killer, but there's enough of it present here to handcuff the rest of the palate.  Without it, this whisky would probably get a score a point or two higher than Binny's Imperial.  Like Binny's version, this one has the charms of a good blend.  The nose might be better than Binny's's, the palate less hot, and the whole similarly improves with water.

So, for more positive soapless reviews, see the ones I mentioned above.  In any case, this Imperial has been sold out for quite awhile (timely reviews as always!) and the current one on K&L's shelf is from a different cask.

Availability - Sold out
Pricing - $84.99
Rating - 76

Single Malt Report: Imperial 15 year old 1995 Signatory Vintage for Binny's

Time to do a Taste Off between a pair of 1995 Imperials.  Both were bottled by Signatory for individual retailers.  Before this pairing, I'd had only two Imperials (both Duncan Taylors) and found them to be solid B-ish-grade fruity Speysiders.  So I was looking forward to trying more.

It might be my imagination, but 1995 Imperials seem to suffer from "1997 Clynelish Disease".  Certain bloggers/experts/writers have noted that 1995 was a good vintage for Imperial, like 1997 was for Clynelish.  But, like 1997 Clynelish, that perceived higher quality may be due to availability and familiarity.  Per whiskybase, out of the 309 Imperial releases distilled between 1962 and 1998, 111 are from 1995 (or 36% from that year alone).  In fact, since 2010, more than two-thirds of the Imperials released were distilled in 1995 (106/158).  So what we're buying and drinking is almost always from the 1995 "vintage", thus that's what we're most familiar with.  So, BAM, I hope you like how I just knocked the f*** out of that Straw Man.

Anyway, lots of 1995 Imperials out there, about a third of which were bottled by Signatory.  This first one was bottled for Binny's in Chicago, though since it was bottled more than three years ago it's now sold out.

The one on the left today, the one on the right on Thursday

Distillery: Imperial
Ownership: Pernod Ricard
Bottler: Signatory
Retailer: Binny's
Age: 15 years (Oct. 9, 1995 - July 5, 2011)
Maturation: Hogshead
Cask #: 50314
Bottles: 219
Region: Speyside (Central)
Alcohol by Volume: 57.4%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
Sample from a swap with MAO, thanks MAO!, see his review here

NEAT
Its color is light gold.  The nose feels a little tight.  At first there's some vague citrus, butter, and pencil shavings.  Once it's aired out, the nose picks up some more fresh fruit (maybe apricot and mango), more butter, and a hint of spice (cumin and pepper?).  There are also some smaller notes of orange peel, chlorine, brown sugar, and lemon cleaner.  The palate is tight as well.  And very hot.  There's some of the nose's fruit in with the butter.  Irish soda bread and more butter.  Tart lemon candy, caramel candy, cinnamon candy.  The finish has bread and butter, spice and ethyl heat, salt and malt.  Sorta plain.

WITH WATER (approx. 46%abv)
The nose gets brighter.  Apple and pear skins.  Lime and butter.  Hints of band-aids and orange pixy stix.  A tart fruit tart and other baked confections.  The palate is sweeter, pleasant like a good blend.  Roasted nuts and grains.  Some orange and peach.  It's still on the hot side of things, but at least it's pretty malty.  The finish is tart, toasty, and lightly grassy. There's a salted lemon in there too.

This is like a cask strength blend, inoffensive aside from being much too hot when neat.  It's also considerably better when reduced to Signatory's UCF series' 46%abv strength.  But while it's decent enough, it's also not much more than that.  In his review from the same exact bottle, My Annoying Opinions has some similar conclusions about the whisky, specifically regarding how closed and hot it was.  Again, this bottle has been sold out.  But if you have one in your stash and the whisky seems a bit off in its first pour, add a little water to your glass.

Availability - Sold out
Pricing - ???
Rating - 81 (with water)

Single Malt Report: Grangestone Double Cask

Total Wine & More has an interesting approach to whisk(e)y.  Their locations (or at least their California ones) have excellent selections of single malts, including an extensive number of independent bottlings.  So they clearly have a knowledgable spirits buyer.  But they staff their stores with folks who don't know anything about these products.  Either they'll admit that whisky isn't their strong point or they'll just make up information.  And this includes the managers.  The first two times I heard the tall tales, I waited until the staff member left and provided some actual assistance to the customers.  In both cases, it was a middle-aged wife looking to get her husband something for his birthday.  After that, I had to ignore it.  They're far from the only liquor retailer with this problem, in fact they're in the majority.  But find it funny that they work so hard to get Exclusive Malts, AD Rattray, Berry Bros. & Rudd, Battlehill, Montgomeries, etc. onto their shelves but are not set up to move the actual bottles.

One of my friends used to work for Total Wine.  This person confirmed that product education was not valued while she worked there.  But what was/is prioritized foremost is the selling their own exclusive labels (I think they're called Spirits Direct products).  For instance, Grangestone is one of their whisky labels.  There are Grangestone blends and single malts, from NAS to 30 years.  And their because Grangestone's prices are very reasonable, I've stared at these bottles for longer than I should have.  But I don't know what's inside the bottles and (due to my experiences) I don't trust their staff to accurately inform me.  It's too bad that SoCal has so many liquor permit issues because a full public Grangestone tasting would be very useful for them (Total Wine) and us (the customers).

Happily, one of my other whisky friends (J.L.R.) received a bottle of Grangestone Double Cask as a Christmas present.  "Happily" for me, not for him.  He was not a fan, but he was more than amenable to part with a review sample.

Photobomb by someone who is not J.L.R.

Listed as "Grangestone Bourbon Cask" on Total Wine's website, the Double Cask is all of $24.99, a reasonable price for an NAS whisky.  The label is sort of vague.  It says that the first maturation happens in "handcrafted white oak casks", while the second maturation happens in "bourbon oak casks".  Since "bourbon oak casks" are in fact handcrafted from white oak, and the vast majority (and least expensive) white oak casks previously held bourbon, we might as well call the whisky, Grangestone Tautology.  Their website is of a little more help, noting that the first pass happens in "traditional American oak", then the second in first fill bourbon casks.  So let's just go with: 1st maturation is refill ex-bourbons, 2nd maturation is first fill ex-bourbons.

Warning: high quality photo!

Label: Grangestone
Retailer: Total Wine & More

Distillery: ???
Type: Single Malt
Region: Highlands

Age: no statement

Maturation: probably refill ex-bourbons and first fill ex-bourbons

Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Thank you to J.L.R. for this sample!

NEAT
It has the dark orange gold glow of added caramel colorant.  The nose starts of with a bit of orange candy.  Then switches directly to cardboard.  Then more cardboard and microwaved plastic fumes.  That's followed by cassia cinnamon, chives, mint, and hay.  After some airing out, notes of vanilla and pear, um, appear.  The palate has a weird amount of heat for a 40%abv whisky.  There's some vanilla and caramel up front.  Then notebook paper and Nilla wafers.  It doesn't air out well, growing sour and developing a case of The Turps.  It does have some texture to it, though.  It finishes with caramel and lemons.  It gets grainier with time and picks up some chlorophyl-ish notes.

ON THE ROCKS
Gah! Awful, awful, awful bitter poison. Cutty Sark reborn! Kill it! I tried to stab it with my United boot knife, but succeeded only in cracking the tumbler.

HIGHBALL
Refreshing, but that's due to all of the club soda I dumped in it.  There may be whispers of apple and vanilla in there though.

I'll start with the positives.  It's not an utter failure like Lismore NAS.  Aside from all of the cardboard notes, the nose isn't bad.  It doesn't taste too poorly as long as one drinks it immediately.  And the highball was consumable.  It's better than Dewar's White and JW Red (as if that was a feat).

Otherwise this is really young whisky.  And while it's possible to have characterful zippy baby single malt, this ain't it.  In fact, this is almost exactly like the current NAS iteration of Canadian Club 1858, with its Nillas, orange candy, caramel, and turpentine.  But what is this whisky in actuality?  Well, the label does say "Highland" on it.  My top three guesses would be in this order: Tomatin, reject Glenmorangie, and Dalmore.

And finally, though the price sounds tempting, there are better things to be found.  At Total Wine (in CA) one can get Glenfiddich 12, Tomatin 12, Glenmorangie 10, Speyburn 10, Chivas 12, and JW Black Label for almost the same amount (or less).  So it's difficult to recommend this on any level.  If the older Grangestones are any better, please let us know in the comment section!

Availability - Total Wine & More
Pricing - $24.99
Rating - 70

Taste Off! Kilkerran WIP 5 Bourbon Wood versus Kilkerran WIP 6 Bourbon Wood

Ten months ago, I reviewed Kilkerran Work in Progress 5 Bourbon Wood and gave it a rave review, of course, because I am romantically attached platonically attracted to the spirit coming from Glengyle distillery.  But, that review came from a 30mL-ish sample bought from Master of Malt.  In early August, I finally got around to buying a bottle of this stuff.  I was planning to do a "Life of a Bottle" post on it, but the darn whisky vanished so fast that I was thankful to have saved a review sample early on.

When I received a sample of Work in Progress 6 Bourbon Wood in a sample swap with smokeypeat (thank you!!!), I realized I'd better try these two head-to-head while I could.

As a quick refresher for those who are new to Kilkerran, the single malt is made at Glengyle distillery which is run by the same folks that own Springbank.  The malt is lightly peated (probably at a level similar to Springbank's) and is named after the nearby Kilkerran church because another company (Loch Lomond, I think) owns the rights to the "Glengyle" brand name.  Kilkerran single malt has been released annually since 2009 as a "Work in Progress".  The brand has said that it will discontinue that WIP title when, in 2016, they will have their first 12 year old.  In 2013, they split the WIP into two different whiskies: one aged in ex-bourbon casks, the other aged in ex-sherry casks.  They continued this approach in 2014, and also had some limited edition versions aged in other sorts of casks.  Each WIP has a different color.  WIP 5 is blue (see pic above).  WIP 6 is pink.

Now onto the tasting:

WIP 5 Bourbon Wood

Distillery: Glengyle

Owner: Mitchell's Glengyle Limited

Brand: Kilkerran

Age: 9 years (2004 - 2013)

Maturation: ex-bourbon American Oak barrels

Region: Campbeltown

Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Label color: Blue
Limited release: 9000

Neat
Its color is amber, and maybe slightly darker than the WIP6.  The nose has the forest floor character I always anticipate: dried leaves, damp soil, roots, and a little pine sap.  Plenty of roasted barley and even a hint of yeast.  There are smaller notes of cream, anise, caramel, and wet sand.  Some citron and lemon peels in the far back.  And, for what it's worth, it's more pungent than WIP6.  The palate leads with lots of barley. The moderate peat reads leafy and rooty.  Some sand, yeast, broken rocks, tobacco leaves, and lots of green herbs.  It's not massively complex, but its bold nudity is an approach that's becoming scarce.  The finish is pretty long considering the age and strength.  The herbs are sweeter and there's a minty menthol glow.  There's a great combo of rocky minerality and honey.

With water (approx. 40%abv)
The nose didn't change much other than flattening out and simplifying. Pine, leaves, yeast, citrus, vanilla, and (orange blossom?) honey. The palate gets sweeter, and more honeyed.  Some cayenne pepper slips in.  Then toffee, fresh oregano, and a whiff of smoke.  The finish is shorter, a little grassy, and plenty sweet.

WIP 6 Bourbon Wood

Distillery: Glengyle

Owner: Mitchell's Glengyle Limited

Brand: Kilkerran

Age: 10 years (2004 - 2014)

Maturation: ex-bourbon American Oak barrels

Region: Campbeltown

Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Label color: Pink
Limited release: 9000?

Neat
Like its younger sibling, its color is amber.  The forest floor is still there.  More citrus peel, more pine, more vanilla and caramel.  There's a peep of moss and pencil graphite.  A mint candy note grows with time, as does a curious note of human musk (and I don't mean Elon).  Eventually the musky smell drifts away; anise, sand, and honey taking its place.  The palate is silent for the first moment and then explodes open, richer, sweeter, rounder, and less subtle than WIP5.  There are still some notes of ink, graphite, seashells, and smoke beneath the sugar and honey.  The finish is sweeter as well, and milder with the tougher notes.  There's a moment of dried fruits and nuts that almost feels like oloroso.

With water (approx. 40%abv)
The nose flattens out again.  Pine sap and caramel remain, as does the musk.  The citrus begins to read more like rose blossoms.  The palate gains a spicy peppery edge that illuminates an otherwise vanilla-powered character.  Perhaps a hint of soil, too.  The finish is sweet and grainy.

---

Kilkerran is ready to come to market with what they've got.  They can call it Kilkerran 10 and stop hedging with the whole "the cake is still baking" approach.  WIP6 (or the 10 year) is well-rounded and comfy.  It has the Glengyle character, but is smoothened out to include some light oak notes and exclude stuff that would scare a larger customer base away.  If Kilkerran was an artist (if you'll allow for one sentence), her youthful aggression has developed into a style than can be more easily received by a large audience, yet hasn't gotten totally soft from too much adulation.

Which WIP a drinker will prefer depends entirely on taste.  Personally, I favor the dirt-under-the-fingernails fashion of WIPs 2 and 5.  But because the oak plays nicely in WIP6, I would still be happy to buy a bottle.  If it seems like I'm dwelling on minutiae here then it's because there are so few single malts that still embrace such a rustic style and I would hate to see it get swamped by oak like a number of my former favorite distilleries.  In any case, Kilkerran is an excellent autumn malt, I hope they continue to keep up the good work.

KILKERRAN WIP 5 BOURBON WOOD

Availability - Few specialty retailers, as WIP6 has taken its place

Pricing - $60-$80

Rating - 90 (neat)

KILKERRAN WIP 6 BOURBON WOOD

Availability - Many specialty retailers

Pricing - $60-$80

Rating - 87 (neat)

Single Malt Report: BANFF!! Twice

Oh Banff, the poor ol' distillery, always getting its ass kicked like Officer Nordberg.  It survived a massive distillery fire in 1877.  It survived a thorough bombing by the Luftwaffe in 1941.  It survived a still explosion in 1959.  But in 1983, it did not survive the incorporated genital wart that is DCL/Diageo (Ed.: Dude, let it go already).  And, just for good measure, the abandoned building caught fire in 1991 and then was bulldozed.

There haven't been many Banff releases in recently.  Whiskybase shows only 11 total indie casks released in the past four years.  Winesearcher shows only one store selling a Banff in the US (for almost $2000).  I could say that now would be a good time to go Full Hipster and get into Banff before it becomes the next big ticket dead distillery, but there's really not much of an opportunity to do so.

I obtained two samples of Banff right around the same time last year so I tried them together as I huddled in my secret winter East Coast hideaway.  First, here's a 1974 G&M Connoisseurs Choice mini with the "old map label", meaning it was bottled before 1997 (I think).  Many many thank yous to Cobo for sharing this with me.

Distillery: Banff
Ownership: DCL (proto-Diageo)

Independent Bottler: Gordon & MacPhail (Connoisseurs Choice)
Region: Speyside (Deveron)

Distillation year: 1974
Bottling year: ???, before 1997

Maturation: probably not first fill casks

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

The brass-colored whisky's nose has some nice old stink to it, like moldy honey and manure.  Those notes are soon followed by perfumy dish soap, orange oil, and vanilla.  But with more time, all sorts of scents begin to escape from the glass: cucumber, hay, toasted barley, pencil graphite, sea air, and something vaguely meaty.  The palate has some of the old stink as well. Maybe some dry sherry too? But nothing stronger than a re-re-refill cask.  It has a light bitterness and citrus tang.  It's a bit thin texturally, but has solid notes of coffee, ground black pepper, whole wheat bread, Cow Tales (think vanilla and caramel), and Lucky Charms "marshmallows".  The finish is brief at first, but seems to get longer with subsequent sips.  It's sugary and lightly tangy, but also bitterer than the palate. The coffee, pepper, and hay notes linger on, as do barley and smoked toffee.

This probably was a light charming whisky when first bottled 18-20 years ago.  Now that the old dusty stuff has developed, the whisky has likely become more layered.  I welcome those dirtier notes and the general lack of wood and wine influence.  As I referenced in the notes, I do have a nagging feeling there were refill sherry casks in the mix; and the pepper note rung sort of sulfurous.  Some fun stuff going on, but the low ABV keeps it from really blasting off.

Next, I purchased a sample of a Cadenhead Banff at a LASC event.  Though this Banff may have been bottled around the same time as the G&M, it's a different beast.

Distillery: Banff
Ownership: DCL (proto-Diageo)

Independent Bottler: Cadenhead (Authentic Collection)
Region: Speyside (Deveron)
Age: 21 years old

Distillation year: 1976
Bottling year: 1997

Maturation: ???

Alcohol by Volume: 57.3%

Its color is that of a five-beer piss.  The nose buzzes with bright notes.  First there's fresh watermelon, cucumber, and papaya.  Then confectioner's sugar, cinnamon, citron, and black licorice.  Then, after more than 30 minutes in the glass, the whisky releases fresh-cut grass and grapefruits.  The palate gets dirtier.  Dingy sweet spicy tangy malt with a very oily mouthfeel.  The dark dank (musty moldy) note that had escaped the nose arises here, followed by lemons and peppercorns.  Sticky toffee with orange zest.  Green garden herbs and sugar, like herbal candy.  The finish is loooooong, though simple.  Spicy, sweet, citric.  Then grassy with a hint smoke.

This one is wild.  The nose is plum gorgeous.  The palate is a dark stinger.  And the finish hums pleasantly.  For those who are familiar with such things, this was one of those old green bottles that sat on a random liquor store shelf for a decade-plus before someone smart spirited away with it.  The LAWS entry is the only thing online about this whisky (the lone Malt Monitor entry is by Dave who is also part of LAWS).  And I liked it a lot more than they did; maybe something went wrong with their bottle because the nose seems to have been DOA on theirs.  In any case, I loved this one.  If it didn't lose steam in the finish, the whisky probably would have made my all-time Top Twenty.

So, two Banffs: one good, one excellent.  Some of the difference in quality may have been due to the bottling strengths.  Otherwise both were spirit-forward zippy whiskies that I would be happy to purchase if I could find them at their original 1990s prices.

BANFF 1974 G&M CONNOISSEURS CHOICE (old map label)

Availability - Happy hunting!

Pricing - 700mL bottle will likely be over $300 nowadays

Rating - 85

BANFF 21yo 1976 CADENHEAD AUTHENTIC COLLECTION

Availability - Happy hunting!

Pricing - may have been $145 back in 2008

Rating - 91

Laphroaig 10 year old Cask Strength Batch 005, again, but served four ways

I reviewed Laphroaig 10yo CS batch 005 around this time last year.  Then, after a year of the bottle sitting two-thirds full on the opposite coast, I did another set of notes without looking at the last one.  Last time, I found it to be good, though with an aggressive oak influence that kept it from competing with any of the previous batches.  And this time?

I had two winters to take a picture of my damn bottle
but apparently I was too dippy to do so.

Distillery: Laphroaig

Owner: Beam Suntory
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay
Maturation: ex-bourbon barrels

Age: minimum 10 years
Batch: 005, Feb 2013

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Probably not

Alcohol by Volume: 57.2%

This time, inspired by Chemistry of the Cocktail, I added to water in different amounts in order to reduce the ABV and compare each version with the other.  The tasting glasses were lined up as such:

#1 - 1.0oz + no water = 57.2%abv
#2 - 0.5oz + 1/2 tsp water = 49%abv (between 50% and the 48% of their Quarter Cask)
#3 - 0.5oz + 1 tsp water = 43%abv
#4 - 0.5oz + 1-1/4 tsp water = 40%

Again, for some reason I didn't any pictures of the comparison.
Here's a picture of breakfast, instead.

#1, Full strength
Nose - Lots of American oak: pulp, char, and sap. Sugary malt meets a peat that is almost floral.  No grunge, no medicine, no maritime.  Some green herbal stuff, caramel, roasted nuts, and oats.
Palate - Dirtier here (thankfully).  Still, there's lots of vanilla and sugar.  A tiny bit of bitter herbs is overwhelmed by the sweetness.  Some salt and lemon peel sneak in, and a cassia cinnamon note that grows with time.
Finish - Medium length. Big on the vanilla, caramel, and sugar. Mild on the bitter and smoke. Afrin nasal spray. A green peat note develops but that's also smothered by the sweetness.

Comments - I'm getting tired of it in this state. While the oak isn't as odd as I'd remembered it, it is incredibly heavy.  And that hurts the Laphroaig style.

#2, Reduced to 49%abv
Nose - Less oak, more green herbs, more peat moss, and a bit wilder overall.  More earth, slightly inky.  Ground cardamom and burnt oregano.  Subtler vanillin and floral notes.
Palate - A creamier, oilier texture.  A nice bitterness.  Peat!  Salt, anise, and manure.  It's like a high-strength Underberg.
Finish - Medium length.  Big peaty phenols stomp down the sweetness.  Bitter and spicy.  Tart lime candy and hay.

Comments - This bitter, spicy, herbal style is my favorite of the four.  Reducing the sweetness is the key.  Man, do I want me some Underberg right now.

#3, Reduced to 43%abv
Nose - A buttery, vanilla-y version of the regular official 10 year old.  There's the seaweed and moss.  Salty air, manure, bitter lettuces, and cardamom.
Palate - Texture is still good.  The bitterness lightens up.  A little more sweetness arrives, as does caramel.  Some lemons and limes.  A farmy note appears after a while.
Finish - Salty, citric, and spicy.  Mild peat.  Both sweetness and bitterness build with time (that note sounds like some cheap poetry's about to break out).

Comments - Not bad, though it's lighter, of course.  Comma, comma, comma.  I might like this better than the full strength version, too.

#4, Reduced to 40%abv
Nose - The peat begins to fade now.  The sugar returns.  Odd gooey oak note develops.  Moss on a log.  Grass and bitter lettuce.  A random Nutella note.
Palate - Watery, thin.  Mostly neutered.  Hints of peat and bitter stuff.  Sugar and lime register strongest.  Maybe some fresh grass?
Finish - Short.  Lemony, slightly peppery.  Peat lingers a little.

Comments - The gap between the 43% and the 40% is incredible.  The palate and the finish are broken, gone.  It's Laphroaig to ignore.

---

While it's not terrible at full strength, the Laphroaig style is barely there.  It's masked by oak and a significant sweetness that I've never found in a 'Phroaig.  But, when reduced to the 48-50%abv range, the whisky's wildcat heart is uncaged (more cheap poetry for yous!).  In fact, I re-bottled the final quarter of this bottle at that strength and enjoyed it thusly.

Overall, I still think this was the strangest and weakest of Laphroaig's 10yo CSes by some measure.  The joy of their Cask Strength releases is/was the full powered dosage of Laphroaig's unique style.  Batch 005 covers up that style with too much sweetness and oak, though the charms can still be found when adding a little water.

Availability - I'm still seeing this batch everywhere

Pricing - a broad range that depends on the state you're in: $55-$85

Rating - 85 (with water added only; served neat this barely makes an 80)

The Bearded Lady versus Suntory Royal SR (late '80s), unbearded

Once upon a time there was The Bearded Lady...

The corrupted lass

...discovered by a whisky blogger who was unwittingly relieving Long Beach of its sh*ttiest whiskies during his dusty hunts.  The intrepid blogger realized something was wrong on his way home from the liquor store as his car smelled like hot rotten whisky.  He soon discovered that The Bearded Lady's seal had been eaten away and its cork dissolved by the whisky within the bottle.  At first the whisky, formerly known as "Suntory Royal SR", was judged to be drinkable, then sort of not drinkable, then relatively unpleasant, and ultimately bad.  About a third of the bottle found its way down the sink drain.

What remained of the cork

Months later, the ever persistent handsome blogger found a liquor store with a bakers dozen 50mL mini bottles of Suntory Royal SR for all of $3.99 each.  The bottle design itself was cute as a button, mimicking the 750mL bottle almost precisely.  And the seal was intact due to a screw cap.  But what about the whisky within?

---

Okay, I can't keep this third-person crap going any longer. It's exhausting. The fact that Rickey Henderson did it for 25 years' worth of interviews is more impressive than his stolen base feats.

I had hoped there was something nice beneath the oxidized and possibly-tainted Bearded Lady.  It was a good thing I had optimistically saved two ounces of The Bearded One so that I could compare it to what was likely the real thing.

Info for both whiskies:
Brand: Suntory Royal
Ownership: Suntory Whisky
Distilleries: Yamazaki, maybe Chita?

Age: ???

Maturation: ???, my guess is a blend of ex-bourbon, ex-sherry, and Mizunara casks
Type: Blended whisky

Country: Japan

Alcohol by Volume: 43.4%
Bottled: Late 1980s

THE NOSES
Her Royal Beardness - At first it's okay.  Then it's not.  Artificial-watermelon-flavored Yamazaki......in fact there's lots of fake fruit stuff.  Sandalwood in cinnamon syrup.  Fungus.  Old school Bayer children's chewable aspirin.

Suntory Royal SR, unbearded - Malty and a little dusty.  Incense and citronella candles.  Orange peel, hints of dried fruit, a spicy creamsicle. Some bright but not buttery American oak.

THE PALATES
Her Royal Beardness - Something not quite safe, aggressively chemical, perhaps like cleaning fluid mixed with Sweet-n-Low.  Cardboard with pepper, cinnamon, and imitation vanilla extract.  After a while some of the weird artificial fruit notes show up.

Suntory Royal SR, unbearded - Very light and subtle, but with a significant silky mouthfeel.  Salt, sugar, and mild Talisker-like pepper.  A bit of toasted oak and tropical fruit appear towards the end of the glass.

THE FINISHES
Her Royal Beardness - Very saccharine at first.  Then acrid with lots of vinegar.  Mouth drying.  A little bit of spicy zing that quickly gets smothered by stale vanilla.

Suntory Royal SR, unbearded - Short-ish at first sip.  But with succeeding sips more vanilla bean and toasted sandalwood linger, growing ever spicier.

THE VERDICT
While dotted lines connect some of their characteristics on paper, these are two very different whiskies in the glass.  The untainted SR is fresh and spicy.  A better, richer blend than Chivas 12yo, with the nose being the best part.  It would be great to match this with Yamazaki 12 to see how they relate.

At one point during the taste off, I got the two glasses mixed up.  But I immediately sorted them out via the noses.  The Bearded Lady has grown worse at every tasting (the first grade was 75, the second was 71, and this one will be lower) and it may actually get uglier with time in the glass.  It was such a shame that a spoiled bottle was my introduction to Suntory Royal SR.  While the SR won't make anyone swoon, it was good enough that I saved half of the mini to sip for fun later that night.  I'd take it over Hibiki 12yo.

The Bearded Lady
Availability - Hopefully it was unique

Pricing - $25.99

Rating - 69

Suntory Royal SR (un-tainted)
Availability - Happy hunting

Pricing - was $25-$30 before it was discontinued

Rating - 84 (my original guess was actually spot on)