Single Malt Report: Glen Ord 30 year old

Glen Ord distillery is a significant asset for Diageo PLC.  Its stills produce approximately 5 million liters of spirit annually and as of last year that capacity was being doubled to 10 million liters (though I'm unsure if this expansion is still on track).  Meanwhile, their onsite maltings provide malted barley for several of Diageo's other distilleries.  While they've chosen to offer an official Glen Ord single malt only in the Far East, they're still selling over 2 million bottles of it per year (according to Malt Whisky Yearbook).  That would be more than the amount of Macallan that was being sold in the US a few years ago.  These "Singletons" include a 12 (reviewed here), 15, 18, and an NAS cask strength.

Once upon a time, there was an official 12 year old that was sold more broadly, including in its UK home, until it was discontinued about six or seven years ago.  And once upon a time, Diageo released 6000-bottle limited editions of 25, 28, and 30 year olds.  It's been ten years since then, but nothing official of that age has been released west of Taipei.

Thanks to MAO of My Annoying Opinions, I had a sample of the 30 year old, bottled in 2005.  The previous two indie Glen Ords this week were good to very good, but they were young compared to today's.  This one, deemed good enough to keep by DCL/Diaego, had spent three decades napping in casks somewhere in a dark mainland warehouse.  How did it turn out?

Not the original sample bottle, as I divided that one into two.

Distillery: Glen Ord

Owner: Diageo

Age: minimum 30 years

Maturation: probably a combination of different refill casks, mostly ex-bourbon

Region: Northern Highlands

Alcohol by Volume: 58.7%
Bottling Date: 2005

I'm changing up my note structure for this one:

The color is apple juice, lighter than all of the Johnnie Walkers, even the infant Red Label, which leads me to think that there was a minimum of caramel colorant added to this Glen Ord.

Stick with me here on the nose.  It begins with orange and lemon concentrate, covered by a big barley blanket.  Underneath that, almost rye-like baking spices and milk chocolate.  Cinnamon and apple shishas.  Wet leaves and un-oaked chardonnay.  Toffee pudding with almonds.  Grilled pear with mint leaves.  Creme brulee with orange zest.  A new wood deck after the rain.  Cotton shirts and a boat dock.  It's remarkably vibrant and youthful, all the while carrying old musty cask character.  Adding water brings out old dusty furniture notes.  Caramel sauce and cinnamon candy.  A wooden crate of oranges.

The palate is impressively spirity for its age: roses, limes, lime soda, Orangina minus the sugar, mango juice, orange and lime syrup infused with (Talisker levels of) cayenne pepper.  Its particular zing takes that cayenne and mixes it with some perky wood spice.  Then comes tobacco and sea salt caramels.  Then mint tea and Cointreau.  Maybe some dusty peat in the background.  The sweetness rolls in gently.  Adding water seems to bring about some very dark chocolate and intensifies the fresh tobacco note.  It grows earthier, tarter, and a little sweeter.  Plenty of limes and spices remain.  Maybe some eucalyptus appears.

Orange oil forever in the finish.  Lots of barley and hay.  Fizzy and peppery with a little menthol.  Limes, roses, and sea salt.  Macarons and whipped cream.  Just a little bit of sweetness and toasted oak.  Adding water focuses it on the limes and salt.  Then dark chocolate and black pepper.

Oh......I am full of wist.  After trying this whisky I immediately sought out and acquired a bottle of my own.  It will be a special occasion bottle.  Maybe for Mathilda's third or fourth birthday.  It's that good.

Not sold on my word?  Then see this review.  And maybe this one.  And these.  And these scores as well.  He liked it.  And so did they.

So in addition to its financial importance to Diageo's whisky portfolio, Glen Ord is also producing some very very good whisky.  It blows my mind to know this oldie was priced at $150 upon release.  Compare that to the prices of Diageo's recent Special Releases.  This or a $450 Strathmill 25?  This or a $700 NAS Clynelish?  This or a $250 21 year old Cardhu?

But let me turn away from the negative and focus on the positive.  I like Glen Ord, and man oh man does it fit in well with my love of the Highland single malts.  It fits right in there with Ardmore, Pulteney, Glen Garioch, Glendronach, Clynelish, Balblair, and Ben Nevis.  I would probably throw Oban and Glenmorangie into the bunch if only there were some indies or under-produced versions available.

It was nice to meet you properly, Glen Ord.  May you visit more often.

Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - anywhere from $200 to $500
Rating - 92

Single Malt Report: Glen Ord 12 year old 1998 AD Rattray

Yesterday, I reviewed my bottle of 12 year old 1998 Glen Ord from James Macarthur.  Today, I'll report on a 12 year old 1998 Glen Ord from AD Rattray, from a sample provided by Florin (a prince).  Like many of AD Rattray's often solid products, this Glen Ord was bottled at cask strength.  First I tried it on its own, with and without water.  Then the following night, I tried it alongside yesterday's James Macarthur Ord.  I'll list both days' sets of notes below.

Distillery: Glen Ord

Bottler: A.D. Rattray

Age: 12 years (March 17, 1998 - October 30, 2010)

Maturation: bourbon cask
Cask number: 24
Bottle count: 271

Region: Highlands (Northern)

Alcohol by Volume: 60.1%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No

First, on its own:

NEAT
Its color is of a sauvignon blanc.  The two largest notes on the nose are butter and lemons.  Buttered burnt toast, pound cake, and buttered rum.  Lemon zest, lemon candy, and lemon Mr. Clean.  In the mid-background there's a whiff of damp cow shed.  Some smaller notes of caramel, chives, and brussels sprouts as well.  Ah ha, another Glen Ord with a barley forward palate.  Creamy in texture and flavor.  Its sweetness is mild at first, then gradually builds with successive sips.  Some ripe peaches and apricots, along with tart lemons.  The butter returns in the finish.  Now the fruits read as limes and dried pineapple.  Some white pepper and vanilla too.

WITH WATER (~46%abv)
Grass and mint now appear first in the nose.  A little less butter, the fruits are better integrated.  Maybe a little tropical fruit and salad bar not-really-ripe honeydew slices.  Smaller notes of sugar cookies and lemongrass.  Spicy and fruity (oranges, peaches, and mango) in the palate.  Some sweet caramel and big tartness.  A bit drying on the tongue.  Lots of citrus in the finish.  Mild bitterness and mild sweetness.  A peep of wood smoke, along with hot pepper sauce.

Then, when sampled neatly alongside yesterday's James Macarthur Glen Ord:

NEAT
The nose is a little different now.  More baked goods, like cream puffs and lemon bars.  Less butter than before, but more confectioner's sugar.  Smaller notes of burnt grains, garlic chives, green onions, orange zest, caramel, and roses.  Big barley again in the palate, this time with yeast in tow.  Tart nectarines, orange zest, oats, and black pepper are also in the foreground.  Lime, vanilla, and brown sugar start to show after some time.  Lime, butter, unsweetened cream, and salt in the finish.  Maybe a little more herbal bitterness than before.

WITH WATER (~46%abv)
The nose is full of citrus and flower blossoms.  Lots of apples, sugar, pears, and roasted corn (WTF?).  But it also has a freshness comparable to the JM Ord.  The lightly sweet palate is spicy again.  More barley, but no butter or caramel.  Lemons, limes, and cucumber.  There's a hint of smoke in the finish, again.  Roasted nuts and apple skin.  It's sweet without being cloying.

---

I knew going into this tasting that Florin, Jordan, and MAO were fans of this one.  But I wasn't fully sold when trying it neatly.  The addition of water really helped it out, opening it up and presenting the spirit's character best.  Comparing it to another Glen Ord also helped bring out other elements and highlighted its crisp barley heart.  (See here for MAO's review.  And here for Jordan's review.  We found many similar notes.)

As recently as a few months ago, this bottling was being sold at an excellent price, especially considering that it's a cask strength single barrel whisky.  If you can still find it for that sub-$70 price, it's a good deal.

Two good to very good Glen Ords so far.  Tomorrow, (spoiler alert) an elder Ord awaits quietly, patiently...

Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - I think it was $60-$80
Rating - 85 (with water)

Single Malt Report: Glen Ord 12 year old 1998 James Macarthur

There is a sad lack of Glen Ord reviews on this site, so I'm going to remedy that situation with three straight G.O. reviews this week.  The intros for all of these reviews will be mercifully short because the posts will likely be written long past midnight, possibly with a dram already in my system.

---

First up, is a review of a Glen Ord bottled by James Macarthur & Co., in their Fine Malt Selection series.  Thus, though it's a single cask, the ABV was reduced to 45% before bottling.  You may see a few of this series lingering around your favorite US whisky specialist; I've spied Highland Parks, Bowmores, Glendullans, Clynelishes, and Mortlachs.

This review is actually from my own bottle (gifted by my Kristen last year).  And this is another instance wherein I had intended to a "Life of a Bottle" review, but I polished off this thing with such haste that all I was left with was one 2oz review sample.

There's a reason the whisky inside the bottle vanished so quickly.  I liked it, a lot.  To get a better sense of how it compared with another Glen Ord, I compared it to another Glen Ord.  I took notes while drinking it on its own, then I took notes during a Taste Off with tomorrow's Ord.  I'll list both sets of notes for this whisky below.

Bottle shot:

Distillery: Glen Ord

Independent Bottler: James MacArthur & Co.
Series: Fine Malt Selection

Age: 12 years (1998-2011)

Maturation: re-fill bourbon casks
Cask number: 27

Region: Highlands (Northern)

Alcohol by Volume: 45%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No

First, on its own:

NEAT
Its color is straw.  The nose is barley barley barley.  It's very fresh.  Yeah, that's vague.  But it's fresh.  Mingling with the barley are roses, anise, and tangerine pulp.  There are hints of honey and cream, probably from the cask.  A bit of hot cereal and dusty sandy peat.  With air, grass, coconut, and grapefruit notes arise.  Barley is the biggest note in the palate as well.  Think toasted, roasted grains.  Right up front there's some salt and pepper, and very little sweetness.  A bit of a pilsner thing going on as well.  With air, out come the lemons and peppercorns.  A slight bitter earthy note develops, which complements the lemons well.  It has a long effervescent finish (considering its age and ABV) with a spicy tingle and a citrus bite (or the other way around).  The soft bitterness finds its way into some smoke.

WITH WATER (43%-ish ABV)
The nose gets farmier and more herbal.  But it's still mostly barley grist.  Aromatic orange zest and rose blossoms.  Some vanilla beans, roasted coffee beans, and menthol, too.  More roast and toast in the palate.  The bitterness gets bolder; I'm thinking baking chocolate and Campari.  A brown sugar note sweetens things up.  The bitter and citrus notes remain in the finish, as does some peppery spice.  Then hay and vanilla bean appear in the background.

Then, when sampled neatly alongside tomorrow's Glen Ord:

Barley and yeast lead the nose.  Then grapefruit, mango, and apple mint leaves.  Caraway seeds.  As the whisky airs out, rock candy and a hint of moss appear.  Again, barley and yeast in the palate.  Black pepper and oats.  Orange zest, vanilla bean, lime, and tart nectarines.  Brown sugar.  Lots of pepper in the clean finish.  An herbal bitterness meets creamsicle sweetness.

---

This whisky was recommended to me by two folks.  I asked them each, independently, for a suggestion of a good affordable independent Glen Ord, and they both named this one.  And now I'm happy to recommend the same to you.  If you can find a bottle.

(I wish I could link to a bunch of other reviews saying the same thing.  But I haven't seen anyone else review it.  Oliver K. reviewed its sister cask four years ago and liked it.  And that's about it, I think.)

But here's the disclaimer: The whisky isn't full of rich oak.  It's not a fruit cocktail or a sherry bomb or a peat missile.  But at the same time, it is not under-matured.  Fresh, big on barley, and gentle on cask influence, it's the sort of whisky I wish I ran into more often.

Glen Ord's doing well so far.  Onto another 1998 tomorrow.

Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - anywhere from $60 to $90
Rating - 89

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)