A Full Volume Highland Park Rant, also a Highland Park Full Volume Review

Highland Park distillery makes very good whisky, but they've undergone such an aggressive rebranding that I've lost interest in their official single malts. Over a period of ten years they went from giving the customer what he or she wants to telling the customer what he or she wants. Or to be more specific, they went from: perfecting their standard range while also turning out many single casks, to focusing just on their regular range, to something quite close to chaos.

In six years they have released at least 30 separate new bottlings. Some are named after "warriors" (real-ish), kings (real), Valhalla deities (totally real), ships, monsters, "keystones", voyages, valkyries (for you Wagner fans out there), distillery founders, dark things, light things, hot things, cold things and loud things.

Really.

Do some of them taste good? Probably. Do I care? It is difficult to do so.

I'm not sure why they went this direction. Perhaps the managers of their sibling distillery, Macallan, whispered to HP's upper management, "You won't believe what people will pay for this shit." But that doesn't explain some of the cheap releases. Nor the unfocused branding. Perhaps the marketing staff have been snorting new make. Which would explain a lot.

From this disarray comes "Full Volume". It has an double-digit age statement, a good ABV and has been aged completely in ex-bourbon barrels, all good things. It has bizarre packaging — apparently a requirement for the current regime — a fake amp complete with a Spinal Tap reference (hint: it goes to 11). But the "Full Volume" name makes no sense. Despite having a burlier alcohol content of 47.2%, that ain't cask strength, nor is it new make strength, nor barreling strength. I guess "A Smidgen Higher Volume" would have been a crappy whisky name. But so is Dragon Legend.

Distillery: Highland Park

Ownership: The Edrington Group

Region: Islands (Orkney)

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation: ex-bourbon barrels and hogsheads (481 of them)

Age: 17 years (1999-2017)

Alcohol by Volume: 47.2%
Chillfilltered? Yes, because Odin told them to
Colorant added? Unknown
(Thanks to My Annoying Opinions for the sample!)

NEAT
The nose reveals soft earthy smoke, dried barley, green grapes, plum wine, green apple Jolly Ranchers, actual green apples and a hint of steel wool dust. The palate leads with brisket, charred vegetables, oregano and grapefruity IPA. Later, there are notes of lemon and black pepper. It finishes with dry smoke, ash, dried herbs and a nice bitterness.

DILUTED TO ~43%abv
The nose is somehow both dirtier and fruitier. More smoke and metal. More candy. A little bit o' barley. The palate is similar to the neat version. Maybe a little sweeter with more pepper and a menthol-like zing. The finish picks up some sweet citrus and mint. Cigarette ash.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Not a ton of complexity, but otherwise it's great stuff. Full Volume gave the distillery a chance to show off the great characteristics often found only in bourbon cask independent bottlings of their malt, and they succeeded. There's even a happy lack of vanilla!

So there's no reason why it needed to be drowned in marketing and packaging diarrhea. I mean, it's a 17 year old Highland Park with an actual vintage and good strength. Geeks geek about this geekery.

If you're a fan of indie bourbon cask HP, and you're willing to set aside your cynicism, and you're willing to pay three figures, this whisky might just be playing your tune.  👀

Availability - Europe and US retailers
Pricing - $90-$120

Rating - 87

Balvenie Peat Week 14 year old 2002

Congratulations! You survived Ben Nevis Month! Your reward is two semi-relevant reviews in a row!

For the past 16 years Balvenie distillery has devoted one week, annually, to heavily peated still runs. The malt used for this distillation is peated to around 30ppm by Highland peat. In 2017, they bottled this whisky with an actual two-digit age statement, no chill filtration and a respectable ABV — an almost revolutionary act by an official producer.

Though Balvenie has rolled out peated releases in the past, those all utilized former Islay casks for their phenolic kick. Thus this is a different creature. Now, 30ppm isn't huge by Port Charlotte, Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Ardbeg or Ledaig standards. And since Balvenie's distillery character can best be described as friendly, I don't think anyone anticipated this Peat Week release to be a sock in the mouth. But it's nice to see something different coming from Anthony Bourdain's favorite™ distillery.

This was the sample bottle. I drank its contents. Here's the review.

Distillery: Balvenie
Ownership: William Grant & Sons
Region: Speyside (Dufftown)
Age: 14 years old (2002-2017)
Maturation: American oak
Limited bottling: 3000?
Alcohol by Volume: 48.3%
Chillfiltered: No
Colorant added: Probably
(thanks to My Annoying Opinions for the sample!)

NEAT
The nose progresses through a series of playful combinations. First it's lychee candy, dried cranberries and minty peat. Then, root beer barrel candy, charcoal smoke and a hint of iodine. Finally after 30+ minutes, some clementines show up and the smoke goes slightly farmy. The palate is simple, but friendly (as usual). Creamy and honeyed. Soft bitter smoke, vanilla, sweet limes and mild heat. The bitterness becomes drying after a while, making one think it's coming from the oak. At first the finish is strangely short, but it does get longer with subsequent sips. Bitter, salt, heat, vanilla and honey.

Now I'll try it at the usual Balvenie release strength.

DILUTED TO ~43%abv
The nose becomes more sugary. Pears and honey. Sugary and ashy peat smoke. A few dried berries. The palate is much thinner, showing that it needs the extra ABV. It's mildly sweet and pleasant. Peppery smoke and hints of white fruits. The finish is sweet and salty with peppery, bitter smoke.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Peat Week's nose is very good, and much more complex than Balvenie's standard range. The palate is fine. It delivers the Balvenie honey note I always enjoy, but the tannic bitterness knocked it down a small notch for me. I recommend it neat.

MAO and I found many identical notes. We tend to have similar palates, and my sample came from his bottle, but jeez you could have probably skipped this review if you already read his more timely post. I did have more of an issue with the bitter oak than he did, but he's also been working on most of a bottle. It's good whisky though. A shame about the US price.

Availability - UK and US
Pricing - UK: $70-$90, US: $90-$120

Rating - 84

Killing Whisky History, Episode 9 - Canadian Liquor Stamps + 1985-bottled Canadian Club 12yo

Yes, nothing but the sexy stuff for Killing Whisky History episode 9. And the worst YouTube title ever. Or at least the worst since episode 6.

I've seen a number of retailers and auctioneers get Canadian liquor stamp information wrong, and thus provide incorrect information to customers and buyers. So here I am, attempting to set the record straight.

And, for my fellow nerds, here's an incredible document on Canadian liquor stamps written by Christoper D. Ryan.

So how does one date a bottle of Canadian whisky? First you buy it a Molson, amirite?

Ben Nevis McDonald's Traditional, limited edition (2012)

In 2012, Ben Nevis distillery released an NAS single malt modeled to harken back to their whisky from 130 years earlier. Its limited 700-bottle outturn came with weathered-looking labels, a stamped bottle number and the distillery manager's signature.

What's funny is that no one could ever accuse Ben Nevis of producing a contemporary style of single malt. There's always been an old feeling to their whisky, with its warts-and-all, variable style. Perhaps the owners, Nikka/Asahi, wanted a piece of the peated-NAS whisky market. And indeed the whisky was pulled from their limited ~35ppm peated spirit runs.

The first edition sold so well that the McDonald's Traditional was rereleased (with a five year old age statement) as an unnumbered part of the distillery's range. That version is currently being sold at many European whisky retailers and even at a few American shops.

For reasons lost on me, a store in California was carrying a numbered first edition 700mL bottle. So I bought it. After collecting dust in my whisky closet for nearly four years, it is now being opened in honor of this Ben Nevisfull month.

Many thanks to Kristen for taking the photos!

Distillery: Ben Nevis
Ownership: Nikka Whisky Distilling Company (part of Asahi Group Holdings)
Region: Highlands (Western)
Age: not stated, though the subsequent edition is 5 years old
Maturation: ???
Bottle #: 650 of 700
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
(from my bottle)

NEAT
Its color is very dark, very possibly because it is bottled "mit farbstoff". This seems out of step with the "130 years ago" theme. The nose is full of metals and mosses. Dark chocolate and mint. New plastic toys, sugary peat and a hint of butterscotch. The palate is framed within a strong herbal bitterness. Burnt nuts, soot and ash. Smoky caramel sauce. Overall, it gets sweeter with time, but the bitterness and smoke stay in the lead. Bitter ashy peat and tart lemons in the finish. Mild sweetness, tingly heat, a good length.

DILUTED TO ~43%abv
The nose gets dirtier, harsher, narrower. Sugary peat remains. A hint of white peach. But the sooty, dingy notes are pushed back in the palate. It's sweeter, less bitter. Some cinnamon and nutmeg. The finish is shorter and simpler. Tingly, bitter and sweet.

DILUTED TO ~40%abv
Heavy peat in the nose, reminiscent of Kilchoman. Lemon zest and mint candy. The palate is similar to that of the 43%abv sampling. More pepper. Thinner. Not much going on in the finish. Pepper, peat, bitter.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
My notes may not read as such, but this was decent whisky when neat. It's unromantic, punchy stuff. Water does bring out some interesting moments, though primarily in the nose. Otherwise, it doesn't want to swim.

At first glance, the whisky seems to take occasionally edginess of Ben Nevis and then cranks it up. But after further contemplation, I wonder if most of that is due to young heavily peated spirit being aged in refill barrels. Yes, whisky makers did such things 130 years ago, but Ben Nevis wasn't alone in that approach. In fact, today's independent bottlers are cranking out refill barrel-aged young peated whisky at a pretty constant rate right now, with mixed results.

The good news is that this is better than most of the immature face burners I've tried. In fact, I wouldn't even call this one immature. This one was supposed to be a fighter, and it is.

Availability - Whisky specialist retailers in US and Europe
Pricing - $50-$120

Rating - 82

Ben Nevis 24 year old 1991 Signatory, cask 3833

Two parties remain at the end of this Ben Nevis series: those who enjoyed this exploration, and those who did not. The former group is likely a party of one. Me!

But wait, there's more! There's one final review next week, when I open an actual Ben Nevis bottle of my own. The whisky's style is expected to be quite different than the other BNs from this month. This is still exciting, see!

I'm ending the dozen regular reviews with the oldest of the bunch. Its from Signatory's Cask Strength Collection. You know, those bottles that look snazzy but are a pain in the ass to pour from? I do not have a 700mL bottle of this whisky, but I wish I did.

Distillery: Ben Nevis
Region: Highlands (Western)
Independent Bottler: Signatory Vintage
Range: Cask Strength
Age: 24 years old (October 29, 1991 to January 22, 2016)
Maturation: sherry butt
Bottles: 566
Cask: 3833
Alcohol by Volume: 54.7%
(from a purchased sample)

NEAT
Its color is light gold with a reddish hue. Its nose weaves three delightful threads, flawlessly. First: moss and black smoke. Second: cinnamon and coffee. Third: cherries, plums, peaches and mangoes! It also has a very Yamazaki 18yo note of sherry-soaked mizunara oak. The palate starts with a big note of tart fruits, along with toasted oak, toasted barely, bitter smoke and bitter coffee with rich sherry licking at the edges. After more than 20 minutes, tropical fruit juices flood in, carrying liquid honey and molasses. Its final act reveals toffee, salted almonds, cherry syrup, bitter smoke, lemons, mangoes and peat moss.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
I was all, "This is pretty good", then the whisky was like, "Mangoes", then I went, "What!". True story.

One could say that this is a cousin of good ol' Ardmore, but I've never had an Ardmore behave so well in a sherry cask. One may also suggest it has hints of beloved '60s and '70s Longmorn, but then there's the peat.

It's harmony. Take that, Suntory. If you have a bottle from this cask, then ffffffffffff......fine. Happy Friday to you.

Availability - A few retailers in continental Europe, maybe
Pricing - around €150

Rating - 92 (best of this BN bunch)

Ben Nevis 23 year old 1991 Signatory UCF Collection, cask 2916

This week's final Ben Nevises are from a pair of Signatory single casks that cradled spirit born in 1991. Tomorrow's will be from Signatory's Cask Strength Collection. Today's BN is from Signatory's Un-Chillfiltered Collection, those skinny bottles with the white labels that instantly won me over during a more impressionable phase of my whisky life. It's still a very reliable range, with a solid presentation (46%abv, no chill filtration, no colorant added) and a limited amount of carpentry involved in the maturation of the final products.

Distillery: Ben Nevis
Region: Highlands (Western)
Independent Bottler: Signatory Vintage
Range: Un-Chillfiltered Collection
Age: 23 years (August 16, 1991 to May 7, 2015)
Maturation: sherry butt
Cask: 2916
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
(from a purchased sample)

NEAT
Its color is a surprisingly light amber. There's so much barley in the nose, all up front, flashing its stuff. Then iodine and gentle smoke. Peaches, orange candy and cantaloupe. Just a hint of mezcal in the background. The palate is also big on barley. Somewhat bready. Black grease and dunnage; more Clynelish-ish than Springbank-ish. A little bit of peach candy and lemon juice. More bitterness than sweetness, arriving often as bitter smoke. After 20 minutes in the glass, it picks up some nutty sherry and hay. The finish has a medium length, full of barley and lemons. A splash of herbal liqueur. Small notes of industrial chimney, plastic and hay.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Pretty solid dirty Highlands stuff. Sometimes it's quite youthful. There was a lightness to it that kept me from adding water. And there's zero heat at 46%abv, making it an easy sipper if suits your style. Not a whole lot to complain about, but I find myself in no rush to hunt down a bottle. Maybe I've started to set my Ben Nevis expectations even higher now. Or maybe I made the mistake of tasting this whisky next to cask 3833...

Availability - A few retailers in continental Europe, maybe
Pricing - around €100

Rating - 85

Ben Nevis 20 year old 1992 Signatory, cask 2314

In yesterday's review of cask 2310, my expectations of a richly sherried Ben Nevis were vaporized by the reality of a intensely tart, mineral, herbal whisky.

As I've been doing throughout this Ben Nevis series, I tasted two Ben Nevises side by side to gain perspective on each. In this case, I tried cask 2310 and 2314. They're both 20 year old Ben Nevises, matured in single sherry butts, bottled by Signatory, distilled on the same day in 1992 and bottled in 2013. And there's only 0.1 point difference in their ABVs. Yet cask 2310 turned out 623 bottles worth of whisky, while 2314 produced only 433.

Let's see how (or if) these factors resulted in different whiskies.

Distillery: Ben Nevis
Region: Highlands (Western)
Independent Bottler: Signatory Vintage
Range: Cask Strength
Age: 20 years (July 3, 1992 to April 10, 2013)
Maturation: sherry butt
Bottles: 433
Cask: 2314
Alcohol by Volume: 55.4%
(from a purchased sample)

NEAT
The nose is earthy and herbal, with small notes of horse manure and crumbly autumn leaves. There are also moments of dark chocolate, charred beef and uncooked bacon. There are stone fruits, raspberry jam and lemon surface cleaner. The palate has a nice balance of pepper, tartness, soft sweetness and mild minerals. There are hints of raspberry jam and plum wine, but not as sugary as that sounds. Some mint leaves, bitter soot, toasted oak spices and maybe some rye. The lean but long finish is plenty peppery and herbal, with some good bitterness. A little bit of fruity sweetness and dried berries show up late.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv
The nose has brighter fruit notes, especially some bright lemon zest. Yet it also registers a little bit meatier. A hint of iodine in the background. The palate is similar to the neat version. Some more limes. A little bit of dry sherry. More black pepper. A moldy dunnage note appears in the finish, along with pepper, tart fruity and a subtle sweetness.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Had I tried this one on its own, I probably would have remarked on its austerity and sharpness. But next to cask 2310, this almost registers as a crowd pleaser. While I don't actually think it's a crowd pleaser, it does have more fruits and sweetness. There's a good balance to it, and it swims well. The difference between the two may be linked to the extra evaporation in cask 2314, or different placement in the warehouse, or a zillion other mysterious chemical factors played out over twenty years.

Cask 2314 produced great whisky. Whether this cask is better than 2310 depends on one's palate and mood. While 2310's finish was excellent, 2314's balance and complexity win out. It's a near draw. One point difference in scores is piffle, really.

Availability - ???
Pricing - probably close to €120

Rating - 89