The burden of single cask single malt, and also Ardmore 13 year old 2006 SMWS 66.161

I've already tried today's whisky, and my tasting notes lie here in front of me. Despite ending its maturation in a brief first-fill charred ex-red wine barrique finish, this Ardmore isn't as much of a flop as I had anticipated. But it did leave me thinking about its need to exist.

SMWS has released scores of hogshead-matured Ardmores (see the two I reviewed just this week). I can't imagine this whisky was superb when it was pulled from its first cask, a hoggie, after 12 years, before it was primed and prettied in its second vessel. Though the wine cask finish didn't mangle the whisky, why did this even need to be released as a single cask single malt at all? Because, despite fads and pandemics and tariffs and Brexits, the single malt marketplace is still humming along. Single cask single malt has become one of the most expensive spirits in history. And those single casks keep selling out. But does single cask single malt always represent scotch whisky in its finest form? It's certainly close to being scotch whisky in its most unadulterated state, but does that mean it drinks or smells best in that form?

When drinking casually (as in, no notes!), I now reach for small(-ish) batch official bottlings and dusty blends. My nose and palate have confirmed those whiskies are no less complex, satisfying and reliable than single casks, in fact they're often more so. I gain more respect for the blending craft with each passing year, and I'm beginning to believe that many mediocre-to-decent single casks could have been better utilized in a high-quality blend, vatting or small batch single malt. I'm not saying 1 + 2 = 4. Rather, 1 + 2 may in fact equal 3, though it takes tremendous skill to get there.

I stopped reviewing current bestselling blended whiskies some time ago due to the grim quality I've found in many of them. This isn't intended as a dig at individual blenders, nor do I think it's due to some sort of corporate conspiracy beyond general capitalism. Taking even a cursory look at the demand for single malt whisky, one can surmise the supply of good malt available to blenders is at one of its lowest points in the history of the craft. If the good stuff sells better and higher on its own, then that's how it will be offered. And blenders can't create the same art with fewer quality options for their palates and palettes.

I won't tell you that all old blends are amazing. There have always been plenty of stinkers. But many of the blends from the '40s through the '80s were fabulous. Even my open 1970s J&B Rare has become the best highball scotch I've ever had. The flavors, the facets, the maltiness in previous decades' blends leads me to believe that during eras of small, or nonexistent, demand for single malts, whisky companies had better options for their blenders.

That brings me back to today's whisky. Was this Ardmore malt (and its drinkers) best served by depositing its hogshead's contents into a potentially hyperactive cask for a short period of time? Or would it have been better as a pivotal element in an upscale Teacher's blend, or a Compass Box vatting? I don't know. Not too long ago, I would have chosen the single cask because Purity. But now, I'd lean towards the latter.

Distillery: Ardmore (SMWS 66)
Ownership: Beam Suntory
Region: Highlands (Eastern)
Independent Bottler: Scotch Malt Whisky Society
Age: 13 years (6 March 2006 - 2019)
Maturation: ~12 years in a hogshead then ~1 year in a first-fill charred ex-red wine barrique

Cask#: 66.161
Outturn: 295

'Quirky' name: Chateau du pork scratching
Alcohol by Volume: 58.1%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
(from a bottle split)

NEAT
None of the suggest meaty notes appear in the nose, instead there's cocoa, fabric, marshmallow fluff, cherry jam and jalapeños. The peat appears in the form of chocolate-dipped moss. The palate begins with a fizzy combination of cherry-flavored Tylenol, mint leaves and Dr. Brown's cream soda. Hints of herbal bitterness and blackberry jam float beneath. Cherries, tart and sweet, lead the finish, followed by salt and burlap.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or 1½ tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose shows considerable improvement. It's more herbal, vegetal and nutty. It's even slightly earthy. Cocoa, butterscotch, marzipan and raspberry jam appear here and there. The palate remains sweet and berried (a joke!?), with raspberries in whipped cream, but some sea salt, pepper and bitterness provide additional angles. It finishes with a cherry/ginger syrup, a pinch of salt and squeeze of lemon.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Despite my fears, this was not worse than 66.32. In fact, with a little added water, this Ardmore was very approachable. Though the spirit does seem hindered, tragedy is avoided. It is not "strangely sweet, gloopy" (what an odd way to pitch your whisky) despite SMWS's label notes.

Before finishing this sample I looked at the remaining whisky in my glass and wondered what the point of this whisky was. And that triggered all those paragraphs above. I'm thankful to have had just 60mL of this whisky rather 750mL. Had I a full bottle I'd immediately initiate some foolish vattings, attempting to find a better whisky.

Availability - Sold out
Pricing - was £61 one year ago
Rating - 80 with water

Ardmore 20 year old 1997 SMWS 66.137

If a 1980s hogshead can't force me to release my grip on 90 points for an Ardmore, then what chance have these other two Ardies?

At least today's whisky also spent two decades in a hogshead. And the SMWS scriveners have dubbed it "Dirty but good." I'm not going to travel down the "Nudge nudge. Nudge nudge. Know what I mean? Say no more. Know what I mean?" path, but whatever happened to "Dirty and Good"? Or did they mean, "Dirty butt, good"? The mysteries of life.

Distillery: Ardmore (SMWS 66)
Ownership: Beam Suntory
Region: Highlands (Eastern)
Independent Bottler: Scotch Malt Whisky Society
Age: 20 years (23 October 1997 - 2018)
Maturation: refill hogshead

Cask#: 66.137
Outturn: 292

'Quirky' name: Dirty but good
Alcohol by Volume: 54.7%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
(from a bottle split)

NEAT
The nose begins very salty and sort of savory, like seaweed and kelp. Then there are some cashews, wet sand, sesame seeds and burlap. Was this supposed to be the dirty part? A swirl of peat and dried herbs (oregano, thyme and bay leaf) greet the palate first. Small doses of salt, pepper, stones and weed follow. Malt and ginger beer float in the background. This was actually very clean. It finishes with dried herbs, black pepper, pickled ginger and the palate's two stony notes.

Maybe some water will filthy it up.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or >1 tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose might be a little farmier, though I am digging deep to find the dirt. It's more on walnuts than cashews now. A sprinkle of brown sugar. The palate hasn't changed much. It's a slightly sweeter and saltier, and has picked up a drip of sesame oil. Not much change in the finish. Maybe more pepper and salt.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
This is clean and good with nothing dirty about it. That's not a problem. Or is it? This 20yo Ardmore proves to be a solid, spirit-forward herbal peater that'll do the job in any cold weather. In fact there are a lot of refill cask Ardmores from the late '90s that consistently hit this mark. Boringly great, I guess. Maybe this dirty boy longs for some grit and grunge. For those afeared of the weird, you'll be okay with this whisky.

Availability - Sold out
Pricing - was £95 in 2018
Rating - 86

Ardmore 24 year old 1985 SMWS 66.30

Speaking of SMWS......how about three SMWS Ardmores from three decades this week?

Since I know you're keeping track of every single post, you have obviously noticed I have been out of character, ignoring my Ardmore Fanboy #1 role, when reviewing actual Ardmores. I've given a grand total of ONE Ardmore a 90-point mark. Don't think that I have not noticed this. Though my parent brain has fully calcified, and I often have to pee in front of an audience, I have not shed my conjoined twin, Self Consciousness. Perhaps I have to review more Ardmores, or better Ardmores. Or maybe I should open up my closed hoarded imprisoned Ardmores. Meh. I'll just review more Ardmores.

I received this sample from the very generous Teemu of Whisky Science during a sample swap. That previous sentence was also used for this humbling Yoichi. He spoiled me.

Distillery: Ardmore (SMWS 66)
Ownership: Beam Suntory
Region: Highlands (Eastern)
Independent Bottler: Scotch Malt Whisky Society
'Quirky' name: An outdoor banquet
Age: 24 years (March 1985 - 2019)
Maturation: refill hogshead
Cask#: 66.30
Outturn: 244
Alcohol by Volume: 52.5%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
(from a sample swap)

NEAT
The nose begins with a nice unromantic combination of hay, ocean water, toasted grains and a hint of honey. A slight yeastiness then eases in, followed by notes of plaster and rosewater. After 30+ minutes white peaches roll in, followed by a fig confection. Its autumn palate offers hay, dried leaves, dried rose petals, soil and a slight bitter rootiness (or rooty bitterness). After a good long time in the glass, the whisky picks up a squeeze of lemon juice, sea salt and extra virgin olive oil. It finishes with salt, earth, soot and savory herbs. Little bits of flowers and olive oil in the background.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, < 1 tsp of water per 30mL whisky
Ah, the nose gains a whiff of that beach bonfire note I love so. More peaches and citrus as well, with hints of ash, fig and ocean in the back. The palate gets leaner. Salt, soot, tart off-season nectarines register first, followed by hints of flower kiss candy and horseradish. The finish actually sweetens, getting a bit floral, almost creamy. But sea salt and kelp keep things from getting too crazy.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Thanks to the extremely-refill hoggie and austere (oh that word) spirit, this Ardmore shows itself to be the opposite of a modern whisky. With its fruit and smoke, the nose offers up the most flair, while the palate never cracks a smile. That's okay, everything can't be "fun" and "delicious". We're all serious adults here. Joy is for silly people.

Also I like the palate, and the whole thing gets better with a little water. It almost gets me to Silly.

Availability - ???
Pricing - ???
Rating - 88 with water

Bowmore 14 year old 2004 SMWS 3.313 for Feis Ile 2019

I don't know when I bought into this bottle share, nor do I remember why. Unless an Ardmore or some old weird thing is offered, I don't chase after SMWS bottlings for reasons covered in this blog ad nauseum. But I apparently went in on this Feis Ile exclusive, and it probably wasn't cheap. That festival has inspired many humans to spend an unwise quantity of GBP/EUR to fetch a single bottle of exclusive whisky on the secondary market. If that quantity is X, then an SMWS Feis Ile whisky expenditure will be approximately 2X.

Anyway, this whisky is gorgeous.

Distillery: Bowmore
Owner: Beam Suntory
Region: Islay
Independent bottler: Scotch Malt Whisky Society

Age: 14 years (September 2004 to 2019)

Maturation: second-fill hogshead
Cask "name": Tempting trilogy of tastes
Cask number: 3.313
Outturn: 138 US bottles

Alcohol by Volume: 54.2%
(from a bottle split)

NEAT
Three layers to the nose. Mango, honey and honeydew on top. Juicy Fruit gum and cinnamon in the middle. Pumpernickel bread and grassy peat on the bottom. It gradually all fades out leaving only mango and honey behind. The palate is fruitier somehow. Grapefruit, papaya, lychee and a hint of that mango are all in the foreground. Minerals, earth and serrano peppers rumble beneath. The fruits glide slowly into a crisp tartness after 30 minutes. It finishes moderately sweet/tart with lychee, lemons, malt and a whiff of smoke.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, 1 tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose keeps all the neat fruits, adds some orange oil and dusts it all with baking spices. Similarly, the palate holds onto all the fruits, with the bright grapefruit being framed by chimney smoke and an herbal bitterness. It finishes with tart fruit, minerals and a hint of bitter smoke.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Kristen drank a third of this sample. Nothing I can say will top that approval. But I'll write a few more words, as I do. The fruity essences' intensity shows best in the palate as it meets and merges well with the darker notes, while the nose is so pretty that one can only thank and re-thank Bowmore for ditching this cask instead of burying it in an OB. Thanks again, Bowmore! Keep giving away the honey casks.

Availability - Sold out in primary market, secondary market though...
Pricing - originally $155, secondary price is a lllllllllot more
Rating - 90

Bowmore 17 year old 2002 Blackadder, cask 20199

After Monday's 1989 Bowmore, I thought I should review a more recent Blackadder Bowmore, one that some of you at home may have seen. Distilled during the very fine Bowmore era of 1999-2002 (specifically, 2002), the whisky was bottled just last year----

Oops, I should have offered a trigger warning there. Are you okay?

I'll try to keep my expectations under control, but I do adore ex-bourbon single casks of Bowmore from this period.

Distillery: Bowmore
Owner: Beam Suntory
Region: Islay
Independent Bottler: Blackadder
Range: Raw Cask
Age: 17 years (2002 to 15 October 2019)
Maturation: Hogshead
Cask number: 20199
Outturn: 308
Alcohol by Volume: 53.4%
(from a bottle split)

NEAT
The nose is a bit on the lean side. Some farmy smoke, pine needles and butter arrive first. Then, slowly, grapefruit, citronella candles and peach ice cream make their appearances. Time to use the "A" word. The austere palate starts off with stones, grains and pine needles. Bitter smoke rolls up into the midground. It's very salty and spirity, almost like a 7yo rather than a 17yo. The finish has more character than the palate, adding menthol and lemons to the bitter smoke.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or 1 tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose gains a nice seaside/harbor note to go with the grapefruits, lemons and dirty stones. The palate is "slightly" a lot of things, mostly in balance: slightly sharp, slightly peppery, slightly salty, slightly sweet and slightly bitter. That harbor note rolls after a while, adding some character. Again the finish proves to be more interesting, leaning heavier on the salt while adding a lychee candy note.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
While this is probably a technically flawless thing, with its lean style and great nose, I found the palate somewhat uninspired. Again. Could my expectations have influenced my experience? Or could the excellence of its sparring partner (arriving on Friday) have given me a different perspective than had I tried this whisky alone? For a more positive review, see that of My Annoying Opinions who reviewed the same whisky from the same bottle two weeks ago. He found more going on in the palate than I did, therein lies the difference in our scores.

Availability - Probably sold out
Pricing - ???
Rating - 85

Bowmore 21 year old 1989 Blackadder, cask 12861

It's been more than two years since I reviewed an independently bottled Bowmore. I shall end this blog's longest indie Bowmore drought ever with a trio of single casks this week, starting with one that was distilled at the end of the difficult Bowmore period, call it what you will. By the time the late '80s arrived, some of the more troubling distillate notes were in the past. I hope that's the case with this one. I'm cool with flowers blossoms, floral soap and floral perfume not so much.

Here's the data:

NEAT

So used to the bold peat on recent Bowmore indie casks, I am surprised by the mildness of the peat on this whisky's nose. Flowers and fruits read much louder: think cantaloupe, yellow plums and white nectarines. In the background, a quirky Loch Lomond-style funk merges well with a molasses note. The palate begins very hot and very sweet with some vegetal peat on the side. There's a mix of shouga sembei (Japanese ginger cookies) and mint candy up front, hints of caramel and cherry cola in the background. A new note develops after a while, a curious old-blend-like thing that I can only attempt to describe as ink, mold and paper. A sweet smoke appears in the finish, followed by charred veg and toasted oak spices.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or 1½ tsp per 30mL whisky

Quite some variety in the nose now. Vegetal peat smoke, lemon candy, carpet, leather and baby poop. The palate also meanders all over the place. At first it's a blend of candy canes, ginger cookies and peanut butter. Then there's this note, it tastes like I'm licking the label, and it sort of takes over everything. Luckily it doesn't carry too far into the finish, rather we're back to the mint, smoke and pepper.

WORDS WORDS WORDS

Despite the whisky being quite hot at full power, I do not recommend diluting it to 46%abv because all cohesion is shattered and things start getting strange. And not in a fun way. When neat, the whisky seems to stay close to the spirit, with cask interference held to a minimum. As noted by Ganga in the comments section on my most recent FWP post, the floral notes here are (thankfully) of actual flower blossoms, not soap. And that prevents the nose from dropping to wacky bad from its wacky goodness. The neat palate is unmemorable aside from the inky, moldy note, and the finish is a bit plain and short. This cask is most notable for being a relatively successful Bowmore from this period, with the italics on "relatively".

Availability - Sold out
Pricing - ???
Rating - 83 (but keep it neat!)

Caol Ila 14 year old 2005 Chieftain's, cask 302361

I've been snooping around online and can find very little about this whisky. It's almost as if all the bottles were bought up and are now collecting dust in everyone's oh-my-god-a-new-thing cabinet. It's a 14 year old single cask Caol Ila that was actually released in America last year. Other than an occasional K&L conquest, this country doesn't get double-digit-aged single cask Caol Ilas on the reg anymore. Thank you, Ian MacLeod, for letting one escape across the Atlantic.

Distillery: Caol Ila
Region: Islay
Owner: Diageo
Independent Bottler: Ian McLeod
Range: Chieftain's
Age: 14 years (March 2005 - August 2019)
Maturation: Hogshead
Cask #: 302361
Bottles: 218
Alcohol by Volume: 55.9%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
(from a purchased sample)

NEAT
A flawless nose. Gosh, I miss Caol Ila. Anyway: seaweedy smoke, roasted almonds, Canadian bacon and hot tar. Brown sugar in the middle. Fresh apricots, yellow plums and apple skins in the background. Massive peat in the palate, like CI+. But it's not all peat. Tart apples, sweet apples, fennel, lime juice and horseradish hold steady in the smoke. Silky texture, too. It finishes with an excellent sweet/smoky balance. Then limes, salt, stones and horseradish.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or 1¼ tsp of water per 30mL whisky
How is it possible that the nose is peatier and stinkier? It's in the Ledaig/PC/Croftengea zone. Beyond the black smoke lies damp soil, mushrooms, plums and cherries. Bitter herbs and bitter cocoa lead the muscular palate, followed by horseradish and heavy smoke. But just as one starts to stagger from the wallop, sweet oranges rise up to tickle the palate. It finishes with earth, roots, herbs and oranges.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
A list of thoughts:

1. Awesome.
2. Y'all have been keeping this a secret from the rest of us, haven't you? Y'all.
3. The Ledaig/PC/Croftengea zone is a good place to be. If this isn't the peatiest Caol Ila I've ever had, it has to be in the top three.
4. Despite the whisky's youthful character, there are no mezcal notes, which I appreciate. At first it was fun to find mezcal notes in baby peated whiskies, but after the fourth or fifth time that note appeared I found myself just wanting some mezcal rather than underaged scotch.
5. This whisky's price was silly because of The Tariff, right?

Availability - Scarce
Pricing - $180-$190
Rating - 89