...where distraction is the main attraction.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Beatrice Booze Report: Ardmore 1991-2013 Malts of Scotland, Rum Barrel

One recent evening, I spent an extended period of time staring at the front label of this bottle of Ardmore. Because I was hepped down on NyQuil, it was more of a gazing-beyond-the-fabric-of-the-spacetime-continuum than seeing the label in this particular reality. My eyes eventually focused and I saw something weird.

234 bottles that came from this rum barrel. That's a lot of whisky from a barrel utilized for 22 years. The abv is 53.8%, which means the angels did take their share. (Note: the angels really like 1991 through 1993 Ardmore. This is the only 1991-1993 Ardmore I have that is north of 50%abv.)

I did some math on a legal pad, then double-checked my scribbles the next day. Taking into account that Ardmore goes into the barrel at 63.5%abv, the volume — not just the percentage but the actual quantity — of water INCREASED over 22 years. I may think Ardmore is pretty spiffy, but I'm certain it follows the principal of mass conservation.

So either it was:
1.) Barreled at an unusually low ABV
2.) Topped up over the years (illegal per SWA)
3.) Re-racked from more than one cask

The third option is the most likely. Re-racking is neither a crime nor a disaster, but it would have been swell if Malts of Scotland shared this information. Or perhaps the cask's previous owner was responsible for this maneuver. It does make one wonder, what is a "single cask"?, again. It also explains why Serge and Ruben found so little rum influence in a 22yo rum barrel whisky.

Distillery: Ardmore
Region: Highlands (Eastern)
Independent Bottler: Malts of Scotland
Age: ~22 years old (March 1991 - March 2013)
Maturation: Rum barrel (though I have my theories)
Casks: 13018
Alcohol by Volume: 53.8%
(Sample from the top of my bottle)

I wrote that whole conspiracy theory on Monday. And now it's Wednesday. My nose is working. I've had three glasses of this whisky...

The color is light gold. The nose begins with soil and peat smoke. Lemon juice spilled on grandma's plastic couch cover. Hints of fresh peach and molasses. With 30+ minutes in the glass: Green bananas (the closest thing to rum here), dirty hay and canned peaches. Tar, salt, soil, rocks and burlap in the palate. Some actual Jamaican-style rum funk in the background. The rum's earthiness matches the whisky's. After a while there's dense dark smoke, not Ardmore's usual moderate woody smoke. It finishes with dusty smoke, tangy Jamaican rum funk, smoked paprika and lime.

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or 1⅔ tsp water per 30mL whisky
The nose is politer, more sugary. Pineapple, apple and flowers to go with the green bananas. Ocean water to go with the hay. The palate is similar to the neat one. A little sweeter and pepperier. Some tangy lime around the edges. The same mix of heavy smoke and funky rum. The finish is moderately long but simple. Black pepper, limes and smoke.

I am not crazy about this whisky. Maybe I should add ", yet."? If not for the rum note, one could say that the palate is austere to a fault, or maybe it's just modest. The dearth of oak is much appreciated. The smoke is very aggressive and, dare I say, a bit generic.

Great whisky doesn't have to be all Carmen Miranda — singing, dancing, fruit hats — but it needs to establish itself as something one can't find elsewhere in the sensory realm. This whisky doesn't do that. It also has yet to open up in the glass. I let one of my pours sit for 45 minutes. The whisky in that glencairn told oxygen to piss right off.

The whisky is good, so maybe I need to provide perspective here. Early '90s Ardmore is my favorite distillery era (within financial reason, people). This bottle ain't even close. In fact, its style is foreign to that group. It fits in better with 21st century steam coil Ardmore: more smoke, less fruit. That style works, sometimes quite well. This 1991 fits right there. Perhaps that has to do with its cask(s)?

Availability - sold out
Pricing - €99 in 2013
Rating - 84 (perhaps I'll review it again next year?)

1 comment:

  1. As if I did already write enough above, here are some additional thoughts/clarifications before I leave for work and then take care of kids and then can't use the Internets for 14 hours:
    1.) I had the three glasses of whisky spread out over three nights rather than one. It's a school night!
    2.) This whisky is like low-B work from an A student. And I had to pay nearly $125 to get the student.
    3.) If the more math-y folks want to disprove my conspiracy theory, please do!