'Fiddich Fever: Glenfiddich 15 year old

Yesterday I reviewed the Rich Oak 14 year old Glenfiddich.  Today, it's the 15 year old, formerly known as the Solera Reserve.  Inspired by a Spanish sherry producing technique, Glenfiddich began vatting some of its whisky in a solera system.  Here's an explanation of the process, from Roskrow's 1001 Whiskies volume:

The vat is filled with a mix of 70 percent refill bourbon casks, 20 percent European oak, and 10 percent virgin oak.  The liquid is then left to marry in the huge 700 [liter?] solera vat for three to six months, before half is emptied out and bottled.  The vat is then refilled to start the marrying process once more.

So, for the 15 year old Solera Reserve, which was first released in 1998, that's 15 year old whisky being dumped into the vat, joining a lot of older  earlier-distilled whisky from countless previous vattings, possibly some of which was distilled in 1983.

They also use a similar solera technique for their small batch 40 year old, but since I dumped all of my Glenfiddich 40 into a can of Sprite last Thursday, all I have available to review is the 15.

Brand: Glenfiddich

Ownership: William Grant & Sons

Region: Speyside (Dufftown)

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation/Age: a 70/20/10 combination of refill bourbon / ex-sherry / virgin oak 15-year-old whiskies is vatted with earlier-distilled 15-year-old whiskies in a solera vat for 3 to 6 months; after that it is married further in a Portuguese oak tun 

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Colored? Yes

Chillfiltered? Yes
(Many thanks to Florin for the sample!)

The color is a dark gold, the darkest of this week's Glenfiddichs.  At first blush, in the nose there's a very nutty oloroso, but then it vanishes quickly.  The familiar 'Fiddich pears are more reserved, but still present.  There are toasty grains, a rubber note, and a lot of toffee.  It smells woodier than the 14yo Rich Oak.  Like the 14, the 15's palate is not too sweet.  Mild dried fruit notes from the sherry meet some milk chocolate and black tea.  Then vanilla extract, dry grass, and cracked pepper.  The texture is a little thin.  The grasses and pepper hang around into the finish.  There's also caramel, some dry sherry, and a hint of tartness.

Artistically, it's a shame that they water this one down to 40% after all of that effort with the solera vat.  Some very nice notes show up, then vaporize.  (On a personal note, I was happy to realize that the sherry notes were not a turn off, and that I was actually searching for more.)  The whole thing oxidizes VERY quickly in the glass.  So you'd be best off not letting it sit alone for too long.

I like it about the same as the 14, though they are different whiskies.  Had the 15 had any stamina then I'd be happy to holler with glee about it.  But it doesn't, so I can't.  It's an easy drinker and, since it is available in the US, it's one of the best priced 15yos out here.  It is a step up from the 12, but not a leap.

Availability - Most liquor retailers

Pricing - $40-$45 West Coast; $50-$55 East Coast; was $33.99 at Trader Joe's a year ago but no longer :(

Rating - 84

'Fiddich Fever: Glenfiddich 14 year old Rich Oak

The first of the three 'Fiddich friends: the 14 year old Rich Oak.

The words "Rich Oak" often bring to mind thoughts of craft whiskies that have been aggressively overoaked in small barrels.  My hope was that this wasn't a failed-experiment-type of release by Glenfiddich.  You know, something they screwed up but made so much of it that they had to release it (such as this more expensive whisky).  Their Rich Oak hasn't yet made it to the US, where big oak is often appreciated more by bourbon fans than single malt fanatics, but I was able to buy a sample of it through Master of Malt.

To find out what Glenfiddich meant by "Rich Oak", I went to their official UK site that has a page dedicated to it.  You can go there if you like; there are moody photos and a gauzy video.  You'll discover that the whisky spent its first fourteen years in a mix of previously used American and Spanish oak casks and then is finished in a different mix of new, virgin American and Spanish oak casks for twelve weeks.  There are also a bunch of vague tasting notes about vanilla, "fruit", "oak", and "spice".  Let's see if I can whip up something more specific.

Brand: Glenfiddich

Ownership: William Grant & Sons

Region: Speyside (Dufftown)

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation/Age: 14 years in ex-bourbon American and ex-oloroso sherry Spanish oak casks, then another 12 weeks in a mix of virgin American and and Spanish oak casks

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Colored? Yes

Chillfiltered? Yes

The color is a medium gold.  On the nose, that "oak" is more toasty smelling than charred.  The "fruits" are fresh white fruits, specifically golden delicious apples, pears, and green grapes.  But mostly pears.  In fact there's also a strong note of baked pear in caramel sauce.  Also, floral perfume, oats, and hints of menthol.  The palate is surprisingly malty and drier than I had expected.  There's some subtle vanilla, a hint of tree bark, dry grass, toasted almonds, and a pleasant bitterness.  It's all very mellow.  There's some plain caramel and vanilla notes in the finish.  Some fresh apricot, along with the floral note from the nose.  Some nuts and grains in the mix.

I only tried it neatly because at 40%ABV, it's already so watered down.  The whisky would be much more interesting if Glenfiddich did more of a crafty presentation of it, bottling it at 46%, un-colored and un-chillfiltered.  It seemed like there were more cereal notes and possibly some farmy ones hidden beneath the water, but we'll never know.

As it is, it's not bad.  It's a tiny step above the 12 year.  That pear note seems to show up in every Glenfiddich I've had, which I always like as a sort of signature characteristic.  The 14 year isn't as sweet as the official tasting notes would lead one to believe and it's actually almost spice-free when comparing it to bourbons and ryes which spend their entire lives in new oak.  Those are not criticisms at all.  To me, those are good things.  The malt hasn't been suffocated away.

If you're trying to buy it from Europe it can get prohibitively expensive thanks to shipping.  A cheaper option may be a Duty Free store if you're traveling internationally.  For those folks living in Europe, the 14 is priced about the same as the 15, about a 30% markup over the 12.  I wouldn't say it's 30% better, but it's unique enough to provide a different experience.

Availability - Europe and Travel Retail only

Pricing - If in Europe: $50-$60; For US folks (w/international shipping): $65-$75

Rating - 84

Some Single Malt Ramblings for the weekend

Just a few items that were floating around my head:

1.  Last Monday, Jordan at Chemistry of the Cocktail had a killer post about the importance of long fermentation in whisky production.  Science is one of Jordan's fortes, so yes the post is science-y.  But it underscores a mutual concern: the speeding up of whisky production does have an effect on the final product.  Denying it only serves the purpose of protecting the brand through misdirection or naïveté.  Maturation has changed, barley varieties have changed, yeast has likely changed, and barrels are getting dumped earlier and earlier.  These changes to the product are not being done in the name of progress, they're being done for revenue.  Anyway, that's my hot air.  Jordan's post has actual fact-based observations and studies about fermentation effects.

2.  My Annoying Opinions unleashed his latest opinion piece last Wednesday.  As he is apt to do, MAO ventures out into delicate territory.  This time he explores the blurry lines between whisky blogging and brand marketing.  As usual, he is right on.  The resulting comment section is quite something.  Some big names in the whisky blogging community respond to MAO's questions.  Sometimes the comments are very thought-provoking, and sometimes the comments are very disappointing.  Good stuff.

3.  A little update on that weird Suntory Royal SR blend I'd found.  In my post I said that making a mizuwari out of it was okay.  I was wrong, it's really not okay.  The sink drank the drink.

4.  Two weeks ago, I posted a rave review of two Old Taylor bourbons that had been bottled in the 1980s.  I'd noted then that the 1985 bottling had oxidized very quickly.  Well, the 1987 bottling (which I'd given the higher grade) has now oxidized very quickly as well, nearly silencing the palate and adding a subtle soapiness to the finish.  I'm beginning to wonder if this quick oxidation is something that happens often to dusty bourbons once they're opened.  Dusty scotch whisky doesn't thin out like this.

5.  I added a Diving for Pearls Facebook Page follow button on the right side of the blog.  If you're reading this (and thank you for doing so!), then you already have your method of getting here -- by boat, train, Twitter, Google+, Feedly, blogger links, searches, etc.  Facebook is another method.  If I find fun stuff to share on FB then that will join my links to the posts.

6.  I've got a fever and the only prescription is more 'Fiddich.  'Fiddich Fever burns hot this week.  All of three bottlings worth.

Single Malt Report: Bowmore 15 year old 1990 James MacArthur

Welcome to the third of five consecutive single malty Fridays of coinciding reviews between Diving for Pearls and My Annoying Opinions.  Week 1 brought a sherried Longmorn.  Week 2 was a youthful Caol Ila.  This week it's a 15 year old Bowmore, distilled in 1990, bottled in 2005 by James MacArthur & Company for their Old Masters series.  (Here's the link to MAO's review!)

I really like independently bottled Bowmores.  I've had the pleasure of trying fifteen of them over the last two-and-a-half years, and found only one of them less than very good.  A bottle of this James MacArthur Bowmore was split between MAO, a Mystery Malt Mensch, and me.  Because it was distilled in 1990, we were running the slight risk of FWP.  But I'm a man who lives on the edge, man, so I rolled the dice, spun the chamber, ordered the fugu, and laid my money down.

Distillery: Bowmore

Independent Bottler: James MacArthur & Co.
Series: Old Masters

Age: 15 years (1990-2005)

Maturation: probably re-fill bourbon barrels
Cask number: 1168

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 51.1%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: Probably not

NEAT
The color is a medium amber.  The nose starts with burnt manure.  Mmm, lots of it.  Then lemon zest, anise, layers of rotting vegetation, and fresh garlic.  Now plastic toys are melting and tire rubber burning.  And, unless I'm just imagining things, perhaps there's a note of cannabis?  There's a load of moss in the palate, along with coffee grounds and dirt (which is redundant to some of us).  Also plenty of sweeter peat smoke, peppery arugula, lemon sour candies, and cayenne peppery.  Some Laphroaigy cigarettes in the finish, followed by lemoned peat moss.  Behind a wall of kiln smoke alternates peeps of tart, bitter, and sweet.  It's huge.

WITH WATER
The peat moss recedes a little in the nose.  More barley and vanilla come up front.  There's still the burnt rubber, lemon zest, and weed.  It's spicier, with a little bit of the farmy note.  Some sort of fruity Belgian ale too.  The palate is herbal and mossy with moments of mild sweetness.  Cardamom cookies served on a nest (an actual nest).  Bright spices are more apparent in the finish.  A little lemon, less smoke.  Fresh herbs amongst the moss.

This is wonderfully dirty Bowmore.  Nothing artsy or subtle about it.  No flowers or soap.  The peat is so much more aggressive here than in Bowmore's official stuff.  It'll sock you in the nose first and when you're on your heels it'll punch your mouth.  The smoke and fire isn't due to it being too young, instead it's courtesy of a very good spirit and a decent refill cask.

This one's my favorite of the three MacArthurs we'd split.  None were bad, but the Bowmore is really my style.  I'm going have another glass of it right now.

Availability - Sparse

Pricing - probably $100-$120

Rating - 89

Taste Off! Glenmorangie 10 (old label) versus Glenmorangie Original

Do you need much more of an intro than that?

Well, of course you're going to get one.  The older labelled Glenmorangies (back when they were distributed by Brown Forman) were the amongst the whiskies that really hooked me on single malts, especially the 10 year old and "Sherry Wood".  They were simple but flavorful and relatively affordable.  Perfect for a starter drug.

I've seen the Sherry Wood selling here and there for amounts a bit too steep for me to chase, but I have lucked into a bottle or two of the 10 for a decent price.  This bottle (on the left in the picture above) is from 2005.

In 2007, Moet Hennessey started distributing Glenmorangie (which it had also owned since 2004) and gave the packaging a full makeover.  Gone were the old school bottles, tubes, and labels, now replaced by new names, new font, and curvy bottles.  The "Sixteen Men of Tain" went from center stage to somewhere off in smaller print.  Glenmorangie was now a luxury brand, it couldn't look stogy, it had to dress the part.

But did they change the whisky?  It takes considerable effort to "change" a whisky.  Thousands of casks are dumped and mixed each year, and a BRAND like Glenmorangie has to be reliable enough in nature for its fans to return for more bottles.  But if a BRAND is trying to expand, could the producers tilt the whisky a little sweeter, smoother, or softer?

My memory says that the old Sherry Wood kicks the crap out of its current Lasanta iteration, but that's for a future Taste Off to challenge or confirm.  This year, I had in front of me the old 10 year and the new 10 year "Original".  I actually like the Original, so this seemed like a win-win for me.

Here's were things take a little bit of a turn.  This was a different bottle of Original than the one from my 2012 review and it's different than the one sampled by MAO in his review.  In fact, this one was an L7, as in from 2007.  When I first planned this review, I had intended to compare the oldie with something absolutely current.  I was pissed that I didn't look at the bottle code before buying (I'm a nerd like that), but then I realized that now I could actually compare Glenmorangies at the point of switchover from old to new, in 2007.

THE GLENMORANGIES TEN

Distillery: Glenmorangie
Ownership: Louis Vuitton Moet-Hennessy (accents and umlauts not included)
Age: minimum 10 years
Maturation: first fill and refill ex-Bourbon American oak casks
Region: Highlands (Northern)
Alcohol by Volume: 43%

Older Label (2005, L5 237) 
The color is light gold.  When I first opened the bottle, scents of melon and tangerine poured forth after being closed up for eight and half lonely years.  But now, with the whisky in the glass and a little bit of breathing time, the nose holds more peaches, toasted barley, and lemon-scented soap.  It also vacillates between jasmine, grape drink, and mild cheese.  Gradually citronella and cotton candy come forth.  Give it more air, then vanilla and cucumber notes develop.  The palate starts with lemon peel tartness and cocoa (or perhaps brown butter to some).  Lots of barley, then peach, and orange pulp.  The tartness progresses to tanginess.  The barley note grows with time and continues on into the finish.  It's joined by lemons and talcum powder.  It's of decent length, the citrus staying the longest.

New Label, "Original" (2007, L7 306)
Its color is identical to the older version.  Lots of rosy perfume on the nose.  The grape drink has become Concord Manischewitz (also known as kosher grape drink).  A hint of peach in there, but much more orange Jolly Rancher and cotton candy.  Toasted grains and grapefruit round it out.  As for the palate, it's pretty simple.  Peaches, sweet cream, tangerines, and limes.  There's also a slight bitterness and greenness that feels sort of young.  The citrus grows in the finish.  There's a green veg note alongside rubbing alcohol.  And it's brief.

Let's walk backwards.  The L7 is much less oaky than more recent bottlings of the Original.  But it's also less complex.  And there's also less barley character than there is in the L5.  The nose of the L7 Original is much more perfumed, bright, and focused than the L5.  The palate seems younger than the L5's and feels a little thin.  The L5 has a big lemony finish, while the L7 has almost no finish at all.

Did the Master Blender/Distiller/LVMH try to change the whisky?  The peach, citrus, and cotton candy notes show the L5 and L7 are very much related.  And neither have much barrel influence showing up.  The L5's nose is more fun, but it's also wilder.  The makers of the L7 seemed to have reined in that jazz and replaced it with pop prettiness.  But that process has taken something out of the palate.  The L7 seems more readily accessible at the start, but provides much less excitement at the finish.  Could the latter have been due to heavier filtration?  The former can be from cask selection.  Or am I reading too much into something that could be a bottle-to-bottle issue?  Even so, I'm much more sold on the 2005 version.

If you can find a bottle of the older label, I don't recommend airing it out too much.  Usually I do encourage folks to allow a whisky some time to open up, but not in this instance.  This whisky has been best at the top of the bottle or at the start of the glass.  It seems to kinda slow down with air.  Though if you find a really old bottle you can ignore this whole paragraph.

If you go to buy the Original, check the code printed faintly somewhere on the lower-half of the back of the bottle.  The 2012s and 2013s (L12 and L13, I think), while more oaky (possibly due to Astar-style casks), have more character and zip.  While the L7 isn't bad, it seems like something intended to be poured over ice and forgotten.  There are plenty of blends available to serve that purpose.

If you've had similar or different experiences with the old 10, let me know.  I may seek out another bottle if the price is right.

GLENMORANGE 10 YEAR OLD, OLD LABEL (L5)
Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - I've seen everything from $35 to $70
Rating - 85

GLENMORANGE 10 YEAR OLD, "THE ORIGINAL" (L7)
Availability - Most liquor stores, though it's usually a more recent bottling
Pricing - $30-$40
Rating - 80

Something Weird: Suntory Royal SR Japanese blended whisky (early '80s)

At some point this year, my selection of open whisky bottles turned into Kravitz's Cabinet of Curiosities.  While I do enjoy having an occasional oddball bottle to share, there are too many of these open right now.  I lugged a box of them to a whisky friend's house last week and felt like I should have donned a top hat and commenced carnival barking.

From the Cabinet of Curiosities, I present The Bearded Lady.

Yes, that's a champagne cork in its whisky hole.

I found this sitting by itself on the shelf at a local liquor store, selling for $25.99:

As you can see, the immediate appeal is the rockin' bottle.  The bigger appeal for me was that it's a Japanese whisky that's been out of US circulation since the first Reagan administration.  After completing the sale, the woman behind the counter said that her husband would call in to get it restocked.  I said, good luck with that.

As I drove home with the bottle wedged upright behind my seat, I suddenly noticed that my car smelled like whisky.  As in, a lot of whisky.  As in, I-probably-don't-want-to-get-pulled-over-by-the-fuzz a lot of whisky.  When I got home and lifted the bottle, vapors of warm malt oozed forth.  I noticed when I had bought the whisky that the fill level was a little low (see pic above) but What The Hell?  There were little whisky bubbles forming around the closure.  Yet with its intricate rope-bound top, it was still technically sealed.

Normally, I don't open a bottle immediately upon purchase, but this year has been anything but normal.  And this bottle never qualified as run-of-the-mill itself.  So I twisted open the rope-sealing thing and noticed that the T-shaped top was basically resting on the bottle, providing no actual sealant.  I pulled it off to reveal this:

The cork had been almost entirely eaten away.  There were some crumbs around the bottle neck, but nothing appeared to be inside the bottle.  It had become part of the whisky.  And then I drank it.  And I was reminded of the time that Homer Simpson was told that he'd just drunk a sample of dish detergent and he responded with a shrug, "Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?"

---

The Details, or lack thereof:

There's an almost total absence of information about Suntory Royal SR online.  There are some auction and collection photos.  Nonjatta has a post regarding a different blend called Suntory Old, as does The Coopered Tot.  Here's Peter Lawford pimping a bottle in 1978:

Source

But that's about it.  Pete Lawford's bottle shows a measurement in quarts, mine has metric.  Thus my bottle is post-1978 and probably post-1980 when metric measurements became used for US booze.  The listing of proof rather than ABV, the paper seal, and the lack of government warnings shows it to be from the early 1980s.

Regarding the ingredients, the label only says "Distillery at Yamazaki, Near Kyoto, Japan".  Could this be a blended malt?  That technical nomenclature didn't exist 30 years ago.  Did Japanese whisky companies use the term "Pure Malt" back then, or was any sort of blend just called a "blend"?  I know that Suntory currently has a grain facility called Chita, but I've been unable to find out when it was built.  If anyone knows, please share!  If Chita wasn't built at the time, and if there is grain whisky in the SR, could it have been distilled at Yamazaki too?  I honestly don't know.

---

So how is it?  How does this partially-oxidized, possibly cork-enhanced, mystery Japanese blend, bottled back when Brezhnev and Suzuki were neighbors, actually perform?  Here it goes...

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

Country: Japan

Alcohol by Volume: 43.4%

NEAT
The color is a medium gold with a reddish tint.  The nose starts with watermelon candy, cherry candy, and tropical fruit candy.  Not the actual fruits, but the manufactured flavors.  Then an Abba-Zaba but with more vanilla.  Sherry takes a while to show.  As do some mothballs.  It still has bit of an ethyl nip even with time and oxidation.  Something papery lingers throughout.  Finally, there's an occasional rotten strawberry note that peeks out then vanishes quickly.  The palate goes from paper → tobacco → malt → bitterness.  Also a piece of tart citrus-flavored saltwater taffy (if that's a thing).  It gets very sweet over time.  And then there's that occasional bizzaro note that makes the drinker's face purse up; somehow it's both synthetic and rotten at the same time.  Luckily, it remains in the background.  Some moldy sherry appears in the finish, as does some tartness, the nose's fruit candies, and something like smoky paper.  After a while it gets cloying like a really sweet liqueur.

WITH WATER
The nose starts with a cross between orange oil and locker room.  Then caramel, vague raisins and prunes.  The watermelon candy and mothballs are still here.  And maybe some of that moldy sherry?  The palate has hints of sherry, some bitterness, some brown sugar, malt, and vanilla.  The texture is nice and thick.  But then there's that synthetic-yet-rotting note.  The finish ends up tart and bitter, mostly modulated, but not always pleasant.  Prunes, vanilla, and caramel.  And a little plastic.

Well, I'm still here.  And I've tried a bit of this stuff.  No calls to Poison Control.  Are those odd notes due to the cork?  My guess is, probably.  What's impressive is that even with untold years of oxidation, the whisky is still very flavorful.  Without those rotten synthetic thingies, this could be a solid B-grade whisky.  I don't think water does it any favors, but it makes an acceptable mizuwari [Correction: mizuwari bad].  All things considered, this could have been much worse.

One final thought.  A dusty hunting tip.  Before you buy a dusty bottle of booze, take as good of a look at it as the store owner will let you.  Check out the seal, the information on the label, and the fill level.  Even though that old whisk(e)y you've found is cheap, it's still something that becomes yours.  It'll be in your cabinet and, eventually, in your mouth.  If you can smell whisky from across the counter, and that scent isn't coming from the cashier, then maybe you should just buy a lottery scratch-off ticket and call it a day.

Availability - Happy hunting

Pricing - ???, I found mine for $25.99 but who knows what it sells for elsewhere?

Rating - 75, though it could be an 84 had it been a normal bottle ... (score dropped to 71 in a 2nd review, then down to 69 in a 3rd review)

Single Malt Report: Caol Ila 12 year old 1994 James MacArthur

It's the second of five fantastic Fridays of simultaneous reviews with My Annoying Opinions (Here's the direct link to his review!).  Today's review covers another bottle that he and I split with Florin Industries' brand ambassador, Florin.  Last week it was a full powered Longmorn sherry cask.  This week it is a Caol Ila 12 year old single cask, again from James MacArthur's Old Masters series.

Brief tangent.  I really recommend doing bottle splits with fellow trusted geeks.  There's less financial risk per unit and your collection can expand much quicker, overflowing your cabinets with random small bottles from here and there.  A three-part split on a 750mL bottle results in 8+ ounces each, a four-part goes 6+ ounces each, and a five-part five ounces.

You just have to be okay with forgoing the big tall sexy bottle that you would normally be posting to the Malt Maniacs Facebook page with the same nervous excitement as if you were sexting a nude selfie.

Back to this stuff.  Here's a great opportunity for me to expand my indie Caol Ila experience.  I haven't had any bad CIs yet, so let's see how this James MacArthur version fares.

Distillery: Caol Ila

Independent Bottler: James MacArthur & Co.
Series: Old Masters

Age: 12 years (1994-2006)

Maturation: probably re-fill bourbon barrels
Cask number: 2103

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 59.5%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: Probably not

I promise there will be fewer notes than last week...

NEAT
The color is of a very pale amber.  Diageo would not approve.  The nose holds A LOT more peat spunk than official CIs.  Green mossy stuff, plastic toys, and wet sand.  Then there are more foodie things like sugar cookies, basil leaves, burnt butterscotch, and smoked carob.  But that beach-moss characteristic looms large.  Smoked seaweed on the palate, and lots of it.  All kinds of moss in the back of the throat.  Graphite and white peppercorns.  Echoes of sweet and earthy molasses.  A mild tartness, some caramel, and two dried apricots.  Smoky and mossy on the finish.  Lemon oil.  Ocean water.  No that's not redundant.  Ever take a wave to the face and swallow some of it?  That's what I'm talking about.  The finish is simple but extensive.

WITH WATER
Water brightens the nose up.  Maybe some sugary citrus.  Actually, more water = more lemon and citron.  Some whiffs of barley and a cinnamon stick.  But there's also some seaweed and pencil lead in the mix.  On the palate there's toasted peat and toasted barley.  Horseradish, bitter lettuces, and ground black pepper.  It's somewhat ashy with a lingering minor sourness.  Lots of peat residue in the finish.  The bitter greens and pepper remain.  Some more tartness and maybe a little bit of vanilla.

Due to the very reserved oak, this feels younger than a 12yo.  It's a bit dry and rough, but in a good way.  It's still sort of hanging around my taste buds three hours later.  The nose reminded me a lot of the L7 Ardbeg Ten I have open.  It would be a fun sparring partner for one of the more nude Laphroaig CSes, but because this CI can be a bit on the narrow side it wouldn't win a real fight.

If you like indie refill bourbon cask Ledaigs and/or that K&L Talisker "Speakeasy" then this is probably your whisky jam.  If you prefer your peat mingling with rich oak, I'm not sure if this is for you because this can get a little raw.

Availability - Sparse

Pricing - probably $80-$100

Rating - 86