NOT Single Malt Report: Four Roses Single Barrel OBSO barrel 4-1D

For my last week of Mathilda Rose-specific whiskies, I'll be reviewing three Four Roses single barrels.  Three 4R of three different recipes.  Three because she brings the fourth rose.  Also, that's all the Four Roses samples I have at the moment.

She's been extremely active since she arrived and her parents have been extremely inactive as a result.  For instance, I was going to do this tasting at 9pm last night, but then she became "fussy" (a polite euphemism).  The solution?  Dancing.  My whisky music became our groove tracks for the next hour or two.  Our favorite tune of the night was Groovy Gravy by Q and the Cos.



As a result, I didn't complete this tasting until after midnight.  From what I gather, this situation may occur on regular basis.  That's not a complaint.  Any night I can dance with my daughter and drink barrel strength bourbon is a night I want to repeat.

---

My experience with Four Roses is sadly limited and I know I'm coming to it a couple years too late.  But now it's time to find out if the "better late than never" cliché holds up in this case.

From all reports (and not just those from retailers), Master Distiller Jim Rutledge is a nice personable dude.  Also, he and Four Roses are very open about their mashbills and yeast strain usage, as they note these factors on their single barrel bottlings.  For instance, today's bourbon was from the OBSO recipe -- a high rye (35%) mashbill with a fruity type of yeast.  It's this recipe, along with three others, that are blended together to make the Four Roses Small Batch bourbons.

Today's sample of the OBSO is brought to us by my friend JLR.  Last year, he and his wife travelled the bourbon trail and he picked up his bottle from the Four Roses gift shop.  Thanks JLR!

Distillery: Four Roses
Ownership: Kirin
Type: Kentucky Straight Bourbon (Single Barrel)
Region: Lawrenceberg, Kentucky

Age: 10 years, 8 months
Recipe: OBSO (high rye, fruity yeast)

Maturation: charred white oak barrels
Warehouse: BN
Barrel #: 4-1D

Alcohol by Volume: 54.1%

The color is dark copper.  The nose is very woodsy, or rather lumberyard-ish.  It has a sharp medicinal streak along with some band-aids, characteristics reminiscent of some favored peated single malts.  There are also big notes of hazelnuts, halva, and corn syrup, with vanilla extract steadily rolling in the background.  After a lot of air, the bourbon releases something like butterscotch with mint leaves and a side of maple syrup.  The palate is also medicinal.  Cough syrup, cherry Sudafed, Halls menthol.  Then there are pinches of milk chocolate and caramel.  Sweetness meets lots of black peppercorn spice.  It gets woodier with air.  That medicinal thing continues into the finish, along with sea salt and Angostura bitters.  There's a dry rye spice-meets-menthol note that carries on for a long time.  Wood pulp, bitter greens, and pepper develop after a while as well.

Keeping in mind that the sample came from the bottle third of the bottle, and that the pour sat in my glass for well over an hour, this bourbon's unfading power was very impressive.  There's an steady consistency in characteristics across the nose and palate.  While I enjoyed the nose the most, the palate was quite good.  The finish was both raw and woody, sharp and not for delicate palates.

I don't know if this particular barrel is still available in the gift shop -- and I'd bet it probably isn't due to Four Roses's popularity -- but if it is, it isn't a bad choice for those of stronger sensory constitutions.  I'm looking forward to the next two recipes...

Availability - Four Roses visitor center / gift shop

Pricing - around $65

Rating - 86

Laphroaig for my daughter: Laphroaig 40 year old

Writing this post is very surreal to me, but then again I'm so exhausted that the word "of" doesn't ring right in my ears when I say it out loud.  Uhv.  It sounds like a belch.

Reviewing Laphroaig 40 year old is strange for my brain because Laphroaig 40 is now a $5000 whisky (or $5300 with today's exchange rate).  And I don't understand how or why anyone would value a bottle of brown tempered poison at $5000.  As I hope this blog has demonstrated, I love whisky more than most man-made things.  And I have had the luck to have used luxury products at times during this life.  But at some point some whiskies get so expensive that I have difficulty reconciling them with logic and morals.

A whisky at this price point also exposes the vast financial strata of we whisky anoraks.  We see whisky pricing from different prospectives, often influenced by our income.  Some of us can spend $5000 on a bottle of whisky, some of us have a collection that is valued at $5000 in its entirety, and for some of us a $50 bottle is beyond our budget.  Just to be clear, I purchased this whisky sample as well as yesterday's sample of the 30 year old as part of a 20+ person bottle split a year and a half ago, when these bottles were 1/3 or 1/2 of their current prices.

And that sudden value rise brings up another set of realities, many of which would be better covered in its own separate post.  But Laphroaig 30 year old was originally priced at $240 in 2002, now it is selling for $1,600.  This 40 year old was once priced at $500, now it's $5000+.  So, unlike many current ultra-super-uber-premium releases, it did not start at four figures.  The market theoretically boosted it to its current price.  Also, it isn't Dalmore and it isn't Diageo.  At least it's old Laphroaig.

Distillery: Laphroaig
Release Year: 2001
Distillation Year: 1961 or earlier

Owner: Beam Suntory
Type: Single Malt Report
Region: Islay

Age: minimum 40 years
Maturation: likely ex-bourbon oak

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? No

Alcohol by Volume: 42.4%
Limited Release: 3300

The color is clover honey, noticeably lighter than the 30 year old.  The nose starts out with an intense maltiness, which is then countered by big rye-like spices (possibly from the oak?).  There's a little bit of a old bourbon character to it, lots of thick caramel and maple syrup.  There are moments of earthy molasses and flower blossoms.  Gradually, with air, an old dank musty smell emerges that reminds me of old sherry casks, but minus the sherry.  Then old sweaty leather notes and hints of lemons and peaches.  The palate dishes out big swoops of cream + vanilla + brown sugar + peat, at first.  Then the vanilla gets a little more floral, almost like jasmine.  Then big menthol and eucalyptus notes fire up, followed by some citrus around the edges.  That citrus changes a little in the finish, becoming bitter orange rind and bitter lemon soda.  Maybe some Juicy Fruit gum.  The cigar tobacco note that was so big in the 30 is quieter here and it gradually gets smokier in the mouth.  But the finish, like the palate, is never drying.

This was a surprise on many levels.  I had expected to like the 30 year old more than the 40 because I thought that the older one would have too much astringent oak.  But the flavors on the 40 are much more lively, and while the 30 dried my mouth out on contact, the 40 never did.  The peat is actually bigger on the 40's palate as well.  Also, as it's lighter in color than the 30, I wouldn't be surprised if more refill casks were in the mix.  It still has a old dusty bourbon quality to the nose, but that is only one segment of the whole.

If you're looking for an oldie with the biggest Laphroaig character, I'd still say you're better off with the 25 year old cask strength releases.  But this 40 year old is graceful without losing all of its power.  It keeps the subtleties of the 30, swaps out the drying tannic oak notes for more vivid tones, picks up some extra smoke, and gets darker and funkier in the nose.  I like it.  Is it worth $5000 to me?  No.  I've never had a whisky I'd pay $500 for, and only a handful I'd personally value over $250.  But add this one to that handful.  It was a unique pleasure.

Availability - A few retailers, mostly in Europe, probably some auctions too

Pricing - original US price range $500, currently......$5000 or more

Rating - 93

Laphroaig for my daughter: Laphroaig 30 year old

I doubt that this whisky needs much of an intro.  From what I can piece together, there were a few European releases of Laphroaig's thirty year old around the turn of this century.  Then there was one release in 2002 and one in 2006, during which at least a few bottles officially made it to The States.  In 2008, another 30 year old represented their annual Cairdeas release.  In every instance, it was bottled at 43% ABV.

I obtained my sample of the 2002 release during the expansive Laphroaig vertical I attended a year and a half ago.  Rather than drinking it at the event, I wanted to save it for a special occasion.  And that occasion has arrived.

Distillery: Laphroaig
Release Year: 2002
Distillation Year: 1972 or earlier

Owner: Beam Suntory
Type: Single Malt Report
Region: Islay

Age: minimum 30 years
Maturation: probably American oak

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Probably not

Alcohol by Volume: 43%

The color is dark gold.  The nose is bereft of peat, at first.  There's very ripe honeydew, creme brûlée, and orange oil.  Then there are spearmint leaves, star anise, jasmine flowers, and eucalyptus.  It eventually gets slightly tarry and the brief peat that does reveal itself seems encased in apricot flesh.  The palate starts with intense butterscotch, then toasted oak, toasted barley, and toasted wheat bread.  Then brown butter(!), salt, sautéed greens, and very subtle vanilla.  There's lots of rich unsmoked tobacco along with hints of mango.  After 45 minutes of air, the palate starts eking out peat-infused pineapple, chili powder, and menthol/eucalyptus.  It's very drying.  The finish is mostly very dry cigar tobacco (a mild one, nothing dark or spicy).  Pink and green peppercorns, salt, honeydew, and an herbal bitterness.

This is by far the gentlest of the Laphroaigs I have tried.  There's lots of character in it, but mostly very subtle and quiet.  The fruit and herbs on the nose are my favorite parts of the package.  And the one HUGE note in the whisky is the almost endless cigar tobacco in the finish.  But other than that, the whisky gives out hints of what it could be......if it hadn't been reduced to 43%.  I'm under no illusion that the 30+ year old casks were at strengths higher than 50%.  But every good note, aside from the butterscotch, honeydew, and tobacco, is cut short as soon as it appears.  This makes me wonder what this would have been like at cask strength, even if just a few points higher.

There seems to be two types of older official Laphroaigs, the soft subtle ones like the 18yo and the bold vibrant ones like 25yo cask strength.  The 30yo will appeal to the lovers of the 18yo; those 12 extra years in the barrel have made it more graceful and (yes) oakier.  But if you're looking for expressiveness and power, the 25 year old is the way to go.

On a final note, the 30 year old used to sell for $240.  The same bottles now retail for $1,000 - $1,600.  Congrats to those who got in on the ground floor with this whisky because I can understand its original price as it's still a good (and relatively difficult to find) whisky.  But at its current price......???  I'm assuming it's now to be bought as an "investment" (though who's going to buy it from you for more than $1600?), not to drink.  If you have that kind of money on hand, get three bottles of the 25yo instead!

Availability - A few retailers, mostly in Europe

Pricing - original US price range $240, currently......whatever people will pay for it

Rating - 89

Laphroaig for my daughter: Laphroaig Cairdeas Port Wood Edition

Yes, after last week's Littlemills, Laphroaig is the other "L" distillery I'm drinking to celebrate my daughter's birth.  I'm going to dig into my Celebration-Only stash for the next two, but first: The Pink Laphroaig.

Sorta...

Distillery: Laphroaig
Product: Càirdeas Port Wood
Release Year: 2013

Owner: Beam Suntory
Type: Single Malt Report
Region: Islay

Age / Maturation: 8 years in ex-bourbon casks, then 14 months in former port pipes

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Probably not

Alcohol by Volume: 51.3%
Limited Release: ?????

With this year's annual Laphroaig Cairdeas due to drop soon, I also thought this would be a good time to review last year's edition.  I liked the 2012 "Origin" edition a lot, partially because it was relatively futz-free.  Then last July, our local Laphroaig rep, Brandon, brought the 2013 Cairdeas Port Wood to Peatin' Meetin'.  Between the port finish and the pink color, the whole package seemed a bit dubious to me, especially coming from a distillery that prides its regular malt on being the "most richly flavoured of all Scotch whiskies".  I requested a pour of the Quarter Cask to chase the Port Wood just in case.  But to my surprise Pink Laphroaig was actually pretty good.  In the following months, I had another handful of opportunities (via different bottles) to try it.  And while I still liked it, the whisky was different each time...

First time -- strawberry shortcake, fresh raspberries, hint of peat
Second time -- tart blackberries, more peat
Third time -- no berries and a ton of smoke
Fourth time -- very sour cherries and salt

This mutability is what kept me from doing a review.  But then, my good buddy Daniel donated a significant sample of this whisky to help further my research.  This allowed me to take notes on two different samples, one much more oxidized than the other, to see if I'd find two different whiskies.

The oxidized sample sat in a half-full sample bottle for one month.  Then, after I poured it into a Glencairn glass I let it air out for 30 minutes.  The non-oxidized sample was kept in a sample bottle filled to the brim, then I nosed and tasted it as soon as it was poured, covering it to keep the air out of it the best I could.

Thus, here are two sets of notes:

Oxidized sample:
NEAT
Color -- Pinkish orange
Nose -- Young spirity Laphroaig, with an ethyl bite.  Dried peat, tar, and band-aids.  Then milk chocolate, roses, and raspberry jam.
Palate -- Very ashy. Sweet notes like agave nectar and gummy worms. Ripe cherries with a dark berry & tobacco syrup.
Finish -- The sweetness grows, as do some sour berries. Tangy gummy bears.

WITH WATER
Nose -- The peat seems wetter, more mossy.  Potpurri-like perfume.  Caramel chews.  Berries in yogurt.
Palate -- Ash, sugar, citrus acid, tart out-of-season berries
Finish -- Sweeter again, jammy and ashy

and...

Non-Oxidized sample:
NEAT
Nose -- A whole bag of gummy worms.  Lots of fresh berries, and whiff of manure from underneath.  Maybe a blackberry and blueberry compote cooking in a pot.  Port and band-aids
Palate -- Very peppery and smoky.  Sugary peat and berry candies.  A berry syrup that's mostly sugar.
Finish -- Salty.  Ocean peat if that was a thing.  Hint of tangy citrus or berries, but mostly Laphroaig cigarettes.

WITH WATER
Nose -- Farty overripe strawberries, sour milk, mentholated peat.  Potpurri perfume and creme de menthe.
Palate -- Honey & raspberries, hints of smoke.  Sweet and porty.
Finish -- Sugar, port, smoke, in that order.

Time for observations.  In both samples, the nose was at its best when neat.  In both samples, water sweetens up the palate.  The oxidized sample was ashy while the non-oxidized sample had more fresh smoke.  Overall, I liked the palate of the oxidized version more, but liked the nose on the non-oxidized sample better.

These samples were different enough that I'm thinking of splitting my remaining Port Wood into different bottles, and letting one oxidize.  This whisky is that schizophrenic.  While that fact can be disorienting if one is looking for consistency every time out, it can also be berry very entertaining if one is just seeking good experiences.  And in this case it only works because each reveal has been good.

In the past, Laphroaig has claimed to not have a Master Blender, but someone is blending up every winey release.  Whomever he or she or they are, I applaud them for concocting this whisky.  I tend to strongly dislike wine cask finishes and I doubted that Laphroaig would go well with anything other than more Laphroaig.  But this one works for me.

Availability - Happy Hunting!

Pricing - original US price range $55-$75, currently......whatever people will pay for it

Rating - 87

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1984 Hart Brothers

So, apparently it's difficult to publish blog posts in an expeditious manner when one has a newborn.

"What? How could I ever be a distraction?"

This week I've been drinking Littlemill samples in honor of my new daughter, Mathilda.  Tuesday's Littlemill, bottled by Berry Brothers & Rudd, was decent, light on the oak and bigger on the malt.  Wednesday's Littlemill, bottled by the whiskybase folks under their Archives label, was very pretty; all light citrus, flowers, and butterscotch.  Today's Littlemill was bottled by Hart Brothers, an indie brand I've often seen but never tried.

This bottling is at 46% ABV, which is good, but I've never seen a Hart Bros. cask strength release even though in the U.S. their whiskies are often priced like they were full strength.  On their official site, they list 30 current(?) single malts, only one of which appears to be at high strength.  On a more positive note, none of those thirty whiskies is younger than 11 years.

My sample was obtained via a swap with Mr. Opinions (Thank you, sir!).  He found some curious notes in his review of his bottle, which he had picked up when it was on clearance at Binny's.  So let's see what I find...

Distillery: Littlemill

Independent Bottler: Hart Brothers

Age: 20 years (April 1984 - January 2005)

Maturation: ex-bourbon barrel

Region: Lowlands

Alcohol by Volume: 46.0%

NEAT
The color is a pinot grigio. The nose starts out with rolled oats and matza in rubbing alcohol.  In fact, that takes front stage for almost 15 minutes.  Then lemon sugar cookies and store-bought nectarines (you know, the out of season ones that sit on trucks for a week or more and never ripen well? Specific!) appear.  Something creamy and vanilla-ish.  Then, after more time, sour milk and (um) urine.  Meanwhile, there's still a whole lotta wet maztos in there.  The palate starts out a little soapy.  Lemon flavoring, mild graininess, geraniums, the aforementioned stone fruits. It's tart and a little "fizzy" (a borrowed descriptor).  Lots of dish soap in the finish.  A mild maltiness meets notebook paper.

WITH WATER
Fewer unusual notes in the nose.  More citrus and tropical fruits.  In the palate, the citrus and malt get bigger.  The soap lessens and the fizziness remains.  The finish gets bitterer and the tartness ramps up as well.

An odd duck indeed.  Despite the fact that the notes may sound off-putting, the nose is actually a lot of fun.  Lemon cookies, matza, rubbing alcohol, and pee?  Good times.  The soap on the palate isn't too tough and not a deal breaker, but the finish is tragic.  When is joy not joy?  When it is Lemon Joy.  Water evens out the nose but doesn't help the whole package that much.

As MAO mentioned at the end of his review, there's something reminiscent of the "FWP" Bowmore period in this whisky.  All it's missing is the peat, then swap out the geraniums for lavender and violets.  Like some of the indie "FWP" Bowmores I've had, it seems as if the cask was picked for its nose and no one actually tasted the thing.  Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh.  Perhaps the soap notes grew in the bottle; they certainly expand with air.  This isn't a total throwaway whisky, it noses well, but if you're soap sensitive, beware.

Availability - Released in the US, likely sold out

Pricing - originally $110-$130

Rating - 76

NEXT WEEK, the celebration continues with another "L" distillery, one with a character noticeably different than Littlemill's.  Hint: It's not Lost Spirits.

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1992 Archives

Whenever most folks start writing about Littlemill Distillery, they usually start with some information about it possibly being the oldest whisky distillery (excise officer accommodations built in 1772, the possibility that production started in 1750, a brewery being on site since the 1300s).  But, sadly, because the distillery has been closed, dismantled, and burnt down, it can't be in the running because it no longer exists.

Littlemill is one of those distilleries that has bounced from ownership to ownership to ownership throughout the years.  That didn't seem to effect production negatively in the 1700s and 1800s.  In fact, when it was owned by William Hay in the 1870s the facilities were refurbished and expanded.  When it was bought in 1931 by an American, Duncan Thomas, the distillery's triple distillation practice was ended.  Glenlivet and Barton Brands of Chicago bought the distillery in 1971 then mothballed it in 1984 during the glut.  It was then sold to Gibson International who reopened it in 1989.  Gibson International was then bought out by some of its own corporate officers two years later.  Then all of that company's assets went into receivership and it was bought out by Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited (later to become Loch Lomond Distillery Company, owner of the Loch Lomond and Glen Scotia distilleries) in 1994.  They then dismantled the Littlemill distillery in 1996.  The remaining buildings burned to the ground in 2004.

The whisky glut was probably the death knell for this distillery, but the constant shifting of ownership and management over its last 25 years certainly would not have helped keep production consistent.  It truly escapes me why Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited (whom I want to call Glen Latrine) found Loch Lomond Distillery of more interest than both Littlemill and Glen Scotia.  Loch Lomond was expanded and fitted with new stills, while Littlemill went to hell and Glen Scotia was left to run only a few weeks a year by the Springbank staff.  I'm going to assume it had something to do with blending contracts, but it's tough to imagine that a historically difficult malt like Loch Lomond would be more in demand for blends than a light fruity Lowlander like Littlemill.  But maybe I'm just bitter.  It would have been fun to have an old school Lowland single malt to compete with Auchentoshan (Beam Suntory) and Glenkinchie (Diageo).

Okay, so today's Littlemill was bottled by the Whiskybase fellas under their Archives label.  One of these days I'm going to get around to buying an actual full bottle of one of their releases because they're samples have been decent to very good so far.

Distillery: Littlemill

Independent Bottler: Archives

Age: 20 years (Feb 1992 - November 2012)

Maturation: ex-bourbon hogshead
Cask number: 44
Limited bottling: 339

Region: Lowlands

Alcohol by Volume: 54.8%

NEAT
For the color, see the comparative photo above.  The nose holds lemons, papaya, roses, and orange hard candies.  There are more subtle notes of vanilla bean, butterscotch, and citronella floating in and out.  It's all very lovely.  The palate starts with some salt and dried savory herbs then......wow, it's otherwise the same as the nose: soft oranges and lemons, flower petals, vanilla bean. Then there's a soft rumble of malt following it all. It's a very easy drinker and has a nice thick texture.  The finish is just as pretty as the nose.  Flower petals and lemon zest and vanilla pudding.

WITH WATER
The nose starts with caramel sauce and lemon candies.  Then the nougat in a Three Musketeers bar. Maybe some tangerine juice? Lots of flower blossoms after a few minutes. In the palate, there's a malt note that is almost chocolatey, followed by orange peel. It's slightly sweeter but not cloying.  The finish, though shorter, hasn't changed much, which is a good thing.

There's a reason I went with Littlemills this week, aside from the cute name.  There's an imaginary Lowlands stereotype I've built up in my mind, and this fits it perfectly; it is all light citrus, flowers, and butterscotch.  A beautiful baby girl of a whisky.

In more vague whisky-talk, it's neither burly nor heavy, yet very full and fragrant.  It focuses in on a half dozen notes and hits every single one head on.  Shoulda bought a bottle of this, but it's sold out now.  Dang it.  Congrats to those who beat me to it, you have a good one there.

Availability - Sold out, here's the original link

Pricing - around $130 w/o shipping, depending on exchange rate

Rating - 92

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1992 Berry Bros & Rudd

In the days leading up to Mathilda Rose's birth, my whisky drinking slowed to a stop.  I needed to be in Ready Mode at a moment's notice.  Plus with stress levels being high, I wanted to avoid utilizing it for medicinal purposes.  So for three weeks, I was down to a maximum of one drink per night; then the final week I stopped altogether.

But now she's here and to hell with restrictions, right?  Well, wrong.  First, I'm a responsible dad.  Secondly, when I opened my celebratory bottle of Yamazaki 18 I found out quite quickly that my former meager tolerance had been reduced by half.

But.

To celebrate, I have four weeks of reviews of very different whiskies.

I'm leading off with Littlemills for my little girl this week.  I've tried a handful of indie bottlings of this closed distillery over the past few years and enjoyed all of them, in fact, I've liked them better than the pair of Rosebanks I tried during the same time frame.  So, at the moment it's the only Lowland distillery (current or former) that I consistently dig; though, I have heard that the old official 12yo can be a bit hideous uninspired.  In tomorrow's post I'll include some more info about the distillery, but since I've pished around so much in this post already, I'm going straight to the booze.

This is the first of three Littlemills this week.  Three, no more, no less.  Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.  Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.  Five is right out.  Once the number three, being the third number, be reached...

Distillery: Littlemill

Independent Bottler: Berry Bros. & Rudd

Age: 20 years (1992-2013)

Maturation: likely an ex-bourbon barrel
Cask number: 10

Region: Lowlands (though close to the Highlands border)

Alcohol by Volume: 54.9%

Thank you to Eric S. for another great sample!

NEAT
The color is amber with some brassy notes up top.  At first there's lots of youth in the nose, especially chlorine and varnish, then big notes of barley and yeast.  Hints of sawdust and caramel.  Lime-flavored gummy candy, salty beach scents, pencil eraser, and white vinegar.  It grows more buttery with time.  The palate focuses mostly on barley, salt, and walnuts.  Gradually notes of caramel hard candies, spicy basil leaves, and tart oranges emerge.  Lots of heat still present.  The finish is simple but sturdy: cocoa powder, hazelnuts, and toasted barley.

WITH WATER
The nose grows more bourbon-like with a boost to the sawdusty caramel.  There are orange peels and lime peels, flower kiss candy, and the inside of a Big League Chew bubblegum bag.  More water leads to more flowers and peels.  The palate is saltier and slightly savory.  The orange peels show up, as does an herbal bitterness.  The finish has the mild bitterness as well, along with toasty barley, and sour citrus.

A decent malt.  It's lean, pleasant, and with hints of greater things.  Its pleasures depend on how one feels about spirit-forward whisky.  In this whisky's case there's still tons of youthful barleyness present.  If one requires more oak in the presentation, then this may bore.  Personally, I like the low oak quotient.  But "like" is a far as I'll go.  It was a fun whisky to try but there's no need for me to get a bottle.

Serge Valentin is almost over the moon about this one, though he's clearly finding more going on in the palate and finish than I do.  But his reference to wormwood is right on; I liked the bitterness but wasn't sure what it reminded me of and Serge's review came to the rescue.  The whiskybase community also loves this stuff, but because only one person wrote up tasting notes I don't know what they're raving about.

Now, back to my opinion...  This whisky wins a couple extra points from me because I admire Berry Bros & Rudd for bottling the cask when they did.  They could have let it age for five more years and doubled the price.  Or they could have waited until it was 30+ years old and quadrupled the price.  But had they done so that sawdusty caramel note from the oak would have gradually taken over all the other flavors by the third decade.  A buyer would then shill out $500 for a "super-premium" single malt only to get the sort of oak juice that can be found in many 12+ year old bourbons at 1/10th its expense.  But instead, this Littlemill is brisk and spirity with subtle stirrings of American oak.

Tomorrow another 1992, but for today:

Availability - UK/Europe only, not sure if this specific cask has sold out yet

Pricing - around $130 w/o shipping, depending on exchange rate

Rating - 85