Bimber Distillery, six test batches and one official release

Adding onto their big 21st-century cred (local barley, floor malting, direct-fired stills, etc.), Bimber's brand gained another boost in 2019 when their inaugural release, The First, received gushing reviews from Europe's online whisky taste-makers. Last year, good friend Secret Agent Man returned from the UK with a six-piece set of six test batches of the London-based Bimber output, as well as a sample of The First. He then shared these samples with Dr. Springbank, Dr. Springbank, N.O. and me.

I tried the above six products + The First side-by-side in 10-15mL pours in an attempt to gain perspective while not getting fit-shaced. I'm going to steal Randy Brandy's review structure for brevity purposes. I'm sure he won't mind.

Unpeated New Make, 60%abv, Test Batch 195
Nose - Pears, butter, cinnamon candy and green apples
Palate - Matches the nose, adding some salt. Heat isn't bad.
Finish - Eau de vie meets white vinegar.

Thoughts - You may think the rating below is harsh, but this liquid is new make, and a decent one at that. The finish is a little bit difficult, but otherwise it seems like the distillery is starting off right.
Rating - C+ 

Peated New Make, 60%abv, Test Batch 190
Nose - Pine needles, mesquite, whiffle all, mezcal and limes.
Palate - Bitter smoke and brutally sour citrus with a little bit of sweetness beneath.
Finish - Bitter and sour and very smoky.

Thoughts - Speaking of harsh, woof, this is hairy stuff, but such is the burden of unaged peated spirit. The peated Bimber style is difficult to make out here, but it will in fact be smoky.
Rating - C-

Re-charred cask, 3 years old, 51.9%abv, Test Batch 001
Nose - Gummi Bears, cardamom and bubblegum.
Palate - Bubblegum, cinnamon and mild bitterness. It's also very acidic with some flat paperiness.
Finish - Acidic bitter bubblegum (not a thing) and circus peanuts.

Thoughts - I'm going to assume this is not the batch they turned into an official release. All the candy notes are entertaining and the whisky is not oaky. But the edgy/raw notes here knock everything out of place, turning it into the weakest of the seven.
Rating - C-

Sherry cask, 3 years old, 51.9%abv, Test Batch 001
Nose - Grilled beef, mustard, cinnamon, raisins and Palo Santo smoke.
Palate - Bubblegum, again. More on dried berries than raisins. Savory and sweet. Biggest alcohol heat of the five single malts.
Finish - Dried berries, bubblegum and eau de vie. Hot.

Thoughts - The intriguing savoriness and lack of generic raisins lifts this one up. Makes me think it could be really fun at 8-10 years old.
Rating - C+ 

Bourbon cask. 3 years old, 51.2%abv, Test Batch 001
Nose - Gummi Bears, again. Rock candy, roses and buttery caramel.
Palate - Raw and sharp. Once the heat and eau de vie notes recede, one may find bubblegum and Juicy Fruit chewing gum.
Finish - Floral bubblegum, something very drying (tannins?) and gravel.

Thoughts - Another whisky that's more difficult than its new make. That's not abnormal. Yamazaki's current NAS falls far short of the distillery's new make. Actually every Suntory NAS right now is weaker than Yamazaki's new make. But anyway. This cake only just started baking.
Rating - C-

Virgin American Oak cask, 3 years old, 53.1%abv, Test Batch 001
Nose - Roses, pears and gumdrops. Hints of earth and anise. Big League Chew.
Palate - Wood spice, tart berries, peach skin. Vanilla ice cream and a hint of green woody notes.
Finish - Floral, tart and spicy, but not tannic.

Thoughts - Can't believe I'm saying this, but the new oak whisky wins. In fact, had the cask been slightly gentler I'd say, "Roll this out!"
Rating - B-

The First, 3 years old 2016-2019, PX casks, 54.2%abv
Nose - Prunes, black raisins, mint leaf, pear and fresh butter.
Palate - Black raisins, caramel and black peppercorns,
Finish - Black raisins and woody spice. Very sweet.

Thoughts - Yes, it can be sherried whisky even at three years. It's missing the goopy sweetness of PX, which I appreciate, but I don't see it separating itself from the rest of the sherry releases on the market, which would be important for a 3yo priced at £120.
Rating - C+/B-

FINAL THOUGHTS
I'm right where I was with early Kavalan and Wolfburn. These are ultra-young whiskies, no more, no less. Palates and preferences vary widely, but I'm again left wondering if some whiskies are graded on a steep curve because we want to see new distilleries succeed. We then lose our independence and turn into cheerleaders. But, ultimately, what good is that? The bar is lowered, clear-eyed standards vanish, and we (the drinkers) are left with countless single-digit aged whiskies selling for three-digits.

Or maybe these infant whiskies don't work with my palate. I would be interested in Bimber's whisky once it hits its teens, but not if its prices follow the current course. At the same time, there's a lot of cask influence in play with all of these 3yos, so maybe I don't want to try it with ten more years of extraction.

I just hope all the well-read whisky reviewers out maintain a level of self-awareness. To those who decry hype only to generate it themselves, be careful what you cheer for.

Mathilda and Papa Eat Kit Kats, Part Two

More relevant tasting notes:

Killing Whisky History, Episode 31: Three Bushmills from the early '80s to early '90s

Here's a trio of Bushmilli from 3 to 4 decades ago (scary, right?) during the pre-Pernod and early-Pernod eras. Some of the bottlings from this era were very good. And some were not.

Luxury Product Report: Linkwood 37 year old 1978 Special Release (2016)

I've been Linkwood-curious ever since I tried one of the distillery's 1970s 12 year old bottlings, but I've yet to be wowwed by a contemporary Linkwood release. They've all been decent-to-good but also seem like they'd be better as the blend ingredient God Diageo intended. Since last March's half-month of Linkwood reviews didn't convince me otherwise, I chose to do something totally logical by getting in on a bottle split of the 37 year old official small batch issued four years ago. It's highly desired and highly scored, maybe everyone else is right about Linkwood.

Distillery: Convalmore
Ownership: Diageo
Range: Special Releases
Region: Speyside (Lossie)
Age: at least 37 years old (1978-2016)
Maturation: ???
Alcohol by Volume: 50.3%
Limited Bottling: 6114
Bottling year: 2016
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
(from a bottle split)

NEAT
The nose develops gradually starting with a fun mix of watermelon, peach candy, charcoal smoke and wool. Then kale, kiwi and honeydew. It gains a slight phenolic skunkiness and muskier fruit after some time in the glass. Then cream soda and jasmine flowers. As with Monday's Convalmore, the palate is short on sweetness. It's tall on herbal bitterness and tart fruits. Coal smoke and earth. Gets bitterer with time. There's smoked lemon peel, soil and salt in the finish.

Just a little bit of water for this oldie...

DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or ½ tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose gets fruitier, prettier. Think nectarines, clementines, candy corn, apple juice and malt. The smoke gets woodier on the palate, and so does the bitterness (again). But it has has kept the tart fruits, and even gained some sweet ones. Maybe a hint of dunnage. It gets more tannic with time. The finish is tart and tannic with a little bit of cigarette smoke and that woody bitterness.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
The bright, angular nose meets the lean and dark palate creating two separate experiences. I like them both, but prefer the way the phenols play with the fruits in the nose. As dilution lifts the sniffer it also unearths the woody beams in the palate. So once again, keep it neat.

As with the Convalmore — the sparring partner — this long-aged malt provides a very good drinking experience, but not one that ultimately leads me to superlatives. I'm not certain this is the best Linkwood I've had, as one specific 16yo single cask from Signatory would certainly have given it a run for its money quality at 1/10th the price. While I'm glad to have had the chance to enjoy the drink, I'm not too sad I didn't save it for my birthday.

Availability - Still available on the primary market after four years
Pricing - $700-$1000 in US and Europe
Rating - 88 (neat only!)

Convalmore 32 year old 1975 Old Malt Cask, cask DL 4246

Happy Monday! I'm going to roll out a couple more unrelated oldies before (attempting to) move back to thematic reviews. Or maybe this week's duo aren't so unrelated. They're both 30+ year old 1970s Speyside single malts with high ratings on Whiskybase but did not reach Whiskyfun's lusted-after 90-point barrier.

Today's Convalmore and last month's Glen Flagler came from the same LA Scotch Club event, the annual Night of the Dead Distilleries. This will be the second (and probably last) Convalmore review on this site. Though I was slightly underwhelmed by Diageo's 36yo 1977 Special Release, I won't let that determine my expectations on this one. That official release was mixed from a batch of refill European oak, while today's Convalmore comes from a single hoggie.

Distillery: Convalmore
Ownership: Diageo (owner of the brand only)
Region: Speyside (Dufftown)
Bottler: Douglas Laing
Range: Old Malt Cask
Age: 32 years old (October 1975 - April 2008)
Maturation: refill hogshead
Cask #: DL 4246
Outturn: 202
Alcohol by Volume: 48.0%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No

NEAT
It noses like an old whisky: old leather, shoe polish, spent motor oil and musty basement. There's also black licorice, orange peel and a splash of tropical fruit punch. Devoid of sweetness, the palate begins with wood smoke, peppery warmth, earth and minerals. Bits of horseradish bitterness, fresh ginger and lemon peel follow. It gets rootier and bitterer with time. The long, warm, slightly sooty finish gradually releases notes of citrus and horseradish.

DILUTED TO ~43%abv, or ¾ tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose becomes simpler, focusing on the musty basement and motor oil notes, with metal and overripe tropical fruits drifting below. Though the palate gains a thicker mouthfeel the tartness and bitterness become very woody and creaky. The finish takes on tannins, perhaps more than it can support.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
This is certainly "old school" whisky. It also can't take water worth a damn. The nose plays into exactly what I enjoy about whiskies of yore. While the taste often matches the nose, challenging and un-commercial, it completely collapses into an oaky puddle when just a little bit of water is added. Even when neat its bitterness starts to take on a woodiness. That issue aside, this is a sturdy whisky of type rarely seen today.

Availability - Secondary market, maybe
Pricing - ???
Rating - 87 (neat only!)

Balblair 1990 Second Release from 2014, 2015 and 2016

Kristen and I drank scotch whisky when we visited Fiddler's Inn in July 2016. It's a good thing to do.

That's (BORAT VOICE) my wife, a bottle of Balblair 1990 and the whisky sponge. Very nice.

We sampled a number of other whiskies that night, including a 21 year old sherry puncheon of Balblair from G&M and an 11 year old sherry puncheon from Glendronach, but the official 1990 Balblair Second Release won the day, unanimously.

Over the next year I obtained this "Second Release" in three forms:
1. Bought a mini of the 2014 release at a gift shop near Ben Nevis.
2. Bought a sample of the 2016 release from Whiskysite.
3. Was given an entire 750mL bottle of the 2015 release by Amy of Ten27 Communications, which was a very very generous thing. Thank you!

Yes, these are three different bottlings of the "Second Release", with a different bottling year listed on its label. In honor of Kristen's birthday, I am going to review all three. Right here, right now.

Distillery: Balblair

Ownership: Inver House (via Thai Beverages plc via International Beverage Holdings Ltd.)

Region: Northern Highlands

Maturation: "American oak, ex-bourbon barrels"+ "Spanish oak, sherry butts"

Vintage: 1990
Bottled: 2014 and 2015 and 2016

Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Chillfiltered? No
Colored? No

2014 Bottling
The nose is very tight at first, then fades out entirely at the 40 minute mark. In between, there's medium dark chocolate, black pepper, black cherry ice cream and cherry lollipops. The palate proves to be more vibrant with cherry lollies, cigar tobacco, blueberry jam and tart acidic citrus. With time it abandons the citrus for coffee and picks up a little bit of toffee, while getting sweeter and more floral. The sweet and floral finish also includes tobacco and coffee. It includes a mix of bitterness and berry jam.

2015 Bottling
The nose delights with tobacco, mocha, dried mango slices, cloves, cocoa, toffee pudding, rosewater, old books and on and on and on with something new emerging every few minutes. The palate has good mild cigars, molasses and toffee pudding with roasted almonds. Limes, dried apricots and just a slight saltiness. The finish holds onto the molasses and limes, then adds dried cherries and tobacco and stones.

2016 Bottling
This one's nose also offers up a wide variety of characteristics, though more hectically so. Cinnamon, pineapple, Heath bar, cherry lollipops, lemons, blue scented markers. Hints of walnuts and paint VOCs. The big, vibrant palate balances sweet and tart with a good IPA-like bitterness. Its berries are more on the fresh than dried side. It picks some oranges along the way. It finishes with the IPA note, brown sugar, nutty oloroso, lots of citrus and a little bit of tobacco.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
I am delighted to say this big bottle of darkness was the winner:

The 2014 registered the most straightforward sherried style, and its nose was short on length and substance. Thankfully its palate pulled it up. The 2016 bottling sat right between the 2014 and 2015 in quality and character. It tilted a bit to the strange side sometimes, but that added to the fun. With its gorgeous nose, silky dense palate and dark earthy finish, the 2015 proved damned delightful. Usually I find the first few pours from the bottle to be a bit tight and limited, but not with this one. Or perhaps it will get even better with time.

One thing I don't know is: What is this "Second Release" technically? The first release seems to have been a travel retail thing, bottled in 2008-2009. The second release had at least five bottlings, from 2013 to 2017, so how does that make it a single release? Was there one giant batch that was kept in steel over those five years, or was it really multiple batches?

There are two things I do know. There won't be a Third Release because the distillery ditched their vintage bottlings and went with age-stated whiskies in 2019. And on the organoleptic side, the contents of the 2014-2016 have similar elements and the quality of the batch(es) is/are good to great. Though the 2014 was my least favorite here, I enjoyed it immensely in Drumnadrochit. So though the naming of the whisky is confusing, the bottles' contents are often delicious. (The 2015 is the best, though.)

Availability - Getting scarce in Europe and the US
Pricing - $150-$200 probably
2014 Rating - 84
2015 Rating - 89 (or potentially higher)
2016 Rating - 87

Ben Nevis 27 year old 1990 Le Gus't, cask 5

When I had first heard this whisky had spent 12 years in a sherry cask then 15 years in a port pipe, I had two simultaneous thoughts:

1.) WTF?, with the "W" = "Why"
2.) Well, at least someone is having fun out there.

I wanted to try it, but its price was too prohibitive for any version of WTF. Happily I was able to get in on a bottle split a couple months ago. As you can see below, the liquid's color is......shall we say, vibrant.

Distillery: Ben Nevis
Region: Highlands (Western)
Independent Bottler: Le Gus't
Series: Selection XV
Age: 27 years old (9 November 1990 - 10 June 2018
Maturation: 12 years in sherry cask(s), then 15 years in a portpipe
Cask #: 5
Outturn: 736
Alcohol by Volume: 58.9%

(from a bottle split)

NEAT
It's still whisky, at least in the nose. While plenty of berry jams and candies waft up from the glass, there's still a distinct musty Ben Nevis note in the mix. There are also green grapes and honeydew. After 30+ minutes additional notes of raspberries and wet dogs appear. It's like Bruichladdich Black Art but better! *ducks flying pans* The palate is plenty hot, and actually sort of hoppy. There's also a strong peppercorn note which is something I usually associate with extra young spirit. It's not as sweet or tannic as I'd expected. There are hints pickle brine and industrial smoke. It gets port-ier with time. Lots of berry jams, again. It finishes with black pepper, brine, heat, industrial smoke and some dried berries.

DILUTED TO ~48%abv, or 1⅓ tsp of water per 30mL whisky
Berries and wine in the nose, then fruity cinnamon, grape bubblegum and PX. A slight peat smoke in the background. More berries than brine in the palate. It's sweeter now, and the tannins still don't overwhelm the rest. The quirky phenolics and hoppy notes remain. It finishes sweet, peppery, hoppy and slightly metallic.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
It's neither a hot mess, nor "so bad it's good". It's as if the Ben Nevis spirit is too wild to be totally submerged, so it lurches out in the form of pickles, dark smoke and beer when one least expects it. So, no, the whisky isn't a well balanced, fully formed thing.

The casketry makes one wonder. It takes more than one sherry cask to fill port pipe, maybe even three hogsheads. How strong was the whisky going into the port pipe? And what kind of warehouse was it? That's a high ABV for 27 total years, and a very high outturn for 15 years in a port pipe. The result is something quite modern, lots of fortified wine extraction sitting atop some rawness. But again, it almost succeeds despite all this because it's Ben Nevis.

I don't adore the thing as much as the Whiskybase community does, but I like it more than Sjoerd did. Though I don't know how to score it, I'm happy with having only bought 2 ounces worth.

Availability - European specialty retailers, though it's close to selling out
Pricing - €180-€210, I think

Rating - 83 (maybe?)