The Life of a Whisky Bottle: Ledaig 6 year old 2005 Blackadder

Once upon a time (June 2013), I paid over $100 for a bottle of 6 year old whisky.  Twenty-four hours later the remorse set in.  Why had I excitedly but blindly purchased a bottle of infant whisky for three figures?  Firstly, I liked the distillery's peated malt.  Secondly, I'd always wanted one of the indie bottler's Raw Cask whiskys.  I'm a big sucker for the pile of char at the bottom of every bottle.

The whisky was Ledaig.  The bottler was Blackadder.  And my normally thrifty better angels were out taking a sh*t that particular afternoon.

Distillery: Tobermory
Brand: Ledaig

Independent Bottler: Blackadder

Age: September 14, 2005 - July 2012 (6 years)

Maturation: ex-sherry cask
Cask number: 9011
Bottle #:  118 of 166

Region: Isle of Mull

Alcohol by Volume: 64.0%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No

This bottle's usage:
24% - Swaps and shares
7% - Whisky experiments
24% - Graded tastings
45% - Casual drinking

First thing's first.  What it is not is a Raw Cask bottling, so there's no barrel char sprinkles at the bottom of the bottle.  What it is is a 64% ABV very young whisky from a famously difficult distillery.  Normally I save whiskies priced at that level for special occasions.  But I couldn't think of a single occasion that I wanted to celebrate with a face full of hot weird peat.

But an occasion presented itself.  In late August I was scheduled to have eye surgery, not corrective surgery but actual invasive cutting.  Unexpectedly (and sincerely surprising my doctor) my body healed itself.  Woo hoo!  Time to celebrate.  Here are the tweets that followed:

Eye surgery cancelled. Body healed itself. To celebrate I'm going to open stupid whisky. As in buyer's-remorse-ridiculous-purchase stupid.
— Michael Kravitz (@kravitz_hubris) August 20, 2013

The secret stupid Whisky tastes like new sneakers and tennis ball fuzz. #moneywellspent
— Michael Kravitz (@kravitz_hubris) August 20, 2013

@LVWhisky Additional selling points. Water brings out bitter chlorine notes. Does not go well with food.
— Michael Kravitz (@kravitz_hubris) August 20, 2013

I immediately realized this one was going to need some air; as in, months of it.  This was not an issue because this past September, October, and much of November were hot as hell.  And a 64% ABV Ledaig is not easily consumed in a leisurely fashion during 90 degree heat.

The above tweets were my impressions of the very first glass.  Needless to say, the generally poisonous nature of the whisky receded with time.  I saved two samples from the top of the bottle then a pair from mid-bottle.  And now that I'm in the bottle's bottom third, there's plenty to taste.  The following tasting notes combine my experiences from three different comparisons I conducted this year:

Top of the bottle:

NEAT
Nose - Rubber -- rubber bands and sneaker tread.  Burnt moss, gunpowder, and mezcal.  Oak pulp, elephant dung, and toffee. And something once bright and floral crushed by the aforementioned elephant crap
Palate - Heat, so much heat.  New sneakers and tennis ball fuzz.  Bushels of green mossy peat, melted plastic, and salt.  Bananas and a light sweetness in the far background
Finish - Extensive, like I just smoked a cheap cigar.  Also urine and gunpowder with growing sourness.

W/WATER (approx 43-46% ABV)
Nose - Horseradish, chlorine, and dirty hay.  Harshness mostly becalmed, but still some acetone / nail polish.
Palate - Synthetic burnt quality.  Soil, bitter chlorine, very green bitter peat, and a slight tartness.
Finish - Still large, all char and ash.

---

Mid-bottle:

NEAT
Nose - Big alcohol heat. Just a hint of the sherry oak, fresh fruits also possibly from the sherry cask (which is much appreciated at this point).  Peat is much clearer now, like rotting vegetation and seaweed.  Parmesan cheese, cap gun recently fired, dog manure, cinnamon-sugar combo, caramel, lemon zest, seawater, and new cheap shoes.
Palate - Very buttery.  Tire fire, torched veg, and plastic.  A little sweetness, but mostly sour.  Apples and a hint of very dark chocolate and prunes.
Finish - Burnt stuff from the palate, peat ashes, gunpowder, citrus tang, hints of prunes and chlorine.

W/WATER
Nose - Peated cream of wheat with mint.  Body odor, used socks, and severe sneaker peat that cannot be drowned.  Something between cocoa powder and gunpowder, nail polish, apples, chlorine, and a little generic citrus.
Palate - Getting more pleasant now. Hay, burnt toast, burnt peat.  Something sweet & creamy in the far background, but also a little sour and leathery at the same time.  Mild vanilla, ground black pepper, dirt, and more gunpowder.
Finish - Now it's cigarette throat.  Burnt peat, gunpowder, tart, but also a little sweet.

---

Final third of the bottle:

NEAT
Nose - More fruit!  Bananas and out of season peaches.  Caramel and honey.  Brighter and with less manure.  Sneaker peat and gunpowder remain.  More immediately pleasant than before.
Palate - Less heat, with the peat becoming more tobacco-like.  Very strong bitter lettuces, along with horseradish.  It's very dry and fruit-free.
Finish - Peat gets mossier here, but still plenty of smoke.  A little vanilla.  Much less chlorine.

W/WATER
Nose - Still richer and fruitier than earlier points.  Mossy peat.  Farmy farts.  Vanilla.  Cinnamon and honey.
Palate - A little barley and sugar sweetness eking out, as does some sweet spice.  Peated oatmeal.
Finish - Smoked pencils, ashy, maybe some sweetness, but mostly smoky mezcal.

---

Conclusion #1:  I have no idea why Blackadder was in such a hurry to bottle this whisky so soon.  With fuller maturation, this could have been a thunderous beauty.
Conclusion #2:  There is no reason why this should be $100, even in this market.
Conclusion #3:  I'm a f***ing idiot for paying so much for this whisky.
Conclusion #4:  But it is not terrible.  In fact, as it exists right now with oxidation, the whisky is a bracing winter chimney.  At mid-bottle it was a rumbling volcano on a stinky peat farm.  At the top of the bottle, it could be weaponized.
Conclusion #5:  Because so few bottles came from a sherry cask, I'm sort of wondering if Blackadder split the cask into two releases, with this one (reviewed by Serge) being its mate.  In fact, I'm convinced it is.  It has the same cask number......  If so, it definitely seems like Serge got the top of the bottle and it almost took the man down.  Impressive, in a way.
Conclusion #6:  Can I recommend this?  Only to those not sulphur sensitive...... Who wants to send a sample to Jim Murray?!  One would also need to really enjoy intensely farmy whisky, and thus not be afraid of finding some poop (notes) in one's drink.  One would need to live in a colder climate than I.  One would also need no qualms about paying $100 for a non-Kilchoman non-BTAC baby whisk(e)y.  Also it will burn one's mouth.  Are those enough qualifiers?
Conclusion #7:  I swear this is 128 proof mezcal.

Availability - Sparse. Maybe a handful of US specialty retailers

Pricing - $90-$110

Rating - 79

Single Malt Report: Pulteney 1977-2005 Scott's Selection

Here we go with a sequel to Tuesday's post:  A new simultaneous whisky review!

Click on over to My Annoying Opinions to see MAO's review (direct link) of this same single malt.  I have no idea what he thinks of it.  No, seriously, nada.  After Tuesday's dual post, I am fascinated by the unique experiences two people have with the same whisky, and in this case from the same bottle.  I don't even know what anyone else thinks of this stuff because there are no other reviews of it online (that I can find).

Though it's missing its commonly provided first name, this is indeed OLD Pulteney.  And it's actually old.  The oldest Pulteney I'd had until this point was the 17 year old official bottling, which I quite adore.  I've never had an indie Old P, though I do have a younger one awaiting me in The Stash.

Here's what I've gathered about the naming of the whisky: The distillery is Pulteney, it is situated in Pulteneytown, a once-thriving fishing village named after Sir William Pulteney.  The product issuing forth from the distillery is called Old Pulteney.  I've seen a couple other independently bottled Pulteney malts leave the "Old" off the name, but most of them seem to keep it attached.  In this case, Scott's Selection is basically listing the distillery's name and the year of distillation.

I saw this bottling before in one of those random Scott's spottings I'd mentioned on Tuesday.  In fact, there was some considerable whisky-lust-at-first-sight, but alas she was too costly for me.  Thus many thank yous are owed to MAO, who organized a four-way split of this bottle he found in his home state.

Distillery: Pulteney
Bottler: Scott's Selection
Age: 28-ish years (1977 - 2005)
Maturation: my guess is probably ex-bourbon cask
Region: Northern Highlands
Alcohol by Volume: 56.9%

NEAT
The color (see MAO's pic above) is slightly darker than the Highland Park, edging towards the light gold area of pretty whisky shades.  At first sniff, the nose gives off a blast of something pretty phenolic, which is unexpected.  Sadly, it has never returned.  Early primary notes are of bread, yeast, a nice lychee/floral thing, and saline nasal spray.  The fruits which are in the background ease out with some air; mostly peach schnapps and fresh apples.  Give it more than 30 minutes of air and some bubblegum and "old lady" perfume. (Quotes per my notes.)  The palate shows lots of salt and plenty of heat.  There's also a solid wall of tartness.  Those who don't like the salt and tart in the OBs may want to give this wide berth.  There's an occasional subtle mothball (naphthalene or menthol?) note.  After some time in the glass, the whisky reveals some unsmoked tobacco and plain cookies (think stale ladyfingers).  That tartness continues in the finish and is met by milk chocolate, a hint of vanilla, and dried apricots.  It can be a little astringent, so some air helps.  Curiously, I get some medicinal character and cigar smoke lingering in my mouth for awhile.

WITH WATER (around mid-40s ABV)
Now the fruits arrive in the nose.  The peach schnapps is bested by fresh peaches.  And cherry lollipops.  Some tropical fruit too, probably mango; I also wrote papaya in my notes, but it's been a long time since I've nosed a papaya (Sexual imagery unintended).  There's also some fresh grass and pine sap, along with sugar cookies.  The palate gets narrower.  There's some lightly rummy sweetness before a hoppy IPA bitterness moves in.  The tartness remains.  The finish gets sweeter.  Bitter and floral notes tangle (or tango).  The pine sap shows up here too along with a little cough medicine.

So.  Phenols in Old Pulteney?  Wut?  Due to the dearth of reviews on this whisky, I went to the source that is Serge's site.  Though he hasn't reviewed this particular Pulteney, he has reviewed 59 others.  I was specifically looking for something from the '70s or earlier.  He mentioned some possible peat in a couple of them, but the only one he seemed confident about peating was this Whyte & Whyte specimen from 1974.  Do I think this Scott's Pulteney was peated?  I can't be 100% certain as the nose note did not return when I went back to the whisky this evening.  I still get that medicinal and smoky thing in the finish, but that could possibly from the spirit and/or barrel.  So, I don't recommend going to this whisky expected something peated, in fact you'll get more of a peat kick from officially bottled Clynelish (which, like Pulteney, supposedly uses unpeated malt, but its results often contradict that).

I'm wondering as I'm typing this, did MAO find any smoke or peat?  He found more of it in the HP than I.  And I'm probably making a much bigger deal out of this issue than it deserves because the characteristics in question were brief.

More importantly and totally subjectively, I really liked this whisky.  As I mentioned above, it's loaded with the salty tartness I like the official Old Pulteney range.  It can be a bit tight on the palate, but it hits the right spots for me.  The remainder of my quarter bottle is going to vanish quickly.

Availability - Happy hunting!

Pricing - $170-$220 (half the price of the non-CS official 30yo)

Rating - 91

Single Malt Report: Highland Park 1986-2007 (Scott's Selection)

And now for something slightly different...

A simultaneous review!

At this very moment a review of this same whisky is posted at My Annoying Opinions.  A couple weeks ago, I split a bottle of this Highland Park 1986 Scott's Selection three ways with M.A.O. and his friend.  It gave us the ability to dig into a somewhat older single malt without risking $200ish on a blind purchase.  M.A.O.'s opinions have indeed annoyed a number of folks in the whisky blogging community, which is a good thing because our "community" was/is in definite need of some challenges.  I have yet to step into the discussion he has started (ignited?), but I do intend to address it in the new year -- because it's going to be difficult to continue writing about whisky unless I do so.  No matter my opinion about his blogging opinions, I respect his reviews.  I've also found his palate preferences are often similar to mine.  I recommend hopping over to his review of this whisky because as I write this, I have no idea what he thinks of this Highland Park.

(UPDATE: Here's the link to MAO's review.  And his notes are quite a bit different than mine...)

Scott's Selection is a fascinating independent bottler.  I've found semi-dusty Scott's bottles in random corner liquor stores in California, New York, and Arizona.  So they're not that difficult to find, for now.  And their prices are often much lower than other indies.  And the quality of their output tends to be decent, occasionally very good.  If I had an issue with them it would be the total lack of disclosure on their labels.  There's no mention of cask type, amount of casks, amount of bottles, or actual age.  I've seen two bottles labelled "Sherry Wood", but I'm pretty sure I've had a couple other Scott'ses that were aged in sherry casks while the label said nothing about it.  So what you'll get is: Highland Park 1986-2007, 54.1% ABV.  No more, no less.  So you'll have to pardon some of my data below.

Distillery: Highland Park
Bottler: Scott's Selection
Age: 21-ish years (1986 - 2007)
Maturation: probably an ex-bourbon cask (if it's an ex-sherry cask it's an eighth-fill)
Region: Islands, or Northern Highlands
Alcohol by Volume: 54.1%

NEAT
The color is at just between light gold and amber.  See MAO's pic above.  The nose has a surprising youthful spirity nip to it, sort of suggesting old school paint (as in, not the safer low-VOC paints for sale now).  It's not too strong, but it shows the oak hasn't been aggressive over the 20+ years, which is fine by me.  But black licorice, vanilla, and tapioca pudding push that tougher note to the background.  Give it some time......peach taffy, fresh plums, clove, jasmine flowers, and yeast notes arise.  I've also been finding cardamom notes in many Highland malts recently; maybe it's my nose.  This whisky is no exception, considerable cardamom.  Not much peat, unless maybe a vague grassy veg peat?  In the palate, hot cereal (think oatmeal or cream of wheat) arrives early.  Then fresh apricots and a soft custardy note -- vanilla + brown sugar + caramel.  With some time in the glass, the whisky delivers an expressive rich citrus liqueur.  Like the nose shows, there's still quite a bite to this stuff.  The citrus liqueur notes continues into the finish along with a cayenne peppery heat.  It sweetens up here and brings with it a wisp of wood smoke.

My first impression of it neat was, per my notes, "Take a cask strength version of the 18yo, remove the sherry and 75% of the peat."  Yet it still feels a bit brasher than an 18 year old whisky.

WITH WATER (low 40s ABV)
More oak and fruit in the nose.  Fresh cut uncharred wood.  Peaches and orange zest.  Caramel sauce.  Just a hint of the licorice, cardamom, and vanilla remains.  An orange soda note builds up after some time.  The palate gets "more pleasurable!"  Mild vanilla, orange zest, burnt wood, more sugars, and a slight bitterness.  Even at this lower strength, a lot of texture remains.  It's softer now, though very drinkable at this spot.  The finish is much briefer.  It's sweet and lightly tart.  The citrus and pepper become milder.  The jasmine note makes a curious return.  And there's that hint of smoke again.

Rarely do I prefer a whisky with water added, but this one really grew on me once it was hydrated.  I don't mind some sharpness in my whisky, but this HP cozies up to the nose and tongue better when its ABV is reduced a little.

The near lack of phenolics was somewhat expected.  Having had some older whiskies made from highly peated malt, I've come to realize that lengthy maturations mellow out the PPMs.  This is no exception.  Highland Park's malt doesn't start with much peating, so as it gets older that which was there is no longer.

I've actually been on a search for non-sherried Highland Parks.  When MAO mentioned this bottle, my ears (or eyes) perked up.  I didn't know what the sherry situation was going to be like, but thought it was worth a try.  And it is.  While I don't think this whisky will WOW anyone, I also don't think it's going to offend.  It does offer an alternate look at Highland Park -- removing the sherry element and most of the peat -- if you're in search of that experience.

Availability - A few liquor shops in the US still have it

Pricing - $150-$200

Rating - 86  (approx. 86/100; it picks up the 1/2 star, or 5 points, with added water)

STAY TUNED!  On Thursday, you may just find another simultaneous review here......

Single Malt Report: Glengoyne Cask Strength, Batch 1

On Tuesday, I reported on GlenDronach's first batch of their new sherried NAS Cask Strength single malt.  Today, it'll be the first batch of the new version of Glengoyne's sherried NAS Cask Strength single malt.  These two young Cask Strength whiskies were released around the same time late last year.

This version of Glengoyne's CS is part of the brand's newly refreshed range.  Previously there had been a 10, 12, 17, and 21 year old, along with a 12 year old cask strength.  The new range, presented with new handsome modern labels, swaps out the 17 for a 15yo and 18yo, and the CS loses its age statement.  The old range is still available all over the US, while the new range has been slow to get here.  Specifically, this cask strength bottling has yet to cross the ocean.

In October 2012, I reviewed the old 17 year (please see the review for more info about the distillery) from a sample and enjoyed it immensely.  From there I bought my own bottle and discovered a whisky much more heavily sherried than the one from the sample.  Since I'd poured that original sample myself, I pondered if there may have been some batch variation.  I had read that at least 35% of the casks in the 17 were first-fill sherries, so could they have upped the sherry casks?  Since their site now says most of their casks are ex-sherry, my theory might hold up.

This new Cask Strength edition is certainly sherried, though more softly so than the GlenDronach.  I've eyed the old Glengoyne 12yo Cask Strength on a couple of occasions as it can still be found here and there, meanwhile this first batch of the new CS can also be found in Europe as it hasn't sold out as quickly as the 'Dronach.  Let's see how Glengoyne fares.

Distillery: Glengoyne
Ownership: Ian MacLeod Distillers
Age: NAS
Maturation: ex-Oloroso sherry Spanish oak casks (possibly a mix of first- and re-fill casks)
Region: Highlands (South)
Alcohol by Volume: 58.7%
Batch: 1 (2012)

NEAT
The color is a dark reddish amber, perhaps "sienna" if this was a Macallan.  First thing I smell in the nose is PEAT! OMG PEAT!!!  I'm kidding, there's no peat.  That was just a poke at the Glengoyne marketing folks (who will probably never read this review), who make a point to brag about the lack of peat in their whisky.  Okay, I'll start again.  There's a lot of buttery oak in the nose.  Lots of lightly spiced toasted oak as well.  Pencil eraser, paint thinner, golden raisins, shoe soles, and stale black raisins.  It's actually very closed.  Needs lots of air.  After twenty minutes: orange sorbet, pencil shavings, a distant meatiness, and a puff of eggy sulfur.  The malt is much louder in the palate.  Lots of young barley spirit.  There's a slight rubberiness and significant heat.  Sherry meets vanilla beans meets juicy raisins, but it's not sweet.  The finish is very drying and the sherry announces itself the loudest here.  A little chocolate, a lot of stewed prunes, and sea salt.

WITH WATER
On the nose, oh my goodness.  Everyone's favorite horse, Hoof Hearted, arrives in first (please click here and turn up the volume for a 16 second explanation).  Airing it out a bit, the whisky become reminiscent of the 17yo with a soft sherry duvet.  More pencil erasers now and more sugars, but less of the solvent.  Also some nice lemon peel and dried ginger.  The palate is very creamy with a nice coffee bitterness.  Vanilla custard and whipped cream.  That pleasant bitter note lingers in the finish, along with a little tanginess and very milky chocolate.

Here's a rare instance wherein I'll recommend adding water, but then please give the nose a little air if you know what I mean.  It's not bad when neat, but it's very tight.

One thing I found curious about this whisky is the oak.  There is a significant presence of butter and vanilla, vanillin notes which can be found in casks of charred American oak.  Many distilleries are now using American oak for their sherry casks since it is easier to come by and much cheaper.  So I actually thought that was the oak involved in this whisky's maturation.  But Glengoyne states very clearly that their oak is felled in Spain.  Toasted q.robur and q.petraea can also deliver vanilla notes, but I've never found such a strong ones coming from a European oak-aged whisky.  Perhaps they char the oak as opposed to a medium toasting, thus bringing more vanillins to the surface?  This is not a complaint, more of an observation (and an opportunity for someone to weigh in on this).  It was very interesting to experience a heap of chocolate coming from GlenDroanch's sherry casks and big dose of vanilla coming from Glengoyne's sherry casks.

Ultimately this wasn't as lush and rich as the GlenDronach.  It needs a considerable amount of air as well as some careful watering to open it up.  Once it comes to life, it's a pleasing drinker, one I might try again especially if additional batches are released.  Now how about one batch for The States?

Availability - Europe only
Pricing - $80-$95 depending on shipping costs
Rating - 81

Single Malt Report: GlenDronach Cask Strength, Batch 1

GlenDronach Distillery produces a single malt I often recommend to folks (especially those who are looking to expand beyond Macallan), but rarely buy for myself.  A lot of that has to do with my sherry issue.  For those unfamiliar with "my sherry issue", here's a brief recap:

Sometime around February 2012, I realized I didn't like ex-sherry cask matured whisky.  I could appreciate it and sort out which were higher quality and lower quality versions, but I never desired actually drinking the stuff.  There was a palate turnoff that equated to something like, "I don't want sherry, I want whisky!"  So, I tended to search out ex-bourbon cask-matured or low oak influenced malts.  As a result you'll tend to find somewhat of a paucity of reviews on sherried whisky around these parts.

But over the past year, I've been able to pinpoint where things sherried go wrong in my mouth.  Firstly, sherry-finished malts rarely seem to pull the oak, wine, and spirit together.  Instead, all the parts bang around separately and the spirit itself loses in that battle.  Glenmorangie Lasanta is an example of this.  Meanwhile, full powered, cask strength whisky fully matured in sherry barrels can me very happy; for instance, this lovely legal lass.  Whiskies that are a mix of ex-sherry and ex-bourbon casks -- see here and here -- can be very welcoming.  Though my palate finds the sherry element first in these malts, it tends to yield and accept and sometimes embrace.  And then there are the inexplicable miracles like Yamazaki 18.  I long for more delights, so I leave myself open to the possibility of the miraculous.

I have reviewed GlenDronach's official 12, 15, 18, and 21 year olds.  They're all decent, with the 15 being the strongest and the 21 possibly being the weakest.  The prices on the older whiskies are much more reasonable than those of similarly aged Macallan.  Plus the ABVs are 46-48% and the whisky is not chill-filtered.  Thus, I'm happy to recommend them.  But I've never bought them.

Then there are the GlenDronach single casks.  Of these casks, the oldies' lore grows more each year, with everyone from the Malt Maniacs to Jim Murray gushing over their quality.  So the 35-40 year old bottles usually vanish before hitting the shelves.  Thus the next level of casks, those of the early '90s, become much desired.  Those are also scooped up very quickly.  I've tried three of them and I've enjoyed every one.  I had the pleasure of officially reviewing my favorite, the aforementioned "lovely legal lass".  Thanks to its cakey, nutty, tobaccoy, and chocolatey nature, I would be happy to buy a bottle of it -- if I had $160 just lying around.  That one has been my favorite GlenDronach.

But now it has a challenger.

Distillery: GlenDronach
Ownership: BenRiach Distillery Company Ltd
Age: NAS
Maturation: a mix of former Oloroso and Pedro Ximenez sherry casks
Region: Eastern Highlands (on the edge of Speyside)
Alcohol by Volume: 54.8%
Batch: 1 (2012)
Limited bottling: 12,000

That's right: No Age Statement.  I'm about to gush about a no age statement whisky.  So shoot me (full of GlenDronach Cask Strength Batch 1).

12,000 doesn't sound like that limited of a release, but this stuff is GONE.  Due to its success, the distillery has released a second and third batch.  And I believe the new third batch's turnout was 16,000 bottles.  Each batch is proving to be slightly different.  To me that's a good thing, since the blenders are not trying to force an exact replica each time.  But please note: I have not tried batches 2 or 3, so I cannot speak for them.  I shall address Batch 1.

NEAT
The color is of a dark gold with some crimson around the edges.  At first sniffs, the nose is full of cocoa powder, gunpowder, and dates.  Then, slowly, notes of honey, nutmeg, something between cardamom and ginger, and tangerines ease out.  With 15-20 minutes of air, out come the prunes, cinnamon, and Elmer's glue.  The palate is full of thick sticky sweet PX sherry.  Hershey's Special Dark, toasty malt, cracked black pepper, and tapioca pudding follow.  Lots and lots of chocolate in the finish.  The sherry gets a little drier.  Some pipe tobacco develops, as do figs and prunes.  But mostly, hot fudge sauce.  Oh, so much hot fudge sauce.

WITH WATER
The nose gets grape-ier.  As in fresh red grapes and grape juice.  And raisins.  It gets a little dirtier too, with very earthy molasses, leather, and something farmy (used hay in the sun?).  This is met with notes of cardamom and caramel sauce.  It's like a Macallan with some dirt under its nails.  Ah, here's the chocolate in the palate.  Milk chocolate-covered dried fruits this time.  It's sweeter now, but also has some of that earthy note from the nose.  Perhaps actual earth?  Milk chocolate again in the finish.  There's also some citrus tanginess along with dried apricots.

It's the chocolate that gets me.  That hot fudge thing in the finish lasted about 5-10 minutes.  Beyond that, the rough and tumble notes in the nose (gunpowder, glue, soil, and hay) prove to be a lot of fun.  Some of it might be due to youth or a quirky cask or two, but it provides the percussion to the malt's bass line, the fruits' lead guitar, and the chocolate's vocal harmony.

Now, can we get some of this in The States now please?  Maybe Batch 4?  Hopefully closer to Aberlour A'bunadh prices ($60-$70) than Glenfarclas 105 ($85-$95) prices.  Price aside, I would choo-choo-choose this above any of the regular OB range (12yo-21yo).  It's livelier, bolder, rougher, fruitier, and chocolatier than any of them.  And, gasp, it makes me want to try some more sherry-matured whisky.

Availability - Sold out, though Batches 2 & 3 can be found via European retailers
Pricing - Batches 2 & 3 are $85-$110 depending on shipping costs
Rating - 91

Single Malt Report: Caol Ila 14 year old Unpeated (2012)

Five years ago, my buddy James brought a bottle of Caol Ila to the inaugural Anderson Business School Whisky Club meeting, held at our old Hollywood apartment.  It was my first Caol Ila (G&M bottling, BevMo exclusive) and one of my first positive peaty experiences.  Kristen remembers it as if it'd happened yesterday.  Not so much smoke on the nose and palate but once the drinker exhaled, the finish filled one's head with campfire smoke.  It was dense and lovely.  It could make a drunk feel like a dragon (though, I'm sure a cigarette and mezcal would do the same thing).  Sometimes I wonder if that was the last time my wife drank a peated whisky for fun.  Nowadays, when I hand her a glass of something only slightly peated she says, "Smells like smoke," and passes it back to me.  Overhand.

Anyway, that was a good start for Caol Ila and I.  On Monday, I posted a report on the officially bottled 12 year old.  On Tuesday, it was a post on the official 18 year old.  Today, it's the 2012 limited release of a cask strength 14 year old, that was unpeated.

Yep, unpeated.  In the 1980s, the distillery started experimenting with unpeated malt runs and continued to do so off and on until 2005 when the market's demands for peated malt ended these trials.  In 2006, they started an annual limited edition bottling of the unpeated Caol Ila.  The positive response has kept the releases going ever since.

In most of the reviews of the early bottlings, you'll see that folks tend to still find peat notes in the "unpeated" whisky.  One explanation is that while the malt itself was unpeated, phenolic residue that wasn't scrubbed off the stills wound up transferring itself back to the spirit being run through.  Another possibility I've been wondering about comes from the label on all of the bottlings (see above), which reads with quotes "Unpeated Style".  Those quotes and the addition of the word style makes one ponder the possibility that perhaps the malt was peated at much lower level, 3-5ppm for instance.

I'll tell you ahead of time, I didn't find any peat from my sample of the 2012, but I can definitely see why some folks refer to these releases as Caol Ila Highland.

Distillery: Caol Ila
Ownership: Diageo
Age: minimum 14 years
Maturation: European oak casks
Region: Port Askaig, Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 59.3%
PPM: ???
Chilfiltered? No need to with this ABV
Colored? Probably

NEAT
The color is gold, just a smidgen darker than the 18.  Lots of ethyl burns one's nose as the whisky announces its high ABV.  Interesting that this comes from European oak because I get tons of vanilla from it, but more on that in a sec.  The other main notes are swimming pool chlorine, cocoa powder, butterscotch, and roses.  But there's also an intense vanilla and brown sugar combo that smelled strikingly like Johnnie Walker Black Label.  Then there's Nilla Wafers, which I usually find in Canadian blends.  Then (to confuse you further) the floral note combined with a lot of coconut cream hits, reminding me of high strength single grain whisky.  The palate was more straightforward: digestive biscuits, charred wood, brown sugar, sea salt, and a brief savory note.  It's a bit hot and toasty, but simple.  Lots of malt arrives in the lengthy finish, followed by salt and toasted wheat bread.  Again, focused like the palate.

WITH WATER
The nose starts with swimming pools filled with caramel and roses.  Salted caramel ice cream with Cool Whip on top.  The palate is now reminiscent of a toasty malty blend.  All sugar and spice, maybe some nutmeg and vanilla bean.  Reminds me of Compass Box's Great King Street Artist's Blend.  It finishes mildly with salt and malt.

I apologize for all of the comparisons in my notes, but the whisky continually reminded me of other whiskies.  Which was kind of weird.  I also found very little of the classic European oak notes, other than maybe the toast and spice.  Adding water made it a better drinker but also did not make it stand out in any way.

No actual criticisms come to mind, other than this version of the "Unpeated Style" of Caol Ila seems interchangeable with a number of inoffensive single malts and high malt blends.  Its benefit is its high strength which allows for the expression of the full power of the malt and also allows for toying around with water.

With and without water, I tried it alongside the regular 12 year old and always preferred the peated version.  It could be a case of my nose and palate preferring the phenolics, but I did find the peat bringing more depth and variety to the experience.  As for other opinions, Serge liked this unpeated version slightly better than I, though he found lots of vanilla and not much sherry as well.

If you can find it in the $75-$85 range, then it'll be what currently passes for a good deal on a cask strength bottling at its age.  I do recommend trying it first, just to make sure your expectations are in the right place.  For me, I'll stick with the bacon, barbecue, and campfires of the peated version.

Availability - A couple dozen specialty retailers in the US, more available in Europe

Pricing - $75 to $100 in the US, much pricier in Europe

Rating - 80

Single Malt Report: Caol Ila 18 year old

Yesterday it was Caol Ila's 12 year old.  Today, their 18 year old.

Time to set the Fawning Meter to Full Toady.

But first, some totally useful Caol Ila trivia!

The Caol Ila distillery was originally built in 1846.  In 1879, it was rebuilt; or, as per Alfred Bernard's report in 1885, the distillery was "much extended and improved, and is arranged in the most modern style and possesses all the newest appliances used in the art of distilling."  In 1972, DCL (proto-Diageo) thought it needed to be further extended and improved as it was no longer arranged in the most modern style, nor possessing all the newest appliances used in the art of distilling.  So they knocked it down and built the current standing edition of Caol Ila.  In the years since the rebuild it has become one of the most technologically advanced of Scottish distilleries with many of its processes being run by computer hardware and software rather than by humans.

Caol Ila has been a favorite of blenders for well over a century, so it was an important addition to DCL's holdings when they bought it in 1927.  From 1970 to 1974, during the distillery's shutdown and new construction, DCL needed to make up for the missing peated malt for the their blend brands.  They addressed this by upping Brora's peat levels during those years.  So when you see the plaudits for Brora single malt from that era, know that the nature of Brora's whisky did actually change for a short period of time due to Caol Ila's rebuild.  Once the Islay distillery was up and running again, Brora's peat levels were lowered and their mash-house was rebuilt.

But enough about Brora.  Let's get back to Caol Ila and its 18 year old offspring.

Distillery: Caol Ila
Ownership: Diageo
Age: minimum 18 years
Maturation: refill ex-bourbon American oak casks (I think)
Region: Port Askaig, Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 43%
PPM: 30-35
Chilfiltered? Yup.
Colored? It is decidedly so.

Many thanks to Florin for providing a sample of this increasingly scarce whisky.

NEAT
The color is of a darker amber than the 12, but not reaching the Johnnie-Walker-Gold-Hue(TM).  So I'm thinking/hoping they went easy on the colorant.  So many more ripe fruits on the nose when compared the younger CI: apricots, peach skin, orange peel, and lots of pears.  But these fruit notes are very reserved at first, taking their time to eventually revealling themselves.  But after twenty to thirty minutes, it's a summer fruit salad.  Secondary notes include a soft muskiness and a whisper of smoke.  The palate is very toasty, like toast in fact.  Smoked vanilla beans float in a creamy peach custard.  More ripe stone fruits, probably apricot.  There's also a slight veg note from the peat, like celery meets moss.  The fruits still linger in the finish, along with subtle mossy peat.  Some sweet clementines and a wee bit of salt.  The smoke is tongue-coating.

WITH WATER
On the nose: Lots of perfectly ripe pears, which are a near mystery to me because I have little luck ripening them at home.  Elderflower liqueur and green grass.  The peating actually shows up more on the palate now, along with vanilla custard and white fruits.  It's soft as a pillow.  The finish is all distant smoke and vanilla creme filling.

This is the style I really enjoy.  The fruits, the cream, the moss, the salt.  It's probably even better at 46% ABV, but there's no way we're going to see that happen in this decade from CI's ownership.  Hell, it's not even easy to find a bottle of this as it is.  Sort of like Talisker 18, it's an irregular release.  When Diageo decides it's time, they bottle it again and raise the price 30-50%.  Good times.

But back to the positives.  This is graceful, classy, slightly raspy, and well delivered.  It's Tony Bennett's voice.  Old guy Tony Bennett, not young guy Tony Bennett.

Those fruit notes are very prominent, something I've tended to find in even older whisky that hasn't collapsed under too much oak.  The peat and smoke notes are quiet but persistent, showing up more on the palate than the nose.  It's not going to fight you like the young versions of the Kildalton malts, instead it's going to sing to you and keep you company in the evenings as you write about whisky things.

Availability - Increasingly difficult to find in US, look to Europe

Pricing - $110 to $150 (ex-VAT, with int'l shipping)

Rating - 91