Single Malt Report: Blair Athol 11 year old 1998 Signatory UCF (cask 2757)

This week I'm participating in a so-called dietary cleanse.  No dairy, no gluten, no processed sugar, and no alcohol.  Normally, I have no interest in cleanses.  People should consciously moderate their intake of toxins and troublesome dietary elements so that an abrupt purge isn't necessary.  But it's become obvious that moderation hasn't been one of my strong points since my stay-at-home-father gig began.

I've completed the first day of the cleanse and I haven't eaten the neighbors, yet.  Though my daughter got wise and hitched a ride to another state.  In classic fashion I did four whisky reviews in the thirty-six hours before the cleanse so that this blog would have some sort of content over the next two weeks.  The sacrifices...

Label information written by foot

Anyway, Blair Athol!  Blair Athol?  This the second Blair Athol review in this calendar year.  What the hell?  That's twice as many graded reviews as I've done of Bowmore in 2014.  If you missed my first exciting Blair Athol review, here's the link.  It was of a 25 year old single cask release by the independent Dutch bottler, Van Wees.  And it was very good (89 points worth).

I've had quite some luck with Van Wees.  I've also had a lot of luck with Signatory.  Signatory has a number of different ranges but the two most familiar ones are their Cask Strength and Unchillfiltered collections.  Today's Blair Athol is an 11 year old single hogshead from the Unchillfiltered Collection.  And it arrives courtesy of Florin (a prince).

Distillery: Blair Athol
Bottler: Signatory
Age: 11 years 1 month (4/8/98 - 5/8/09)
Maturation: Hogshead
Cask #: 2757
Bottle: 250 of 361
Region: Highlands (Central)
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No

The color is a very pale amber.  At first the nose is bready and yeasty with some butter, caramel, and pencil shavings.  But moments later it opens up into mango and grapefruit.  Then it expands further into lavender and violet (flowers, not soap).  Then some more patience brings fresh orange pulp and sea air.  The palate leads with grasses and dried leaves, followed by oranges and limes.  Caramel pudding, maybe some peppery spice and a candy cane.  It's effervescent but very delicate.  Its sweetness gradually expands.  The finish seems shortish at first but then comes back for a second round, boomerang-style.  Lots of citrus peels, lager, dried leaves, pepper, and cocoa powder.

This was much too fragile for water, almost as if it were 40%abv.  That being said, I like it a lot.  While the palate isn't terribly complex, it's very pleasant.  It's the nose that thrills.  It opens and opens and opens like a little blossom in the sun.  It's all pretty.  I'm considering tracking down a bottle, especially since my wife likes it.  She and scotch whisky are acquaintances but not pals, so this a rare thing.  Gives me an excuse to say, "Hey, I bought you a present!"

Availability - Scarce (US)
Pricing - $60-$70
Rating - 87

Single Malt Report: Benromach Peat Smoke 2004

Two weeks ago, I led a tasting session for a group of great folks who were relatively new to whisky.  While prepping for it and considering all of the stuff that's helpful to beginners, I inevitably started thinking about the whisky "regions".  The "regions" are still being included in whisky pamphlets, maps, ad propaganda, and even in books published by professional writers.  But other than for geographic purposes (as I use them on my blog), the "regions" are have become meaningless.  Islay does not make the only heavily peated whisky in Scotland, nor do all the Ileach distilleries make peated whisky of consistent quality.  There's light wispy (even triple-distilled) single malt being made outside of the Lowlands.  Bladnoch, a Lowlander, was making quality peated malt before its closure.  The "Island" distilleries each have their own very specific style (see Tobermory versus The World).  Campbeltown distilleries often seem to have an industrial, almost grimy, style thanks to Springbank, Glengyle, and Glen Scotia; but, again, Springbank has a triple-distilled brand (Hazelburn) and Longrow, a heavily-peated brand that can kick the asses of most of the Islays right now.  And, yes, a few Speyside distilleries are making competitive peated whiskies as well.  So those regions, which could once be used as relevant helpful shorthand, have become neither relevant nor helpful nor shorthand.

I'm following up Tuesday's review of one peated Speysider with another peated Speysider today.  This time it's a highly peated (50+ppm at maltings) single malt from Gordon & MacPhail's distillery, Benromach.  Sadly, I'm way behind in my Benromach experience.  Because they're one of the ten smallest distilleries in Scotland and because G&M pried it out of United Distillers claws in 1993 (after it had been mothballed for ten years) I really want to root for their success.  But if the whisky isn't good, then there's no need to cheerlead another so-so distillery.  So far, their ten year old makes for decent drinking and I like their Organic product, though I may be alone on the latter.  Here's a recent batch of their heavily peated stuff.

Distillery: Benromach
Ownership: Gordon & MacPhail

Age: 8-9 years (2004 - 8/2/13)

Maturation: first-fill ex-bourbon casks

Region: Speyside (Findhorn)

Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Peat PPMs: 53
Chillfiltered? No.
Caramel Colored? Probably not
(Thanks to Eric S. for the sample!  Eric, please let me know if any of my data is incorrect and I'll update it ASAP.  Thanks!)

NEAT
The color is of a pinot grigio.  The nose begins with vanilla-covered roasted peat.  Very roasty and toasty in general.  There are some youthful rubber and acetone notes, but they're in the far background.  Apples and pears around the edges.  A whiff of sea air and sugary pastry notes.  Seems to get more vibrant as it opens up, but overall it's not as peaty as I had expected.  There's more peat smoke (as per the name) in the palate, though it doesn't dominate.  Big notes of cinnamon, anise, and vanilla lead the way.  Then cinnamon toast (cinnamon + granulated sugar + butter + toast).  Smaller notes of tangy lemons, sea salt, and notebook paper in the distance.  The peat gets dustier in the finish.  The tangy lemons and cinnamon toast fill up the most space, though the whole experience is sort of short.

WITH WATER
Vanilla, cinnamon, and barley move to the fore in the nose.  The peat recedes further but is still present.  Spiced orange peel and overripe mango start to emerge.  An oak pulp element develops after some time.  The palate becomes rather shy.  There's some pleasant bitterness hovering around the cinnamon, peat, bacon, brown sugar, and dust.  A hint of bacon remains in the finish, as does the peat smoke and cinnamon toast.

The first thing I noticed with this whisky is that the Peat Smoke is more like peat smoke.  Perhaps it has something to do with the shape of the stills, but the peat is very mellow considering its levels (50+ppm at malt) are similar to Ardbeg and Kilchoman, while being higher than Laphroaig and Lagavulin.  I'd say that most Caol Ila (30-35ppm) and some Ardmore (10-15) single malts register their phenolics more aggressively than this one.  This isn't necessarily a problem, delicate peat can be gorgeous.  It just caught me off-guard.

The whisky is much better without water than with, though the fruit notes that develop in the hydrated nose are nice.  At times all the sugar, cinnamon, paper, rubber, and acetate notes make this feel even younger than its age.  The overall mildness of the package may appeal to people who don't want peat fireworks, but the name is "Peat Smoke" thus it's the peat geeks who will buy it first.  And I'm not sure this will impress the geeks.

Overall it's decent, without any gruesome sins, and gets better with some air.  But right now (in their price range) they're dealing with BenRiach as competition in their geographic neighborhood and Kilchoman in the youthful peater category.  This may get close to Curiositas, but has a ways to go before it reaches Machir Bay's quality.  But since the Peat Smokes are done in small batches perhaps they will nail it well in other releases.  I would drink this again, but I'll pass on a bottle.

Availability - Some US specialty retailers
Pricing - $55-$80
Rating - 80

Single Malt Report: BenRiach Arumaticus Fumosus

You'll find me bitching and moaning about whisky finishes plenty of times on this blog, but I have yet to meet a rum-finished whisky that wasn't at least entertaining.  BenRiach Arumaticus Fumosus comes to the rum-finished arena from a different angle than others.  Firstly, it's peated.  This will be the first time I've tried a peated whisky finished in rum casks.  Secondly, BenRiach didn't utilize one-note sugary rum in those casks, instead they used an unspecified Jamaican rum.  Though my experience with Jamaican rum is limited, I highly recommend that folks with adventurous palates try a glass of Smith & Cross (neatly).  Smith & Cross is a bold estery beast, and I'm probably going need to review it some day.

Almost got the JJ Abrams lens flare on this one.

I obtained this BenRiach sample from Jordan from Chemistry of the Cocktail via a sample swap.  Jordan knows much more about rum than I do; his rum posts (especially this beginner's guide) are musts.  As per his recommendation, I got to know Smith & Cross a little bit before diving into Arumaticus Fumosus.

I've been looking forward to trying this whisky for some time.  I enjoy BenRiach's peated stuff, especially the 21 year old (whose review has made everyone think I'm Weedy McPotface), and have been very impressed with the cask work utilized for BenRiach and its mate GlenDronach (despite their occasional questionable label disclosure).  So, good peated malt meets quality casks......yes, please. 

Distillery: BenRiach
Ownership: The BenRiach Distillery Company

Age: minimum 12 years

Maturation: ex-bourbon casks for most of its life, then finished in Jamaican dark rum casks

Region: Speyside (Lossie)

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

NEAT

Its color is amber with very little in the way of oaky (or e150a) gold.  The nose has a definite blast of rum, but it's not the super-desserty version one will find in Balvenie Caribbean Cask, rather something with a bit of an herbal spicy bite to it.  It's well integrated, leading right to the malt and peat moss.  There are notes of a floral vanilla simple syrup, cotton candy, lemon peel, honey, molasses, wood smoke, and dry soil.  It alternates between earthy and pretty.  The palate is well-layered too.  Peat→molasses→honey→lychee and fresh cherries.  Very earthy (again) yet also sugared.  A smaller note of fresh oranges shows up occasionally.  Peat, pepper, and bitter notes begin to grow with some oxidation time.  Lots of smoke and sweets in the finish, think honeyed peat.  A hint of salty olives merges with some citrus.  The smoke grows with time.

---

I added a little bit of water, then took an intermission to hang out with my little critter......who immediately ate my notes (she has good taste, obviously)...

And then she came for the cell phone...

Luckily, my wife came to save me before all was lost to The Appetite.

---

Now back to the whisky.

WITH WATER (approx. 40%abv)
The farm takes over in the nose; very Ledaigy in fact.  The floral notes have been stripped away, leaving us with a fireplace in a candy shop.  There's a burst of dijon and honey mustard notes in the palate.  There's also some sugar, honey, and peat moss.  The smoke note is very delicate, and there might be a hint of ham in there too.  A pleasant dryness lingers into the finish.  It's much milder now, all on mustard and peat.

Having high expectations met has become a rarity for me recently, but this whisky was as good as I'd hoped.  Its palate even garnered a "Wow" from my mouth.  For me, there isn't a single misstep in the whole package.  I aim to track down a full bottle for myself and perhaps will later indulge in further hyperbole if warranted.

Tracking down a bottle can be more challenging than one might expect of a BenRiach.  While there was a Arumaticus Fumosus release in the US in 2007, it was very limited since the first batch of this experiment was limited to 290 6-bottle cases worldwide.  There appears to have been another batch or two in 2012 so that leaves me hoping that they continue producing this whisky.

Availability - Some European specialty retailers
Pricing - $65-$85 (minus VAT, including shipping)
Rating - 89

Single Malt Report: Aultmore 5 year old 2007 Master of Malt

This bottling interested me ever since I first saw it online two years ago.  At 66.8% it would have been my most alcoholled (not a word) Scotch whisky.  I'm sure I'm not the only degenerate for whom that is a lure.  But not a whole damned bottle, mind you, I'm not an arsonist.

Alexander Edward had Aultmore built in 1896.  He already owned Benrinnes and Craigellachie, and two years later his company would take over Oban, so it sounds like he was having a good time during the Pattison years.  He rode through the bust that followed, but when the next drop came along, in 1923, he sold Aultmore, Benrinnes, and Oban to John Dewar & Sons. (My god, you just typed Dohn Jewer, you bastard.)  Dewar, Walker, and Buchanan merged together with Distillers Company Limited (DCL) in order to sweat out the dark times.  More than seventy years later, DCL (now called Diageo) sold the Dewar's properties to Bacardi Inc.  And that is who milks Aultmore for its Dewars blends to this day.  Somewhere on this planet there's an old official 12 year old, though Bacardi is releasing a couple new officials next month.  That could be a good thing since it can be a little difficult to find indie Aultmores.

And that brings me to this independent bottling, a single super-young cask from Master of Malt.  Let's see if this hot stuff tops yesterday's Aultmore.

The one on the right this time.  I reviewed the one on the left yesterday.

Distillery: Aultmore

Owner: Bacardi Inc.

Independent Bottler: Master of Malt

Age: 5 years (March 2007 - May 2012)

Maturation: first fill sherry puncheon (probably made of American oak)

Type: Single Malt
Region: Speyside (Banffshire)

Alcohol by Volume: 66.8%
Limited Release: 628 bottles
(Sample purchased by yours truly.)

NEAT
Though the whisky is only 5 years old, the first-fill cask has given it some color, a medium gold.  The nose isn't as spirity as I'd anticipated.  In fact there's less ethyl than yesterday's TBWC bottling.  An intense caramel note arrives first, then stays for the whole trip.  There are some very defined cereal notes, along with cotton candy and confectioner's sugar.  Both flower and flour notes.  Butter, Milk Duds, taffy, and a hint of prunes.  Its palate is raw and hot.  Just grains and herbs at first: oats, barley, hops, and juniper.  Then comes cinnamon, caramel, sour lemon candy, and graphite.  Grains and herbs again in the finish.  Also some tart citrus and a moment of pine.

How about we wet this fire?

WITH WATER (approx. 47%abv)
Oh man, at first the nose is all sea salt caramel gelato.  Then gradually out come notes of peaches and oranges, flower blossoms and pastry dough.  Very desserty, especially with the dusting of confectioner's sugar.  But the palate spins a different tale.  Wood plank, graphite, and burnt paper.  Caramel meets Tanqueray-like herbals.  Cinnamony rye-like new make.  It finishes with barley, caramel, stale cookies, and graphite.

The smell and taste exist in two completely different realms.  The nose is vibrant.  Hell, it's fantastic.  But the palate is nothing but very rough new make.  I'm not saying that MoM only nosed this cask before they bought it, but this would be a good example of the dangers of only nosing something before buying and bottling it.

For a different point of view, see Serge's review.  He found his to be all oak.  All those palate references to bourbon, coconut, vanilla, and sweetness were very foreign to what I tried.  Yeah, I found some caramel and wood plank, but everything else was grains and herbs and graphite.  Though, I think we'd agree that there's no integration between the wood and spirit in the palate.

To me the nose is so good that I would definitely drink this again, if offered.  But the palate is less than half baked so I'm not disappointed that I only bought a sample**.

Availability - Master of Malt (though it's sold out)

Pricing - Was $55ish w/o VAT, before shipping; around $80 w/shipping

Rating - 80

**Looking at the difference between my notes and those of Serge and a few whiskybasers, there is an undeniable gap in our palate notes.  Others get lots of buttery oak, and I found rough spirit.  IF this is difference is due to another dud sample, then it would bring up an interesting issue.  If the IF is true, then 40% of the samples I've bought of Master of Malt's own indie bottling ranges may have been corrupted or gone bad.  On the other hand, my problem rate with the non-MoM-bottling samples I've purchased from Master of Malt?  4% (2 out of 50).  I find it odd that the samples of their own releases have had a possible fail rate ten times that of their samples of everyone else's whiskies.  Is it the whiskies themselves or is it a problem in their sample bottling approach?  My friends who bottle their samples while standing over their kitchen sink have had a 0% problem rate.  As I mentioned in a comment section last week, as of last year I am no longer buying samples from MoM.  Aside from the high shipping costs and exchange rate being issues, I've noticed that at least 1 in 4 samples have a noticeably lower fill level than the rest.  And now there's this new possible problem.  Because I do have faith in their non-MoM-bottling samples, I will review my remaining samples until they are gone.  If I start noticing issues with those samples, then I'll have to make a difficult reviewing decision about one of my favorite sources.

Single Malt Report: Aultmore Batch 2 That Boutique-y Whisky Company

Alt-what?  Didn't you already do the Alt-something from that indie bottler with the colorful labels?  Didn't you leave the experience never wanting to try more of either ever again?

Sort of and sort of.  There's another Alt-something distillery and my misgivings about Allt-à-Bhainne were misguided since I enjoyed the subsequent Berry Bros sample.

But what about that self-proclaimed boutique (I'm not writing that name out) bottler?

I'm trying to keep an open mind.  Blue text, you're getting as jaded as I.

I've been trying to fight it.

Good luck with that.

And good luck with that whole open mind thing.

Thanks.

Yes, we're moving on to a pair of Aultmores this week.  I'd never tried an Aultmore before these reviews so I had no idea what to expect.  All I knew is that it was (like Aberfeldy) a main ingredient in Dewar's and that (like with Aberfeldy) Bacardi Inc plays Silas Stingy with its barrels, rarely letting any escape to the independent bottlers.  That Dewar's element doesn't work in its favor for me, but I was hoping that, perhaps, Bacardi put aside the barrels that didn't fit their brand and sent them upriver.  Here's to hoping!

In the next review, I'll get into a little more of Aultmore's history, but for now I'm going to get right to the tasting notes.  I'd entered this tasting hoping this experience would be better than my TBWC whisky from last week.  Here's to hoping!

I tried these side by side. I'm reviewing the one on the left today.

Distillery: Aultmore
Owner: Bacardi Inc.

Independent Bottler: That Boutique-y Whisky Company

Age: damfino

Maturation: yarp

Type: Single Malt
Region: Speyside (Banffshire)

Alcohol by Volume: 56.0%
Limited Release: 226 bottles
(Thank you to Tetris for donating this sample to Diving for Pearls Laboratory!)

NEAT
The color is light gold.  The nose starts with a wallop of pine sap, similar to the TWBC Allt-à-Bhainne.  That's followed by caramel, bitter orange, and lots of ethyl.  After some time, smaller notes of rosemary, savory herbs, brown sugar, and chlorine emerge.  The palate is piney too, at first.  Then comes vanilla, caramel, and tangy lemon.  There's a little bit of spice and malt, much more cinnamon syrup.  Lots of heat in the finish.  There are the tangy lemons, cinnamon, and vanilla, along with some black pepper.

Feels like this could use some water.

WITH WATER (approx. 48%abv)
Somehow, the nose is hotter.  Less pine, though.  The caramel and chlorine are still around.  In the background are some fresh oranges and a little bit of simple perfume.  The palate starts floral (more flowers than perfume now) and very spirity.  There's a slight sweetness along with vanilla and pepper.  The finish is bitterer.  Lots of heat, still.  Then pepper, sugar, and pine.

Water didn't do much to open it up, unless more was required.  It seemed very very young, even younger than the five year old Aultmore I'll review next.  The palate was more enjoyable than the nose as its combo of vanilla/caramel/lemon/cinnamon made for acceptable drinking.  And there was no fatal flaw as there was in the TBWC Allt-à-Bhainne.  Though, while there are similarities between my notes and the official ones, I'm having a difficult time saying anything complimentary about this Aultmore.  It's not terrible, but it seems like it was pulled from the oven before it was done baking.  And if it isn't in fact very young whisky, then maybe it could have used a better cask.  But I have no idea since TBWC discloses no information about their whiskies.

Once again, there aren't many (or any?) reviews of this whisky online.  For what it's worth, the whiskybase folks have rated it the lowest of the Aultmore TBWC batches.  If one bought a bottle and is struggling to get through it, perhaps blending it with a decent sherried malt may help it out.  And perhaps could it inspire one not to buy a whisky based on its label next time?

Availability - Master of Malt (though it's sold out)

Pricing - (500mL) Was $60ish w/o VAT, before shipping; close to $85 w/shipping

Rating - 74

Single Malt Report: Ardmore Traditional Cask (re-reviewed)

Within walking distance of our home there's a pub that once had a number of interesting whiskies.  It was from my visits to this establishment that I produced my first review of Ardmore Traditional Cask.  That bottle has since been emptied, as has all of their interesting Scotch.  *hiccup!*  Now that I have my own bottle of the Ardmore Traditional Cask, I've decided to study the whisky further in a controlled environment and give it a proper re-review.

I like Ardmore, a lot.  A lot alot ALot.  You haven't seen much in the way of Ardmore reviews here because there are times when a reviewer's enthusiasm for a brand or distillery can get the better of him resulting in bloated scores which is something I'm trying to avoid.  Also, I'm hoarding.

Anyway, there's a sad lack of official Ardmore single malts.  They released high strength 25 and 30 year olds but the prices on those can be a bit steep.  There are no other bottlings with age statements.  There was only this NAS Traditional Cask.  It's a real bummer because most of the indie Ardmores (with some age behind them) that I've tried have been delightful.  In the past I've encouraged the Beam reps I've met to propose to the powers-that-be to put out one or two simple age-statement releases.  Even one Ardmore 10 would be swell.  They were already doing a good job with Trad Cask's 46%abv and lack of chillfiltration.  But it seems as if Beam and their reps were focused 100% on Laphroaig, which isn't hard to understand.  Meanwhile the rest of Ardmore gets dumped into the Teacher's blends.  (More on Teacher's another time.)  So, again, we were left with the Trad Cask and the expensive stuff.  Note the "were".  This thought will be continued after the review below.

As you can see, Mathilda finished her breakfast faster than I finished mine.

Distillery: Ardmore
Bottling: Traditional Cask
Ownership: Beam Suntory
Age: 6 to 13 years (including one year in quarter casks)
Maturation: ex-bourbon barrels then quarter casks (the "traditional" casks)
Region: Highlands (Eastern)
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Bottle Code: L8 107 08 3ML
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Coloring? Probably

NEAT
The color is dark gold, almost DiageoGold™.  There's a whole lotta buttery oak on the nose right at the start.  Next up, an anise-like herbal peat note.  That's followed by a sugary barbecue sauce, chicken stock, yeast, salt, and smoked apricot.  There's a hint of lemon and considerable caramel.  The palate notes progress from ash → brown sugar → tannic dryness → iodine.  There's also a sweet note, like peat syrup in Cool Whip.  Lots of cinnamon candies too, along with mint jelly.  The finish is medicinal, like a Laphroaig-lite.  There's some wood smoke and vanilla.  The mint jelly becomes mint gum.  There's a nice length and it (thankfully) sheds the dryness.

WITH WATER (approx. 40%abv)
The anise note remains in the nose, as does the caramel and big oak.  Some honey edges in, along with apples, a little toasty peat, and something orangey.  The palate gets a little oaty and slightly butyric -- almost a relative of Tobermory.  It gets somewhat drier and now there's wood smoke and burnt paper, anise and wormwood.  A little more mossiness enters the drier finish.  Some newspaper without the ink.  More oak/caramel.

So, yes, thanks to the quarter casks utilized in the whisky's finish, there's plenty of oak swimming around.  But, when neat, it's not bad.  But if you don't like the oak on Laphroaig's Quarter Cask, you're not going to like it here either.  Trad Cask a little weirder than Laphroaig Quarter Cask, with quirkier character and less peat.

My bet is that there's A LOT of the younger stuff and just a little bit of the older stuff.  I really enjoyed this bottle, but I'm going to be lowering rating from its original 88.  The whisky seems to rely too much on the oak and not enough on the spirit.  And because it's missing well aged malt, it's also missing the great interplay of fresh fruit and bonfire smoke present in my favorite Ardmore indies.

It's still one of the few lower-priced peated single malts and it is most definitely not an Islay.  But it's not the All Star I once thought it was.  If you can find it for $30-$35 that's a good deal, but once it hits $50 it becomes difficult for me to recommend.

Availability - Most specialty retailers
Pricing - $30 (yay!) to $60 (boo!)
Rating - 83


......

Oh, one final thing.

Under Suntory's ownership, a new official Ardmore has been released.  And it is replacing the Traditional Cask.  It's called Ardmore Legacy.

No, it doesn't have an age statement, which isn't necessarily a tragedy.  But the most important thing you need to know about Ardmore Legacy is that the whiskymakers have chosen to revolt against the craft presentation movement and go the opposite direction.  Yes, they are replacing a 46%abv non-chillfiltered whisky with...

...wait for it...

...a 40%abv chillfiltered whisky.

Finally, an Ardmore I'll never buy.

Single Malt Report: Allt-à-Bhainne 16 year old 1995 Berry Bros & Rudd

Allt-à-Bhainne gets no love.  Hell, it barely gets any notice.  Whiskysponge dished it a pretty sweet burn in one of my favorite bits of whisky (actual) satire last year.  Serge Valentin ranked the distillery in his second lowest tier (1/2 star, Non classé B).  Johannes at Malt Madness gave it his lowest ranking level (1 star).  And when was the last time you heard this distillery brought up in geek conversation?  And does anyone outside of Banffshire know how to pronounce it?  I've seen and heard more variations for Allt-à-Bhainne than Ledaig or Cairdeas, and that from relatively reliable sources.

It's a big distillery, cranking out 4 million liters of alcohol for Pernod Ricard.  99.99(9999999?) percent of it winds up in blends (especially 100 Pipers).  According to the Whisky Yearbook, because Pernod's distilleries are almost entirely peat-less, the company changed Allt-à-Bhainne's production so that half of its output would be peated (10ppm at malting).  It's a newer facility, built in 1975 by Seagrams.  Pernod took over in 2001 and then mothballed the place until 2005.

There have been no official bottlings ever according to whiskybase.  And because The Blend Machine needs liquid, there haven't been too many Allt-à-Bhainne indies either.  The 12 year old Deerstalker is one (46%abv, UCF).  I panned another on Tuesday.  And then, there is this Berry Brothers & Rudd release from 2011.  Florin (a prince) bought a bottle of it, shared a dram with me back in August, and provided a sample for this review as well.  Thank you, sir.

Distillery: Allt-à-Bhainne

Independent Bottler: Berry Bros. & Rudd

Age: 16 years (1995 - 2011)

Maturation: likely in American oak
Cask number: 125284

Region: Speyside (Banffshire)

Alcohol by Volume: 53.4%

NEAT
It has a light amber color with maybe a little bit of golden glow.  The nose is very soft and clean.  Peach candy, ocean air, pool air, and a tiny bit of caramel candy at first.  Then black licorice, lemongrass, rose blossoms, cotton shirts, and papaya.  Barley always lingers in the background.  The palate is actually louder than the nose.  Ripe peaches, watermelon, lemon, and mint.  There's some citric tartness, subtle bitterness, and sugary sweetness (but not too much).  There's also some dry grass and wheat.  Sea salt flakes too.  The moderate length finish has peach schnapps, cayenne pepper (just a peep), orange peel, malt, and caramel.

WITH WATER (approx. 46%abv)
The nose nearly vanishes at first.  Then the lemongrass and roses show up, followed by caramel, orange peel, yeast, and dried barleycorns.  The palate gets drier and grassier.  The fruits and sweetness have vanished.  That bready wheat note remains.  Orange peel, vanilla, and caramel show up.  The finish grows drier as well.  The pepper and malt remain.  Maybe some lime and vanilla too.

This bottling demonstrates how this malt is perfect for blends.  Nothing challenging nor fantastic about it.  It's just perfectly good.  (Water does it no favors, in fact it brings out unwelcome oak notes that are sparse when the whisky is enjoyed neatly.)  It would be an excellent malt for those who get turned off by challenging drinks.  Due to the comfy fruit and denser texture, it's a half step up from Glenfiddich 12.  And it actually has me interested in trying another Allt-à-Bhainne someday.

Serge reviewed it two years ago and found it uninspiring though okay, and seemed to detect much more vanilla than I did.  Meanwhile, whiskybase members give it very high scores but provide no reviews.  Considering that it's a single cask, its original price wasn't half bad.  There doesn't seem to be any more bottles of this around, though BB&R has a new 1995 single cask out at almost twice the price.  So it goes.

Availability - Not?
Pricing - was originally around 65EUR
Rating - 84