Glenfarclas 105 Whisky Review!

My first Glenfarclas review, and it's also my pick of their standard range. Next stop, sherry town!

I must admit, given the choice between what are two of the most popular sherry-matured whisky distilleries in Scotland, Glenfarclas and Glendronach, I would usually go for the latter. Some will disagree, but personally, the majority of Glenfarclas whiskies I have tasted so far simply do not measure-up to the current competition from Glendronach. I'm yet to come across any of the 'family cask' single-cask bottlings or 30+ year old expressions from Glenfarclas, so thus far, this '105' expression has come the closest to being an exception to the rule.

But before we get into that, let's have a look at the story behind this Speyside distillery. Officially started in 1836, the distillery was purchased by John Grant roughly thirty years later after the death of the original owner, and it's still independently owned by the Grant family today. The distillery uses six large direct-fired stills, although they are gas-heated rather than coal-heated, and all whisky is matured on-site in traditional dunnage warehouses, before bottling off-site near Edinburgh.

Importantly, Glenfarclas mature the majority of their whisky in Spanish oak ex-sherry casks, mainly Oloroso and Fino sherry, and they age their spirit for a minimum of eight years. So if, like this '105' expression, your Glenfarclas doesn't carry an age statement, it's at least eight years old. Naturally it's quite unusual for a distillery to make a statement like this, as it limits their options somewhat, but it's also great to see!

So, on to this particular expression, which is certainly my personal pick of the standard Glenfarclas range. But why the name '105'? It's named after the bottling strength, in British proof, which equates to 60% ABV in modern terms, which is said to be cask strength. So it's a similar style whisky to Aberlour's brilliant A'Bunadh, or Glendronach's excellent Cask Strength (NAS) series, and we're looking for big sherry influence, high strength and plenty of youthful character.

On the cask strength note though, this is not a single-cask bottling, it's a vatting of selected casks. So I'm wondering how the bottled whisky can consistently come out of said vatting at exactly 60%, without adding any water (which would then not be cask strength), every time? The new-make spirit may go into the casks at a consistent strength (63.5%), but evaporation (the angel's share) is not a precisely predictable thing. I'm not sure how this could be accomplished, unless they're carefully selecting and blending the casks used for this bottling while taking the ABV into account.

Making me even more curious on this point is the fact that there have been 20 yo and 40 yo limited release versions of the 105, which are still bottled at that same 60% strength, despite being aged for at two or four times as long as this expression. But the label says cask strength after all, and I'm not suggesting it isn't, I'm just wondering how they do it. It would seemingly be easier to release it in batches at different strengths, but then that would render the name slightly redundant, I suppose.

Glenfarclas do not add any colouring to their whiskies, and while I couldn't find any official mention of chill filtration, I don't believe it has been chill filtered. What I did find though is a note on the distillery's website, which states the non-age statement (NAS) Glenfarclas 105 is actually 8-10 years old, which is pleasingly honest, although it may have been better served printed on the packaging. Let's see how it goes...

Glenfarclas 105, NAS, 60%. Speyside, Scotland.

Aged 8-10 years, natural colour, believed non-chill filtered.

Colour: Copper

Nose: Semi-dry sherry - slightly musty red grapes and wood spices, and a fresh, bright, sweet malty spirit accompaniment. Well balanced in that regard, actually. A little spicy oak in the background, some dried fruit, and a little spirit-y bite as well. 

Texture: Medium. Some heat, but very nice regardless. 

Taste: Quite a bit of heat initially. Some of that sherry & malty spirit are still there, plus some dry fruit, but they're having to fight against the heat. It could use some water, but that's not normally how I review, so it wouldn't be fair. 

Finish: Medium. Still some prickly heat, which lasts quite a while. A little bitter oak & spice at the end, then the malty spirit comes back to say goodbye. 

Score: 2.5 out of 5. 

Notes: It's definitely young and spirit-y, but that doesn't make it bad. I really enjoyed the nose (it would've scored lower without it), but the palate and finish were disappointing. I did actually add some water to see if it helped, and it didn't make a huge difference, the heat was still bashing everything else into the ground. Adding water killed the nose a bit, too. 

It's important to note this is just my opinion of this particular sample, but for me, the 105 can't compete with the A'Bunadh batches I've tasted, or basically anything from Glendronach. It is quite well priced, though. Having said all that, I'd still love to get my hands on one of Glenfarclas' 'family cask' bottlings, for scientific purposes of course. The distillery is ticking all the boxes otherwise, so maybe I just haven't found the right expression yet. Which calls for more research...

Cheers!

Heartwood 1 of 3 Whisky Review!

Another cracking whisky from the (mad?) alchemist Mr. Duckett (pictured below). This one has had a rather complicated upbringing, but it's turned out brilliantly in the end!

I've covered more of the story behind Heartwood here, but I'd like to cover one point again here, at the risk of coming across as a fan-boy (guilty!). As Tim says himself, there are no commercial drivers behind Heartwood. There are no shareholders to please, and no corporate headquarters to keep happy. So when / if a whisky isn't ready to be bottled, or they aren't happy with it, it isn't bottled. And as of now in March, Heartwood has no whisky to sell until May.

Which means no income from whisky sales for (approx.) two months. They're not going to rush anything, or release anything that isn't 100% ready. They're not running down to the warehouse and finding a cask or casks that are 'close enough' and pushing them through for the sake of sales, like bigger companies would certainly do (and in fairness, would need to do). Which I think is a testament to Tim's commitment to absolute quality, and proves beyond doubt that he's not in it for the money. But don't panic, while Heartwood do not have any stock to sell directly for the time being, there are a couple of re-sellers who still have some stock available for sale.

The story behind this '1 of 3' release starts with the first cask Heartwood purchased, which was back in 1999. It came from Sullivan's Cove distillery, which would have only been operating for a few years itself at that early stage. Fast forward to eight years later, and the whisky "tasted like shit", to quote the man himself! So Heartwood decanted that 300-litre cask into three 100-litre Port casks, and '1 of 3' was born, along with it's siblings '2 of 3' and '3 of 3', which are still maturing.

But the story doesn't end there. The following year the cask containing what would become 1 of 3 had been ravaged by some very thirsty angels, and was half full. It was topped up with peated new-make spirit from Lark distillery, and was left alone for the next seven years. Then, in early 2015, it was topped up again with a small amount of 5-year old sherry-matured peated Lark whisky, before finally being bottled in July of that year. Phew!

So what we have here is a vatted / blended malt, consisting of 50% 16-year old Sullivan's Cove whisky (which would be among the oldest Australian whisky around), 40% 7-year old peated Lark whisky, and 10% 5-year old peated Lark whisky. As it happens, this sort of complete (and brilliant) transparency is how Compass Box Whisky got in some trouble recently, and I think I can imagine how Tim Duckett would react to something like that! In typical / wonderful Heartwood style 1 of 3 was bottled at a cask strength of 65.6%, without any added colouring or chill filtration. Let's get to it!

Heartwood '1 of 3', NAS (but see below), 65.6%. Tasmania, Australia.

Vatted malt, 100L port cask consisting of 50% 16 yo Sullivan's Cove, 40% 7 yo peated Lark, and 10% 5 yo peated sherry-matured Lark. Non-chill filtered, natural colour. 190 bottles.

Colour: Dark copper.

Nose: All the components are there, the port, the sherry, and the soft herbal peat, but they're all nicely balanced and getting along fine. Boozy sultanas, thick toffee sauce. Rich, ripe stone fruit, a good pinch of pepper and spice. Musty, sweet red grapes, and a hint of oak. The peat dissipates after a little time in the glass as well, leaves a faint hint of ashy smoke.

Texture: Boom! Masses of flavour and spice. Thick & voluptuous, but not overly heavy or oily.  

Taste: Warm, thick fruit syrup next to a dying camp fire. Some heat of course, but in a good way, not harsh or unpleasant. Smoked (bush-fire smoke) caramel sauce, chilli and a little hot ash. Very nice.  

Finish: Medium length. The chilli & ash are still there, then comes the fruit syrup, then some subtle smoke, and a little spirit-y 'zing' on the tongue. 

Score: 4 out of 5.

Notes: Very good, as per usual from Mr. Duckett. Quite different to the Heartwoods I've tasted previously, but then that's also as per usual! This one has the most obvious peat influence I've encountered so far, and I really enjoyed that. It's important to remember that Tasmanian peat is different to what we'd expect from Islay, it's closer to Highland Park-style peat I would say. It's lighter and more floral / herbal and subtle, but it's still noticeable. 

I can't see newbies digging this one as much as I did, but again that could be the case with most Heartwoods, they're big dinosaur-sized whiskies. Just relax and take your time, take small sips, and add water if you wish. You'll be rewarded with gigantic amounts of flavour. Case in point, I recently gave a friend a nip of Convict Resurrection (reviewed here) to try, and he proceeded to shoot it immediately like a cheap tequila. And he really didn't enjoy it too much. What a surprise! It certainly went down slower (and better) the second time around, after a little suggestion from myself.   

I can't wait for Heartwood's 100% peated releases either, I'm thinking they're going to change the entire Australian whisky world. And I know they're going to rock mine! Let's just hope there's enough to go around.

Cheers!     

Ardbeg Dark Cove (Committee Release) Whisky Review!

There will probably be a million reviews of this one on-line shortly, but I couldn't resist trying it!

Dark Cove is this year's release for Ardbeg Day, the annual celebration of Ardbeg whisky. And like there was last year with Perpetuum, there are two versions. One is not officially released until Ardbeg Day, which this year is on the 28th of May, and they've changed it to 'Ardbeg Night' to suit this year's theme. That version will be bottled at 46-47%, and will have the usual Ardbeg packaging. The other is the 'Committee Release' (for Ardbegs' mailing list/loyalty program) bottling, which is bottled at 55%, has a basic label, and much to my personal annoyance, has no box. These limited releases sell out very quickly, usually within hours of release, and are so popular that Ardbegs' website often crashes under the strain. Why am I using the word 'usually' so often? Because this year, with Dark Cove, things were a little different.

This year, out of the blue, Ardbegs' Australian distributor, Moet-Hennessy Australia, released the Dark Cove Committee Release for sale on their website. And there also seems to be a large amount of stock, because it's lasted a few days so far (long after the distillery's own shop ran out). But the best part is definitely the price: $150 AUD. Which is very, very good for a limited edition Ardbeg in Australia, particularly one bottled at 55%. In comparison, that's over $100 less than the 2015 Supernova (which I found disappointing, and it's still readily available), which was also bottled at 55%. So this was a seriously good deal, and let's hope we get more of them!

Ardbeg have been getting a lot of negative attention for their 'special releases' lately, mainly from the anti-NAS crowd, but also because they've been a little disappointing in recent years, and haven't fared well in comparison to the brilliant standard / core expressions (the 10 yo, Uigeadail and Corryvreckan). The Auriverdes release was the low point in my opinion, which received the lowest score I've ever given an Ardbeg. The following year's Perpetuum was a definite improvement, but I'm suspecting this new bottling will be the redeeming dram. Based on the reasonable pricing of the Committee Release, it's already looking good!

The name Dark Cove refers to the illegal distilling and smuggling which occurred in the past near the distillery. It's an NAS Ardbeg, mainly consisting of whisky matured in ex-bourbon casks, and partly consisting of whisky matured in 'dark sherry' casks, which could refer to either Oloroso or PX sherry. Although 'dark' would usually mean PX. So we don't know the type of sherry casks they used, or exactly how much of the whisky was matured / finished in those sherry casks (the packaging states "it's heart"), or for how long. This Committee Release version is bottled at a healthy 55%, and like all contemporary Ardbeg it's non-chill filtered.

There has been a lot of marketing emphasis from Ardbeg on the colour of this one; it's supposedly their 'darkest ever'. It is slightly darker than my beloved Uigeadail (approx 2011 bottling), which contains around 10% Oloroso sherry-matured whisky, but it would only be considered 'dark' by Ardbeg standards. But this is the 55% version of Dark Cove, so I have to wonder how dark the 46%-ish version is likely to be? More importantly, does anyone actually care that much about the colour? Even more importantly, if the colour is so important, how about declaring on the label that it's natural? I personally would rather know more about the whisky itself. Anyway, Dark Cove has been likened to 'Uigeadail on steroids' by some, which is very, very high praise. Let's see if it has any hope of filling those big, beautiful shoes...

Ardbeg Dark Cove, Committee Release, NAS, 55%. Islay, Scotland.
Mostly matured in ex-bourbon casks, and partly matured in 'dark' sherry casks. Non-chill filtered.

Colour: Copper.

Nose: Rich & well-balanced. Treacle, fresh tar & coffee grounds. New natural rope, and a big hit of chocolate. Chilli salt, smoked oily fish, and a slight hint of rich, fruity & nutty sherry. Hard to pick the style of sherry, but I'm not convinced it's PX. Or not only PX, at least. But I could be wrong.

Texture: Medium-heavy weight, very nice. Not particularly oily, a little spirit-y, but enjoyably so.

Taste: There's the peat! A spicy, dry peat, and a hint of wood fire & ash. More of that chilli salt, treacle and tar. Dark chocolate, some clove and fresh, hot (spicy) ginger.

Finish: Medium-long length, soft initially but resurges. Chilli chocolate, more dry & spicy peat, sea salt flakes. Some dark fruits and a good pinch of pepper.

Score: 4 out of 5.

Notes: Very good! This one's definitely a winner. Quite different from the Ardbeg core range, as these special releases should be. But, the question on everyone's lips is: how does it compare to Uigeadail? Well compared to my slightly older bottling of Uigeadail, the Dark Cove is not as sweet or as peaty, it's perhaps more dark & brooding, and for me it doesn't quite match the magic that is Uigeadail. But after all, there's very little that can!

I'll be very interested to see how this committee release compares to the 'standard' lower-strength version, when it's released on Ardbeg day. And I'll be interested to see the asking price for the little brother as well, considering what a bargain this 55% bottling was.

I feel the committee release Dark Cove smashes all the special release Ardbegs from the last few years, including the 2014 & definitely the 2015 Supernova bottlings. Considering it was also considerably cheaper than those, this is certainly a winner!

If you're in Australia and you haven't already done so, I strongly suggest heading over to Moet-Hennessy and grabbing at least one, while you can! I'd wager you won't regret it.

In other breaking Ardbeggian news, some very interesting photos have surfaced on-line, on the US governments' labelling database known as TTB. Check this out!

Yes, it looks like there's a 21 yo official bottling of Ardbeg coming! Which means it was distilled prior to the distillery's mothballing in 1995. Wowsers. But for now, we can only imagine how awesome this'll be!

Cheers!

Glendronach Peated Whisky Review!

I've been curious about this one for quite some time, but never curious enough to buy a bottle. Thanks to a sample swap with a fellow whisky nerd, I can satisfy that curiosity!

On face value, this one sounded excellent when it was first announced. Peated Glendronach? Where do I sign? But it's not quite that simple. Firstly, Glendronach are famous for their incredible sherry-matured whiskies, and this expression is way down on the sherry influence. It's matured in ex-bourbon casks, followed by a second maturation (finishing) in Oloroso and Pedro Ximenez sherry casks.

But we don't know how long it spent in any of those casks, or if they were first-, second- or third-fill etc., and there's no age statement overall. This is not to say it isn't good whisky, but it won't be quite what we normally expect from a Glendronach. And secondly, adding a little extra hesitation on my part, was the pricing, which, in Australia at least, is considerably higher than the excellent 15- (which is currently on a 2-year hiatus), 18-year old and even the brilliant NAS cask strength bottlings, all of which are fully matured in ex-sherry casks.

Prior to the distillery's mothballing in 1996, Glendronach would have used some peat in their floor-maltings, in combination with other fuel/heat sources, so in a way this expression is a return to that practice. But after the distillery re-opened in 2002, the malt used at Glendronach has been sourced elsewhere, and has been un-peated. Until now!

Thanks to the typically excellent presentation of Glendronachs' whiskies, it's non-chill filtered, and bottled at 46%, without any added colouring. I've long felt that I can easily do without an age statement, which is largely inevitable these days anyway, so long as those three 'conditions' are met (or exceeded). I can't find any information on where the peated malt used in this one came from, or exactly what level of peat influence was chosen. But sister distillery Benriach make some excellent heavily-peated whiskies, so while this one will certainly be lightly-peated in comparison, there's still some anticipation on my part. Let's give it a go!

Glendronach Peated, NAS, 46 %. Highlands, Scotland. 

Matured in ex-bourbon casks, before second maturation / finishing in Oloroso and PX sherry casks. Non-chill filtered, natural colour. 

Colour: Light gold.

Nose: Herbal, fresh and slightly grassy. Dry, herbal peat, quite soft though. Hint of ash, some stewed fruits. Spiced vanilla, and a little lemon zest. 

Texture: Very nice. Medium weight, no heat, nicely drinkable. Typical Glendronach. 

Taste: Nice dry, crumbly peat, and more of it than I expected. Some warming wood spices, and a little wood ash. Vanilla cream, and fresh malted barley.

Finish: Medium. Hint of soft smoke, some buttery oak and golden barley. Then some more of that dry, soft peat, and creamy vanilla.

Score: 3 out of 5.

Notes: Not bad at all. Not your typical Glendronach of course, I didn't get any clear sherry influence in this one. But that speaks to the quality of their spirit really, it can still hold it's own without the help of sherry casks. The peat helps as well though; this is certainly a young whisky, and the peat helps cover any harsh or strong spirit-y notes. 

So is it worth more than Glendronachs' 18 yo and NAS cask strength expressions? In my opinion (and I'm a peat-head), definitely not. But if it were priced slightly under the 15 yo (based on the original pricing), or not-too-far above the 12 yo, it would be a winner, I think. As it currently stands though, sister distillery Benriachs' 10 yo heavily-peated 'Curiositas' (review coming soon) has this peated Glendronach beaten for me, especially once pricing is factored in. 

Nonetheless, I quite enjoyed it, and I'm glad to have tried it. I'd like to see what Billy Walker & team do from here with peated Glendronach. Was this strictly a one-time thing? Or can we expect to see some older peated whisky in future single cask releases, or even some peated spirit integrated with a more-typical Glendronach sherry-cask whisky? Let's hope so.   

Cheers!

Ardmore Traditional Whisky Review!

For quite some time, this was the only widely-available original bottling of Ardmore single malt. Unfortunately it's now 'travel exclusive', but it's still worth tracking down. I've only tasted it once previously, so let's refresh my memory!

Ardmore may be a little-known Highland distillery (it's closed to visitors, and doesn't yet have it's own website!), but it's actually quite a big one, with a production capacity of over 5,000,000 litres. Which is about double the capacity of Laphroaig, or four times that of Ardbeg. So where does all that whisky go? Mostly into Teacher's Highland Cream, one of the highest-selling blended whiskies in the UK, and there are also quite a few independent bottlings around. But Ardmores' own range of single malts is on the increase, and the 'Traditional' was the first of them.

The name 'Traditional' actually refers to the whisky being finished in smaller 125-litre 'quarter' casks, which were more commonly used in the 19th century, particularly for transporting whisky. As I understand it, the smaller casks are sent over from Laphroaig (both distilleries are owned by Beam Suntory) once they have worked their magic on Laphroaig's excellent Quarter Cask expression. If this is the case, we could probably assume a bit of that magic from those casks finds it's way into this Ardmore. But being a Highlander, and being relatively lightly-peated compared to the Islay greats, we're not going to find a Laphroaig-impersonator here (that's not even possible, there can be only one!).

It certainly looks promising from the outside, being bottled at 46% and without chill filtration, regardless of the lack of age statement. As we know, smaller casks equal faster maturation, so an age statement would be irrelevant anyway. And unlike it's replacement (except in travel retail) the 'Legacy', it's 'fully peated', to quote the label.

Ardmore Traditional, NAS, 46%. Aberdeenshire, Scotland.

Matured in ex-bourbon casks, finished in quarter casks, possibly ex-Laphroaig. Non-chill filtered.

Colour: Gold.

Nose: Soft earthy peat, boiled leather, stewed tropical fruit. Dark toffee, and sweet buttery oak. Hint of white wine, and a little used frying oil (in a good way!). 

Texture: Medium weight, certainly young, but balanced by the peat. 

Taste: Earthy peat again, but quite sharp and dry now, not soft like it was on the nose. More rich leather, and a little hot ash. A little chilli pepper, hint of salt, and some bourbon-like vanilla & caramel sweetness. 

Finish: Short-medium length. Chilli flakes, dry white wine, sweet barley. Caramel and a little toasted oak at the end. 

Score: 3 out of 5. 

Notes: Decent, certainly good value for money, and easy drinking. It'd make for a good introductory peated whisky, with a little more edge to it than others which are aimed squarely at that market. A different take on a peated Highlander as well, those leathery notes in particular were rather unexpected, and very interesting.

The quarter casks have certainly done their job here, there's plenty of wood influence in what is definitely a young whisky, which of course is what they're designed to do. This one doesn't quite have the magic of Laphroaigs' Quarter Cask, but then, not many do! 

While I'm yet to taste Ardmore Legacy, which replaced the Traditional in most markets, it would have to be a big departure. Legacy is down in strength to 40%, which also means it's likely chill filtered, and it's a mix of peated and un-peated malt, it's NAS, and there's no quarter casks involved. There's also little-to-no difference in price between the old expression and it's lighter replacement. Maybe they're aiming for the introductory peated whisky buyer who doesn't want the extra edge? 

But on the upside, the traditional is now available in a few duty-free / travel retail outlets, for around $10-15 AUD less than it was in the usual stores. So it's well worth grabbing a bottle next time you're jet-setting.

Cheers!

Kilchoman Machir Bay Whisky Review!

It's been a while since I reviewed a whisky from this young Islay distillery, so it's about time I re-visited them in detail.

Kilchoman are an innovative distillery, producing some seriously good whisky at surprisingly young ages, often at high- or even cask strength. The Port cask bottling for example was bottled at 55% and only aged for the legal minimum of 3 years, and it was brilliant. I put this down to excellent quality new-make (slow fermentation and distillation, among other things) and excellent cask-selection, but there's probably more science and art to it than that. It certainly helps that they don't chill filter, don't add colouring, and don't bottle below 46%.   

Speaking of casks, Kilchoman are using first-fill bourbon casks from Buffalo Trace, and first-fill Oloroso casks from Miguel Martin in Jerez, Spain. They've also used smaller amounts of Port, Madeira and PX sherry casks, among others, for limited releases. Kilchoman is a 'paddock-to-bottle' distillery, as in they do everything on-site, including (floor) malting and bottling, and roughly 30% of their annual barley requirement is grown and malted on-site. The remainder is sourced from Port Ellen maltings. 

My previous Kilchoman reviews were an excellent small batch/single cask bottling, which I've tried and failed to find since, and one of the 100% Islay expressions (distilled only from the floor-malted barley), which I found a little lacking. So we're going back to basics for a look at their entry-level expression, Machir Bay, named after the bay near the distillery, on the west coast of Islay. It's an NAS (although said to be 5-6 years old on average) mix of ex-sherry and ex-bourbon casks, although I suspect it's mostly the latter, prior to a short finishing in ex-Oloroso casks.

Kilchoman Machir Bay, 2014 release, NAS, 46%. Islay, Scotland.

Vatting of 5-6 year old ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks, married and finished in ex-Oloroso casks. Non-chill filtered, natural colour. 

Colour: Very pale gold.

Nose: Sweet grilled pineapple, and sweet juicy barley, a little earthy. Dried herbs, candied lemon, and a little new-make spirit, but a good one. 

Texture: Medium-weight. Young, fresh & zesty. But not hot, very nice. 

Taste: Earthy, sweet peat up front, and quite a bit of it. A little ash, hint of spicy smoke, and more of that pineapple and lemon, but less sweet now. A little dry chilli now as well.

Finish: Medium-long length. Still peaty, and a little spicy. More of that fresh new-make, and a little more spirit-y now, but not in a bad way. 

Score: 4 out of 5.

Notes: Very impressive for it's age, especially considering there aren't any smaller quarter casks involved here. I'd love to try Kilchoman's new-make spirit, I suspect it'd be lovely. As would all of the Islay distilleries', no doubt. Machir Bay is quite well priced as well, at around $110-120 in most stores, which puts it in the vicinity of Laphroaig quarter cask, for which it's a worthy adversary. Although I'd have to give the Laphroaig the decision there, it wouldn't be by a massive margin. And that's high praise for Machir Bay, I think. 

Kilchoman are certainly still one to watch, with whisky this good at such young ages we can expect to see some brilliant releases in the coming years. Speaking of which, they recently bottled their first 10 year old, although only one bottle was made available, which was auctioned off for charity. I believe this was also the first Kilchoman to carry an age statement, so that bottle is really quite special, especially as the proceeds went to a good cause (cancer research). Who knows, perhaps one day we'll all be buying 10 year old Kilchoman off the shelf. I'd love to see a Kilchoman quarter cask expression as well, it would certainly be a winner.

But then, if the younger stuff is this good, why mess with it? Why leave in in the cask for another 4+ years, collecting dust and costing money? I guess that depends on how the spirit responds to that extra time in the cask, and the direction the distillery want to take. 

Many would turn their noses up at a 5-6 year old single malt, which of course is part of the reason there's no prominent age statement on the packaging, but like I've said before, we really shouldn't judge these books entirely by their covers. If you're yet to give Kilchoman a go, I'd highly recommend jumping on that bandwagon. I'll see you there. 

Cheers!

Nikka Yoichi 15 Whisky Review!

It's about time I reviewed a specific Japanese whisky! Unfortunately this one is already discontinued, and therefore very expensive. But is it worth it?

Nikka was founded by Masataka Taketsuru, who learnt the art and science of whisky distilling in Scotland, where he studied chemistry, and worked at a number of distilleries, including Hazelburn in Campbeltown. On return to Japan he helped start Suntory's Yamazaki distillery, where he became the first master distiller, until he branched out and established Nikka Whisky Distilling in 1934, when he built Hokkaido distillery, now known as Yoichi.  

Nikka own two Japanese malt whisky distilleries: Yoichi, near Sapporo on the northern island of Hokkaido, and Miyagikyo, near Sendai on the main island of Honshu. They happen to also own Ben Nevis distillery in Scotland, and Nikka as a company is now owned by Asahi breweries, the largest beer producer in Japan. 

Yoichi distillery wouldn't look out of place in Scotland, and in fact was carefully planned to emulate the Scottish style, with it's mountainous and coastal surroundings, cold climate and Scottish-style construction. The distillery itself also employs (direct) coal-fired stills, which even in Scotland are very rare, and actually imports Scottish peat to use in their production process. Something you'll find at Yoichi but won't see in Scotland is Mizunara (Japanese oak), but due to the high cost, high demand, and limited (and highly regulated) supply, Yoichi only partly-mature their whisky in Mizunara casks.

The majority of the distillery's production goes into Nikka's blended whiskies, such as Nikka 'from the barrel', and the Taketsuru range. The company has been in the whisky press recently, as word got around that their age statement range was going to be discontinued and replaced with new NAS whiskies. And like all Japanese whisky (largely thanks to Jim Murray), the pricing for Nikka age statement whiskies went crazy.

If you can find a bottle of this 15 yo in Australia, don't expect much change from $500. Which of course is quite insane for a 15 yo single malt bottled at 45%, but that's largely to be expected with a well-regarded Japanese whisky at the moment. Especially with a discontinued one. There's not a great deal of information out there on the specifics of this 15 yo, but we know it'll be lightly peated, part-matured in Mizunara, and likely has been chill filtered. As for the rest, we'll let the whisky do the talking!

Nikka Yoichi 15 yo, 45%. Yoichi, Hokkaido, Japan.

Part-matured in Mizunara (Japanese oak) casks, remainder unknown. Likely chill filtered. 

Colour: Copper

Nose: Quite well balanced, sweet overall. A little earthy peat, stone fruit in syrup, coastal breezes. Pine forest, wet stone, thick toffee and sweet oak. 

Texture: Medium weight, syrupy. Very nice. 

Taste: Sharp & earthy peat initially, and a surprising amount of it, but it fades quickly and sits in the background. A little spice as well, some hot cinnamon, clove, and maybe sandalwood? Charred, bitter oak. More of that stone fruit, something nut liqueur-ish, as well.  

Finish: Medium length, balanced and soft. Some sweet fruit, nuttiness, and a little more oak. 

Score: 3.5 out of 5.

Notes: Nice, and easy drinking, but I was expecting / hoping for more complexity and more punch in the finish. Reminds me a little of some of the recent NAS Taliskers, but with a different edge to it. Certainly more peat than I've experienced in most Japanese whiskies so far (Hakushu heavily-peated and Nikka 'peaty & salty' being the exceptions), but it's still light by Scotch standards. 

The Yoichi does seem closer to Scotch, for me, than most of the Japanese whiskies I've tried so far. Which isn't really surprising, that's basically how it was designed. Having said that, in Japanese whisky terms, I do prefer Hakushu 12 to this one, especially in terms of value. And on that note, there's no way Yoichi 15 yo is worth the insane asking prices that I've seen. For this sort of coin, there are some incredible Scotch (and other) whiskies available which represent far greater value for money. But at the original RRP, I can see why the Yoichi became so well-regarded. 

So should you be rushing out to buy a bottle, even at these prices? Well, it depends on what you want out of it. If you're going to drink and enjoy it, then I would say no. Save your pennies for a few bottles of more-reasonably priced whisky, and enjoy those instead. If you're buying it purely as an investment, or are just going to flip it in a few months, then you're really part of the reason why Japanese whisky has gone crazy, and is now out of reach for most whisky drinkers. But, perhaps unfortunately, you probably will make a profit on it. After all, the chances of this one becoming more widely available, and subsequently more-reasonably priced, are slim-to-none. So I'll leave that decision to you...

Cheers!