It seems these days that for every Ardbeg fan there are two very vocal Ardbeg haters. For such a brilliant distillery, they certainly get more than their fair share of criticism, mainly from the "old guard" of whisky drinkers that think we're still in the last decade, or even the last century. The industry has changed, as it has many times in the past, and it has reached new record highs because of it. The main tired old argument is that non-age statement (NAS) whiskies aren't as good as age statement whiskies, which of course is complete crap. Yes, some of the component whiskies are probably younger than the older expressions that they often replace, and yes, it's nice to know how old a whisky is, but does that omission alone make them inferior? Absolutely not. Ardbeg seem to take the brunt of this attack, which is surprising when you consider that they were certainly not the first Islay distillery to produce an NAS whisky, and they've stuck to their guns with the ever-reliable 10-year old flagship expression. We should also remember that while NAS whiskies may seem new to some, they're far & away not a new thing. In fact in the long-term scheme of things it's really the age statement whiskies that are the new thing.
Ardbeg are probably an easy target because prior to the release of the "Twenty Something" series and the very tasty 21-year old a few years ago, there was only one age statement whisky in their line-up (the 10-year old), including the rest of their core range, the delicious Uigeadail and Corryvreckan and the more recent An Oa, and the annual Ardbeg Day and other committee releases. Far more importantly to myself, Ardbeg do not chill filter or artificially colour anything in their range, and they generally bottle at 46% and above, and prefer releasing "married" fully-matured whiskies rather than the more common short-term cask finishing - which would likely be one of the reasons for their lack of age statements. So when all of those other boxes are ticked with each & every release, I can easily forgive the lack of a number on the front label!
All of that has changed with the arrival of this new release. Named Traigh Bhan (pronounced Tri-Van) after the beach on the western coast of Islay, this new 19-year old expression is going to be an annual small batch release, and is matured in ex-bourbon and ex-Oloroso sherry casks. What I do find curious is why they chose to go with a 19-year age statement rather than the more common 18. Did the whisky need that extra year of maturation? Or was that simply the age of the youngest component casks in the recipe and therefore what had to be the age statement by default? The batch code declares that the youngest component casks were distilled in 2000, less than three years after the distillery was re-opened under the current owners - and for that reason we can safely assume that there aren't a huge amount of much older casks in the mix. What is also interesting is that they're calling this whisky a core range release, which normally refers to an expression being constantly available, when this is actually an annual small-batch release, and they've already declared that each batch is going to vary in its cask recipe and also its strength. But let's forget all that, the proof is in the pudding!
An Ardbeg of this age level - if you can find one that is - can be truly excellent, and I'm hoping this release takes me back to the brilliant Airigh Nam Beist that was bottled annually in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (all from 1990 distillation) before being discontinued. But Airigh Nam Beist was fully matured in first-fill bourbon casks and was bottled at 46%, whereas Traigh Bhan was matured in both bourbon and Oloroso sherry casks, both fully-matured and then married rather than being finished, and is bottled at the rather strange strength of 46.2%. As with almost all Ardbeg releases there is no mention of how many bottles were released, so we can safely assume that it was a reasonably large figure. By the way the sample for this review came from a generous fellow whisky nerd, so there's absolutely no bias here - well, other than being a self-confessed Ardbeg fan! Something that Ardbeg and Moet-Hennessy Australia need to be commended for is the lack of delays in getting their special releases to the other side of the planet in time for the official release date. That doesn't happen very often in Australia, in fact I can't think of a single other brand that accomplishes it. We're usually left to wait for 3-12 months before we receive a new release, by which time the initial worldwide buzz has often dissipated, and it also opens the door for parallel importers. So that's great to see, and it's very much appreciated Ardbeg!
The distillery has a very useful page setup on their website which explains this whisky in a little more detail, including how to interpret the batch code, which in this case is the rather lengthy TB/01-15.03.00/19.MH. Which decodes to Traigh Bhan, Batch 01, youngest component distilled 15/03/2000, 19-years old, Mickey Heads (Ardbeg Distillery Manager). This was a relatively expensive release in Australia, coming in at $299-320 AUD, although Moet-Hennessy Australia should again be commended for keeping in step with the international pricing. For reference that figure is around double the AUD asking price of the venerable 18-year old core range bottlings from the likes of Talisker & Glendronach, but those aren't limited, small batch or yearly releases, and an older age-stated Ardbeg was never going to be a cheap bottle of whisky. Is it worth it? Well, it's an Ardbeg, so most likely yes! But there's only one way to find out...
Youngest component distilled 15/03/2000, matured in ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks. Non-chill filtered, natural colour.
Colour: Medium gold, a shade darker than the Ten.
Nose: A softer & rounder Ardbeg, as expected of course. Sweet charred / BBQ'd pineapple, black pepper, sweet lemon drops and a bit of black jellybean (aniseed). A soft drying salinity, and a hint of dried strawberry, plus a touch of muddy peat and the tar & old (natural) rope that Ardbeg does so well.
Texture: Medium weight, soft & sweet initially but then turns spicy & drying. Only a slight touch of heat.
Taste: More BBQ pineapple and black pepper, plus some smoked paprika, sweet lemon drops again, and some drying dark chilli chocolate. More old rope and a little coastal minerality, like damp volcanic rock or flint.
Finish: Short-medium length. More dark chilli chocolate and black pepper, a bit of soft leather, and a touch of past-ripe banana. Dried strawberries again, and more black jellybean under some spicy & buttery old oak.
Score: 3.5 out of 5. Almost a 4, but not quite.
Notes: Another tasty Ardbeg. It's definitely a softer & rounder style, particularly on the peat side of things, but it's also quite a spicy & peppery one - as in flavour, not alcohol heat, with plenty of chilli chocolate and black pepper. The Ardbeg sweetness & citrus is there on the nose & palate, and that charred pineapple note is very nice, but it does get a little subdued on the finish which is where the spice takes over. I'd have to say that it's not on the level of the legendary Airigh Nam Beist, but it's still a very enjoyable dram. It's definitely a softer Ardbeg, and I can only imagine how great it would be at cask strength, but I can completely understand why they would bottle this one at 46% instead. If you're a fan of Ardbeg Ten you'll find this one familiar in overall style, and I'm betting you'll enjoy it - as I did. And an Ardbeg of this age is undeniably quite a special thing.
So is / was it worth the asking price? For an Ardbeg fan, yes, I think it is / was. As with all of their limited releases it'll inevitably be compared with the Ten, Uigeadail and Corryvreckan, which still offer great value, but as with all of their limited releases such comparisons are basically pointless. They're very different whiskies, and are a different style of Ardbeg that is still very worthy of their cult following.
Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Share your thoughts & opinion on my opinion!