Sherry Cask Caol Ila Three-Way Whisky Review!

Three cask strength, sherry cask, independent bottlings of Caol Ila. And while two are from refill casks they could easily pass for first-fill based on smell & taste. This'll be fun!

It's actually difficult to find anything that resembles a "bad" Caol Ila. As with every distillery and every brand there are some examples that are better than others, some very much so. But the starting point with this Islay giant is very solid, and it doesn't often dip below that bar unless something has gone wrong at some point - which is a rare occurrence. That's largely because of the distillery's primary function, which is to provide peated - and occasionally also unpeated - malt whisky for owner Diageo's blended whiskies - e.g. Johnnie Walker. That means taking a methodical & conservative approach in production in search of consistency, which will then make the blender's job easier down the line. But consistency in malt whisky is not an easy target to reach, particularly once one of the largest variables in the equation rolls into the picture: the cask. Natural variation is a huge part of what makes whisky fun, and it's a stubborn, almost alchemistic part of the process which is really rather fascinating. Try as a large corporate-owned distillery might, no two casks are ever identical, even those filled on the same day from the same spirit run, and even those matured in the same warehouse. In most cases, the larger companies and distilleries will compensate for these variations in their core range and their parent company's products by way of blending, which is an art form in itself. It's in the limited and/or single cask bottlings that the variances are allowed to shine, and even in the continuing whisky boom that sort of thing is often left to the independent bottlers. 

The three independent bottlings of Caol Ila that we're looking at here are single cask bottlings from different bottlers, all filled into Oloroso sherry butts (500-litre casks), albeit one first-fill and two refill, and all are fully matured in those casks rather than being cask finished or double matured. I should add though that the two refill casks likely hadn't been used for very long in their first filling, since both have certainly been very active on their second tour of duty. All three casks were distilled in broadly similar vintages and bottled at broadly similar ages, and at broadly similar natural cask strengths. All three bottlings have age statements and are proudly declared to be non-chill filtered and naturally coloured. Despite their similarities on paper the variances between these three Caol Ilas are huge, and they were just crying out for comparison! The three different independent bottlers in question are rather different also; Glasgow-based North Star being the trendy, more progressive youth, London-based Elixir Distillers (a.k.a Specialty Drinks) being the thriving middle child, and Pitlochry-based Signatory Vintage being the older, more conservative sort that tends to be a little more conventional in packaging & presentation, but not necessarily when it comes to the whisky itself. The Elixir Distillers bottling that we have here is a little different since it was bottled for New Zealand-based importer & retailer Whisky Galore in 2019, specifically for their bi-annual DramFest whisky show. Technically it was a secret / mystery bottling, but if you peeled off the little white sticker on the label that said "censored", you'd find Caol Ila named right there on the label - hence the quirky name, but perhaps also because it's very much a dirty little secret - I've tasted it previously, and let's just say that the sulphur-sensitive will find it a challenge! Let's kick this three-way off with the most recent bottling, the North Star. 

North Star Caol Ila 11-year old Single Cask, 58.2%. Islay, Scotland.

Distilled September 2009, fully matured in a first-fill Oloroso sherry butt, bottled October 2020. From cask series (release batch) 011. Non-chill filtered, natural colour. 410 bottles. 

Colour: Gold. By far the palest of the three, despite being the only first-fill cask. But that doesn't matter. 

Nose: Nice. Loads of caramel fudge, touch of cold ashy peat smoke and oily smoked salmon with dill - let's make that salmon gravlax, then. Some banana toffee (banoffee) pie, freshly charred wood, smoked bacon rind (uncooked), touch of dried seaweed and salted butter. Sounds like a strange combination, I know, but it works! 

Texture: Medium weight. Starts soft & sweet and builds quickly. Sweet & quite youthful. Touch of numbing heat. 

Taste: Sweet entry with banoffee with caramel on top, some pear juice behind, then big ashy peat smoke, fatty bacon (burnt, this time) and oily cured fish again - no dill this time. Grassy and malty. 

Finish: Medium length. Touch of milk chocolate, slightly floral & malty, grassy sweetness. Caramelised pear and lemon zest. 

Score: 3.5 out of 5. 

Notes: Well this is a surprise! Quite young & fresh, but still reasonably rich. Loads of caramel, but I'd never have picked it as a first-fill sherry cask, particularly of the Oloroso variety. Having already tasted the other two whiskies featured in this three-way, this is the least overtly "sherried", and also the most youthful. What little sherry influence there is has been very well integrated with the spirit and doesn't really stand out at all. That's not a complaint mind you, just an observation. This sort of integrated sherry influence thing is why refill sherry casks tend to work well - but this is a first fill cask! So it's not quite what I expected from the "spec sheet", but there's nothing wrong with a youthful Caol Ila when done right.    

Signatory Vintage Caol Ila 9-year old Single Cask, 59.7%. Islay, Scotland.

Distilled September 2010, fully matured in a refill Oloroso sherry butt, bottled March 2020. Signatory Cask Strength Collection, cask #316658. Non-chill filtered, natural colour. 625 bottles. 

Colour: Bronze. 

Nose: Bacon bits, rich toffee fudge, dried fruit - currants, dates, bitter orange. Salty cheese & bacon balls (cheetos / corn snacks), lemon zest, more bacon bits, muddy/damp peat and some ginger powder. 

Texture: Medium weight. Rich & powerful, sweet & salty. Touch of heat but well integrated. 

Taste: Salty, with dried seaweed & bacon bits. Dark, sweet salted caramel, pork rind and a touch of soy sauce. Maybe a little miso paste as well. Dried fruit - currants & orange, ashy peat around the edges. 

Finish: Long length. Peaty & salty. Soy sauce, cheese & bacon balls (cheetos / corn snacks) again. Touch of grassy smoke and dried seaweed, and salted caramel fudge to finish. 

Score: 4 out of 5. 

Notes: Far richer, more sherried, and more mature in feel as well. Plenty of character and a great mix of salty, umami & richly sweet flavours, and a good amount of sherry influence backing it up. Yes it's a refill cask, but as I said at the beginning it could pass for a first-fill quite easily. The previous occupant certainly wasn't allowed to stay for very long! This Signatory was quite expensive unfortunately, circa $280 AUD, but if you can get past that it's a great Caol Ila that belies its age. 

DramFest's Dirty Little Secret (Elixir Distillers), Caol Ila 11-year old, 56.9%. Islay, Scotland.

Distilled 2008, fully matured in a refill Oloroso sherry butt, bottled 2019 for Christchurch NZ-based Whisky Galore's DramFest whisky show 2020. Cask #2. Non-chill filtered, natural colour. 204 bottles. 

Colour: Dark copper. 

Nose: Definitely dirty - and by that I mean sulphured. Rubber, vegetable chips, i.e. fried & salted root vegetables - parsnip & pumpkin, I'd say. Some salt & vinegar corn chips in there too. Touch of red bean paste, liquorice and dark soy sauce. Rancio notes - cured meats & roasted nuts. 

Texture: Medium weight, but thins out quickly thanks to the sulphur.. No heat at all. 

Taste: Rich & dirty on impact, more rancio sherry notes and thankfully less sulphur - but that's because it's had plenty of breathing time, both prior to pouring and in the glass. Cured pork, beef stock, salted nuts and a little orange. Rubber, aged balsamic vinegar. Sweeter sherry notes saving the day then with raisins, caramelised peanuts, and a touch of marzipan around the edges. 

Finish: Medium length, but again it fades quickly thanks to that dirty, sulphured sherry influence. Rancio cured meats & balsamic, burnt peanut oil, dried fruit, sweet orange and date syrup (caramel). 

Score: 3 out of 5. 

Notes: Definitely not one for the sulphur sensitive or sulphur averse. I'm not usually overly sensitive to it myself, but despite substantial breathing time this is right on my limit. Well actually it's over my limit on the nose & finish, but thankfully the palate saves the day - just. This whisky has improved substantially with a lot of breathing time, i.e. a few months after opening. Was this intentional sulphur, ala Longrow 14-year old Sherry? Well I loved that whisky, but this Caol Ila is really pushing the limits of my friendship, so I'd say no, the sulphur here was probably more of the accidental variety. That's not to say that it's a "faulty" or "bad" whisky though, it's just going to be very, very divisive. 

Overall Notes: Well, like I said, three totally different styles of sherry cask Caol Ila, and all are basically unrecognisable compared to the distillery's official bottlings. The Signatory is by far the winner for my tastes, but I can see the appeal of the other two as well, despite them each being at opposite ends of the spectrum. From clean, light, young & more integrated flavours in the North Star to the dirty, funky, acidic "Dirty Little Secret". The Signatory sails right up the middle between the two, taking the best from both worlds, and coming across as the most mature of the three despite actually being the youngest and also boasting the highest ABV. Unfortunately it was substantially more expensive than the other two, nearly double the price in fact, but I'd have to concede that the value is there. 

Cheers!

SMWS 26.170 (Clynelish) Whisky Review!

A.k.a. "Creamy Coconut Lime Mojito", in the typical 'society' fashion! An 8-year old first-fill bourbon cask Clynelish that convinced me to finally join the SMWS after avoiding it for years! But how, and why?

Well, because it was essentially free! The Australian branch of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society, a.k.a. the SMWS or "the society", recently ran a controversial promotion which saw membership discounted from the usual $120 AUD annual fee to $99, but more importantly new members also received a free single cask bottling of cask strength single malt - specifically it was advertised as receiving a bottle of the 8-year old Clynelish that I'm reviewing here. And when I say it was a controversial promotion, I mean the promotion itself was unfortunately a complete mess. Initially advertised as spanning three days, it ended up being called to a halt after approximately three hours due to a huge amount of demand. To make matters worse - depending on your perspective perhaps - the free bottle offer was also extended to "referrals", meaning that if an existing member referred a new member to the society, both the existing member and the new member would each receive a free bottle of whisky. Not exactly a sustainable business practice, and unfortunately there was no mention of "limited to one per person" or even a simple "while stocks last" anywhere to be seen, meaning that some more enterprising members were referring handfuls of their friends to join, and receiving multiple free bottles in return. Which turned the whole thing into a complete disaster and I'm fairly certain it would've cost the Australian branch of the SMWS a massive amount of money. Or rather, it would've lost them a massive amount of money, at least in the short term. Since the demand was so much higher than they had predicted, even over the much shorter period than originally intended they did not have enough of the particular promised whisky and in many cases had to substitute this Clynelish with various other bottles. But enough said, I'm sure the people responsible would sooner forget this ever happened. Although it certainly did achieve their initial goal of getting an influx of new members into the SMWS, including yours truly!

I've reviewed a few SMWS bottlings in the past and have tasted many more, and I've also attended a couple of their events, both physical and virtual. But this is the first SMWS bottling that I've ever purchased myself (well OK, sort of purchased!), then opened, and then placed on my shelves. And being a first-fill bourbon cask Clynelish, even at such a young age, it was a reasonably safe bet. In fact I'm yet to try a Clynelish that wasn't at least enjoyable, regardless of who bottled it or at what age. Like a few of the larger Diageo distilleries like Caol Ila and... err... OK maybe just these two, "bad" bottlings of Clynelish are really quite rare, and they're both really quite reliable despite their size and their primary role of producing whisky for Diageo's blended whiskies. This Highland distillery is located near the village of Brora (yes, namesake of the legendary Brora) on the east coast of the Scottish mainland, around 1.5-hours drive north of Inverness. The current guise of Clynelish opened in 1968, but the distillery that was originally named Clynelish opened in 1819, located on the other side of the road to the current Clynelish, which was re-named as Brora in 1969 until it closed in 1983. That would've been the end of the Brora story if Diageo hadn't rebuilt and reopened it in 2021, and it'll be exciting to see what happens with it in the future. I never thought I'd be able to pop down to the shops and pick up a 12-year old Brora single malt without the help of a time machine, but now there's a very real chance that it will happen!

As Clynelish fans will know, one of the most endearing things about this distillery's single malt is the waxy character of it's fruity spirit, which is particularly present when matured in refill or ex-bourbon casks, an attribute that has been traced back to an oily residue that builds up in their feints receiver. This discovery was largely accidental though, when they cleaned out said receiver a little more thoroughly than usual and then realised that the trademark waxiness in their spirit was gone. These days the receiver is emptied prior to cleaning during the the annual 'silent season' maintenance period, and the residue is then tipped back in to the feints tank prior to production kicking off again. If you're yet to try a Clynelish I recommend starting with the 14-year old official bottling from Diageo (reviewed here), which is decently priced, seems to be rather consistent in terms of quality & character, and is the only example of Diageo's "Classic Malts" flagship bottlings that is served up at 46% ABV rather than their preferred strength of 43%.  

But we're looking at a cask strength independent bottling here, and a single cask bottling no less. This 8-year old Clynelish, SMWS code 26.170 - 26 being their distillery code for Clynelish and this being the 170th cask of Clynelish that they've bottled - is named "Creamy Coconut Lime Mojito". Frankly, unlike many of the society's silly names and excessively fluffed & frilled tasting notes, this is actually rather accurate! It was distilled in October 2012 and bottled in 2021 at a natural cask strength of 61.1% ABV, and like all SMWS single malts it is non-chill filtered and naturally coloured. Tasting time!

SMWS 26.170, Clynelish 8-year old. 61.1%. Highlands, Scotland.

Distilled 23/10/2012, matured in single first-fill ex-bourbon cask and bottled 2021. Non-chill filtered, natural colour, 245 bottles. 

Colour: Medium gold. 

Nose: Perfumed & floral, with sweetened double cream, loads of sharp natural/real lime cordial (e.g. Bickfords), fresh beeswax (i.e. honeycomb), pinches of drying sandalwood & nutmeg wood spices. Vanilla cheesecake slice with lattice biscuits - sweet pastry-like glazed biscuits for those playing overseas. 

Texture: Medium-heavy weight. Creamy, rich & dense. Sweet, sharp citrus & drying wood spices. Touch of heat, but this is an 8-year old whisky at 61.1% after all. 

Taste: Vanilla double cream again, loads of lime cordial again but a little sweeter & slightly less intense here. Beeswax again, more sweet pastry biscuits (lattice biscuits), and continental cheesecake. Sandalwood & nutmeg spice again, plus a couple of cloves. 

Finish: Medium length. Astringent spirit-y heat initially, but passes into that intense sharp lime cordial with those drying wood spices underneath. More sweetened double cream, fresh beeswax and sweet glazed pastry biscuits. Floral & citrusy as it winds up.

Score: 3.5 out of 5.  

Notes: I would've gone with "Spiced Lime Cheesecake Slice", but I can see where they were coming from! Hopefully cheesecake slice is a thing outside of Australia so you know what I'm talking about... A nice young Clynelish here with some rather intense lime citrus notes and a nice creaminess to it, and a great mouthfeel until the slightly astringent spirit-y heat kicks in. That's partly to be expected with an 8-year old whisky at 61% ABV of course, and it's not particularly harsh or unpleasant, just a little "spiky", if that makes sense. That lime cordial note really is quite intense at times too, but I'm not talking about the modern/artificial kind that is aimed at kids and loaded with sugar, more the real/natural type with plenty of real fruit juice in it - Bickford's is the Australian brand that comes straight to mind if that helps. That lime citrus intensity is not something that I can recall finding in a Clynelish before, they tend to be more lemon-centric in my experience, and if I hand a magic wand I might have added a little more wax to this one - like many Clynelish fans, we're always in search of more wax! But that's the beauty of single cask whiskies after all, no two are ever exactly alike and they're a little unpredictable - which just adds to the fun!

As a free/bonus bottle included with SMWS membership I really have no complaints here, its a very enjoyable young Clynelish that punches above its weight. If you managed to get a bottle of this cask, then you've done well!

Cheers!

Ardbeg Fermutation Whisky Review!

An age statement Ardbeg Committee Release that was fermented for over three weeks prior to distillation, rather than the distillery's average of 72 hours. This should be interesting! But a word of warning first; this is going to be a long one, and we're going to get nerdy!

Where the magic happens: wooden washback at Ardbeg. 

The fermentation stage of whisky production doesn't get the praise or attention that it deserves. Without it, there'd be no alcohol to capture & concentrate by distillation, so there'd be no whisky, but this is also where a large part of the flavour is created. We've all heard that to make whisky you first make beer, but malt whisky wash isn't boiled like beer, and there aren't any hops involved - if you're following the SWA regulations, at least. But there's so much more to it, including a huge amount of science, a decent serving of tradition, and a small amount of magic. And it's almost entirely thanks to microorganisms. Yeast of course, but also bacteria, among others. That doesn't sound so romantic, but it's a key part of the flavour development that really starts a step earlier in the process, with the mashing. Here the freshly-milled malted barley is mixed with hot water where the natural enzymes present in the grain are activated and then go to work starting to convert some of the grain's starch content into fermentable sugars. Side note here - the Scotch whisky regulations do not allow the addition of commercial enzymes. But many other spirits industries do, although they don't shout about it because it's adding an artificial ingredient to the process. Why do those other industries do it? It boils down (pun intended) to efficiency, consistency and yield. These enzymes are why many grain whisky / whiskey - including bourbon - distilleries include some malted barley and/or other malted grains in their mash bills, gaining flavour at the same time. If a commercial distillery does not have any malted grains in their mash bill, e.g. a 100% corn or 100% wheat mash bill, then they're probably adding commercial (artificial / synthetic) enzymes.

Getting back on track, once those fermentable sugars are ready to go after the mashing stage, the distillery's preferred yeast is added to the sweet liquid now known as wort, and the yeast consumes those sugars creating alcohol (among other things), subsequently giving us the "distiller's beer" that is known as wash. A few of the smaller malt whisky distilleries such as Kilchoman and Dornoch are playing around with different yeast strains these days in search of different flavours, rather than sticking to the common & safer 'M' strain distiller's yeasts for the sake of consistency & yield. Even Diageo have dabbled with different yeast strains on a trial basis, and Ardbeg's sister distillery Glenmorangie have cultivated a wild yeast strain that was found growing on their local barley, using it to create 2019's private edition release, named Allta, meaning "wild". There are also a few distilleries using ale / brewer's yeast in combination with distiller's yeast, while at least one is using wine yeast - Loch Lomond - and it's all in search of finding different flavours. But Ardbeg haven't played with their yeast strains for this "Fermutation" release, and this whisky was something of an accident. When the distillery's boiler broke down back in 2007, the production team was left with thousands of litres of wash sitting in their wooden washbacks for far longer than usual - over three weeks in fact. 'Regular' Ardbeg is fermented for an average of 72 hours, which in Scotch whisky terms is considered a medium-length fermentation. 75 hours and longer is considered to be a long fermentation, with very few whisky distilleries in Scotland ferment for longer than 120 hours - although many of the "new world" producers are. So three weeks is a very long time in this industry, and is more often seen in high ester rums or other spirits rather than whisky. Is this going to make Fermutation "better" than the normal Ardbeg? No. But it's certainly going to make it different to the normal Ardbeg! 

Not a galaxy far, far away: the warm, busy, foamy darkness inside said washback!

The standard average fermentation times at Islay's nine distilleries vary from a minimum of 48 hours at Bowmore to over 85 hours at Kilchoman, although it's not an exact science and many will often go over their minimum times when necessary, generally up to 120 hours. Back in the days when 5-day weeks were more common at distilleries, almost all of them would leave each weeks' final washback charge to ferment for an extra two days while they were closed for the weekend! In general, the longer your fermentation time, the less fermentable sugasr - primarily maltose in our case - remain in the wash as the yeast runs out of food and begins to break down as the temperature and alcohol levels rise, and the oxygen level lowers, resulting in an increase in acidity as the yeast fights a losing battle against both the alcohol that it unintentionally created, and more importantly against a 'foreign invader': bacteria. 

While the yeast has done its thing during the earlier stages of the fermentation, around the 60-hour stage it has started to lose ground - which is around where most Scotch whisky distilleries stop fermentation - and by the 70-hour mark lactic acid bacteria becomes the dominant player. And that's particularly important for one group of flavour compounds, a.k.a congeners: esters, which are the main source of sweet, fruity & floral flavours in your spirit. While production of esters & other congeners starts during fermentation and continues through distillation and through maturation, it really starts to ramp up where longer fermentation times are used as the bacteria levels in the wash are on the rise and as the yeast breaks down through autolysis. In this case after that three week ferment most if not all of the yeast would be dead, with little to no fermentable sugars remaining, although in some cases wild yeast will have a chance to get in alongside bacteria and fungi. In fact Ardbeg even opened the washback lids during this involuntary extra fermentation time to really get the funky party pumping. Wooden washbacks are thought to help with the creation of esters in the wash since despite regular cleaning they're impossible to sanitise entirely, and there'll always be some microbes remaining in the pores of the wood.

So all things being equal, leaving your wash for 3 weeks rather than your usual average of 72 hours is going to give a much fruitier and probably funkier spirit, mostly thanks to the higher amounts of esters that have been created. Remember though that said bacteria & other microorganisms will largely be killed off during distillation by the heat and by the high alcohol level, and remaining microorganisms including dead yeast will be left behind in the bottom of the stills after distillation, both in the "pot ale" that remains in the wash still, and then in the "spent lees" that remains in the spirit still. The esters & other congeners in the spirit will then change during maturation, and new ones will be added, through interaction with the cask. If I haven't lost you yet - and to be fair I did warn you that we were going to get nerdy - and if you'd like some further reading, I highly recommend delving into the technical goldmine that is Whisky Science. 

Getting back to Ardbeg, the interesting point here is that despite the high peating level (55 ppm as standard) Ardbeg has always been quite a sweet and fruity whisky, and a relatively light one. Which is down to any & all of a myriad of reasons - from the purifier on the spirit still which gives more reflux, to the size, shape & fill level of both stills with their upwards-angled lyne arms which again gives more reflux and a lighter spirit. Another interesting point is that Ardbeg's wash still, with its capacity of 18,000-litres but an actual fill level of around 11,000 litres, can only hold roughly half of the contents of one washback at a time, with each of the six wooden vessels holding up to 23,500-litres of wash. This unbalanced capacity means that the second half of each washback stays there while waiting for its turn in the wash still. Another important factor is the cut points that are used during the distillation runs, which are the times, temperatures & alcohol percentages that mark when the distiller switches from the foreshots (a.k.a. heads) to the spirit cut (a.k.a. hearts) and then the feints (a.k.a. tails). Generally, later cuts where spirit is captured deeper into the feints will give a dirtier, funkier, oilier spirit, while narrower cuts will give a lighter, brighter spirit. We can't forget maturation either, which plays a huge role in flavour development as new congeners are introduced to the spirit from the wood, or as the existing congeners evolve and their levels increase/decrease through that interaction with the wood and the local environment. This is influenced by a huge number of factors such as the size and previous contents of the cask, the number of times it has been used, the storage location and conditions, and of course how long the whisky is allowed to mature for before it's bottled. The number of variables here is basically infinite.

Now let's be honest, most people who buy Ardbeg Fermutation won't really care about any of the above. They'll see that it's a collectable limited release Ardbeg, and that is has a cool green label and a cool name and a new marketing angle, so they'll buy a bottle. And many will then re-sell it, but let's try to ignore that part for now. This release does appeal to the real whisky geeks because of that anomalous fermentation time, but also because it has been matured purely in ex-bourbon casks (both first-fill and refill), it has an age statement of 13-years, and it was bottled at a slightly higher strength of 49.4% ABV - gone are the days when these committee releases were bottled in the mid-to-low 50s, it seems, and the chances of one ever being released at cask strength are basically zero! Now we can't talk about an Ardbeg limited release without talking about pricing. And let's not beat around the bush - this one was definitely on the expensive side: $320 here in Australia, and around £150 GBP in Britain. But it still sold out very quickly, and unfortunately is already being flipped for profit on the usual auction sites. That amount is enough to buy 2.5-bottles of the excellent 8-year old "For Discussion" or two bottles of the core range Uigeadail, so this 13-year old is up against some great expectations. Personally, I went in for a bottle split with four mates, giving us plenty of Fermutation to taste without each of us having to shell out for a full bottle. So let's see what those marvellous little microorganisms have been up to, shall we? 

Ardbeg Fermutation, 13-year old, 49.4%. Islay, Scotland.

Fermented for three weeks rather than the average 72 hours for 'regular' Ardbeg, matured in ex-bourbon barrels (probably first-fill & refill). Non-chill filtered, colouring not declared but likely natural. 8,000 bottles. 

Colour: Pale gold. 

Nose: Fresh, floral & zesty. Watery salted caramel, star anise, seaweed & tar. Floral with herbs, dried lime and freshly cut grass. Touch of buttery vanilla & black pepper. With more time, lemon zest and a touch of dry maltiness. 

Texture: Light-medium weight. Floral, zesty, grassy, thin. No heat. 

Taste: More cut grass, thin with runny salted caramel and a light, dry, earthy peat. Dried lemon & orange peel, touch of milk chocolate and star anise. 

Finish: Short-medium length. Yeasty bread dough, new lather, dried herbs & cut grass. Vanilla and a touch of zesty acidity - tart/sharp rather than sour. Slighty soapy & bitter towards the end. 

Score: 3 out of 5. But only just. 

Notes: So, thankfully Fermutation has mutated nicely after plenty of exposure to air. On first & second contact it was thin, sharp, and bitter, even vegetal - and it definitely would've scored lower then. It's still quite thin now though, and Fermutation can't compete with even Ardbeg 10 in terms of richness and character, but a few weeks of air has helped the distillery's coastal character claw back some territory. Mind you it's still light on the peat, and there's no smoke. But the tar, seaweed and black pepper are showing through just a little, where they were non-existent before. The nose is the highlight here, or rather it's the most enjoyable aspect, while the palate and finish are quite the let-down. Is that down to the extra fermentation time? Well I could be wrong, but no, I wouldn't have thought so. I'm thinking most of those ex-bourbon casks were refill rather than first-fill, and that it's been diluted too much. Surely a cask strength / 55%-ish presentation would've helped preserve more of the intensity, richness & character that we look for in an Ardbeg. But maybe it was too similar to the norm at that higher strength, so they watered it down a little more to show more of the differences between it and the core range. As usual, the greatest threat to any Ardbeg limited release is the Ardbeg core range!

Still, this was an interesting accidental/forced experiment and I'm glad to have tried it, but I'm also glad I didn't buy a full bottle on my lonesome. It was certainly too expensive to start with, and I'd advise not paying the secondary prices for this Ardbeg if you're ever planning on opening the bottle. And surprise, surprise, the secondary prices are already silly! Let's hope the new 'Ardcore' fares better than this one. 

Cheers!