Paul John Indian Single Malt Whisky Reviewed & Explored!

A new (to me) Indian Single Malt to explore!

I had noticed Paul John's elegant packaging on the shelves a few times, but had never 'taken the plunge' and bought a bottle, or tasted their whisky. So when Paul John's export manager, Mr. Madhu Kanna, offered to send some samples for review, and to meet up for a chat, I jumped at the chance!

Paul John's Single Malt distillery is located in Goa, on the Western coast of India. Parent company John Distilling, one of India's largest spirits producers, has been around since 1992, and is based in Bangalore. Paul John single malt (named after the company founder) was first launched in Europe in 2012, and has enjoyed wide-spread success since (including multiple major awards). It's now sold in 15 countries world-wide, with more on the way, and is due to launch in the US shortly. There are currently five core expressions available, two un-peated, and three peated (yay!).

Goa has a very hot and humid coastal climate, which among other things means much faster whisky maturation. Around three times faster than in colder climates. Which is why, like most 'world whiskies', Paul Johns' expressions do not carry age statements. Which is absolutely fine, because if they did, the age statement would not reflect the level of maturation, and would therefore be irrelevant. So while Paul Johns' casks are aged for 5-7 years depending on the expression, for comparison's sake they are more equivalent to a much older (roughly 12-15 yo) Scotch in terms of maturity.

That faster maturation does have a downside though, the hot climate results in a considerably higher angel's share (evaporation), which is in the region of 8% per year, far higher than Scotland at around 1-2%. Which means that, on average, almost half of the cask's contents has been lost after just 7 years. Which is one of the reasons why it's unlikely that these whiskies will be matured for much longer than that, or it wouldn't be economical. 

Paul John are really ticking a lot of boxes with their single malts. They're using a pair of Indian-built copper pot stills (spirit still pictured above, with master distiller Michael John - no relation to the founder). All bottlings are naturally coloured and non-chill filtered, and are bottled at 46% and above. And they're only using first-fill or virgin oak casks, of the American oak variety, although there will be sherry cask-matured expressions in the future. They're also using Indian six-row barley in all of their expressions, despite it having a lower yield than the more common two-row variety. And on that note, there's one more point that I'd like to highlight before we get into the malts themselves.

Note that I've said "in all of their expressions" above, and crucially this includes their peated whiskies. There are no peat bogs in India, so then how does one make a peated Indian whisky? The usual thing to do, and this is what the competition does, would be to import peated malted barley from commercial maltings in other countries (e.g. Scotland), 'ready-made', so to speak. This long delay between malting and milling/mashing, and the conditions it's kept in during shipping, can have quite a negative impact on the barley before it even reaches the distillery. And in my opinion, you're then left with a less authentic product, because you're distilling from Scottish, rather than local, barley.

Paul John do it rather differently. They import the peat itself, from two different regions of Scotland, for use at the maltings in India. So they're still distilling from the Indian six-row barley, malted and peated in India, to a level of 30-35 ppm, using Scottish peat. So with Paul John's peated whiskies, you're getting as close to an authentic peated Indian single malt as is geographically possible. I think this is a brilliant idea, and I think more distilleries with no local peat source should be following Paul John's lead!

Now, time to taste some whisky! Rather than comprehensively review all five core expressions, I'm going to give my impressions and brief notes on four, and then focus on my personal favourite of the range for a more in-depth review. All were tasted neat, and spread out over multiple sessions. And as I've mentioned above, all expressions are naturally coloured and non-chill filtered.


Paul John 'Brilliance', 46%.
Un-peated, the entry level expression. Around $85 AUD, available here.
Tasting Notes: Sweet on the nose, with some warm spices and salted butter, and a definite hint of bourbon. On the palate, sweet barley and soft spice, with no (alcohol) heat whatsoever. On the finish, more bourbon and soft spices, plus a hint of oak.
Notes: Sweet & easy-drinking, but still has a great silky texture and pinch of spice. Certainly well-suited to a Speyside Scotch, or perhaps bourbon drinker. Not quite my desired style these days, but not unpleasant by any means.



Paul John 'Edited', 46%. 
Lightly peated, using around 20% peated malt, and 80% un-peated. Around $90, available here.
Tasting Notes: Grassy and herbal on the nose, with a subtle sea-side influence. Warm, soft & silky on the palate, with more spice, and a little sherbet-y fizz on the tongue. A subtle hint of dry peat and a little bitterness on the finish.
Notes: Less sweet than the brilliance, but also with a shorter finish. Very nice nose with those sea-side / coastal notes, and a great subtle pinch of peat on the palate.





Paul John 'Select Cask Classic', 55.2%.
Un-peated, reduced slightly from cask strength for the desired flavour and balance. Around $110, available here. Great value, especially considering the strength.
Tasting Notes: Big and robust, with honey sweetness and tropical fruit on the nose, and sweet barley still shines alongside. Honeyed bourbon and sweet pineapple on the palate, plus a little pepper adding depth. Again, no heat at all, even at 55.2%. A nice balance of sweet and spice on the finish, which is also the longest so far.
Notes: Very nice, and my wife's pick for the winner. Has a great (natural) colour as well, as does the rest of the range.



Paul John 'Bold', 46%.
Peated, using peat from only one of the source regions. A recent addition to the core range. Around $90, great value again. Available here.
Tasting Notes: Peat-forward initially on the nose, a sharp & vegetal peat. Thick toffee sweetness, with plenty of spice, and a hint of aniseed. A little coastal as well, with oily smoked fish, and a hint of dried raspberry. Spicy and peaty on the palate, the peat is the main player here; a dry & spicy peat, with a little black pepper and honey sweetness behind. More of that dry peat on the finish, then becoming quite oily and savoury in flavour.
Notes: Nice and peaty, a great nose, and an interesting finish.


Now on to my personal favourite!

Paul John 'Select Cask Peated', 55.5%. 
Peated, using peat from both source regions. Reduced slightly from cask strength for the desired flavour and balance. Around $110, available here. Excellent value for money again, especially considering the strength.

Colour: Polished copper.

Nose: Lovely. Multi-dimensional peat - dry, sharp and sweet. A wisp of light smoke, sweet bananas fried in brown sugar. Semi-sweet dark chocolate, a little prickly pepper spice, and sweet golden barley.

Texture: Also lovely. Silky and slightly oily, plenty of body, and no heat again.

Taste: Sweet initially, then that sharp, dry peat comes to the fore. More pepper spice, and a little thick, ashy smoke which coats the mouth. A little sugar / toffee sweetness behind.

Finish: Medium-length, with the peat and ashy smoke carried through to the end, and sweet, juicy barley.

Score: 4 out of 5.

Notes: A great whisky, which I'd have no trouble lining up against some of the great Scottish heavyweights, and with a few refreshing points of difference. Peated Scotch drinkers will find the peat influence familiar, as they should given the source of the peat, but it's the Indian barley, the intense maturation, and the authentic production methods that put this peated whisky above many others. I can confidently say that to my tastes, this expression is one of, if not the, best peated non-Scotch / 'world' whiskies that I have tasted so far.

Overall impressions: Very impressive indeed, and I'm particularly impressed by the two Select Cask whiskies. But all expressions are of great quality, well-balanced, well-matured and naturally-presented. The mouth-feel and lack of alcoholic heat in all expressions clearly shows that no corners have been cut, and nothing has been rushed. They're certainly looking for quality here, not quantity. Great stuff.

I suppose the big question everyone will want answered is how Paul John whisky compares to it's closest rival, Amrut. Well comparing like-for-like, since there is no sherry- or port-matured expression of Paul John whisky (yet), I'd say Paul John wins it. Especially in the case of the peated expressions, and even more so in the case of the Select Cask Peated, I'd say Paul John beats it's closest competition by quite a large margin.

Competition notwithstanding though, Paul John are doing some very good work, which they clearly take pride in. There does still seem to be some negative predisposition towards Indian single malts in some members of the whisky world, and the range of Paul John whiskies are an ideal remedy for that, and I predict they'll continue going from strength-to-strength from here on in. So the next time you're looking to try something a little different that also won't break the bank, I highly recommend taking a further look at Paul John Indian Single Malt. I'm very glad I did!

Cheers!

Laphroaig An Cuan Mor Whisky Review!

Another travel-exclusive Laphroaig! I love the PX expression, which offers brilliant value for money. So how does An Cuan Mor compare?

Well on face value, it can't compete, at least as far as value goes. It's a duty free-only 700ml bottle, selling for $115 AUD, while the PX is a 1L bottle, selling for around $100 AUD. Both are bottled at 48% and are non-chill filtered, and neither carries an age statement. But all is not as it seems, and there's a reason for that higher cost...

There were a few rumours on the interweb that the mysterious An Cuan Mor is actually 18 year old Laphroaig, finished in European Oak casks, with no mention of the previous contents of said casks. But I wasn't so sure. So I asked the venerable and ever-helpful Dan Woolley, Beam Suntory's national brand ambassador for Australia, who checked with the venerable and ever-helpful John Campbell (yes, the John Campbell), who shared a little golden nugget of information:

Laphroaig An Cuan Mor has been matured in first-fill ex-bourbon casks (from Maker's Mark) for around eight years, followed by a second maturation of a further two years in... wait for it... virgin European oak casks! So there's no mention of the previous contents on the label, because there were no previous contents! I wasn't actually planning on reviewing this one for a couple of weeks yet, but after learning this, I couldn't resist bringing it forward in the line-up.

The use of virgin (a.k.a new / fresh) casks of any sort is still rather unusual in the Scotch world, especially for such a relatively long length of time, as the new oak can overpower many spirits if it's given the chance, giving too much wood influence (known as being over-oaked). The use of virgin European oak casks is even more unusual, largely because of the expense involved, with no previous owners helping to offset some of the cost. But Laphroaig is not just any spirit, and these guys definitely know what they're doing. Getting thirsty now...

Laphroaig Select also contains some virgin oak-matured whisky, and the travel-exclusive QA is finished in virgin oak casks, but both use the American Oak variety (hence the name, Quercus Alba), and both of those are down in strength to 40%. An Cuan Mor (Gaelic for 'Big Ocean', as a tribute to the distillery's proximity to the Atlantic) is up in strength to a much-better 48%, and is non-chill filtered. One could interpret the name to suggest more of a coastal influence in this expression than others, but that may not be the case here. So let's find out...

Laphroaig An Cuan Mor, NAS, 48%. Islay, Scotland.
Matured for around 8 years in first-fill ex-bourbon casks, then around 2 years in virgin European oak casks. Non-chill filtered.

Colour: Copper.

Nose: Just gorgeous. Peaty, salty & sweet. Quite mineral-y and a little flinty as well. Sweet, fresh cigar boxes. Burnt sweet apricot jam. Furniture polish, and toasted oak. Becomes more fruity with more time, hint of strawberry lip balm?

Texture: Medium-weight, no heat at all, juicy. Smashing!

Taste: Dry, mineral-y peat, some trademark Laphroaig ash & salt as well. Candied fruits and warm, sweet & spicy oak behind.

Finish: Long, but becoming quite soft. More damp, earthy peat now, and more coastal. Sea salt flakes and seaweed, and more of that warm, buttery oak. Mouth-watering.

Score: 4 out of 5.

Notes: Delicious, and very drinkable. It could certainly pass for an older whisky than it actually is, as the extra oak has tamed it a little, as you would expect. I can see why they went the NAS route with this one, and it's a shame that that may turn some people away. It shouldn't, because An Cuan Mor is well worth giving a go, if you ask me. A very interesting and quite unique expression of my beloved Laphroaig.

But the obvious question is: how does it compare to the PX expression? It's not that easy though, they're basically totally different and thus difficult to compare. It's hard to overlook the excellent value of the PX of course, plus I'd say it's more 'Laphroaig-y', but I'd also say An Cuan Mor is worth the extra because it is a little different to what you'd expect, without straying too far. These guys can do no wrong, in my book!

Speaking of which, there's a new Laphroaig coming! Named 'Lore', it's another NAS expression, but it's bottled at 48% and is non-chill filtered. Supposedly the 'richest of the rich' and 'the richest ever' (big claims there!), it's made up of whisky matured in both European and American oak, including smaller quarter casks, ex-sherry casks and ex-bourbon barrels, of a variety of ages. It won't be cheap though, it's going for 75 GBP from the distillery, so we'll have to wait & see what it sells for in Australia. As usual, I can't wait to try it!

Cheers!

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!