Malty's oddball evenings - Whisky for One

[Deactivated Member]

Sample 3:
Colour This is the most colourful of the three, but it is still pale compared to most whiskies!

Nose: I seem to want to describe this nose as heavy. Defintiely not sweet and with lots of dough. My goodness, I am back in my Grandma's house when she is making bread. The dough hasn't yet been put into the oven, but it has risen and is about to have the tea-towel removed before placing it into the oven.
What a memory. I haven't thought of this scene for some 35-40 years, but this dram just brought it back to me.

Palate: This one leaves the front of the tongue alone in favour of the middle to back. Yes, it has some dough, it also has something herbal which I can't quite identify, alongside a little Juniper.

The juniper reminds me of Penderyn, but this one isn't quite so distinct as my previous Penderyn experience. Although I wouldn't be too surprised if this were a slightly older, sherry-cask Penderyn.

With water: This is much more lively with water. Much more spicy, but less distinct in flavour. The finish is now much longer and includes the front of the tongue.

I definitely prefer this one without the water. But that's just my palate and preference.

[Deactivated Member]

Summary

My favourite is the second, but then I find it hard to choose between the first and third.

The only thing I can think of for the third is possibly a sherry cask Penderyn, whereas the first two could be any one of a few different things.

As for ages, I get the impression that the second is the oldest and the first the youngest.
Whereas I feel the third is a sherry cask, I have the impression that the first two are bourbon casks.

But then what do I know, I am probably way off the mark here.

When I am finally told what these are, I will report back and let you all have a giggle at how wrong I probably am.
MT

[Deactivated Member]

I will now try one of my own samples.

Ardbeg 1991, Murray McDavid, 46%
Colour: Very pale, almost like water.

Nose: Not what I expected. Lots of quayside and Scottish docks, but where is the peat wallop?

Palate: This is almost like a cross between Laphroaig and Ardbeg. The peat is definitely held back by the sea and beach. This is very maritime and a most unusual, but very pleasant experience. This doesn't pack that typical Ardbeg peaty punch. It is more subdued.
When drinking this I am standing in a Scottish harbour with fishing boats all around, bringing home their catches. If someone hadn't already claimed the name, I would almost call this fishky!

Overall impression: The flavour is unusual for an Ardbeg, but very distinctive. But the finish is quite short.
If you want to try a rather different Ardbeg, then this is certainly one to go for.

[Deactivated Member]

C57, If only I had started many years ago my years of experience would probably be nearing a book by now.
As it is, I doubt I'll ever taste enough to fill more than 20 pages. But it would be a nice thought.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I suspect it will be zero out of three correct.

[Deactivated Member]

That Ardbeg really was strange, it tasted so fishy and hardly peaty, although Sabine said it tasted as if someone had put out a cigar in it.

I finished the evening with a revisit to sample 2, my favourite of the three blind samples. This really was good and I look forward to finding out what it was when they return from Limburg.

[Deactivated Member]

Having just returned home from The Arc I fancy something quite normal and not so complex for my night-time dram.
Cue Macallan 12y Elegancia

A reasonable, sherry cask Macallan at a good price, 30GBP in duty free from a friend who travelled recently.

Nose: Dark fruits - raisins, a hint of plum, sherry, oak and even very slightly nutty.

Palate: No surprises, just as you would expect with those dark fruits and a mixture of sherry and oak. If anything, the 'feel' of this in the mouth is a little thin, but the flavour is all there.
Not a very long finish, but slightly tingly on the middle of the tongue for a couple of seconds.

[Deactivated Member]

If anyone will be around later this evening, I intend to try another couple of rather nice drams.

See you later,
MT

[Deactivated Member]

I have been in photography mode this evening, so just very quickly before I head off to bed:

Clynelish, 1971, 32y, 54.2% Cask 2704

Nose: Very floral with hints of liquoroce and malt

Palate: Deliciously smooth with an immediate nuttily fruity tingle. This is extremely intense and you can tell it's CS at over 50%!
The rich flavours of nut and fruit (apricot / peach) last almost forever on the front middle of the tongue.

With water: The nose had gained a little vanilla.
The flavours are the same, but fiercely more intense.

I love this whisky!!!

[Deactivated Member]

I was lining up a Royal Brackla to taste after the Clynelish, but it is so powerful, in a wonderfully florally, liquoricey kind of way, that there is no way I can possibly try something as delicate as the RB now!

I will, however, compare this Clynelish to the Duncan Taylor NC2 and G&M versions which I tried a couple of months ago and last year, respectively.

I like the G&M one, but it was still quite young and rather under-powered at 40%.
The NC2 is one which I find a little disappointing. It has too little flavour, especially considering the "NC" marketing ideas of No Cill-filtration and No Colouring. This hints at nothing taken away, leaving full-flavours (or at least this is what I read into the NC ideas).
This 1971, 32y Clynelish is expensive in comparison, it is much older and to be quite honest, it is FAR better!

Did I mention that I really like this one?

[Deactivated Member]

I have just poured myself the remainder of the sample and added 5 drops of water.
Some of the syrupy overbearing power has now gone, leaving an excellent dram which just goes on ... and on ..... and on .......

[Deactivated Member]

Two evenings ago I tried a delightful Rosebank, well at least the nose was delightful and I think the whisky was too.

I had sucked a mint on my journey home and it stuck around longer than I thought it would, so when I tried the whisky a good hour later, the flavours were somewhat masked.

The dram was:

Rosebank, Signatory, Vintage 1989 (20.4.89-10.97)
Nose: Wonderful perfume, just how a good Rosebank should be.

Palate: Defintiely light and strong minty flavours Sorry, I really shouldn't have eaten that mint, but it was an hour before!
I did get some delightful Scottish floral notes and I will re-visit this one later, mintless!

[Deactivated Member]

Yesterday evening I sampled:

Highland Park, Adelphi, 12y (or was it 14y) 60.9%
Nose: Scottish moors, heather and a little faint smoke.

Palate: At 60.9% this is extremely strong and the alcohol slightly overwhelms. There are some lovely smoky notes over heather, but I quickly added water ...

With water: Delightfully smooth, a wonderful HP with heather, smoke and just a hint of treacle toffee.

Overall impression: I love this HP, especially with the water added.

[Deactivated Member]

Sometime in the next few days I will, hopefully, discover the true identities of my three blind samples and then we'll see just how far adrift my guesses were.

Yes, even though I know I will be very wrong, I'll report back here.
MT

[Deactivated Member]

So, this evening I have returned home from the pub and am sitting with a friend and sampling a couple of drams.
The first is this Royal Brackla which I bought on the strength of just nosing it once a few weeks ago.

Royal Brackla an IB from "The Companion", 25y 46%

Nose: Lots of light herbs, slightly dry and faint hints of liquorice. On further nosing I am getting just a trace of straw, as stored in a barn.

Palate: This one is initially slow. Most of the flavours burst through the aftertaste and are not so evident in the initial taste. At first it seemed quite insignificant, but only for a couple of seconds before the explosion hit.
Those herby & floral notes are splendid and are mostly concentrated on the back, not the front of the tongue. The aftertaste sits purely on the back of the tongue and is one of delicate liquorice.

Further tastes help concentrate the same flavours with that intial floral herbiness followed swiftly by a full, but not too fierce assault of liquorice on the back of the tongue, also making the extreme sides of the mouth water.

Overall impression: This is a good whisky, very good, but quite unusual in the experience it gives. The flavours are very delicate in a powerful kind of way. Initial floral and herb notes turn quickly into a more prominent liquorice which lingers for some time.

I really like this one, not just for the flavours, but for the very different overall experience it gives.

[Deactivated Member]

No mints today, juts good food which hasn't destroyed my palate,. so I'm back with the Rosebank and I'm using my Adelphi glass:

Rosebank, Signatory Vintage 1989; 20.4.89 - 10.97 Casks 894 & 896
Nose: Perfume and only very slightly medicinal herbs. Really quite fresh.

Palate: I didn't write the strength on my little sample label, but I don't remember this being a CS, although it initially tastes rather strong. It has that spicy burn of a CS, it's pretty smooth and not very long. The flavours include an enduring maltiness over something slightly floral but still quite fresh. There is almost some juniper in there too.

No, on the third tasting this no longer comes across as being overly strong, probably around 43% or 46%.

That freshness does linger on the tongue and it is indeed almost slightly minty. The flavours are now definitely reminding me of a small herb garden, but to be honest, I can't exactly place which individual herbs.

Overall impression: A good fresh dram, ideal for a warm evening in the garden with friends.

[Deactivated Member]

In one final test I can confirm that this Rosebank is one whisky which does not work with milk chocolate.

[Deactivated Member]

A special treat for me tonight:

Port Ellen, 2nd Release, Bottle No. 1141, 59.35%
Glass: Adelphi

Nose: Linseed, Scottish sea air, grass and straw

Palate: Very smooth and surprisingly sweet, but lots of burn from all that alcohol. The aftertaste is very herbal.

Let's try with a little water now.....

With water: (4 drops in 2cl) The sea air and straw are enhanced on the nose.
Deliciously smooth on the tongue and tingling the front and rear of the tongue simultaneously, whilst leaving the middle alone!
Lovely herbal flavours whilst slightly oily and wonderfully smooth with the sweetness remaining, albeit not quite so prominent now.

3 Further drops of water: A little smokiness is starting to develop amongst that straw. For a fleeting second I had a slight taste of one of those liquorice allsorts which comprises liquorice wrapped in a coconut tyre.

Overall Impression: This is an excellent dram and one which shall return to in a few days time. Probably experimenting with a little more water as this time around, it improved both times when I added a few drops.
Lovely!!!

[Deactivated Member]

If I were to put on my collector head I would say buy yourself a cheaper PE, drink and enjoy it, then save your AR2 for 10 years and cash in on what will be a great investment.

[Deactivated Member]

If I were to put on my collector head I would say buy yourself a cheaper PE, drink and enjoy it, then save your AR2 for 10 years and cash in on what will be a great investment.

And indeed I do have some cheaper PEs open - a well as a PEAR7

I intend to keep the 2 - because I have the full set and want to keep it together, adding any mre as they come.
Is the complete line-up going to be worth more than individual bottles? Who knows - I just like having the full range

Although they are not being released together as a set, I do believe that anyone holding all the releases will profit more than by selling individual bottles.

In years to come.

[Deactivated Member]

A little treat tonight is:

Arran Cream Sherry, 54.3%, Bottle No. 714 of 800
Nose: Very difficult. Perhaps a creamy cognac with a little sherry and overtones of malt all wrapped in a Christmas pudding.

Palate: Oh yes, the cream is there. As is the sherry. One of my first instincts was to say that I made the comment about Christmas pudding on the nose, but without any trace of custard.
Funnily enough, this is so creamy I am very tempted to say that the custard is on the palate. Strange, I always associate vanilla notes with bourbon casks. But this is creamily sweet and almost gives the feeling of custard in texture and flavour. Somewhere in there is a nice whisky too

Every Arran I have tasted has been very different. This is no exception.

With water: The custard and extreme cream has gone, leaving the cognac and whisky, with sherry elements.

The finish is long and very reminiscent of cognac.

Overall impression: Another success from Arran, but for me, preferably without the water, even though it's just over 54%.

I think I'll have another.

[Deactivated Member]

I would just like to add that on the second time round, without water, there's a lovely almond / gentle marzipan flavour in the aftertaste.

I really do like this one.
Just one Arran I tried some time ago was quite dry and not overly pleasant, this is a good sherry finish dram.

[Deactivated Member]

Now remaining in my little box of samples are:

A tad more PE 2nd Edition
Balvenie 15y Single Barrel, 1.89 - 4.05, Cask 820, 47.8%
Caol Ila, IB, 1998-2006, 8y, 59.4%
Connemara Single Cask

But after sampling that lovely Arran, I am looking for something more like the Aberlour A'Bunadh, batch 20 would be marvellous.

[Deactivated Member]

Damn, I picked out the wrong sample!

I meant to get the remaining PE 2nd, but poured the Balvenie.
Not a wise thing to do after such a strong whisky like the Arran, but never mind, it's done now and I'll have to drink it.



Balvenie 15y Single Barrel, 1.89-4.05
Nose: A wonderfully perfumed meadow of wild flowers with a hint of slightly minty fennel.

Palate: Not the best whisky to try after a strong sherry casked dram. It comes across as very light and very delicate. There are floral and slight perfume notes, but I suspect I am not detecting the wonderful flavours that I should be from this dram.

What a shame as I do generally like Balvenie, especially the SBs.
Oh well, I'll return to it at a later date.

[Deactivated Member]

Tonight I pay tribute to the Emerald Isle as I sit here dreaming of leprechauns, four-leafed clover, fantastic beaches and some of the friendliest folk that I know.

Yes, I put two glorious Connemara bottlings into a head to head.
In one corner we have a quite rare Connemara Single Cask bottling, whilst in the other we have the powerful Cask Strength Connemara.

How will they do, which will conquer Malty's tastebuds, will power reign supreme over exclusivity?

All these and a few more questions will be answered right here, right now ...........

[Deactivated Member]

Connemara, Single Cask (OB), Cask K92/34 4184, 1992-2007, Bottle No. 52, 50.5%
Nose: Gentle peat, true Irish smoothness, summer berries, a tiny hint of almond and some malt.

I expected more peat in the nose, but this is much more sweet, fruity and complex than I imagined possible from a Connemara. But the smoothness of the nose still gives away its true origins.

Palate: Rich, smooth and really quite surprising. The peat is there, but so is that hard to define fruit. This one grows in stature over the first 35 seconds on the palate, then fades gradually with a lovely long finish of gentle peat and that fruit again.
A second sip produces the same wonderful result with the finish appearing even longer.

With 4 drops of water in about 1cl: The nose is less sweet and a little more sharp.
The taste is less intense, perhaps 2 drops would have sufficed here, but the finish is still long and not too much is lost.

Overall Impression: This is much more than I expected. More complex, more flavours, smoother and extremely round.
This is most definitely Irish peated whisky at its very best.
I really do like this dram.
That finish is gloriously complex and long, even repeating again and again.

[Deactivated Member]

Connemara Cask Strength (OB), 57.9%
Colour: This one is extremely pale with hardly any colour, whereas the SC was a lovely pale gold.

Nose: Some peat and quite an acidic freshness. This really grabs the inside of the nose and lets it know there is some alcohol in the glass. But it isn't unpleasant, just really quite fresh.

Palate: Also quite sweet, but not quite so rich, although it is also very smooth. This one doesn't have the depth of flavours or complexity of the SC, but it is far from being one-dimensional.
The first sensation on the tongue is a hint of peat, but this soon expands to include a fresh, almost citrus experience which soon fades into a more floral one.
The finish is also quite long, but not as rich or complex as the SC.

With just a drop of water the citrus element disappears, leaving a very pleasant, but quite unidentifiable flavour which is still very pleasantly long.

[Deactivated Member]

This head to head shows just how wrong pre-conceptions can be. I expected very different results from both drams, although I really didn't have any idea as to which I would prefer.

Both whiskeys are good, in fact very good. If I had only tried the Cask Strength I would probably have enthused poetically over the unexpected lightness of flavour and long finish. But there is no holding back of a great whiskey. The Single Cask is truly magnificent. Much richer and more complex than I thought possible from an Irish peated whiskey. It grows on the palate into a great and complex explosion of flavours and then sticks around for much longer than you would dare to hope for.

I really like both drams, but I adore the SC.

[Deactivated Member]

I am now re-visiting both samples, but in reverse order.
They were both so good, I want some more.

This time I immediately added 6 drops of water to 2cl of the CS. It is a little more spicy than before, but otherwise nothing changed in the flavours or finish.

I am now going to savour this one before I move back to the SC.

Enjoy!
(I know I will).

[Deactivated Member]

Tonight I am trying:

Ledaig, (OB) 10y, 43%
Nose: I so much want to be really unkind here and say something like a cross between ***k* *o*** and **i** ***i**e*, but I won't and I doubt whether anyone would ever guess what the asterisks mean. So, I will be kind and say the nose is very pungent with some slight burn. Is there some mint in there? Maybe a little. There's definitely some sea air to be found and maybe even a little touch of bilge pump in the bottom of a trawler.

Palate: The taste is much gentler than the nose suggested. Maybe this is a result of using my super Adelphi glass which gives power to the aromas when other glasses just allow them to fade away in comparison.
I would describe this as a maritime as opposed to peaty whisky. It has that touch of sea air, a little salt and it retains a light freshness which is not unpleasant.

Overall impression: A fresh, maritime, smooth whisky which is much better on the palate than the nose. In fact, if you can drink it without inhaling, you will be much better off.

[Willie JJ]

Didn't you get any throat burn with it Keith? I had some recently and found it a bit rough. I agree about the nose. It is awful.

[Deactivated Member]

Strangely enough Willie, there was no throat burn and I was surprised at how gentle and smooth it was after that nose.

Having said this, it isn't a whisky I shall rush to come back to.
I do recall trying a Ledaig in the past and I remember it being considerably better than this one.
Recently, one of my regulars in the pub was extolling the virtues of a Cadenhead Ledaig which he sampled at Christmas back in England.

[Ganga]

MT, I've had similar experiences with other whiskies. Some have had very pleasant noses and a palate to make you wretch. Hang in there, Ledaig does have some very interesting beverages out there. When I get home tonight I'll look up one that I had recently.

Have you had any experiences where there seems to be a disconnect between the nose and palate, kind of like you smelled one and tasted another?

[Willie JJ]

Recently, one of my regulars in the pub was extolling the virtues of a Cadenhead Ledaig which he sampled at Christmas back in England.

There was a good bottling by Cadenhead last year. If I remember correctly it was an 11 year old. I had a bottle and enjoyed it very much. It was nothing like the current OB though.

[Deactivated Member]

Thanks Willie, that sounds like the one which was described to me.

Ganga, I have experienced a couple of whiskies where the nose and palate were slightly different, but this is the first where one was almost unbearable and the other acceptable.

[Deactivated Member]

As a quick wind-down before heading off to bed, I'm trying:

Glen Garioch, 10y, OB, 40%

I do like all of my GG experiences so far, therefore I am looking forward to this 10y.

Nose: Amazingly, the initial nosing produced a slightly burned toast effect, but after a few minutes in my super Adelphi glass this disappeared to leave a more 'normal' one of sultanas and raisins, a little fresh oak and maybe even a hint of faint raspberry.

Palate: Creamy smooth with a slightly dry aftertaste, or should this be after-sensation?
There are definitely some dark fruits in there, but also cream, toffee, perhaps a touch of banana and yes, something very faint in the background which could be weak raspberry.

Overall Impression: I do like the 8y and 15y GG and can never decide which one I prefer as it depends upon my mood and feeling at the time. This 10y now complicated things further as it is just as good, but slightly different to the other two.
This element of a hint of raspberry is quite new to me in a GG and I have to say, I like it!
I am also enjoying this so much that I won't be trying it with water today.