15 yr old Springbank

by **abmckie** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:43 pm

To whom it may concern,

I was browsing through a new edition of Michael Jackson's whisky companion someone gave me for xmas this evening, and noticed that there is no entry for a 15 year-old Springbank. I have a bottle, which I bought some years ago from a supermarket in London. The seal has never been broken, (un-intentionally) and the bottle has only attracted attention recently as a good friend of mine seems addicted to Longrow and no doubt wants to try this Springbank. I noticed however it does seem to have some sediment in the bottom of the bottle. Is this normal and is it still OK to drink. OR Would it be more prudent to hide it as a collectable?

I hope you may be able to answer my feeble questions

Regards,

Art

by **andr3wpd** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 11:28 pm

Springbank is (in)famous for not keeping a standard range of expressions available. This is due to the distillery being mothballed for most of the '80's.
The 15-year-old will actually make a return this year as limited stocks from 1987 come of age. This new release will be very dark and sherried, but according to Euan Mitchell (their sales director), it will gain more balance over the next few years.

What you have is equal in drinkability as collectibility. If the packaging is black & white it is perhaps more of a collectors item than the more recent "cream" label version. I am drinking thru a bottle of the "B&W" 15-year-old and it is obviously sherried, but not overly so, very balanced and stylish (what ever those terms means).

As for the sediment. I have that in every one of my "older" Springbanks (i.e. bottled before 1997 and left on a shelf). I have not seen a scientific explanation... perhaps it's the salt (guffaw), but a more serious explanation might be the fats, oils and other residues left in the whisky since Springbank does not chill filter. It is harmless.

cheers for now
Andrew