Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

SPRINGBANK

All your whisky related questions answered here.

SPRINGBANK

Postby Ian_Hamilton » Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:03 pm

I labelled this topic "Springbank" as I have been looking over all the topics in the forum. There seems to be a lot of interesting and varying comments on The Springer.
I have just seen a programme on TV (In Denmark), Jim Murray made a short appearance, saying Springbank is a very slow maturing whisky, and that it doesn't even think about coming out of bed till its 18 yrs old, at 15 he says, its thinking.
He also says its at its best from 18 yrs til 35 yrs.
Interested in hearing from other Springbank fans, I went there last summer and fell in love with the place (and the whisky too)!
Ian_Hamilton
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Dumbarton

Postby Gate » Mon Jan 20, 2003 12:53 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian_Hamilton:
Jim Murray made a short appearance, saying Springbank is a very slow maturing whisky, and that it doesn't even think about coming out of bed till its 18 yrs old, at 15 he says, its thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's reassuring: I have a barrel (from the private customer offer Springbank did up until about 2 years ago) which I bought for my son's christening with a view to getting it bottled up for his 18th or 21st (depending on how it's matured and how painful the excise payments are). Does anyone know whether they'll be doing the same again any time soon?
Gate
Silver Member
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
Location: UK

Postby peatreek1 » Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:23 pm

Springbank 10 is a fine complex whisky, which can not accurately be described as being immature, so I really don't agree with Jim Murray's comments.

Personally, I generally do not find whiskies older than about 16 years as being worth their considerable added cost when one evaluates them based on their intrinsic value as spirits to be drunk. Even if one goes by Michael Jackson's ratings, whose concept I don't support, older whisky is usually rated just incrementally higher than the standard 10-12 year bottlings.

Malt whisky is an affordable luxury item, which has fallen in recent years very much into the hands of poseurs and collectors. Springbank produces excellant whisky (which I enjoy very much), but the older versions are grossly over-rated and over-priced, with the "local barley" being a good example.
peatreek1
New member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Fort Myers, Florida

Postby John Clotworthy » Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:56 pm

Interesting! I was fortunate enough to be at a tasting of the Springbank millenium collection at Hallmarks, and found from the 35yo onwards they started to lose their body. It was as if the angels had more than their fare share. As a springbank lover I was disapointed. But got to keep trying.
Slainthe John.
John Clotworthy
New member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Aultbea, Wester Ross Scotland

Postby Ian_Hamilton » Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:14 pm

Hi John
Thanks for your comments.
I had seen some reports on Springbank Millenium tastings and it seemed that the best of the lot was the 35 are you saying it wasn't up to much as I had found a bottle and was just about to spend 270 pounds on it!
I have tasted a 50 year old and can not believe any one would pay 1000 pounds to drink it (it was lets say very different, not unpleasant just different).
I am thinking if it was really good, I should get it as its going to be 6 or 7 years before we get any more 21 so its a long wait for amore 35 year old!
Cheers
Ian
Ian_Hamilton
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Dumbarton

Postby JUERG GLUTZ-KURMANN » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:25 pm

I rather prefer the older Springbanks (21 years onwards). I am a bit disappointed about the 10yo. Also the actual 15yo is lightyears away from the last 15yo bottling.
JUERG GLUTZ-KURMANN
New member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Switzerland

Postby heer.veer » Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:45 am

Ok,

The 21 is great and becomes rare for the time being. The 15 is not great. But I really like the new tenner, it different from the old 10, but it's really great. I enjoy it a lot.
heer.veer
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Heiloo, The Netherlands

Postby John Clotworthy » Sun Mar 02, 2003 8:26 pm

Hi Ian,
Honestly I personally would not pay 270 for it to drink, I bought it as part of the collection. I thought it lost something rather than gaining more from the wood it seemed as if it deteriated with age. That is my personal opinion but as we all have different taste buds someone else might think it wonderful.
Slainthe John
John Clotworthy
New member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Aultbea, Wester Ross Scotland

Postby Nic Rhodes » Wed Mar 05, 2003 10:35 pm

Springbank is an odd ball at the best of times with many hits and many misses. It remains my favouite all time whisky but also has given me some of my biggest disappointments.

Old 10 year decent enough, new 10 class leading stunning quality.

Old 12 year (dark), a great glass

New 15 year very disappointing.

Old 21 (dark), reference quality

Old 25 very enjoyable but I prefer the dark 21

On the older bottlings, it can be hit and miss. I don’t know the millenium bottlings but I am well versed on independent bottlings of older ages. Generally I find these very fine in quality and can recommend OMC, Signatory, Blackadder and Murray McDavid bottlings from the 60s. The styles range hugely however with the dark 65 Murray McDavid at one extreme and very lightly coloured Signatory 67 at the other. These will suit very different tastes. However even between say Signatory 67 bottlings there is MUCH variation. None have shown any sign of going over but compared with the 21 year old they might look poor value but that is largely academic now (no more 21). They do offer differences but the 21 was such a fine whisky anything is difficult afterwards. I particularly like the MMD 65 bottling, again a dark whisky. I think Springbank takes sherry very well.

As to whether Springbank needs a minimum age, I don’t think so, just try a 10year new bottling, a young Black adder / Signatory or the dreamy 91 MMD and most will be easily won over to the young fold. However I do like the old.
Nic Rhodes
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cumbria, England

Postby Rudy » Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:00 pm

Hello Ian,

I don't have that much tasted yet, but as far as I can remember the old C.V. and 10 were not so memorable....BUT
got the chance to taste with some friends the 25y Limited Edition....

THE BEST WHISKY I HAVE TASTED!

Great balance, cocnuts, fruity and mature (not woody), very complex, so impressive, hard to find the right words!

I can confirm it fits the 18y-35y age, but have heared from others though, that the 'standard' 25y was over the top, like too woody or oaky.

Rudy.
Rudy
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:01 am
Location: the Netherlands

Postby WhiskyHill » Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:35 am

Rudy - As has been mentioned, Springbanks are all over the map WRT flavour profiles. (Small batch bottlings with no distinct distillery "profile" so the proportion of different cask types, levels of peating, ages, bottling strengths made for a huge number of different distillery releases - plus Springbank being such a desirable malt for the blending trade and with J & A Mitchell trading off casks of Springbanks for other malts for their blends and the Cadenhead's line, there were lots of casks of Springbank which got into the hands of Independant bottlers). Prior to the mothballing in the 1980, Springbank made the best malt. Period. However, after their restart c. 1987, they didn't use their own maltings and outsourced the malt. I believe that they began doing their own malting again in 1991, so future bottlings of the 10, 12, 15 should only improve. But it's going to be such a lonnnnnggggg time until some decent 21 year old gets bottled again!
Small wonder the old 21 is going for 100 pounds a bottle (if you can find it!)
A hot tip for the uninformed: Cadenhead's bottles a vatted malt (Moidart) with a very high percentage of Springbank. Last spring I got a bottle of 30 YO Moidart at Cadenhead's Cannongate shop for 55 quid. If you think the Campbeltown Loch 25 is good - check out some older bottlings of Moidart!
User avatar
WhiskyHill
New member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Rochester,NY,USA

Postby r0b » Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:13 am

I am by no means a Springbankist. The 10 year old is as fine a malt as any of my top 10 faves. Hugely complex with mouth-wateringly sweetness and depth.

If this is generally thought of as sub-standard, I can't wait to get the older ones.
r0b
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Pelle » Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:07 pm

What about the rum casks? Anyone tried them? Worth the extra cost? Any traces of actual rum taste?
Pelle
New member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Postby Rudy » Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:46 pm

Hello Pelle,

I tasted the rum finish once and it is OK. Not great, but OK. Lost my notes, I think there is a nice balance, with banana or coconut. I fully agree on Dave Brooms comment 'well integrated'. To me it is interesting to have tried it once, but not to be bought at the €100-120 it retails for nowadays. For this money, buy a 21y OB!

Rudy.
Rudy
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:01 am
Location: the Netherlands

Postby Nic Rhodes » Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:32 pm

I won't rush out and buy another 'rum' finish but it was fun, now back to my springbanks....


quality is in the raw mnaterial rather than the window dressing....
Nic Rhodes
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cumbria, England

Return to Questions & Answers

Whisky gift and present finder