Glengoyne

by **andrewfenton** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:54 pm

Anyone tried recent (ie this year or last) bottlings? I'm seeing them getting a lot of awards, and some really favourable reviews from a lot of places. In particular the 12yr cask strength, and the 17yr old.

Thanks

by **Tom** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:29 pm

i tried the 10 and 21Y
the ten is over apple flavored for me. the 21 is nice, overall pretty light and fruity. nothing i would buy. its just not my thing.

by **BruceCrichton** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:01 pm

The 10 is quite good and it's fresh, crisp and grassy to the taste.

The 12 year old cask strength is a must buy. Just adribble of water is needed to open up the taste.

The 17 year old is the smoothest whisky I've tasted. I'd go into great detail about how smooth it is but I've done it already on this forum and doing it again would be taking it too far.

by **hpulley** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:20 pm

I've only tried the 10yo (meant to try the 17yo but hesitated and now they're long gone from the LCBO) and I like it. A different dram, definitely apples in there, nice and round and sweet withouth quite getting to the point of becoming cloying.

Harry

by **Deactivated Member** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 pm

I tryed some over the past years, but forget to taste the 12Y old CS at last whisky fest. The 10Y and 17Y are to light, at 21Y old I started to like it much more and by 30Y old I thought: "Now where talking". That doesnt mean that the 10Y ol and 17Y old are bad, but they are not that execptional. The 10 and 17Y old are very nice aperitifs.....

Cheers,

Erik

by **Jeroen Kloppenburg** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:36 pm

AFAIK the 12yr CS was not available for public tasting in Leiden. There was only one bottle which got popped open and I was asured I was the first to have this new dram on the mainland.

It was the first malt I was tasting at the event, so my palate wasnt really open yet. But it indeed needs a bit of water to open up. At 57.2% and a whole festival in front a wise thing anyway

My initial note had smoke and earthy tones without water, and with water more fruit and sweeter tones. But I really should give this expression more time later for a proper note. Wasnt bad at all though

by **Admiral** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:00 am

When I tasted the 21yo about three months ago, I thought it was very disappointing - it was too dry and woody; the flavour profile was very flat and lifeless, and I found nothing to recommend it except its reasonably cheap price tag.

The 10 and 17 year olds however have never disappointed.

I've also tried an OB single cask from 1971 (Cask No. 4855 from memory?) that was about 28 or 29 years old, and this was spectacular.

Cheers,
Admiral

by **Admiral** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:23 am

Just checked my notes - it was Cask 4855, but it was a 27 year old, and at 56.2%.

Also I forgot - last year I had Cask 1428 which was a 26yo at 55%. The oak had been far more active in this expression, and I felt it had been overpowered.