Littlemill 17yo

by **patrick dicaprio** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:17 pm

Saw this in a shop and picked up a bottle on the fly, even though i hadnt read anything about it or even had it on my list of whiskies to have. havent cracked it open yet. anyone have any thoughts on it??

Pat

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:20 pm

Don't crack it open - keep it for posterity. The distillery closed because it made bad whisky that is a whole bunch of no fun to drink.

by **Admiral** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:30 pm

I haven't been brave enough to open my bottle of Littlemill 8yo.

At the risk of disappointing you, I'm afraid I've yet to read a good review of Littlemill anywhere. (With the exception of Michael Jackson, who rates them all between 71 and 81 in his latest 5th edition. Mind you, he rates the Dunglas in the 70's, which Jim Murray scored at around 17, so who knows what to believe?

)

Disclaimer: All references to Michael's and Jim's scores done by memory only and without actual books to hand! Corrections welcome, if required.

Cheers,
Admiral

by **Lawrence** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:31 pm

A quick quote from Loch Fyne Whiskies on Littlemill 8 year old.

Dry and spirity, not a well produced malt, an example of just how important quality control is in Scotch whisky making. (The art of the stillman).

However most bottles are not opened but saved for the day when stocks dry up and their value starts to increase. When? Dunno.

by **voigtman** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:36 pm

Have yet to try Littlemill 17, but the 8 yo was one I will be happy to see go away. It had a peculiar grassiness (and no marshmallow, BTW), for want of a better word, that became apparent just about when swallowing would be the next step. I found it hard to get past and have to say I would not consider it acceptable even as a session malt, in good company, in Scotland, at a distillery, ...

But supposedly the 17 yo is better by a large measure, so I have it way down on my wish list. If, before I can buy a bottle, it all "softly and suddenly vanishes away", like a hunter encountering a boojum, well, so be it. Please let us all know if/when you get around to clooping the cork! Ed V.

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:39 pm

I have considered mixing my Littlemill with coke, but, frankly, I think it would be a solecism to spoil the coke.

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:54 pm

MJ and JM both give the 8 an 81. According to JM, recent bottlings, which are more like a 13, are a great improvement.

JM's notes on the Dunglas are worth the price of the book!

by **Admiral** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:24 am

81 in MJ's scale means it's a pretty bloody good whisky. That's an opinion that doesn't seem to be shared by many real drinkers! :wink:

by **kallaskander** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:14 am

Hi there,

if the Littlemill 8 years was not stored in stainless steel, it would be interesting to know, how old the whisky is that is in that bottles. Fact is there can be no Littlemill which was distilled eight years ago.

That rises two questions. First it is said that the Lowland malts were often at their best in early years. Did the "8" improve in the storage facility if it was steel tanks or did it improve in the barrel and is now at least 11 years old as Littlemill closed 1994 for the last and final time.
Or, even more likely is it even older than 11 years and starts picking up.

Greetings
kallaskander

by **Deactivated Member** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:31 am

I have a bottle of the 8 and, trust me, it is not good whisky regardless of how old or young it really is.

by **Deactivated Member** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:45 am

kk, as I noted above, JM says the current 8 is really at least a 13. If that's so, I can't imagine why they would not say so, unless they're just too cheap to have new labels made up.

by **kallaskander** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:49 am

Hi there,

you´re right Mr T I must have over read the figure 13. As to why they do not give an age statement more to the point may result from superstition. In many books on whisky you can read about the Lowland whiskies that many of them were at their hight in early years and were sold often under ten years of age.
Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse may think that the Littlemill casks stored at Loch Lomond Distillery should be bottled in this "tradition" regardless of the true age of the malts.
If the Littlemill is still stored in casks I can imagine that it takes great care to get a vatting you can sell at all.
And then there is the question of collectors. Using the old label is not cheap but tricky. If you are unaware you just might think you buy a bottle of a "rare original bottling" by Littlemill. Rare is only what was bottled untill 1994, the year of final closure.
But as a collector if you never open the bottle, you will never know.

Greetings
kallaskander

by **bernstein** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:03 am

MrTattieHeid wrote:kk, as I noted above, JM says the current 8 is really at least a 13. If that's so, I can't imagine why they would not say so, unless they're just too cheap to have new labels made up.

Well, they actually did something about it and invested in new labels, tubes and bottles. There's a new Littlemill OB 12yo:

Any tasting notes? :roll:

by **Lawrence** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:59 pm

Well, it looks better than the 8 year old... :wink:

by **Deactivated Member** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:19 pm

I'm afraid I disagree. I think the 8 year old looks fantastic - especially in green glass (it also seems to come in clear). It is bright, distinctive, old fashioned and makes one really curious to know what is in it. The 12yo pictured above just looks like anybottle - almost IB in its understatedness.

If only quality of packaging and content were always correlated.

by **bernstein** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:49 pm

Nick Brown wrote:The 12yo pictured above just looks like anybottle.

Agreed - look what they did to the new 12yo OB Glen Scotia:

by **Lawrence** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:14 am

Yes, it does look better and I see that it's a 12 instead of a 14. Interesting, I'll keep my eye open for it.

Lawrence

by **voigtman** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:31 am

I've had the 12, 14 and 17 and the 17 was my favorite, but only by a small margin. Glen Scotia is under a mightly shadow, even at high noon, but it is not a bad malt at all. Frankly, I am glad it has a new bottle: the old, dumpy "Bunnahabhain"-style bottle fell out of the ugly tree head first, and hit all the branches on the way down. :lol:

If I see the new bottling, I will definitely get one. (Around here, even the old bottling is unavailable.) Ed V.

by **Crispy Critter** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:53 am

I recently opened a bottle of Bunny, and it's very, very different from any other Islay I've tried. For some reason, the nose reminds me of fresh corn (maize). On the palate, there's just a trace of peat, and it's mostly malty.

I'd give it a 79, not a top contender, but enjoyable nonetheless.

As for the dumpy bottle, I noticed that it (and the cork) looked kind of familiar. Sure enough, it's the exact same bottle and cork that are used for Connemara...

Littlemill 17yo

Littlemill 17yo

The dumpy Bunnahabhain bottle