Tasting Notes: Balvenie: Double Wood

Balvenie: Double Wood (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 12 Year: 40% ABV)

Visual: Just slightly reddened gold.

Viscosity: Quite thick fast streaks.

Nose: Blackberry bramble bush. Vanilla toffee. Pencil shavings.

Body: Blueberry. Light oak Golden syrup. Slight fire. Apple crumble, Milky chocolate. Liquorice. Cake sponge.

Finish: Planed wood. Milky chocolate and caramel. Toffee. Digestive biscuits. Slight Christmas spice.

Conclusion: Damn, wish I had the chance to try this with water.  While the aroma is quite weak the body has quite a touch of fire which did work to mask the flavour.  A pity as what you do get is interesting. Blueberry fruitiness, and slight spice. A nice combination if not overly forthright.

It does seem to be aiming for a subtlety of character that the alcohol burn works against.  It is slightly dessert like with cake sponge and crumble like elements emphasising this.  Again I think water would have helped massively here – potentially make a good accompaniment to drier desserts.

As well as the fire the main flaw is the finish which seems quite short.  It’s a nice enough whisky and has a decent mix of textures and flavours.  Overall not bad and the fruit and cake (though not fruitcake) mix bodes well. As tried it is a touch lacking, but if I get the chance to revisit with water in hand I will take another look and update you.

Background: Drunk at the royal oak.  Balvenie has been ok for me so far, but never so much so that I actively seek them out.   There is a Caribbean cask release that I have had recommended to me but never seen it turn up anywhere.   The bottle refers to maturation in traditional whisky oak and sherry finish, which I take to mean apredominantly bourbon ageing before the sherry – the aforementioned “Doublewood”.  As you may have guessed already, I didn’t get the chance to add water to this whisky, A pity. Also, as you may have noticed another none too great photo. Dammit.

Tasting Notes: Glen Grant: Majors Reserve

Glen Grant: Majors Reserve (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: No Age Statement: 40% ABV)

Visual: Light banana gold.

Viscosity: Quite even. Multiple slow but thick streaks.

Nose: Quite heavy feel. Lightly sweet though. Heather. Light nutmeg. Water makes slightly sharp.

Body: Custard. Kiwi and lime. Light apple crumble. Light dry nuttiness. Water smoothes and enhances the nuttiness and adds a slight chocolate touch.  Overall the whisky is quite crisp in texture. Even more water brings out a real chunk of stewed apples.

Finish: Unobtrusive. Oak. Bitter chocolate and orange. Water adds a lime touch. Quite dry.

Conclusion: So I’ve done top and tail years wise on Glen Grant. The Methuselah aged 45 Year and this entry level bottling. I have to admit neither have really grabbed me. A quite crisp whisky with light citrus fruit and nutty undertones. It seems almost minimalist in a way. It has a definite character that declares it as whisky, but the evident flavours seem slight.

Maybe it’s a flaw in my taste range rather than the whisky but no one element really grabbed me.  A bit of water play does help, adding a lot to the apple elements and bringing them to the forefront. In this state it is an unobtrusive but fruity whisky, easy sipping and relaxing. Still not my scene, but it does show how it could be appreciated.  At a similar time you find a light chocolate finish come out that similarly benefits the whole experience.

So, not very good near, able to able appreciated if not my scene with water. This Glen doesn’t quite hit the spot for me.

Background: Drunk at the Garricks Head which has a nice selection of whiskys to choose from.  Glen Grant I’ve only encountered before in an aged independent bottling so wasn’t quite sure what to expect. This was drunk during a day off, where I was roaming the city for new things to sample. So as you can imagine I was quite chipper as I reviewed it.

Tasting Notes: Heatherlea Birdwatching: Old Henry

Heatherlea Birdwatching: Old Henry (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 10 Years: 40% ABV)

Visual: Medium hay colour.

Nose: Apples. Pencil shavings. Slight alcohol prickle, which moves into light oak.  Slight cideresque elements. Touch of vanilla. Light sugar. Water adds a wheat chaff element that masks some of the more flavoursome elements.

Body: Light custard and apples. Smooth. A touch of toffee. Light chocolate. Water adds dried apricot and peaches. More chocolate comes as well.

Finish: Pears and apples (Note the word order being picked to not be rhyming slang for stairs).  Light grapes. Shortbread. Water adds fudge and chocolate but leaves a slight alcohol air.

Conclusion: After seeing the potential, albeit very well hidden potential, in the previous tried blend I was interested to find similar elements in this malt but which much more prominence. I wonder therefore if they use a good chunk of this malt as a base for the prior sampled blend.

It’s actually surprisingly nice, light smooth and fruity. There’s a touch of alcohol evident right at the back, but apart from that it is really easy going.  There is still flavour forcing its way through, but never really harsh. It all laid back, sweet and almost apple crumble and custard in style to a chocolate finish.

A really graceful light whisky. Not hugely complex, but has enough play and is relaxing to boot.  Works well for slow sipping in the dimming sunlight under an orchards leaves.

A very nice smooth surprise.

Background: Second of the twitchers pack.  This is a single malt whisky bottled to raise money for some bird watching thingy. Hey don’t ask me, it was a kind gift from the parents.  The first bottle was a blend which was not well received but showed some promise under all the grain.  This may or may not use whisky from the same distillery. I really have no idea. Oh yes, and again we only had deeply inappropriate glasses to use. Worked better than you would imagine though.

Tasting Notes: Gordon And Macphail: Imperial 1991

Gordon And Macphail: Imperial 1991(Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 15 Years: 43% ABV)

Visual: Light yellowed gold.

Viscosity: Takes a moment for streaks to pucker from the spirit, then they come down fast.

Nose: Floral and potpourri. Custard sweetness. Butterscotch. Lightly oaked. Orange peel and pomegranate. Very little alcohol feel. Water makes shortbread biscuit come out.

Body: Thick and tarry with a big oak back initially. Lazy aged beef and stew styling come out. Dried apricot. Custard. Very sweet with water, more dried fruit and maybe some kiwi and lime.

Finish:  Cured beef slices. Oxo cubes. Maybe some peat.  Water adds a hint of lime jelly. Lightly cinnamon dusted.

Conclusion: Since trying a beer aged in this whisky’s casks I’ve been keeping an eye out for some of the original product, and here it is.

With whisky in hand I find a booming meaty product with sweet and fruit overtones. If I had to compare it I would say it was somewhat like a non island character Highland Park. Lots of power, little to no alcohol burn and lots of flavour.

Balances brilliantly between power and drinkability. It’s always there, but never so much that it gets annoying. That light lemon and kiwi surrounding the main body keeps it very fresh.  The body is defiant, especially in comparison to the aroma, which sees light and floral in contrast to the massive main body.

Overall very impressive. Powerful, drinkable, and flavoursome. Smooth texture and little burn makes it characterfull whisky. This is a good dram to sip through the day. I hope the new owners are turning out as high quality whisky.

Background: The Imperial Distillery has been up and down in recent years having been mothballed in 1985 and 1998 with a short run inbetween. It is now back, but this version I presume is from the short open period between the two mothballings. If tried a few Imperial influenced beers and found its influence very appreciateable, so was glad of the chance to grab a mini to try of it.

Tasting Notes: Signatory Vintage: Linkwood: 1991

Signatory Vintage: Linkwood: 1991 (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 19 years: 43% ABV)

Visual: Very pale grain.

Viscosity: A mix of thick and middling thickness streaks. Also odd mix of slothful and quick streaks.  Can’t really get a firm reading of the spirit from it.

Nose: Planed wood. Sugar dusting. Raisins and slightly plumy. Quite potent and rich with obvious spirit air, marzipan. Water lightens out allowing much more of the marzipan out and much less of the spirit.

Body: Custard sweet and significant alcohol burn behind it. Slight charring. Water makes slightly almond like. Water makes much sweeter with a golden syrup touch.

Finish: Light charring. Nutty. Quiet spirit style still. Slight malt chocolate, or perhaps chocolate almonds.  Clusters cereal.

Conclusion: Quite the intriguing aroma. Some of my companions described it as almost like meths. I wouldn’t quiet say that myself, but it is potent, requiring water to smooth it out.  Brings with it a lovely raisin, plum and nut aroma with the strength though.

The main body is very clean by comparison, not quiet paying off the promise of the aroma. Mainly a light nuttiness comes through. It works better with water which gives a nice sweetness and really lets the nuttiness take to the floor.

So without the water this is tad too much spirit, with water it feels somewhat like a less forceful Strathisla with it’s emphasise on the nuttiness.

Not too complex, but nice. Especially when you can get the burn down. For the years it has on it you would expects something tad smoother and more complex though.  So nice enough with water, but I can’t really see a reason to pick it over a good Strathisla.

Background: Drunk with friends at the tasting room.  Quite the range of whiskies were ordered resulting in the poor staff having to take down about half the bottles from the shelf.  I’ve never tried Linkwood before, so it was good to experiment.  I do like the range of bottles Signatory Vintage brings, though I will admit in my heart I probably prefer the Connoisseurs Choice range. Still it’s good to have the choice to pick from

Tasting Notes: Shieldaig: Speyside: 10 year

Shieldaig: Speyside: 10 year (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 10 Years 40% ABV)

Visual: A light chestnut brown. Clear.

Viscosity: Very slow, very thin streaks.

Nose: Shortbread. Peanuts. Light sugar dust floating in the air. Marzipan and shortbread.

Body:  Sweet. Syrup and meringue. Light apricot. Black cherry at the back with thick cream.

Finish:  Dry chocolate. Dried apricot. Brandy cream and a chocolate dust air. Slight sour cream touch at the very end.

Conclusion: I had this a week ago. The first time I had it, it didn’t make much of an impression. Lots of push on the flavour but a certain simplicity that didn’t make it seem very appealing, and the character reminded me of some of the base notes in a blended whisky. Quite middle of the road.

I was then quite surprised, I revisit it, tasting note book in hand and within moments I realised I needed to give it a touch more credit.  Whilst still slightly simple, it brings a nice fresh fruit and brandy cream favour that were completely hidden initially, possibly by a cold room temperature. These new elements make it seem almost Christmas tipple style and are very welcome.

The long chocolate finish is done especially well. Well apart from a touch of alcohol burn, then sour at the end. Those two elements don’t quite fit. Apart from that it compares very well to Dalmore which brings in a similar finish. A pity I didn’t get to try it with water as I get the feeling it would open it up a lot.  A nice forceful little number, not a bad attempt and much better than I remember from the first attempt.

Visual: A touch of research tells me that Shieldaig is not, as I first assumed, a distillery, but an independent bottler. Due to a lack of “The” at the start I don’t think its from “The Speyside” which is a distillery distinct from speyside, the region . Though I could be wrong. I presume the somewhat generic “Speyside” name means that they did not get the rights to say which distillery it is from.  A pity as it would be interesting to find out. Tried at the Royal Oak, it was the only single malt whisky they had that night. A crying shame, they used to have such a great range. No side jugs of water were available for the tasting so this is all done neat. I messed up the glass photo, so it is bottle only at the moment I’m afraid.

Tasting Notes: Glenfiddich Solera

The reason for the two tasting notes is explained here. The tasting note immediately below is the more accurate one. The note below it is kept for reference and was the original tasting

Glenfiddich Solera (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky:15 Year: 40% ABV)

Visual: Quite honeyed amber.

Viscosity: Medium to thick streaks.

Nose: Honeyed lime. Apricot. Quite fresh. Passion fruit and vanilla toffee. Nutmeg and pears. Slight peanuts. Water brings out stewed pears and pencil shavings

Body: Sweet. Raspberry.  Custard. Milk chocolate. Slight lime. Water adds apple, vanilla and some dried apricots. Red berries, and nutmeg again.

Finish: Dry oak, shortbread and milky coffee. Hazelnuts. Pencil shavings. Water adds

Chocolate light alcohol air. Nutmeg. Sherried spice and red berries.

Conclusion: For all my on and off relationship with Glenfiddich, I do find that they tend to grow on you.  This  is fruity, with a mix of apricot, light pear and red fruit mixed in a subtly spiced whisky.  After discussion with Dylan the very subtle element that has that important influence was identified as nutmeg. The light spice added to fruit is an effective combination.

That nutmeg is what made me appreciate the bottle a bit more on this second tasting, and I wonder what caused its absence in the original tasting. Thus the match of light fruit and spice feels very much like a stewed fruit dessert and is a better relaxed whisky.

A nice take on subtle fruity whisky with just that hint of energy and flavour. A nice easy sipping whisky.

Glenfiddich Solera (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky:15 Year: 40% ABV)

Visual: Darkened amber.

Viscosity: Quite fast and thick streaks form quickly from the whisky.

Nose: Apricot, mango and planed wood. Water brings out passion fruit.

Body: Smooth texture yet with a rich feel. Slightly sour lime. Water makes slicker to add toffee, custard, apricots and mango as the nose teased at.

Finish: Evaporates leaving liquorice and chocolate. Passion fruit. Slight charred oak. Mango again. Water adds more lime.

Conclusion: Smooth and fruity, this plays with the relaxed flavours range – though it does need a drop of water to bring the details out. Without the water the flavours are too subtle to show through whiskys natural energy, so you get an evaporation more than a drink.

Not to say it’s a harsh whisky as if definitely is not. When rounded out it is a mix of those light, exotic, dry and slightly pungent fruit. Mango, passion fruit, all slow dry flavours that last on the tongue.

Initially deeply unimpressive, with a drop of water it becomes more clever, but still not to my taste. The way it blends the flavours is well done, the way it shows them is not. Thus not overly a whisky I wish to try again.

Dry and fruity, if it is to your tastes it may go well with fruit salad, but its not my scene.

Background: Drunk in a friendly night out over some conversation on IPhones and the like. Glenfiddich is an ok distillery by me, and I have slowly growing respect for their 12 year, but the aged expressions have seemed slightly muted for me so far.

Tasting Notes: Mannochmore: 12 Year

 

Mannochmore: 12 Year (Speyside Scottish Single Malt Whisky: 12 Years: 43% ABV)

Visual: Light white grape juice.

Viscosity: Quite slow to form, but thick streaks from the spirit.

Nose: Smooth. Vanilla and white grapes. Grain fields and lime. Slight sherried fruit. Water adds a very dry cider touch and pressed orange juice.

Body: Very smooth, light at the front and sweet. Grapes again, planed wood. Water makes lighter, possibly too light and adds slight red grapes.

Finish: Slightly spicy. Malt chocolate and vanilla custard. Water adds slight charring and rum spice.

Conclusion:  A more formidable whisky that it first seems, though that’s not hard to do.  Initially very light and almost too smooth, it doesn’t make much of an impact. After a few moments to settle on the tongue you get past that light front to be able to recognise the flavours that tingle behind.

Lots of grapes in the main body, mainly white grapes but with some red grape spiciness as well. Very much gives a wine feel, although I doubt it has been anywhere near a wine cask.

A very light and fruity whisky with just a hint of spice. Not one to add water to, it doesn’t have the body for that to work.  It’s a light refresher, maybe to have between courses for a meal, or as a light aside with dessert.

Background: Had at a quiet tavern where the owner was happy to talk about the whisky, I didn’t have the heart to tell him I was well aware of who Michael Jackson was, and of the different whisky regions. Mannochmore used to make the famous “Black Whisky” the Loch Dhu, though it has been suggested that that’s whisky’s colour may have been due to somewhat artificial colourings rather than a natural property of the whisky. Looking at this very light whisky I can easily believe that to be so.

Tasting Notes: Mortlach: 16 Year

Mortlach: 16 Year (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky:16 Year: 43% ABV)

Visual: Very dark honeyed amber.

Viscosity: Thick heavy streaks, very slow as they pour out of the spirit.

Nose: Quite powerful and distinctly heavy. Heavy oak influence. Engine oil (Martin has helpfully suggested two stroke oil as the best comparison) Brown sugar, possibly caramelised. Syrup.  Water adds shortbread, pungent passion fruit that mellows to dried apricot with even more water.  The alcohol tingle does not diminish throughout.

Body: Crème Brulee, golden syrup. Beef and walnut. Slight sherried fruit. Raisins. Water brings more toffee and some kiwi.

Finish: Burnt oak, caramel. Milk chocolate, coffee. Water adds vanilla and nut oil.

Conclusion: Quite the powerhouse this one, thick and initially it seems quite enclosed only giving out its heavy notes that were hard to define. All thick and oil touches.  Each drop of water then opened it up adding subtle fruits and developing the detail on the oils. Making them distinct styles rather than generic punches.

It never stops feeling oily, which I must take to be the whiskys characteristic style, a strong flavour which includes black coffee and nut oils as resolute elements.

Heavy rounded and oily, though it is a heavyness of lingering flavour rather than Laphroaig style assault, in many ways reminds me of a coffee and nut cake take on a  whisky. A slow burn heavyweight.

Background: I’ve been hoping to try Mortlach for a while, it has a reputation as a hidden beast from speyside, and its influence on the Brewdog Mortlach Reserve beer was very well received.  Had as part of the visit to newfound pub with a fine whisky selection as described in the Dalmore Cigar Malt entry.

Tasting Notes: Duncan Taylor: Tamdhu: 34 Year

Duncan Taylor: Tamdhu: 34 Year (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 34 Year: 40% ABV)

Visual: Very light grain to gold and very clear.

Viscosity: The spirit forms slowly into streaks, but then descend quickly.

Nose: Lime jelly, vanilla and planed wood. Quite smooth. Slight salted jerky. Peppery. Water adds London’s dusty air and a very slight sherried fruit under the other notes.

Body: Sweet and custard like, then malt loaf with margarine. Peppercorn. Sweet lime. Water adds a granite back, dried and salted meat chunks. Quite spicy fresh, and has a carbonated mineral water feel.

Finish:  Malt loaf. Dry stone. Pepper comes in quite heavily. Mineral water and some fudge.

Conclusion:  34 years for a miniature , that’s quite something. From a dead distillery as well.  What do we get for the age? A mix of light flavours that sparks off the occasional touch of unexpected intensity.

Predominately light and sweet, it has quite a spritzy feel for a whisky, a feel helped by the peppery flavours laced throughout it, and backed up by the sparkles of minerals that are laden in the aftertaste.

This may be interesting, but not especially impressive. The age has brought smoothness and a slight amount of style, but the whisky itself doesn’t feel like its exploring the room that these elements have afforded it.

The stone and granite, along with the London smoke give a slightly industrialised feel, not a good look to back up a light whisky.

Interesting, but don’t mistake that for particularly good.

Background: This was put in cask 1969, bottled 2004.  The Tamdhu distillery closed in 2010 so I thought getting a miniature of this sort of age for a decent price was well worth investigating.  Never tried anything from this distillery before either.  This is the first tasting note in my new note book.