Tag Archives: Peated

High West Campfire

4 comments

The Utah-based distillery High West has rapidly made a name for themselves among American whisky enthusiasts. They offer a range of innovative products, many of which are largely based on blends of sourced products, while they wait for their own distilled whisky to mature.  I’ve tried a couple of different bottlings over the years, and have generally been impressed with the quality for the price.

The latest (first?) High West product to reach the LCBO here in Ontario is Campfire – a blend of peated Scotch malt, straight bourbon and straight rye whiskies. That’s certainly an unusual mix – I don’t think I’ve seen American bourbon or rye blended with peated malt whisky before (e.g., Westland Peated is an actual peated malt whisky made in the USA).

The main source for most of High West’s American whiskies is MGP – specifically, the Lawrenceburg Distillers Indiana plant, which was formerly Seagrams. In this Campfire blend, the mash bill for the MGP bourbon is 75% corn, 20% rye and 5% malted barley. The rye was originally all from MGP, 95% rye and 5% malted barley. But High West recently adjusted the recipe to include some of their own-make rye, which is reported as 80% rye and 20% malted rye (relative proportion of the different component whiskies is unknown). And the blended malt Scotch whisky is 100% peated malted barley (undisclosed origin, but High West claims it is not Islay malt). All whiskeys were reported as at least 5 years old originally, but High West now claims “ranging in age from 4-8 years old” (the reduced minimum age likely reflects addition of their own juice). It is all aged in a mix of charred virgin white American oak barrels, as well as refill bourbon barrels

I picked up a bottle recently for $70 CAD. Bottled at 45.95% ABV. My batch is 19H16 (so, bottled August 16, 2019), and is thus presumed to have some of the actual High West rye juice in the bottle.

As an aside, although the LCBO doesn’t have the widest selection of American whiskies, what they do get is available at very good prices typically. Indeed, the LCBO is one of the cheapest places in Canada to buy American whisky. This is as low as I’ve seen Campfire in my travels, adjusting for currency fluctuations.

Here is how the various High West products stack up in my Meta-Critic Database:

High West American Prairie: 8.35 ± 0.59 on 11 reviews ($$$)
High West Bourye: 8.72 ± 0.35 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
High West Campfire: 8.73 ± 0.30 on 19 reviews ($$$$)
High West Double Rye (all bottlings): 8.70 ± 0.32 on 21 reviews ($$)
High West Double Rye (new recipe, post-2018): 8.85 ± 0.33 on 4 reviews ($$)
High West Double Rye (pre-2018): 8.69 ± 0.32 on 19 reviews ($$)
High West Double Rye Campfire Barrel: 8.47 ± 0.36 on 6 reviews ($$$)
High West Double Rye Manhattan Barrel: 8.75 ± 0.38 on 7 reviews ($$$)
High West Midwinter Night’s Dram Rye: 9.06 ± 0.17 on 19 reviews ($$$$$)
High West Rendezvous Rye (all bottlings): 8.91 ± 0.28 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
High West Rendezvous Rye (pre-2018): 8.91 ± 0.28 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
High West Rocky Mountain Rye 16yo: 9.09 ± 0.35 on 7 reviews ($$$$$)
High West Rocky Mountain Rye 21yo: 9.13 ± 0.26 on 11 reviews ($$$$$+)
High West Son of Bourye: 8.42 ± 0.43 on 12 reviews ($$$)
High West Yippee Ki-Yay: 8.61 ± 0.65 on 13 reviews ($$$$)

And now what I find in the glass:

Nose: Yep, that’s peated alright. Nice medium level of smoke (campfire indeed) and some earthy peat upfront. Honey and caramel sweetness right behind. Smoked ham. Barrel char (but could be from the peated malt). Not really getting a lot of rye spices, they seem to be subdued by the peat and bourbon. Not much fruit either, maybe caramel apple and peaches. Reminds me of a young peated malt aged in ex-bourbon barrels, like Paul John Bold. It’s nice, but I was hoping for a little more spice, or aged bourbon “oomph”.

Palate: Honey and apple juice. Vanilla and light caramel. Golden raisins. Citrus. Cinnamon shows up now, fairly prominent. Light mouthfeel, almost watery, despite the extra ABV. Dusty rye on the swallow, with dry, wafting smoke. Kind of the reverse of the nose – the bourbon influence seems very light here, with more rye and lightly peated malted barley.

Finish: Medium. Classic light lingering smoke, somewhat Bruichladdich-like. Honeycomb cereal. Slight artificial sweetener note at the end, slightly saccharine. Pretty basic.

I see a lot of comments in online reviews about how well integrated or “balanced” this whisky is. Personally, I find it a bit disjointed and inconsistent, with different flavours competing with one another at different times. Decent enough nose, but less satisfying in the mouth, being lighter than I expected. The flavours dissipate fairly rapidly too. That said, it is nice and easy to drink overall, and extinguished campfire is a good way to describe the smoke level. Think Bruichladdich Classic Laddie with extra honey and cinnamon.

The highest score I’ve seen comes from Josh the Whiskey Jug, followed by Jim Murray, Margarett of Whiskey Wash, Adam/Susannah of Whisky Advocate and John of the Whiskey Reviewer. More moderately positive is Jason of In Search of Elegance. Slightly below average scores come from John of Whisky Advocate, Andre/Patrick of Quebec Whisky and Ralfy (and I find myself in this company). On Reddit, MajorHop and xile_ are fans, whereas TOModera and Ethanized both give it lower scores (most reviewers there tend to be mildly positive overall). An interesting blend to be sure, but I think the consensus score is a little on the high side.

Mackmyra Svensk Rök

Leave a comment

Rök means smoke in Swedish, and this Svensk Rök edition (“Swedish Smoke”) is the first smokey single malt whisky released by Mackmyra, first launched in 2013. The traditional Swedish way of smoking food is over burning juniper, so they added juniper wood while kilning the barley for this edition.

As is typical for Mackmyra, they have used a range of cask types and sizes, including ones made of American oak and Swedish oak, in the form of ex-bourbon barrels and Oloroso seasoned casks. Also as typical for them, they have used smallish cask sizes ranging from 30-128 litre capacity.

Like most Mackmyra whiskies, Svensk Rok does not have an age statement, but it is not chill filtered and doesn’t use any artificial coloring. Mackmyra reports that Svensk Rök is made of only “natural Swedish ingredients.” It is bottled at 46.1% ABV. I managed to pick up a 50 mL sample bottle in my travels through Germany last year.

Here’s how it compares to other Nordic whiskies:

Box (High Coast) Dalvve: 8.48 ± 0.28 on 10 reviews ($$$$)
Box (High Coast) Early Days: 8.53 ± 0.24 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Box (High Coast) PX – Pedro Ximénez Finish: 8.86 ± 0.17 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
Box (High Coast) Quercus I Robur: 8.28 ± 0.41 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Box (High Coast) The 2nd Step Collection 02: 8.85 ± 0.13 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
Box (High Coast) The Festival 2014: 8.93 ± 0.12 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Mackmyra Svensk Ek: 8.36 ± 0.22 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra Svensk Rök: 8.63 ± 0.21 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra Ten Years 10yo: 8.70 ± 0.11 on 5 reviews ($$$$$)
Mackmyra The First Edition (Den Första Utgåvan): 8.66 ± 0.33 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Mackmyra The Swedish Whisky (Brukswhisky): 8.42 ± 0.55 on 11 reviews ($$)
Smogen Primör: 8.48 ± 0.25 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)
Smogen Single Cask (all editions): 8.88 ± 0.14 on 5 reviews ($$$$$)
Spirit of Hven Tycho’s Star: 8.71 ± 0.27 on 6 reviews ($$$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Faint peat, coming across as light smoke and dry ash. Light apple juice. Caramel. Light berries. A relatively faint juniper note, but much less than Mackmyra First Edition honestly. An unusual organic off-note – reminds me of mimeograph fluid (for those of you of a certain age). A bit of glue, but not offensive. All in all, an interesting start. Also reminds me a bit of Box Dalvve, for both the youth and light smoke.

Palate: Not as sweet as expected, but definite caramel and some vanilla. Much dryer than earlier Mackmyras (or Box Dalvve for that matter). No real fruits coming through, beyond standard apple/pear. Cigar ash. A bit of dry book-binding glue. White pepper. Bitterness after swallow, unfortunately, which detracts for me personally. A bit too simple in the mouth, honestly.

Finish: Medium. Apple juice with a squeeze of lemon. Caramel lingers, but so does the bitterness. Somewhat astringent on way out. The woodiness comes through here, but I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe it to juniper per se.

I’ve generally been a fan of most Swedish whiskies I’ve tried, including Mackmyra. But this one strikes me as a little lacking. Specifically, it seems too young, and not as interesting as similar lightly-peated youthful whiskies (i.e. I find even the entry-level Box Dalvve is better).

Among reviewers, Jim Murray was the most positive, with an above-average score. Serge of Whisky Fun, Thomas of Whisky Saga and Jonny of Whisky Advocate all give it an average score (but favourable reviews). I’m the lowest of the group on this one. An interesting experiment perhaps, but I find the smokey whiskies coming out of Box (High Coast) more interesting.

Amrut Port Pipe Peated Single Cask #2712 (2016)

Leave a comment

This single cask Amrut was first matured in charred American virgin oak casks, followed by further maturation in a Port Pipe cask (which are very large casks, holding 650 litres). I have a bottle from the third batch of this whisky matured in Port Pipe cask #2712, exclusively bottled for Western Canada (where I picked this up).

To clarify a point of confusion – Amrut sometimes re-uses finishing casks (like these Port Pipes). The front label of my bottle indicates that the barrel was first filled in January of 2011, and the whisky was bottled in February of 2016. There’s a Batch No 3 imprint on the back label, indicating that this is the third time Port Pipe 2712 has been used.

I don’t know how long this batch was finished in this Port Pipe, but there are reviews out there for an earlier August 2013 release from this same #2712 finishing cask (so, this release has to be finished for less than 2.5 years, by definition). I have one of 660 bottles of this third batch. It is bottled at cask-strength of 59.0% ABV.

I am currently tracking four Amrut Port Pipe casks in database (#2713, 2714, 3881, and 4668). To date, it is only #2712 and 2713 where I can find multiple bottlings reported.

Let’s see how the various Amrut offerings compare in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Amrut 100 Peated: 8.90 ± 0.34 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Bourbon Single Cask: 8.74 ± 0.33 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Fusion: 8.89 ± 0.25 on 25 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Greedy Angels: 9.12 ± 0.18 on 8 reviews ($$$$$+)
Amrut Intermediate Sherry: 8.91 ± 0.46 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt: 8.70 ± 0.31 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt Cask Strength: 9.08 ± 0.28 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portonova: 8.97 ± 0.30 on 19 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask #2712 (2013): 8.95 ± 0.09 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask #2712 (2016): 8.76 ± 0.50 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask #2713 (2013): 8.68 ± 0.12 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask (all casks): 8.75 ± 0.38 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut PX Sherry Single Cask (all casks): 8.82 ± 0.48 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Spectrum (all batches): 9.13 ± 0.18 on 10 reviews ($$$$$)

Interesting, the Amrut single cask expressions (on average) don’t seem to fare quite as well as some of the standard bottlings – although they still get above-average overall scores for the single malt class. Let’s see what I find in the glass for my bottle:

Nose: A pleasantly peated nose, with a strong salted-meat aroma – smoked bacon and salted pork in particular. Smoked BBQ ribs. This is a very “meaty” nose, unlike the medicinal or rubbery noses of most heavily-peated Islay malts (i.e. its more like some Highland Park or Ledaig expressions, or even Springbank). Anise and dark chocolate, very earthy. Blueberries and raisins. It’s a great combination of peat and sweetness – it works. Surprisingly little alcohol burn for 59% ABV. No real off notes.

Palate: Strong attack of peat and sea salt to begin, followed by classic bourbon notes – honey and brown sugar.  Honey glazed ham. Not as smokey in the mouth. Anise and dark chocolate again, plus caramel. Cinnamon and black pepper. Fruits lean more toward the tropical now (mango, papaya), not really finding the port so much. Bacon notes come back at the end. Thick mouthfeel, slightly oily. Surprisingly easy to drink for 59% ABV.

Finish: Long. Leaves a noticeable tingle on the lips and tongue that is oddly pleasurable – this is actually quite anesthetizing (as you would expect from the strength). Sea salt and BBQ-glazed ribs. Some dried fruit notes appear over time.  Smoke lingers to the end.

With a little water, the sweet fruity notes on the nose are accentuated. Mouthfeel is unaffected. Lingering sweetness is increased on the finish as well, which becomes more sticky on the lips and gums.

If you keep adding water, to bring it down to more typical whisky strength, you will find the wood spices pick up a lot in the mouth (especially the cinnamon and pepper) – so it still leaves a sting.  Finish becomes more astringent at this diluted level. This is one that can handle of wide range of water, with differing effects. I suggest you experiment to find your personal sweet spot.

A pleasant dram, but not overly complex. I find the average Meta-Critic scores for the peated Port Pipe singe casks to be a little on the low side. I would rate this particular bottling slightly higher than what it gets above (i.e., ~8.9).

A number of Reddit reviewers have sampled from this particular single cask #2712 (2016), such as xile_, Devoz, Ethanized, Saba007 and Pork_Bastard. Thomas of Whisky Saga was a big fan of another batch, as was Serge of Whisky Fun (for this batch) and Michael of Diving for Pearls. My Annoying Opions, Ralfy and Jim Murray all give their batches good scores. Jonny of Whisky Advocate and Serge of Whisky Fun (for this batch) were not impressed.

Scapa Skiren

Leave a comment

Being a big fan of the other Orkney island distillery (Highland Park), I’ve been curious to try a Scapa release. Literally right down the road from HP, this second-most-Northerly distillery in Scotland produces a relatively gentle and honeyed based spirit, considered to be lightly-peated.

Originally founded in 1885, it was acquired in the 1950s by classic Canadian whisky producer Hiram Walker & Sons Ltd. Now part of the Pernod Ricard spirits empire, Scapa was shuttered between 1994 and 2004. While a number of age-statement releases were released upon re-opening, for the last several years the no-age-statement Scapa Skiren  has been the distillery’s standard bottling.

Scapa’s website says they consider Skiren to be “the honeyed tropical one because of its smooth, creamy sweetness with a hint of tropical fruit, citrus and coastal heather.” It is exclusively matured in first-fill American oak (so, ex-bourbon barrels).

Bottled at 40% ABV. It currently retails for $80 CAD at the LCBO.

Let’s see how it compares to others in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database.

Arran Malt Machrie Moor Peated: 7.92 ± 0.55 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
BenRiach 10yo Curiositas: 8.61 ± 0.28 on 20 reviews ($$$)
Bruichladdich Islay Barley: 8.57 ± 0.20 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Dalwhinnie 15yo: 8.65 ± 0.35 on 20 reviews ($$$$)
Highland Park 10yo: 8.52 ± 0.26 on 15 reviews ($$$)
Highland Park 12yo: 8.64 ± 0.23 on 26 reviews ($$$)
Jura 10yo Origin: 8.06 ± 0.35 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Jura 12yo Elixir: 8.32 ± 0.45 on 11 reviews ($$$)
Jura Superstition: 8.29 ± 0.45 on 23 reviews ($$$)
Highland Park Magnus: 8.64 ± 0.17 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Oban 14yo: 8.49 ± 0.37 on 23 reviews ($$$$)
Oban Little Bay: 8.36 ± 0.39 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Scapa 16yo: 8.29 ± 0.29 on 16 reviews ($$$$)
Scapa Skiren: 7.96 ± 0.56 on 12 reviews ($$$$)

I sampled this single malt from my brother’s bottle.

Nose: Sweet peat, with light smoke. Sickly-sweet honeysuckle (honeyed indeed!). Standard pear and apple. Maybe a touch of pineapple. Very basic, not a lot going on here. I’m detecting some youthful organic notes, but the light peat helps to obscure these somewhat.

Palate: Incredibly sweet arrival, with very simple sugar and light honey. Pear. Lemon peels. Buttered toast. Very light mouthfeel. Not getting a lot of wood spices, beyond standard nutmeg and a bit of cinnamon. Very little evidence of the peat now. Seems pretty tame (and dull, to be honest).

scapa-skirenFinish: Not much of one. Apple juice and some Juicy Fruit gum linger, with some very light oak spice. A touch of smoke returns at the end, but is subtle. Unfortunately some oak bitterness creeps in over time, detracting on the way out.

Sad to say, but I find this to be a very forgettable whisky – there is nothing that really stands out for me. There is just too little character. That said, it is not particularly offensive, and I don’t get a lot of off-notes. I suppose it could be a decent palate opener, before trying more sophisticated whiskies in an evening.

Among reviewers, the highest score I’ve seen comes from Richard of the Whiskey Reviewer, followed by Jim Murray. Generally positive (though with lower scores) are Serge of Whisky Fun and Jan of Best Shot Whisky. But I’m personally in the camp of Thomas of Whisky Saga, Oliver of Dramming, Gavin of Whisky Advocate and the boys at Quebec Whisky. Just not enough character for me to recommend, especially for the price. You are best sticking with an entry-level HP.

The Infamous 22 Year Old Blended Malt

2 comments

Following on my review of an entry-level blended malt (Monkey Shoulder), here is a higher-end offering: the Infamous 22 Year Old.  This is an example of a “mystery malt” – that is, a blended malt where the source distilleries are not identified. I don’t typically do many reviews of mystery malts, but this one has a funny story behind it that piqued my interest. I couldn’t resist picking up a bottle in my travels, given its ridiculously low price and presumed heritage.

This bottling of Scottish malt whiskies comes from Fountana Beverage – an international liquor import/exporter based in Vancouver, Canada. The bottle label explains it is a blend of whiskies from “two of the most notorious single malt distilleries in Scotland,” representing “where the mountain meets the sea” (with a custom logo to that effect). Specifically, the whiskies come from a lightly-peated island malt and a heavily-sherried Highland malt, aged independently and blended in Scotland. I’ve seen some commentary online that the island malt was exclusively from ex-bourbon barrels.

You often get these sorts of tantalizing clues with mystery malts, which are designed to lead those with a bit of knowledge to make an educated guess as to the distilleries involved (whether correctly or not). Privately, the local agent did reveal to vendors in Alberta that those two distilleries are Highland Park and Macallan, respectively. While both are quality big-name malt producers, it would be very unusual to pair their styles together. I’ve seen speculation online that the casks were from batches originally earmarked for either The Famous Grouse or Cutty Sark blends.

Another funny story the local agent revealed: the whisky casks had all passed 23 years of age before bottling. But the bottle labels had already been printed, so they stuck with the Infamous 22 yo name.

Bottled at 50% ABV. This 22 (23?) year old blended malt was only $103 CAD at World of Whisky in Calgary, Alberta. As the label certifies, no artificial colour has been added, and it is not chill-filtered.  While there are no reviews in Meta-Critic Whisky Database, I thought I would pick it up as a Christmas gift to myself this year.

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Prominent caramel and brown sugar to start (which surprised me), followed by fruit gummies and some drier sherry fruits. Fruitcake, with red berries and raisins. Mixed nuts. Some lighter floral notes, which are nice. Light spices. There is an underlying sourness, likely from the light peat, but no real smoke per se. No solvent notes, but a bit of ethanol heat consistent with the 50% ABV.

Palate: Caramel, honey and vanilla show up first, presumably from the ex-bourbon casks. Then juicy red grapes and raisins, plus Christmas cake – very nice delayed sherry presentation. Not a lot overt smoke – more of a savoury, charred meat flavour that builds with time. Hint of rosemary. Fresh leather. Very distinctive pairing. It’s almost like drinking the caramelized drippings left in the pan of a pork roast with veggies. Rich mouthfeel, definitely oily. Some slight ethanol sting, consistent with high ABV – but it surprisingly doesn’t need any water.

Finish: Long (although not quite as long as some I’ve had in this age range). A great mix of sweet fruity notes and savoury earth notes, complex. No real bitterness, and a slight hint of smoke appears now. The ex-bourbon sweetness continues the longest, leaving a nice sugary coating on the lips and gums. Probably the closest thing in my experience is one of the aged Macallan Fine Oaks (but with a touch of smoke), or the Highland Park 25 year old (but with extra sherry).

I am surprised at how strongly the ex-bourbon character comes through here, at all levels of the tasting experience. I expected the (Macallan) sherry character to dominate more. The lightly peated malt also plays very much a supporting role – but one that comes across more as meaty instead of smokey/peaty.  Despite not being quite what I expected, I find I really enjoy this one – it’s full of surprises. Personally, I’d score this around ~9.0 on the Meta-Critic average scale.

There are not a lot of reviews of this one out there, but you can also check out criollo_and_barley on Reddit, or the reviewers at Distiller.com. Andrew at Kensington Wine Market also has tasting notes.

Highland Park 25 Year Old

Leave a comment

The Highland Park 25 Year Old has long been one of the highest-end official expressions available from this Orkney island distiller.

As I noted in my earlier review of the Highland Park 18 Year Old, this distillery has an unusual profile of rich sherry-cask notes and distinctive island peat. The additional aging here should further enhance the wood-derived characteristics, and attenuate the peat presence.

I recently had the chance to sample a 2005 edition bottling. This one was bottled at 50.7% ABV cask strength. The current bottling (48.1% ABV) sells for a rather steep for $900 CAD at the LCBO.

Here is how the 25 yo expression compares to other Highland Parks in my Meta-Critic database:

Highland Park 10yo: 8.52 ± 0.26 on 15 reviews ($$$)
Highland Park 12yo (all reviews): 8.66 ± 0.22 on 25 reviews ($$$)
Highland Park 15yo: 8.70 ± 0.22 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Highland Park 15yo Fire: 8.74 ± 0.37 on 9 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 17yo Ice: 8.72 ± 0.28 on 9 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 18yo: 9.07 ± 0.22 on 25 reviews ($$$$$)
Highland Park 21yo: 8.90 ± 0.40 on 16 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 25yo: 9.14 ± 0.23 on 14 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 30yo: 9.14 ± 0.41 on 12 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 40yo: 9.17 ± 0.43 on 10 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park Dark Origins: 8.50 ± 0.47 on 20 reviews ($$$$)
Highland Park Valkyrie: 8.74 ± 0.22 on 6 reviews ($$$$)

As you can see, it gets one of the highest scores for this family. Here is what I find in the glass:

Nose: Sweet, and very fruity – including berries, banana, cantaloupe and grapes. Seems almost port-like in its characteristics. I’ve never gotten this much fruit from a Highland Park before. Honey. Strong wood spice, plus some eucalyptus – kind of reminds me of Old Spice after-shave. Anise. Something vaguely Springbank-like with its sweet peat notes. Only lightly smokey, but very complex, with lots going on here. No real off notes.

Palate: ‎ Initial smoke, but it fades quickly. Caramel, and sort of a burnt toffee sensation joining the honey. Berries and mixed fruit salad. Oranges. Wood spice as expected, slightly bitter. Coffee and a touch of chocolate join the anise. Good mouth feel – though not as strong as I expected for 50.7% ABV (i.e., not as thick, but still coats well). You can really taste the extended wood aging. In the end, this really isn’t very smokey.

Finish: Long. Nice mix of fruit and wood spice. No real bitterness or other impairments.   Again, not much smoke though.

Adding water makes it a touch sweeter (bringing up the honey in particular). It also seems to accentuate the wood spice. Your call of course, but I think it benefits from a few drops.

I can see why this scores so well – it is really a pretty flawless presentation, with no off notes at any point. It’s also very complex – especially on the nose, which I like (I’m a big fan of sniffing my whisky). It is heavily oaked without being bitter, which is impressive. If I were to have any criticism it would be the lower levels of smoke than I’m used to from Highland Park. For the price, I’d personally prefer the Caol Ila 30 Year Old over this, mainly for its extinguished campfire notes. And where I am, I can get the fruity and woody Redbreast 21 Year Old for almost a quarter the price (although of course, it is completely unpeated).

There aren’t many reviewers who have compared multiple editions, but Serge of Whisky Fun gives this edition a very similar score to the earlier and later editions. Ruben of Whisky Notes gave this expression is a very good score, slightly higher than newer expressions. For the various versions, most reviewers are very positive – including Jim Murray, Oliver of Dramming, My Annoying Opinions, and Thomas of Whisky Saga. The guys at Quebec Whisky are the typically moderately positive.

Paul John Bold

2 comments

As I mentioned in inaugural review of Paul John Edited, this Indian single malt whisky maker is starting to get wider international exposure. Next up is my review of Paul John Bold – a fully peated Indian whisky.

Apparently, peat is brought over to Goa from Islay for this expression, where it is used to dry their 6-row Indian barley. This differs from the original Edited edition, where imported peated Scottish barley was added to their standard unpeated Indian barley. As a result, I would expect a more heavily peated expression here – but one clearly showcasing the Paul John house-style.

Bottled at 46% ABV, I picked up a full bottle of this one during my travels in Western Canada late last year. I believe I paid ~$85 CAD for it.

Here is how it compares to other Indian whiskies in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Amrut Bourbon Single Cask: 8.74 ± 0.32 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Fusion: 8.89 ± 0.25 on 25 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Indian Single Malt: 8.26 ± 0.82 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt: 8.69 ± 0.32 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt Cask Strength: 9.14 ± 0.18 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask (all casks): 8.77 ± 0.40 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Two Continents: 8.81 ± 0.44 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Single Cask: 8.90 ± 0.33 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Classic Select Cask: 8.62 ± 0.37 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Brilliance: 8.47 ± 0.37 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Peated Select Cask: 8.78 ± 0.26 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Bold: 8.75 ± 0.21 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Edited: 8.46 ± 0.48 on 8 reviews ($$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Definitely a peated malt – phenolic, but more smoke and gasoline exhaust than your typical Islay peated whisky. Almost like toasted barley? Sweet, in an uncomplicated simple syrup sort of way. Some vanilla. Green apples and some citrus (lemon). Cumin seeds. A bit funky, similar to some of the younger Swedish whiskies I’ve reviewed recently.

Palate: Strong honey note now, definitely a sweet one. A bit of caramel. Some red delicious joins the green apple. Lemon drop candies. Scottish oat cakes and arrowroot baby biscuits. Grassy. Not really much peat here. Mouthfeel is a bit light for 46%, would have been better a little higher, I expect. Dare I say it – this is “smooth.” Easy drinking, you could polish this off pretty quickly if you weren’t careful.

Finish‎: Medium length (a bit quick for a peated whisky, though). Surprisingly, a lingering fruity sweetness lasts the longest (plus some vanilla cake frosting). Faint lingering smoke, but not as much you would might have expected from the initial nose.

Water brings up the fruit notes on the nose, but waters down the mouthfeel slightly (and brings up the sweetness even more). I recommend you drink it neat. If you do add water, probably no more than a few drops.

Not a particular complex whisky – but a pleasant enough sipper, and very easy to drink neat. You might even call it elegant. This is one for when you just want to relax with friends (who don’t mind the strong phenolic nose). Certainly better than the Edited I recently tried, but I again would score this slightly lower than the Meta-Critic average.

Among reviewers, Jim Murray is again a huge fan. Fairly positive are Jonny of Whisky Advocate, Serge of Whisky Fun, as well as Unclimbability and Devoz from Reddit. Worth trying out if you get the chance.

 

 

Paul John Edited

Leave a comment

Paul John in an Indian single malt whisky maker, based in the southwestern Indian state of Goa. While the Bangalore-based Amrut tends to get all the single malt attention, Paul John has actually been producing whisky since 1992. I’ve noticed Paul John whiskies starting to show up in many countries in the last couple of years (including Canada – Western Canada, at any rate).

Their first unpeated single malt whisky (“Brilliance”) was distilled from Indian 6-row barley. But from what I can find online, this “Edited” second release supposedly uses ~15% peated spirit, made from imported Scottish barley (with malted barley phenol levels of about 20-25 ppm). I don’t know if that is still the case for current releases, or if they have moved to in-house peating yet. In any case, you should a expect a lightly peated expression here.

Like the earlier Brilliance, Edited is matured exclusively in ex-bourbon casks. There is no age statement, but I expect it is fairly young (in keeping with other tropical climate whiskies). Bottled at 46% ABV, it typically retails for around ~$60 USD most places. I actually sampled this at the SWISS Air lounge in Zurich.

Here is how it compares to other Indian whiskies in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Amrut Bourbon Single Cask: 8.74 ± 0.32 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Fusion: 8.89 ± 0.25 on 25 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Indian Single Malt: 8.26 ± 0.82 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt: 8.69 ± 0.32 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt Cask Strength: 9.14 ± 0.18 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask (all casks): 8.77 ± 0.40 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Two Continents: 8.81 ± 0.44 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Single Cask: 8.90 ± 0.33 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Classic Select Cask: 8.62 ± 0.37 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Brilliance: 8.47 ± 0.37 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Peated Select Cask: 8.78 ± 0.26 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Bold: 8.75 ± 0.21 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Edited: 8.46 ± 0.48 on 8 reviews ($$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Sweet and lightly peated. Getting a lot of ex-bourbon notes – honey, caramel and tons of vanilla. Apple and pear. Green peas (which is distinctive). Not very complex, but pleasant enough. The peat is relatively light – strikes me as something like a lightly peated Speyside scotch. Touch of old sweat socks. Slight ethanol singe on deep inhale.

Palate: Very sweet again, honey and vanilla in particular, plus corn syrup. The sweetness dominates over everything else, honestly. Hint of fruit compote. Slight tongue tingle, on the back and sides of the tongue. A bit of glue, somewhat dry at end. Watery for 46% ABV, would have guessed lower honestly. Disappointing, but not offensive.

Finish‎: Medium. Has a dry finish, evaporates quickly in the mouth. Faint lingering smoke, more like old paper somehow. Aside from the smoke, the flavours just disappears.

Water brings in nothing new on nose, and lightens the mouth feel further.  It also becomes a touch acidic on finish, which wasn’t there before. Simply put, don’t do it – it is better neat.

At the end of the day, this is a relatively unoffensive spirit – it just isn’t very interesting. Personally, I think the Meta-Critic average score is a bit high – I would have rated it a little lower. Among reviewers, Jim Murray is a huge fan of this one. Moderately positive are Joshua of Whiskey Wash, Dominic of Whisky Advocate and Serge of Whisky Fun. Very negative are TOModera of Reddit and Ruben of Whisky Notes.

Ledaig 10 Year Old

6 comments

Welcome to a different kind of peated Scotch whisky experience. Ledaig (pronounced le-chaig or le-chick) is not a very well known single malt whisky – even among peated whisky fans. It is produced by Tobermory distillery on the isle of Mull, just north of Islay.

Established in 1798 under the original name Ledaig, Tobermory distillery reserves its original name for just its peated malt whisky line. Their unpeated whiskies are sold under the Tobermory name.

This 10 year old peated whisky is very reasonably priced in most jurisdictions ($70 CAD at the LCBO). It has garnered mixed reviews over the years, and fell below my radar until a bottle appeared at a recent tasting that I was at. I was impressed enough to pick up my own bottle, which I have sampled over many evenings while preparing this review.

The strength of this one is interesting, at 46.3% ABV.  That might sound familiar to you – Bunnahabhain on Islay also bottles all their malts at this level. Not surprisingly, both Tobermory and Bunnahabhain are currently owned by liquor conglomerate Distell, which acquired the whole set from Burn Stewart Distillers in 2013.

Let’s see how it compares to other peated whiskies, and the unpeated Tobermory line:

Ardbeg 10yo: 8.91 ± 0.32 on 25 reviews ($$$)
Benromach 10yo: 8.69 ± 0.26 on 22 reviews ($$$)
Bowmore 10yo Tempest: 8.80 ± 0.20 on 20 reviews ($$$$)
Bowmore 12yo: 8.40 ± 0.27 on 20 reviews ($$$)
Bunnahabhain Ceòbanach: 8.82 ± 0.26 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Caol Ila 12yo: 8.73 ± 0.18 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Jura 10yo Origin: 8.03 ± 0.36 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Jura Superstition: 8.27 ± 0.44 on 22 reviews ($$$)
Laphroaig 10yo: 8.85 ± 0.25 on 23 reviews ($$$)
Laphroaig Quarter Cask: 8.31 ± 0.30 on 24 reviews ($$$$)
Ledaig 10yo: 8.34 ± 0.38 on 22 reviews ($$$)
Ledaig 18yo: 8.65 ± 0.70 on 9 reviews ($$$$$)
Longrow Peated: 8.79 ± 0.19 on 14 reviews ($$$)
Springbank 10yo: 8.70 ± 0.24 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Springbank CV: 8.27 ± 0.36 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Talisker 10yo: 8.92 ± 0.17 on 24 reviews ($$$$)
Talisker Storm: 8.59 ± 0.26 on 18 reviews ($$$$)
Tobermory 10yo: 8.26 ± 0.43 on 22 reviews ($$$)
Tobermory 15yo: 8.57 ± 0.32 on 15 reviews ($$$$$)

Ledaig is getting a below-average score from my Meta-Critic panel, in-line with the similarly priced Jura Superstition and Laphroaig Quarter Cask.

Let’s see what I find in the glass.

Nose‎: Smoke and peat, reminds me of slightly charred rubber (like a bike tire that has blown out). Just a touch medicinal, with a definite earthy, vegetal characteristic to the peat. Also has some dried tobacco and hay, which is an interesting mix. Otherwise, lightly sweet with vanilla and caramel. Dried fruits, apple and pear mainly. A bit nutty. It is a pleasant sniffer in the moderately peated family. Water brings up the sweetness and dampens the smoke slightly.

Palate: Smokey of course, but less overtly peaty in the mouth. Sweet caramel and vanilla come through the strongest, along with fudge. Malt and hay again. Green grapes join the dried apples. Typical wood spices pick up next, with cinnamon and some pepper. Some tongue tingle, but otherwise a good oily mouthfeel. It’s nice. Water again bring up the sweetness, and lightens the mouthfeel slightly.

Finish: Medium-long. Interestingly, the tingle from the palate lingers a good while. Mild spice and long-lasting sweetness – although not cloying or artificial. A sea saltiness also emerges over time, which I wasn’t getting before – always nice to find something extra on the finish. Water seems to add a touch of bitterness to the finish.

I’m really impressed with this one, especially for the price. It is one of the cheapest age-stated peated bottlings where I live, and one you could easily overlook in your search for the big names. But that would be a mistake – there is more here than I expected. Personally, I would recommend you drink this one neat – water mainly heightens the sweetness, which is prominent enough in my view.

While it is not likely to fully satisfy an Arbeg or Laphroaig enthusiast, the Ledaig 10 year old is a good alternative for peat fans craving something a bit different. I’ve seen one reviewer refer to the peat characteristic here as “muddled”, and there is some truth to that – it is pretty unique in my experience. But I like it, and I’m not typically a big peat head. I’m surprised it doesn’t score higher in my Meta-Critic Database.

For reviews of this whisky, Savannah of the Whiskey Wash is very positive, as is Patrick of Quebec Whisky. Moderately positive are Ralfy, Serge of Whisky Fun, John of Whisky Advocate and Martin of Quebec Whisky. Some of the lowest scores come from Thomas of Whisky Saga, Oliver of Dramming, Andre and RV at Quebec Whisky and Nathan the Scotch Noob.

Smögen 4 Year Old Sherry Project 1:4

Leave a comment

Following up on my inaugural Smögen review, I also received a sample of the Smögen Sherry Project 1:4 from Whisky Saga’s Thomas Øhrbom.

Smögen Sherry Project 1:4 is the fourth and final installment of the Smögen Sherry Project series. The earlier batches (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) had limited – but increasing – finishing time in sherry casks. Sherry Project 1:4 is fully matured in first-fill sherry quarter casks, allowing collectors of the whole series to see how sherry finishing influences the final product.

Smögen Sherry Project 1:4 is a 4 year old whisky, and is bottled at cask strength (57.2% ABV). As is usual, the Smögen website has some background on information on this release, and the Sherry Project in general.

The Smögen Sherry Project 1:4 was distilled in July 2011, and bottled in August 2015.  Its entire storage life was spent in four Sherry quarter casks, of European oak. It was released in November 2015, and the entire 640 bottle official release sold out within a few minutes. In total there were 909 bottles from the out-turn (of 500 mL size). It was sold for 921 SEK (about $145 CAD).

Here is how various Swedish whiskies compare in my Meta-Critic Database:

Box Dálvve: 8.63 ± 0.28 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Box PX – Pedro Ximénez Finish: 8.90 ± 0.09 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Box The 2nd Step Collection 02: 8.91 ± 0.05 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Box The Festival 2014: 8.94 ± 0.13 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Mackmyra Brukswhisky: 8.45 ± 0.60 on 9 reviews ($$$)
Mackmyra Moment Glöd: 8.84 ± 0.41 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)
Mackmyra Reserve Single Cask (various casks): 9.01 ± 0.49 on 7 reviews ($$$$$)
Mackmyra Special 03: 8.69 ± 0.28 on 7 reviews ($$$$$)
Mackmyra Special 04: 8.76 ± 0.35 on 8 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra Special 05: 8.50 ± 0.38 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra Special 07: 8.51 ± 0.51 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra Svensk Ek: 8.34 ± 0.23 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra Svensk Rök: 8.71 ± 0.14 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Mackmyra The First Edition (Den Första Utgåvan): 8.65 ± 0.36 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Smogen Primor: 8.50 ± 0.24 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)
Smogen Sherry Project 1:4: 8.82 ± 0.32 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Smogen Single Cask (all editions): 8.85 ± 0.13 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)
Smogen Single Cask 4yo 7/2011: 8.94 ± 0.23 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)
Spirit of Hven Sankt Claus: 8.60 ± 0.58 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Spirit of Hven Seven Stars No. 1 Dubhe: 8.29 ± 0.42 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Spirit of Hven Seven Stars No. 2 Merak: 8.40 ± 0.25 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Spirit of Hven Seven Stars No. 3 Phecda: 8.53 ± 0.34 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Spirit of Hven Tycho’s Star: 8.58 ± 0.07 on 3 reviews ($$$$)
Spirit of Hven Urania: 8.55 ± 0.46 on 3 reviews ($$$$$+)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Somewhat restrained nose, especially compared to the single cask Smogen I recently reviewed. The peat is there, along with some medicinal funk, but it is subtle. Light wood smoke. For fruits, mainly dried red fruits, some berries and a few raisins. Tobacco. Peanuts and pine nuts. I’m getting some of those conifer notes again, but mild.  It is nice, but a little shy.

Palate: Packs a heftier punch on the palate than the nose indicated, with immediate peat and wood smoke, as well as some ethanol heat (i.e., feels the 57.2% ABV here). Lots of caramel and vanilla. Tobacco again, and even more wood spice, plus the pepper and chilies that I found on the single cask sample. Mouthfeel is good, with a lingering syrupiness that just makes you want to hold it in your mouth. This is pleasant surprise from the restrained nose – a more substantial malt in the mouth.

Finish: Medium long. Syrupy sweet to start, then turns a bit bitter on the final finish (likely from the wood influence, which grows over time). Caramel and a bit of eucalyptus carry though as well. A bit of astringency also comes up at the very end.

With water, the nose opens up more, with the peat and wood smoke rising a bit. Water also seems to enhance the sweetness on the finish, giving it better balance. On the whole, this is one where I think a little water is necessary to get the best overall effect. You’ll need to experiment to find your sweet spot.

I know Smogen used Oloroso quarter casks for the first 1:1 release. The source is not stated for this 1:4 batch, but it strikes me as having more PX influence than Oloroso. There’s a lot of sherry sweetness here, and the underlying malt seems less peated than what when into the single cask expression I just reviewed.

It is a nice whisky, but in the end I still prefer the single cask sauternes barrique edition. This Sherry Project 1:4 is a bit less complex – but could therefore be an easier everyday sipper.

Jim Murray and Thomas of Whisky Saga both really liked this expression, and Serge of Whisky Fun gave it a very high score. Personally, I give it a lower score than the Meta-Critic average.

1 2 3