Tag Archives: Scottish

Grand Macnish Blended Scotch

Not exactly a house-hold name in the world of scotch blends, Grand Macnish has actually been in continuous production since 1863. Owned by MacDuff International, the brand has seen a recent expansion into a wide number of expressions (including several aged-stated ones). This is review of the entry-level version, which is the most common offering.

The whisky was originally developed by a Glasgow merchant, Robert McNish, who wanted to create a lighter, smoother type of scotch. It is composed of malt and grain whiskies from around the highland/speyside regions of Scotland. While it is not widely available, this entry-level blend has been sold at the LCBO for some time now (currently $40 CAD for 1.14L bottle). Bottled at 40% ABV. I managed to sample it from a friend’s recently opened bottle.

Let’s see how it compares to other entry-level blends in Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Ballantine’s Finest: 7.62 ± 0.61 on 12 reviews ($)
Catto’s 12yo: 8.06 ± 0.31 on 5 reviews ($$)
Catto’s Rare Old: 8.02 ± 0.67 on 5 reviews ($)
Chivas Regal 12yo: 7.79 ± 0.44 on 23 reviews ($$)
Cutty Sark: 7.54 ± 0.46 on 15 reviews ($)
Cutty Sark Prohibition: 8.48 ± 0.47 on 14 reviews ($$)
Dewar’s 12yo: 7.94 ± 0.35 on 14 reviews ($$)
Dewar’s White Label: 7.52 ± 0.71 on 14 reviews ($$)
Famous Grouse: 7.65 ± 0.55 on 20 reviews ($)
Grand Macnish: 7.87 ± 0.45 on 8 reviews ($)
Grant’s Blended Sherry Cask: 8.00 ± 0.21 on 6 reviews ($)
Grant’s Family Reserve Blended: 7.69 ± 0.66 on 14 reviews ($)
Hankey Bannister 12yo Regency: 8.65 ± 0.24 on 7 reviews ($$)
Hankey Bannister Original: 7.87 ± 0.31 on 6 reviews ($)
Johnnie Walker 12yo Black Label: 8.26 ± 0.47 on 24 reviews ($$)
Johnnie Walker Red Label: 7.36 ± 0.59 on 21 reviews ($)
Passport Blended Scotch: 7.29 ± 1.08 on 8 reviews ($)
Teacher’s Highland Cream: 7.95 ± 0.72 on 11 reviews ($)
Whyte & Mackay Special Reserve: 7.47 ± 0.45 on 7 reviews ($)

For the entry-level scotch category, Grand Macnish scores at the higher end of the range.

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Heavy brown sugar to start. Pear. Raisins. Lemon curd. A bit floral (lavender). Touch of cloves. Some acetone and raw ethanol, but not bad. Slightly musty note.

Palate: Molasses and brown sugar. Vanilla. Apple and pear. Light cinnamon and pepper. A touch of nuts. Some wet cardboard. Watery mouthfeel, comes across as fairly thin.

Finish: Short. Slight oaky bitterness with a vague frutiness (nothing very distinct). But not unpleasant.

I would rate this as on par (or slightly higher) than the Meta-Critic average. It has relatively few off-notes on the nose, which is surprising for a blend in this price category. While fairly basic and single, it is better than your typical bottom-shelf scotch blend. An easy to drink blend, I would recommend this one for those newcomers to scotch whisky.

The most positive review I’ve seen comes for Jan of Best Shot Whisky. Jim Murray, Ralfy, and Patrick of Quebec Whisky and Serge of Whisky Fun are all relatively positive for the category (and in line with my thinking). The lowest scores I’ve seen comes from RV of Quebec Whisky and Jason of In Search of Elegance.

Craigellachie 23 Year Old

Craigellachie is a single malt whisky distillery located in the Speyside region of Scotland (actually Aberlour, near the village of Craigellachie).  The name apparently means “rocky hill” and refers to a nearby cliff formation.

Craigellachie distillery was built in 1891, and like most Scottish whisky makers has passed through many hands over the years. In 1998, it was bought by John Dewar & Sons (now controlled by drinks giant Bacardi). The distillery’s output is directed primarily into Dewar’s blended whiskies. Note that Dewar & Sons also controls Royal Brackla, Aberfeldy, Aultmore, and Macduff (whose malts likely all suffer a similar fate).

Throughout its history, the distillery has released only a limited number of official bottlings. These were augmented in 2014 with several new age-stated expressions.  The oldest of these was a 23 year old, reviewed here. Craigellachie has since released a 31 year old expression as well.

Bottled at 46% ABV. Craigellachie 23 retails across a wide range, depending when you are located (i.e. I’ve seen it listed between ~$350-700 CAD).

Let’s see how Craigellachie malts fare in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database, compared to other Dewar products:

Aberfeldy 12yo: 8.16 ± 0.33 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Aberfeldy 16yo: 8.48 ± 0.19 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Aberfeldy 18yo: 8.58 ± 0.24 on 8 reviews ($$$$)
Aberfeldy 21yo: 8.79 ± 0.19 on 10 reviews ($$$$$)
Aultmore 12yo: 8.49 ± 0.21 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Aultmore 18yo: 8.57 ± 0.20 on 6 reviews ($$$$$)
Aultmore 25yo: 8.94 ± 0.21 on 4 reviews ($$$$$+)
Craigellachie 13yo: 8.41 ± 0.56 on 16 reviews ($$$)
Craigellachie 14yo: 8.37 ± 0.28 on 6 reviews ($$$$$+)
Craigellachie 17yo: 8.60 ± 0.19 on 11 reviews ($$$$$)
Craigellachie 23yo: 8.98 ± 0.25 on 8 reviews ($$$$$+)
Dewar’s 12yo: 7.94 ± 0.35 on 14 reviews ($$)
Dewar’s White Label: 7.51 ± 0.71 on 14 reviews ($$)
Royal Brackla 12yo: ± 8.24 0.47 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Royal Brackla 16yo: ± 8.67 0.28 on 7 reviews ($$$$$)
Royal Brackla 21yo: ± 8.79 0.18 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)

Not surprisingly, the aged expressions are fairing the best in the comparisons above. That is certainly a very good score for the Craigellachie 23 – the highest of the group.

My sample came from Redditor Strasse007.

Nose: Apple juice and honey to start (like most Craigellachies), plus plums. Lemon citrus. Dried flowers and potpourri. Cinnamon. Wintergreen. Black tea. It’s a lovely light and aged nose, but with a good amount of complexity. Faint old book glue note.

Palate: Toffee and butterscotch start off, with some honey. Candied apples. Grapes. Citrus again (more orangey now). Cinnamon and some oaky wood, plus that black tea again. Has a full mouthfeel, with a buttery texture – very nice. It makes you want to hold it in your mouth. Slight ethanol note on the swallow, which detracts for me. Also something wet cardboard-like (which similarly doesn’t appeal).

Finish: Medium length. Nutmeg and cinnamon linger the longest, with mild oak spice. Some dried apple. Faint bitter cardboard note also persists to the end, unfortunately.

Water adds some additional simple sugar, but doesn’t help with the bitterness on finish.

This is an interesting experience, and one that seems driven by both the distillate and the cask aging (or some combination thereof). It has a lot of character for a light malt, but some of the notes may be off-putting.

Certainly above average in quality, but it is not really a standout for me. I might venture that it has been over-aged (and would probably be better a little younger). But a unique experience, and one I’m glad I got to try.

It gets very high scores from Serge of Whisky Fun, Ruben of Whisky Notes, and Dave of Whisky Advocate. Also positive are TOModera, Strasse007, Throwboats and Unclimbability on Reddit. I would be more moderately positive, along with Jim Murray, and cake_my_day, Ethanized and LetThereBeR0ck on Reddit. Certainly no negative reviews out there from among my stable of reviewers.

Macallan Select Oak

Global Travel Retail (aka the chains of Duty Free shops found in airports) is an interesting place for whiskies. Although many established bottlings by known producers can be on offer (at good prices), these shops are increasingly full of no-age-statement (NAS) specialty bottlings available exclusively at duty-free.

Sometimes this can be to “try out” a new expression within a limited (yet global) market, to see if has potential for general appeal. More often than not though, these duty-free exclusives are a dumping ground for sub-standard whisky sold at inflated prices – trading on their established brand names. While I only track some of the most common Duty Free bottlings, I recommend you check out my Meta-Critic Whisky Database for anything you might be interested in trying.

Macallan Select Oak is an example of an inexpensive NAS bottling of Macallan, sold exclusively through duty-free (although I have come across it in a few specialty shops as well). It is sold as a member of the relatively inexpensive “1824” series of Macallan NAS bottlings.  It is aged in a combination of American oak previously holding either sherry or bourbon, and first-fill European oak sherry casks (supposedly a high percentage of the latter). Bottled at 40% ABV. Sold in 1L bottles, it typically retails for ~$90 CAD.

Let’s see how it does against other Macallans in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Macallan 10yo Fine Oak: 8.26 ± 0.30 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 10yo Sherry Oak: 8.42 ± 0.31 on 11 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 12yo Double Cask: 8.48 ± 0.39 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Macallan 1824 Amber: 8.30 ± 0.36 on 13 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Gold: 8.24 ± 0.28 on 16 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Rare Cask: 8.70 ± 0.40 on 10 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 1824 Ruby: 8.76 ± 0.21 on 13 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 1824 Select Oak: 8.26 ± 0.34 on 12 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Sienna: 8.71 ± 0.33 on 18 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Edition No. 1: 8.83 ± 0.53 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Edition No. 2: 8.88 ± 0.20 on 13 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Edition No. 3: 9.04 ± 0.07 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Whisky Maker’s Edition: 8.54 ± 0.35 on 14 reviews ($$$$)

As expected, this is one of the lowest scores I’ve seen for a Macallan – on par with the entry-level Gold and 10yo Fine Oak expressions.

And now what I find in the glass:

Nose: Light but pleasant. Brown sugar and caramel (a fair amount of the latter). Golden raisins. Some dark fruit compote. Vaguely candied. You can detect the sherry presence, but it is fairly subdued overall. No oak spices that I can detect, but maybe a touch of ginger. Not very complex at all. No off notes, surprisingly.

Palate: Vanilla. Lighter fruits, apple and pear, show up now. Orange peels. Less overt sherry influence than the nose suggested. Definitely nutty in the mouth, which I wasn’t getting on the nose. Light oak spice shows up now, maybe nutmeg, plus a touch of ginger. Has a watery mouthfeel, but still with some ethanol sting – likely reflecting a young age. Dull and flat, to be honest.

Finish:‎ Medium-short. Oaky bitterness builds, along with some glue. Pepper. Not pleasant, but not overly offensive. Still, this lingering bitterness is not good. Frankly, I would want it even shorter if this is all you are going to get.

If it weren’t for finish, this would probably get a slightly below average score from me (and thus be a decent buy for the price). But personally, I find the Meta-Critic score a bit generous, and would rank this a notch below Gold or 10yo Fine Oak. All told, there are any number of inexpensive blends and malts that I would recommend over this for the price.

The highest score I’ve seen for this whisky comes from Jan of Best Shot Whisky, who gives it an above average score. This is followed by cake_my_day and MajorHop on Reddit, who give it an overall average score. The guys at Quebec whisky, John of Whisky Advocate, and xile_ on Reddit are moderately supportive – but all give it a slightly below average score. Less enthused are Jim Murray, Serge of Whisky Fun, and TOModera of Reddit who give a very low score (as I would).

Oban Distillers Edition 2015

Following up on my Oban 14 year old review, here is an example of one of their annual Distillers Edition expressions. While there can be some variation from year to year, these are all pretty similar in style – and tend to be well received by whisky enthusiasts.

The particular vintage up for review here was released in 2015. It was distilled in 2000, and underwent a period of finishing in casks that had previously held Montilla Fino (a dry and pale variety of sherry). While not a common choice for finishing typically, it is the cask type that has been consistently used for Oban’s Distillers Edition for over a decade now.  The individual vintages are all around 14-15 years old. So you can expect pretty good consistency from year to year.

Bottled at 43% ABV. It sells for $140 CAD at the LCBO. I obtained a sample through a swap with the Redditor Throzen.

Here is how it compares to similar malts in my Meta-Critic Database:

Dalwhinnie Distillers Edition: 8.51 ± 0.33 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Glenfiddich 15yo Distillery Edition: 8.71 ± 0.27 on 15 reviews ($$$$)
Glenkinchie Distiller’s Edition (all editions): 8.41 ± 0.27 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Jura Prophecy: 8.67 ± 0.31 on 17 reviews ($$$$)
Kilchoman Loch Gorm: 8.87 ± 0.26 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Kilchoman Sanaig: 8.69 ± 0.25 on 16 reviews ($$$$)
Oban 14yo: 8.51 ± 0.39 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Oban 18yo: 8.72 ± 0.19 on 14 reviews ($$$$$)
Oban 21yo: 9.02 ± 0.24 on 5 reviews ($$$$$+)
Oban Distillers Edition (all vintages): 8.71 ± 0.21 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Oban Little Bay: 8.40 ± 0.38 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Old Pulteney 17yo: 8.76 ± 0.24 on 20 reviews ($$$$$)
Old Pulteney 21yo: 8.82 ± 0.45 on 18 reviews ($$$$$)
Springbank 18yo: 8.96 ± 0.17 on 20 reviews ($$$$$)
Talisker Distiller’s Edition (all editions): 8.92 ± 0.23 on 24 reviews ($$$$)
Talisker Skye: 8.43 ± 0.28 on 12 reviews ($$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Starts off with the classic Oban honey notes, followed by golden brown sugar. I can definitely detect the sherry notes, with golden raisins added to the usual apple/pear and grapes of Oban. A hint of smoke is here, but it seems subdued compared to the regular 14 yo release. Heather is prominent, joining the typical cut hay and floral notes. In some ways, this reminds of an even more lightly-peated Highland Park. There is some ethanol nose hair singe, which I don’t get on the 14yo. A decent nose overall.

Palate: Honey and salted caramel to start. Stewed mixed fruits, but with a dose of bitter earth cherries (ground cherries) added to the mix. Also golden raisins. Cinnamon and nutmeg. There is a bit of pepper here, giving it some kick. Slight bitterness on swallow, but dissipates quickly (reminds of dried paper glue).

Finish:‎ Medium length. Odd mix of bitter and sweet, frankly. Pear and apple re-surface, but the glue note lingers. Sticky residue on the gums, which is nice.

With a bit of water, you get sweeter caramel in mouth. I would say it benefits from a few drops.

Personally, I prefer the regular Oban14 yo. The Distillers Edition is well put together, but I find that it is just not that interesting or compelling for the style. There are plenty of other lightly sherried malts you can try instead – the Glenkinchie Distiller’s Edition (aka “Double Matured”) comes to mind.

Among reviewers, Elizabeth of the Whiskey Reviewer gives Distillers Edition top marks. Most reviewers are more moderate in their praise, including for the example Nathan the Scotch Noob, Michael of Diving of Pearls, and Ruben of Whisky Notes – all of whom rank Oban 14 yo higher (as I do). In contrast, Patrick of Quebec Whisky finds them about comparable, while Jim Murray and Serge of Whisky Fun both prefer the Distillers Edition over the 14 yo. No real negative reviews out there, Gavin of Whisky Advocate has given it a lower score than typical.

Oban 14 Year Old

Oban 14 year old is one of those classic single malts that everyone should try (in my view).

Oban is a Scottish distillery owned by whisky and drinks giant Diageo. It is located in the west coast port and fishing village of Oban. It was established in 1794 – even before the town of the same name, which sprung up later around it. It is an unusually small distillery for Scotland, as it has only only two pot stills – and relatively tiny ones at that.

Oban produces an unusual style of whisky, something of a hybrid between the dry, smokey style of the Scottish islands, and the lighter, sweeter malts of the Highlands. Diageo credits this to the relatively long fermentation process, and slow condensation – which happens in wooden worm tubs outside the distillery rooftops, exposed to the salted sea air.

The 14 year old expression has long been their standard release, along with an annual Distillers Edition and a few limited release longer-age versions. A couple of years ago, they released Oban Little Bay, a no-age-statement (NAS) expression likely intended to take some of the pressure off the age-stated line. But like many enthusiasts, Oban 14 yo was one of the first Scottish single malts that I had tried (after the ubiquitous Glenlivet and Glenfiddich expressions, of course). I tried it a few times again recently in my travels, for the purposes of this review.

Bottled at 43% ABV. Sold at a rather steep $110 CAD at the LCBO (but I’ve seen it for less in my travels).

Here is how it compares in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Dalwhinnie 15yo: 8.64 ± 0.36 on 20 reviews ($$$$)
Glenkinchie 12yo: 8.24 ± 0.23 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Glenfiddich 12yo: 8.10 ± 0.22 on 26 reviews ($$$)
Glenlivet 12yo: 8.06 ± 0.30 on 22 reviews ($$$)
Jura 10yo Origin: 8.06 ± 0.35 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Jura Superstition: 8.27 ± 0.45 on 22 reviews ($$$)
Kilchoman 100% Islay (all editions): 8.73 ± 0.23 on 18 reviews ($$$$)
Kilchoman Machir Bay (all vintages): 8.78 ± 0.22 on 22 reviews ($$$$)
Oban 14yo: 8.51 ± 0.39 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Oban 18yo: 8.72 ± 0.19 on 14 reviews ($$$$$)
Oban 21yo: 9.02 ± 0.24 on 5 reviews ($$$$$+)
Oban Distillers Edition (all vintages): 8.71 ± 0.21 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Oban Little Bay: 8.40 ± 0.38 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Old Pulteney 12yo: 8.44 ± 0.25 on 26 reviews ($$$)
Old Pulteney Navigator: 8.35 ± 0.36 on 13 reviews ($$$)
Springbank 10yo: 8.70 ± 0.24 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Springbank CV: 8.27 ± 0.36 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Talisker 10yo: 8.87 ± 0.23 on 25 reviews ($$$$)
Talisker Skye: 8.43 ± 0.28 on 12 reviews ($$)

And now what I find in the glass:

Nose: Very honeyed, with some salted caramel notes. Apple, pear, green grapes and a few light berries. Touch of grapefruit. It is also unmistakably peated, with a fairly sweet peat aroma. Fresh smoke and a faint smell of old sweatsock (which is oddly pleasant). Freshly cut hay and field flowers. A bit more wood influence than Dalwhinnie 15yo, which is similarly honeyed and light (but less smokey). No real off notes, and even the ethanol seems subdued here. Very fresh and clean is how it comes across, almost delicate.

Palate: Honey remains the dominant note. Vanilla and that salted caramel again. Similar citrus note as the nose. Cereal and malt, with a baked goods character. Some wood spice, in the form of nutmeg and light cinnamon. No real smoke here, but it is slightly funky on the swallow (which is common enough on lightly peated malts). Mouthfeel is decent, with a slightly oily character. Easy drinking, though not as sweet as Dalwhinnie.

Finish: Fairly light and short. Light caramel and a bit of apple juice persist, along with a touch of that smokey funk. Really not much going on here, it’s a pretty gentle lead out. Perhaps a few of the oak spices persist, if you search for them.

Oban 14 whisky bottleFor me, the nose is the best part of this whisky, as it brings together all the Highland and coastal elements quite nicely. It is fine in the mouth, with decent character and moderate complexity – but perhaps still a bit on the simple side. The finish is disappointingly short and relatively plain.

An excellent introduction to single malts for newcomers to whisky. I would personally rate this whisky a little higher than the Meta-Critic average (and comparable to the Dalwhinnie 15yo at ~8.65).

Among reviewers, Nathan the Scotch Noob, Michael of Diving for Peals and Margarett of Whiskey Wash all give this expression top scores. It also does well with Ruben of Whisky Notes, Richard of Whiskey Reviewer, Patrick of Quebec Whisky and Serge of Whisky Fun. But it also garners a number of relatively low scores, including of Dave of Whisky Advocate, Jason of In Search of Elegance, Ralfy and Thomas of Whisky Saga. The lowest score I’ve seen comes from Jim Murray.

Worth seeking out if you haven’t tried it – or are a fan of more delicate single malts generally.

Scallywag Blended Malt

Scallywag is part of the Remarkable Regional Malts series by Douglas Laing, an independent bottler of Scottish malt whisky.

In operation since 1948, Douglas Laing has the typical extensive catalogue of individual single malt bottlings. But the company is perhaps better known for their range of blended malt (vatted malt) whiskies, based on defined regions of Scotland. Produced in small batches, these have colourful labels and quirky names, including Scallywag, Timorous Beastie, Rock Oyster, The Epicurean, and Big Peat.

In the case of Scallywag, this blended malt comes from several Speyside whiskies, including Mortlach, Macallan and Glenrothes. Supposedly, many of the whiskies used in this bottling were aged in Spanish sherry butts, along with standard ex-bourbon casks. The Scallywag name is apparently inspired by a long line of Douglas Laing family Fox Terriers. The label is adorned by a rather distinctive depiction of a Fox Terrier wearing a monocle.

Bottled at 46% ABV (which is always appreciated), this small batch whisky is non-chill-filtered, with natural colour.

Given this pedigree, I’ve been curious to try Scallywag for some time. I finally managed to pick up a 50mL mini bottle on a recent trip to Berlin (on sale for 7.10 euros at KaDeWe). And quite conveniently, it has recently become available at the LCBO for $74 CAD.  A good time for a review!

Here is how it compares to some other similarly-price vatted malts in my Meta-Critic Database:

Big Peat: 8.75 ± 0.24 on 16 reviews ($$$$)
Big Peat Christmas Edition: 8.82 ± 0.14 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Compass Box Enlightenment: 8.81 ± 0.18 on 6 reviews ($$$$)
Compass Box Oak Cross: 8.68 ± 0.33 on 14 reviews ($$$)
Compass Box Peat Monster (all editions): 8.76 ± 0.25 on 21 reviews ($$$)
Compass Box Spice Tree: 8.79 ± 0.31 on 23 reviews ($$$$)
Monkey Shoulder: 8.31 ± 0.37 on 19 reviews ($$)
Nikka Pure Malt Black: 8.78 ± 0.21 on 14 reviews ($$$)
Nikka Pure Malt Red: 8.53 ± 0.33 on 9 reviews ($$$)
Nikka Pure Malt White: 8.70 ± 0.32 on 13 reviews ($$$)
Pig’s Nose 5yo Blended Malt: 7.93 ± 0.41 on 3 reviews ($$)
Scallywag: 8.24 ± 0.56 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Scallywag 13yo: 8.87 ± 0.05 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Scallywag Cask Strength (all batches): 8.75 ± 0.07 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Sheep Dip Blended Malt: 8.45 ± 0.35 on 13 reviews ($$)
Sheep Dip Old Hebridean 1990 Blended Malt: 9.08 ± 0.18 on 6 reviews ($$$$)

Here’s what I find in the glass:

Nose: Light honey and caramel to start, followed by some brown sugar. Lightly fruity, with usual apple/pear, but also raisins. Can definitely detect the sherry cask component. Some lemon zing. Ethanol and an unusual off-note – not quite antiseptic, but close (glue?). A bit shy and restrained overall, but with some sharp alcohol fumes unfortunately.

Palate: Yowza, this is a hot one – the ethanol really kicks in here. Once you get past that assault, there is plenty of caramel and simple sugar. The ex-bourbon notes are probably the most prominent, with apple and pear. Frankly hard to find the sherry now. Wood spice with cloves and nutmeg, and a touch of pepper. In addition to the ethanol fumes, there is some oaky bitterness on the swallow. The bitterness lingers on the tongue, unfortunately. Seems somewhat grain dominated.

Finish: Medium short. Apple and cinnamon. Bitterness lingers the longest though. Falls a bit flat honestly.

As you can guess from above, I am not a fan. Given this is a small batch release, it’s possible that my sample is an anomaly. But I find my mini bottle to be way too grainy, too young, and too hot.

I wanted to get a second opinion from Mrs Selfbuilt – who was immediately annoyed with me for making her try it (she’s more a fan of aged blends, matured in exclusively in ex-bourbon casks). So that’s a double thumbs-down. I’d recommend Monkey Shoulder as a better example of this style, or just any of the non-peated Compass Box blended malts.

Among reviewers, the most positive I’ve seen are Andre and Martin of Quebec Whisky. Moderately positive are Thomas of Whisky Saga and TOModera of Reddit. But more typical scores some from Serge of Whisky Fun,  Ruben of Whisky Notes, and Jan of Best Shot Whisky. Personally, I’m more in line with Oliver of Dramming, and washeewashee and Shane_il of Reddit, who give it lower scores.

Grant’s 18 Year Old Blended

This is a limited release of an age-stated version of the Grant’s line of blended scotch whisky (not to be confused with Glen Grant single malts). Prior to this premium age-stated release, I’ve only had the entry-level Grant’s blend (known as “Grant’s Family Reserve”). Although I haven’t reviewed it, I found that no-age-statement (NAS) blend to be very basic, and would not recommended it.

So what drew me to buying this bottle? In my experience, age-stated blends are generally pretty decent, especially from William Grant and Sons (e.g., the Storas 21 yo). Grant’s 18 yo has been finished in Port casks, which typically brings in a fruity character that I quite like. It is reasonably priced at the LCBO ($80 CAD, bought on sale for $64). And I found another whisky enthusiast willing to take a gamble and split the bottle with me, thus further lowering my risk.

Grant’s 18 yo is bottled at the industry-standard 40% ABV. I presume it is chill-filtered and colouring has been added.

Here is how it compares in my Meta-Critic Database to some other blended scotch brands that also come with age-stated expressions:

Ballantine’s 17yo: 8.77 ± 0.32 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Ballantine’s Finest: 7.62 ± 0.61 on 12 reviews ($)
Catto’s 12yo: 8.06 ± 0.31 on 5 reviews ($$)
Catto’s Rare Old: 8.02 ± 0.67 on 5 reviews ($)
Chivas Regal 12yo: 7.79 ± 0.44 on 23 reviews ($$)
Chivas Regal 18yo: 8.23 ± 0.46 on 15 reviews ($$$$)
Dewar’s 12yo: 7.94 ± 0.35 on 14 reviews ($$)
Dewar’s White Label: 7.52 ± 0.71 on 14 reviews ($$)
Famous Grouse Gold Reserve 12yo: 8.47 ± 0.30 on 10 reviews ($$)
Famous Grouse: 7.65 ± 0.55 on 20 reviews ($)
Grant’s 12yo: 8.47 ± 0.42 on 5 reviews ($$)
Grant’s 18yo: 8.71 ± 0.31 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Grant’s Blended Sherry Cask: 8.00 ± 0.21 on 6 reviews ($)
Grant’s Family Reserve Blended: 7.69 ± 0.66 on 14 reviews ($)
Hankey Bannister 12yo Regency: 8.65 ± 0.24 on 7 reviews ($$)
Hankey Bannister 21yo Partner’s Reserve: 8.55 ± 0.43 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Hankey Bannister Original: 7.87 ± 0.31 on 6 reviews ($)
Johnnie Walker 12yo Black Label: 8.26 ± 0.47 on 24 reviews ($$)
Johnnie Walker Blue Label: 8.53 ± 0.34 on 17 reviews ($$$$$)
Johnnie Walker Green Label: 8.53 ± 0.35 on 21 reviews ($$$$)
Storas 21yo Rare Cask Reserves Blended: 8.69 ± 0.11 on 4 reviews ($$$)

As you can see, that’s a top score for an age-stated blended scotch. Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Fairly rich and complex nose, likely owing to the Port finishing. Honey and brown sugar. Caramel. A base of apple and pear juice, with figs and raisins. Some red berries (and red grapes). Lemon citrus. Nutty, which I like. A slight bit of funk, which adds to character. A bit spirity, but no real solvent off-notes – definite shows its extended age.

Palate: Tons of honey and caramel to start, very sweet. Vanilla. Fruity, with dried red fruits prominent. Figs again, and the standard apples and pear. Toasted almonds. Malty, which is nice for a blend (i.e., not particularly grainy). Very light wood spice, nutmeg mainly. No burn. Pleasant to hold in the mouth. ‎Turns slightly bitter on the swallow. Still, this is one for those with a sweet tooth. Wish it was higher proof, as it has a rather watery mouthfeel (as expected).

Finish:‎ Medium-short. Lemon zest. Chocolate-covered almonds. A winey Port finish on the fade out, with a bit of oaky bitterness. Some mouth puckering astringency. Not bad for a blend, but a longer finish would be nice.

A good integration of malt and grain whiskies – heavier on the malt, it seems to me. Certainly higher quality than regular NAS blends‎.

I like a nice Port finish on a fairly simple base whisky, like Pike Creek 10yo and Kavalan Concertmaster.‎ This Grant’s 18yo reminds me more of the later, although sweeter in this case. And a lot cheaper around here, too. Higher proof would have been great, along with a longer lasting finish, but a good blend for what it is. I think the Meta-Critic average score is fair.

Lawrence of Malt Maniacs gives it a very high score, as does Richard of Whiskey Reviewer. Ruben of Whisky Notes and Dominic of Whisky Advocate both give it a below average score (but positive reviews). The lowest score comes from Oliver of Dramming.

Macallan Edition No. 2

Macallan Edition is an annual limited series. Each year, Macallan releases a new Edition that is based on a unique selection of oak cask styles for that year’s release. As an extra wrinkle, each year is to be a co-creation with different partners.

Edition No. 2 was released in 2017, and the new no. 3 is just coming out now (so I figured I better get this review out while you can still grab a bottle if you want). Edition No. 2 is a collaboration between Macallan Master Whisky Maker Bob Dalgarno and the three Roca brothers, co-founders of El Celler de Can Roca, apparently one of the top named restaurants in the world.

Edition No. 2 is based on seven oak cask types (both European and American oak) from four different bodegas.

Bottled at 48.2% ABV, it is currently still available at the LCBO for $175 CAD.

Let’s see how it does in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Macallan 12yo Double Cask: 8.48 ± 0.39 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Macallan 12yo Fine Oak: 8.46 ± 0.40 on 15 reviews ($$$$)
Macallan 15yo Fine Oak: 8.44 ± 0.51 on 12 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 17yo Fine Oak: 8.78 ± 0.50 on 11 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 18yo Fine Oak: 8.72 ± 0.26 on 7 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 21yo Fine Oak: 8.51 ± 0.40 on 6 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 1824 Amber: 8.30 ± 0.36 on 13 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Gold: 8.24 ± 0.28 on 16 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Rare Cask: 8.70 ± 0.40 on 10 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 1824 Ruby: 8.76 ± 0.21 on 13 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 1824 Sienna: 8.71 ± 0.33 on 18 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Cask Strength: 8.93 ± 0.35 on 16 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan Edition No. 1: 8.83 ± 0.52 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Edition No. 2: 8.87 ± 0.20 on 13 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Select Oak: 8.28 ± 0.37 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Macallan Whisky Maker’s Edition: 8.53 ± 0.36 on 13 reviews ($$$$)

While not exactly cheap at $175 CAD, this is one the few releases of Macallan in recent years where I have not heard too many grumblings of the price relative to quality.

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Delicious rich dark chocolate and creamy caramel, a great start. Fresh raisins and figs, with dried apple and pear. Brown sugar. Nutty and earthy, maybe some ginger. Definitely an unusual cask influence at work – there is something spicy here, more than typical barrel spice (chilies?). Vaguely solventy, almost sour, but that seems to go with the earthy component. Not your typical Macallan, this is a distinctive and complex nose.

Palate: The sweetness simplifies initially (i.e., white sugar), and the fruits turn more candied, with more prominent apple and pear. Citrus picks up now too (orange peel). Cinnamon. The earthiness seems to have lightened, leaving a very clean palate – with just a hint of something vegetal lurking in the background. Also very drinkable at the 48.2% ABV. It is almost watery in fact. Definitely not quite as complex as the nose, but pleasant. Some brown sugar comes back on the swallow.

Finish: Medium long. The spice comes back, a particularly oaky spice. Still very clean, with the simple candied fruitiness from the palate lasting a fairly long time.

With water, you get a simpler nose – raisin fruitiness is increased, earthiness decreased. Sweeter in mouth as well. Doesn’t need it in my view.

Simpler than I expected, especially on the way out. But it has none of that typical youthful harshness of most NAS expressions. This is probably a good choice for those who like unusual casks expressions (e.g., fans of independent bottlers).  It is also not at all your typical Macallan profile, thanks to the wider wood influence.

At the end of the day, I can’t help but think that this would have been spectacular had it been aged for longer. I think the Meta-Critic average score is reasonable.

The guys at Quebec Whisky are big fans of this edition, as are Serge of Whisky Fun, Ruben of Whisky Notes, and Emma of Whiskey Reviewer. On Reddit, Devoz, Ethanized, throwboats, xile_ and MajorHop all love this edition. muaddi99 is a little less enthusiastic. cjotto9 and Sinjun86, as well as Beppi Crossariol of the Globe & Mail, give it an average score. I’ve not actually seen a negative review of this whisky, among my reviewer set.

Tamdhu 30 Year Old – The MacPhail’s Collection (2009)

This is an independent bottling of Tamdhu, a speyside distillery in Scotland. Like many Scottish distilleries, Tamdhu has gone through multiple periods of production and shuttering over the years. Most recently, it was re-opened after a brief hiatus by Ian MacLeod Distillers, who are responsible for the new branding and official bottlings out there. But this independent bottling is based on stocks laid down in the late 1970s, while they were controlled by the Edrington Group.

Historically, Tamdhu production has been used mainly for blended scotch whiskies, like Famous Grouse, J&B and Cutty Sark. Aside from a limited range of current single malt official bottlings, there have been some independent bottlings over the years. This review is of one by Gordon & MacPhail, who have released a number of aged Tamdhu’s under their higher-end “The MacPhail’s Collection” label over the years. This bottling is from a 2009 release, featuring a heavily-sherried 30 year old Tamdhu (I believe it was fully aged in first-fill sherry casks).

Bottled at 43% ABV. Not sure of the original list price, but I believe it was quite reasonable for the age (going by what I recently paid for a glass at Brevings whisky bar in Riga, Latvia). I don’t do a lot of reviews of independent bottlings, but I couldn’t resist the chance to try this one. I don’t expect it would be too easy to track down a bottle of this one now, however.

I don’t have a lot to compare it to in this age range, but let’s see how it does against similarly aged malts in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Brora 30yo: 9.30 ± 0.21 on 18 reviews ($$$$$+)
Caol Ila 30yo: 9.31 ± 0.20 on 12 reviews ($$$$$+)
Glencadam 30yo: 8.80 ± 0.20 on 3 reviews ($$$$$+)
Glenfiddich 30yo: 9.05 ± 0.13 on 3 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 30yo: 9.14 ± 0.42 on 12 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 30yo Fine Oak: 8.56 ± 0.36 on 6 reviews ($$$$$+)
Talisker 30yo: 9.19 ± 0.32 on 13 reviews ($$$$$+)
Tamdhu 30yo (MacPhail Collection 2009): 9.11 ± 0.10 on 3 reviews ($$$$$)
Tamdhu Batch Strength (both batches): 8.54 ± 0.72 on 10 reviews ($$$$)
Tamdhu 10yo: 8.30 ± 0.58 on 18 reviews ($$$$)

There are very few reviews out there, but all seem to rank this whisky quite highly.  And now what I find in the glass:

Colour: Rich mahogany, red gold

Nose: Sweet tarts to start, followed by rich figs, raisins, and sultanas. Cherries and grapes. Some lighter berries, plus pear. Get the feeling there’s a lot of fruit? Tons of brown sugar, honey and caramel as well. Slightly herbal. No off notes. A powerful dram.

Palate: Cherry cough syrup on overdrive – the herbal note turns definitely medicinal (think Buckleys). Thick and syrupy mouthfeel adds to the effect, as does some eucalyptus. Cherry cola. Orange syrup. Honey nectar and dark brown sugar (demarara sugar). Vanilla. Earthy, with dark chocolate and coffee notes. Wood spice. Something slightly musty, but it works.

Finish: Long and lingering. Herbal liqueur. Oak spice picks up, with cinnamon. Dried fruits comes back at the end, along with a slight bitterness – but not bad at all. Cherry cola lasts the longest.

This is a powerful dram. A true sherry-bomb, nectar-of-the-gods type of offering. Interestingly enough, I had just tried the standard bottling of Macallan 18yo Fine Oak before this one, and couldn’t help thinking this is what a fully sherry-matured Macallan of comparable age and vintage would likely taste like. Like Aberlour, Tamdhu might be considered a good source for relatively inexpensive classic Macallan-like heavy sherry oak malts.

This independent bottling gets a very good review from Serge of Whisky Fun, and from a couple of the other Malt Maniacs. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find any other reviews of this vintage.  A nice dram, to be sure – and worth keeping an eye out for any new releases.

Macallan 18 Year Old Fine Oak

It just occurred to me that I’ve yet to post any of my Macallan single malt reviews – so in honour of Robbie Burns day (January 25), let me rectify that with the Macallan Fine Oak 18 Year Old.

After Glenfiddich and Glenlivet, Macallan is probably the next best-known Scottish single malt whisky distillery. Located in Craigellachie, this Highland whisky maker is currently owned by Edrington Group. It is a high-volume producer, turning out over 700,000 cases a year, according to sources on Wikipedia. But many of its expressions are very highly regarded by whisky enthusiasts, and it thus occupies something of a prestige niche. But with that cachet also comes higher prices, forcing many enthusiasts to look at lower-priced equivalent products elsewhere. In more recent years, this includes newer entry-level products from Macallan themselves (including various no-age-statement bottlings).

In style, Macallan has long been associated heavy European oak sherry cask aging (originally brought to the distillery from Jerez, Spain). But starting early this millenium, Macallan introduced this Fine Oak series, where the whisky has been aged in both ex-bourbon casks as well as sherry ones (both American oak, I believe). Macallan points to the American casks as introducing dryer and more oaky elements into the finished product.

Bottled at a range of ages, this 18 year old edition would typically sell for ~$300 CAD (if you could find it – not currently available locally in Ontario).  I sampled it last year at the Brevings whisky bar and restaurant in Riga, Latvia. Bottled at 43% ABV.

Here is how it compares to other Macallan whiskies of similar style or price in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Macallan 1824 Amber: 8.30 ± 0.36 on 13 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Gold: 8.24 ± 0.28 on 16 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 1824 Rare Cask: 8.70 ± 0.40 on 10 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 1824 Ruby: 8.76 ± 0.21 on 13 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 1824 Sienna: 8.70 ± 0.33 on 18 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 10yo Fine Oak: 8.26 ± 0.30 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Macallan 12yo Fine Oak: 8.45 ± 0.40 on 15 reviews ($$$$)
Macallan 15yo Fine Oak: 8.45 ± 0.51 on 12 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 17yo Fine Oak: 8.78 ± 0.50 on 11 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 18yo Fine Oak: 8.72 ± 0.26 on 7 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan 18yo Sherry Oak: 8.89 ± 0.32 on 18 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 21yo Fine Oak: 8.51 ± 0.40 on 6 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 25yo Fine Oak: 8.63 ± 0.25 on 3 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan 30yo Fine Oak: 8.56 ± 0.36 on 6 reviews ($$$$$+)
Macallan Edition No. 1: 8.82 ± 0.51 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Edition No. 2: 8.87 ± 0.20 on 12 reviews ($$$$$)
Macallan Select Oak: 8.28 ± 0.37 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Macallan Whisky Maker’s Edition: 8.53 ± 0.36 on 13 reviews ($$$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Sweet and honeyed, with moderately complex sugars. Dark-skinned and red fruits – plums and raspberry come to mind especially. Very bright tasting – not heavy on the sherry notes (i.e., no figs or jammy notes). Coconut. Lemon citrus. A bit earthy, with some anise and cocoa. No real off notes, besides a bit of raw ethanol. Wasn’t sure what to expect exactly, but this is quite nice.

Palate: Very balanced fruit with caramel and golden sugar joining the honey. More orange rind now, rather than lemon. Vanilla and nutmeg. Milk chocolate. Ginger and some pepper. A bit of raw ethanol sting, but otherwise a somewhat buttery texture. Some tartness comes in after the swallow.

Finish:‎ Medium length. Golden brown sugar lasts the longest, along with a toffee stickiness. A fair amount of astringency too, likely from the oak. A bit bitter. To be honest, I kind of hoped for more here.

This is definitely a quality dram. The ex-bourbon and sherry oak characteristics seem well integrated, giving this malt a refined presentation. The nose in particular is lovely and complex. Unfortunately, I find the finish somewhat lacklustre for the age (and price), holding it back from a truly top score. As such, I would say the Meta-Critic average score is fair.

Among reviewers, Jim Murray is a fan of this series (and this bottling in particular). On Reddit, Unclimbability is very positive, and shane_il and cake_my_day both score it consistent with the Meta-Critic average. Serge of Whisky Fun gives it one of the lowest scores out there.

1 2 3