It is very uncommon to find whiskies in the relatively unpopulated area between C and I in the cluster analysis\/PCA. Most rich-tasting whiskies fall firmly into one of the two camps – that is to say, they are either clearly smokey (I-J) or clearly winey (A-C).\u00a0 This makes Highland Park an unusual exception, as their expressions typically mark the inner edges of the C\/I clusters (i.e., where the overlap would be, if there more examples). This gives Highland Park a truly unique – and distinctive – flavour profile.<\/p>\n
Let’s take a look at how some of the common Highland Park expressions do in my Whisky Database<\/a>. Note that there are more HP expressions tracked there than are shown below, but these are among the most commonly available (all carried by the LCBO, for example). The “$” are relative indicators based on worldwide prices (as explained here<\/a>).<\/p>\n Highland Park Dark Origins: 8.68 \u00b1 0.52 on 11 reviews ($$$$) Clearly, from a simple price\/score perspective, the 10yo, 12yo and 18yo are the most compelling options to consider. For my inaugural commentary on Highland Park, I’ve chosen to start with the relatively common (and affordable) 12 yo expression. I hope to do a full commentary on the 18 yo at a later time (UPDATE: available here<\/a><\/em>). The 12 yo was picked up at the LCBO for ~$80 CAD (bottled at 43% ABV).<\/p>\n There is wide range of opinions on the 12 yo, as shown by the standard deviation above. Some hold this whisky in high regard, a close second to the popular 18 yo. Indeed, one reviewer in my database significantly prefers it over the 18 yo. But most reviewers give it a middle-of-the-road score – and one gives it a very low score. Combined, this brings the overall average down (and results in an increased variance).<\/p>\n Nose<\/strong>: Personally, I find a lot of the core Highland Park characteristics present in the 12 yo – at least on first sniff\/sip. Orkney peat is very distinctive, and is definitely present on the nose here. It is not overly smokey though – I would describe it instead as a more earthy aroma. It’s also quite fruity, with some definite prune, raisin and plum aromas. Some of the more citrus fruits as well. I personally don’t detect any of the classic sherry red berries on the nose. All in all, definitely a pleasing nose.<\/p>\n Palate<\/strong>: The smokey peat quickly asserts itself, although it is not as overwhelming as some in this flavour class (I).\u00a0 I get more of the red fruits now, with vanilla and some definite honey\/brown sugar sweetness as well. Unfortunately, there’s also a hint of almond-type bitterness that grows more strongly on subsequent sips.<\/p>\n Finish<\/strong>: The finish is surprisingly long lasting, with lightly lingering impressions of the initial earthy and fruity notes from the nose. Unfortunately, the bitter note from the palate remains consistent on the way out, and so eventually becomes the dominant characteristic in the end.\u00a0 A rather unsatisfying finish for this reason (although I suppose that might just encourage you to drink more!). I suspect this bitterness is a symptom of the young age, as I don’t detect it on the 18 yo.<\/p>\n One thing that definitely helps here is a splash of water. I always encourage my guests to try a bit of water in their whisky (after first tasting it neat – see my hosting a whisky tasting<\/a> page). While I drink most non-cask-strength whiskies neat, a few drops of water makes a huge difference here. There is an immediate increase in the sweetness on the nose and palate, bringing in some tropical fruit notes that I don’t detect neat (particularly banana). It also seems to help counteract the bitterness in the finish – although I suspect it does this more by masking the bitterness than diminishing it, but the end result is the same.<\/p>\n The Quebec Whisky<\/a> guys are typically moderately positive for this whisky. Ralfy<\/a> gives it a median score – although he also recommends it as one of three beginner malts<\/a> to try.<\/p>\n UPDATE January, 2016<\/strong>: As pointed out in the discussion thread below, this whisky has been re-reviewed recently by the Rumhowler (original<\/a> and\u00a02015 re-review<\/a>), WhiskyWon (original<\/a> and 2015 re-review<\/a>), and Jim Murray – and in all cases, the score has dropped significantly.\u00a0 As a result, I now track reviews pre\/post 2014 separately in my database, in addition to the overall average of all reviewers.
\nHighland Park 10 yo: 8.58 \u00b1 0.32 on 9 reviews ($$$)
\nHighland Park 12 yo: 8.70 \u00b1 0.41 on 17 reviews ($$$)
\nHighland Park 18 yo: 9.18 \u00b1 0.28 on 17 reviews ($$$$$)
\nHighland Park 21 yo: 8.86 \u00b1 0.46 on 10 reviews ($$$$$+)
\nHighland Park 25 yo: 9.20 \u00b1 0.25 on 11 reviews ($$$$$+)<\/p>\n![\"Highland](\"http:\/\/whiskyanalysis.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/Highland.Park_.12.jpeg\")
<\/a>Note that only a few drops of water are required for a standard ~1.5oz whisky pour. If you use a teaspoon, you are likely to flood the whisky (and thin out the body). Of course, that’s fine if that is your preference – but do try just a few drops first to see what you think. This is one case where I find it makes a surprising difference.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em>
\nHighland Park 12yo (all reviews past 5 years): 8.67 \u00b1 0.23 on 18 reviews
\nHighland Park 12yo (reviews pre-mid 2014): 8.83 \u00b1 0.26 on 15 reviews
\nHighland Park 12yo (reviews post-mid 2014): 8.28 \u00b1 0.39 on 8 reviews<\/p>\n