More No Age Statement Scotch: Talisker Skye

I wasn’t intending to buy any single malt that Sunday afternoon. I was actually looking for Christmas themed beers, but when I saw a new Talisker expression with £13 off, it made me ask what the point was in having a booze budget, if I couldn’t take advantage of offers like this. When it came to money for buying spirits on our upcoming trip to Canada, I’d just have to make do, one way or the other.

So it was £25. Sure enough, this isn’t the renowned Talisker 10, which I’ve also bought at such a bargain price before, but that doesn’t make it any less worth £25. Yes, it may be made of younger spirit, it may be a no age statement offering (following in the footsteps of Talisker’s other recent offerings, Storm and 57 Degrees North – neither of which I’ve tried beyond a single free sample), it probably isn’t going to be as good as the Talisker 10… but so? It is still bottled at 45.8% and you never know, I might actually enjoy it more.

For all intents and purposes, it looks pretty much the same. The label is blue this time, and it is called “Skye”. Of particular note though, is that instead of a box, this one is packaged in a little maritime style bag that fastens with… paper fasteners, I think they’re called. It’s a nice touch, though I can’t deny that I nearly dropped the bottle, struggling to extract it.

I know, I probably shouldn’t be encouraging this move towards no age statement expressions by buying them, but it was £25! A note, though; you shouldn’t just take up offers willy-nilly, or you’ll always be settling for the kind of things you can get cheap in your local supermarket. You can find out what I thought last time I tried some NAS bottlings incidentally, here where I have a close look at releases by Ardmore and Bowmore.

It could go either way, looking at online impressions. User reviews encompass the whole range from sublime to undrinkable. Let’s find out for ourselves.

Mrs Cake looked over as I was removing the seal, and said with razor sharp incisiveness, “booze is a great hobby. Because it’s like buying yourself a present but, not only do you get the excitement of buying the present, you also get the excitement of opening it.”

It’s beautiful that, isn’t it? I’d never thought of it that way, even though I’ve always been well aware that I get excited both at the moment of purchase, and even more so at the moment of opening (which can often be several months later). Just now, I can’t think of any other presents or purchases that give pleasure like that. You could buy tickets to see your favourite band, but you’re not excited about the tickets, you’re looking forward to going to the show. Maybe that is the same. Anyway, I think it’s beautiful.

Speaking of beautiful, how nice is this Talisker Skye? I’m not kidding, this is superb. Even the first glass out of the bottle was all it could be. Grassy and malty on the nose – a classic whisky smell, silky, full-bodied, sweet and full of delights, but with none of the negative edges that can sometimes hide in your single malts. Just a joy all the way down.

The last time I had a bottle of the 10 year old, I noticed how it took around 6 months for the spirit to develop into something sublime. This, despite no doubt being a blend of younger stocks, is already what the Talisker 10 finally managed to be. Probably even better – and being this good, I’ll be very surprised if there is any left in 6 months’ time to see how it compares then.

Really, the youth was quite undetectable until I tried a glass after the very classy Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit. I’ll definitely have the Talisker first if I drink both of these on the same night in future, but nevertheless, a slight hint of youth shouldn’t be considered detrimentally.

I took a break from the Skye of a few weeks when I decided to open a bottle of Crown Royal at the same time as the Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye. I’ll be writing much more about those later, but the point I want to make is that my return to the Skye resulted in absolute delight. This is such a beautifully balanced whisky that I’m thinking I already have a front runner for the 2016 spirit of the year. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves though; there’s lots of drinking still to come this year.

All in all though, you ought to give the Talisker Skye a try. Very, very good value.

Spirit Log: Springbank 10

Time to delve a little deeper into the Campbeltown region, and add another 10 year old to the spirit log.

This one was £41.44 (incl P&P) for 46 ABVs, and as such, is my new most expensive 10 year old, narrowly edging past Ardbeg by 65p. It will have its work cut out to beat that on quality.

Starting out with aesthetic considerations, I don’t feel the producer has tried too hard with this one. It isn’t a very attractive bottle or label – all a bit underwhelming really, with no information at all provided, though I understand there is supposed to be cask and bottling information under the label. It will take a bit of time to be able to see that, I think. (Postscript – I forgot to look when the bottle was empty).

If you compare the packaging to Ardbeg, there isn’t really that much difference. The bottles are a similar shape (though Ardbeg’s hides the spirit’s natural colour by being tinted green), both labels are black and composed in a similar fashion, even utilising similar fonts. Even the boxes are of similar dimensions and the card they are constructed out of is of a similar grade. There’s just an indefinable quality about Ardbeg’s. You might disagree and prefer the Springbank. That’s up to you.

I think that’s enough direct comparison with Ardbeg. Any spirit should be judged on its own merits – maybe with a conclusive comparison at the end.

Springbank is aged in bourbon and sherry casks and the distillery malts all its own barley, actually producing 3 malts on one site. The distinction between the three seems to depend on whrether the malt is dried over a peat fire (Springbank), hot air (Hazelburn) or a combination of both (Longrow), and how many times the spirit is distilled – two and a half for Springbank. I’m not sure, and the distillery’s site doesn’t specify, how you can distill something half a time.

So let’s have a look at some critics and customer reviews. It receives glowing reviews from Jim Murray (89.5 points), and especially from Ian Buxton, while it’s unbridled enthusiasm from the reviewers at TWE.

I think I’m starting to realise what it is I want from my whisky these days – and what I don’t. And finally, all those flavour lists that whisky reviewers delight in are starting to be useful. This one, for example, from MoM sounds like just what I’m looking for:

“The nose is big-bodied with oaked aridity. The peat is present and quite pungent with an earthen rootiness. Notes of exotic fruits and a hint of salinity. The palate is full-bodied with a good helping of cereal sweetness. There is a richness to the peat, with a dark nuttiness and whirling smoke. The finish is long and crisp with a coastal tang and a trailing peat with oaked dryness.”

Peat, earth, salinity, sweetness, smoke, dryness… elsewhere I’ve read that it is oily and creamy – this could be the one to renounce all other whiskies for. It might even eclipse long time favourite Caol Ila 12…

Not sure how much credence I should give this next one though, also from MoM; “No doubt a wonderful whisky for those who drink it but it can make the drinker rather nasty and argumentative.” How much are they drinking?! Anyways, that’s just alcohol in general, as far as I’m aware.

Enough with the prevarication then, and on to the experience.

Peaty and sweet, warming. The flavours are strong and the sweetness lingers for the finish. It is briney, oily – even a bit squeaky in the mouth - and full bodied. I enjoyed it, but in spite of all those positive features,I can’t say it made the impression on me that I was hoping for (as is suggested by how little I have to say about the experience of it overall). It just didn’t feel special enough, and given a choice between the Springbank 10 and the Ardbeg 10, I’d have to choose the Ardbeg every time.

Against single malts in general, I’ve only placed it at number 20 in my all time list, while in specific competition with other 10 year olds, I’ve placed it behind Ardbeg, Bladnoch, Ledaig, Laphroaig and Glenfarclas – but above Talisker, Glenmorangie and Aberlour. That’s not bad really, because I really enjoyed all the ones I’ve placed above it, and the ones that are below it are still favourites to many though a little changeable (Talisker) or uninteresting (the others) to me.

The whisky exploration continues apace then, and next time we discuss whisky on these pages, I believe it will be to take a look at the no age statement Talisker Skye. That should be in a couple of weeks. Next week I think the focus is on tequila. See you then.

More Adventures With Glenmorangie Original

More Adventures with Glenmorangie Original

There are some brands of spirit that, for whatever reason, have more than a walk-on part in your spiritual journey. Glenmorangie Original is one of those. You can understand it really; it’s reasonably priced, well known, well regarded and popular. It is also a favourite of my father-in-law. It’s his only favourite actually.

This time around Glenmorangie Original enters the play in Act One. Mr and Mrs Cake are holding a housewarming party and all their friends are there. All have brought booze. Some have brought booze as gifts. One such gift from one of Mr Cake’s golf friends is a bottle of Glenmorangie Original. Mr Cake decides to keep it until he has something that he wants to compare it with.

More stuff happens that isn’t related to Glenmorangie Original, but then at the beginning of Act Two, Mr Cake hears that his father-in-law (and wife) is about to come over for a visit, and knowing that this was his favourite, decides to open it when he arrives.

The father-in-law arrives and Mr Cake directs him to the Glenmorangie Original and says “help yourself to top-ups”.

Let me just break the fourth wall here and make sure you’re aware that the play being described here isn’t a play at all. It’s what really happened and I’m just trying to tell the story in a slightly more interesting way. Here’s what happened next.

My father-in-law proceeded to help himself to top-ups with alarming regularity over the next day and a half, until he’d actually drank about half the bottle. What the actual fuck? I’m not saying I didn’t actually mean “help yourself”, but I thought there was a kind of unspoken agreement that you’re supposed to hold yourself back a little bit. Obviously not. The good thing about this is that I can up my daily drinking game quite significantly and still come out looking conservative (small c) compared to my wife’s dad.

Anyway, a few days after he left, I decided to have a glass myself and get reacquainted – just in case he came back and finished the bottle off before I got a chance – so here’s a chance to let the weight of experience settle and see if my thoughts have changed – because, as you know, I like to take a long term view of spirits, considering them over a lifetime instead of over a glass; writing about them anecdotally instead of analytically; allowing a story to evolve instead of setting my thoughts in stone; evaluating them on a deeper (though admittedly less knowledgable or scientific) level than a list of flavours and a score out of 100.

I figured I’d better have a look over things I’ve written about it previously first, just to see what my original thoughts were. I can see there was a disappointing occasion when I drank it alongside a glass of The Famous Grouse and couldn’t tell them apart, describing both as bland and watery. I figured it must have been compromised in some way. This is in no way to suggest that The Famous Grouse is indistinguishable from any single malt or that it is better than the Glenmorangie Original – it was just an impression at the time, perhaps due to the influence of having drunk or eaten something confusing beforehand.

Later I compared it to a Strathisla 12, and concluded that the Glenmorangie had more repeat allure. Then I was drinking it alongside Talisker 10, and enjoying the Glenmorangie more. So I seem to recall that I was prepared for a Kellogs Corn Flakes moment – you know; “Have you forgotten how good they taste?”.

On my first taste this time around, I thought that I might have undervalued it and immediately considered bumping it up from 18^th to 7^th in my all time single malts list, behind the 32year old Bunnahabhain and ahead of the 14 year old ArranSherry Cask 1997, as I had found it light, fruity and playful – just really enjoyable. But then something strange happened. On succeeding occasions it seemed to have settled into an almost uninteresting blandness. There are no intriguing edges and the overall flavour is far less in your face than I would have my whisky by choice. I reconsidered again, and now it sits at 23^rd. That’s lower than it was originally, but this can partly be explained by some new entries being rated better than it in the meantime. Though that doesn’t explain how it is now ranked lower than the Talisker 10 I’d preferred it to previously. What explains that is that this hierarchy is arbitrary and prone to rearrangement at the drop of a hat. In my defence, I bet even Jim Murray looks at his past ratings and goes “23 for balance? I should make that 21”.

Now that that bottle is finished, I can conclude that Glenmorangie Original is still probably the easiest drinking single malt scotch you can get, but I need more from my scotch. And that is why I will try some more Glenmorangies in future, but I won’t be buying the Original again – unless the father-in-law is visiting (we learned long ago not to try getting him anything else). Easy drinking just isn’t on my list of criteria.

Postscript

Curiously there is a third act to this play. Inbetween starting this post and getting around to posting it, Mr Cake’s father-in-law (and wife) came for another visit. This time Mrs Cake just straight out bought her dad a bottle of Glenmorangie Original and gave it to him as a birthday present. They stayed longer, and drank only a little bit more than last time – ultimately leaving about a quarter of a bottle behind. So I guess I’ll be drinking a bit more of this stuff after all. Mind you, I don’t really think of it as mine, so I’ve only had one glass so far. Don’t worry though; I don’t think I’ll be dedicating any more posts to it.

No Age Statement Scotch: Ardmore Legacy & Bowmore Small Batch Reserve

"Ladies."

 Apologies for posting a bit late this week. I’ve actually been applying for jobs, so wasting time sorting out the blog has been a bit low on the agenda. Anyway, I’m here now, so just read what follows and enjoy your weekend. Alright, cool.

We’re looking at two products today that are comparable across a number of areas, meaning we might learn something and may even be able to say something about the state of the modern scotch industry afterwards.

So yes, both are examples of peated single malt scotch, both are bottled at 40%, and both are low cost, fairly recent, no age statement expressions from renowned distilleries. Allow me to introduce, representing the Highland region (according to the producer, though I’ve seen it described as Speyside elsewhere), Ardmore Legacy. Pause for applause. Ardmore Legacy is made from 80% peated malt and 20% unpeated.

Then, representing Islay and the oldest of the eight distilleries on that magical island, it’s Bowmore Small Batch Reserve, which is entirely peated, as far as I’m aware.

Together then, these illustrate a growing trend within the industry towards production of no age statement bottlings – said generally to be due to an increase in demand and a decrease in older stocks. I like age statements, but I don’t see why a no age statement expression can’t be a winner with careful blending.

These were selected from a number of price reductions in Tesco and purchased at £20 (£10 off) for the Ardmore and £25 for the Bowmore (£8 off). Those are excellent prices for some potentially good single malt, though they aren’t the kind of thing I’d normally get excited about these days. They probably aren’t special, but they could be good. I mean, £20 though. That’s ridiculous value. You shouldn’t even need to think twice about spending £20 on 70cl of single malt – unless it was one you’ve bought before, and it was shit.

Previous Experience & Consensus

I suppose that, if I’m really going to say something about no age statement releases, and where these expressions sit in relation to their distillery’s other output, I’d need some previous experience to draw on. Sadly I don’t really have too much of that. I just happen to have these two bottles. I’ve tried a sample of the Ardmore before (I think) – during my time as a member of the Manchester Whisky Club – and I remember enjoying it, but that’s little use to us now. As for Bowmore, again, I’ve only had a glass of one or two expressions. If I remember rightly, I wasn’t too impressed with the standard 12 year old, and I don’t remember what I thought of the 15 year old Darkest.

In fact, the reason I was attracted towards buying these two bottles rather than any of the others that were on offer at that time, was that I wanted to be able to give these distilleries a proper appraisal – or at least make a solid start to setting out on the journey of giving them one.

What I can do though, is a bit of research around the internets and give you some idea of what other people are saying – saving you from having to take the time out from your own busy lives, and giving me something to do.

In general, opinion is quite positive. Both bottles seem to get mostly good user and “expert” reviews, though with regard to the Ardmore in particular, there is some grumbling about supposed dumbing down. That’s understandable, in all honesty, since the Legacy, is apparently conceived as a replacement for the very reasonably priced Traditional Cask expression that was many peoples’ favourite. That one was bottled at a generous 46% and, while it is supposed to be returning during 2015, it will be only for the international travel market - though it was already a no age statement expression.

I like my extra 6% alcohol  and my non-chill filtration as much as anybody, and I don’t really see why so many distilleries are choosing not to give the people what they want. I suppose it can only be economical considerations but… surely you could just increase the price a little - and surely it would be cheaper not to filter something. The cost of scotch is interminably rising anyway, so it’s not like anyone’s going to notice, and if your product’s good enough, people will be happy to buy it.

As far as the Bowmore is concerned then, what’s the deal about being a small batch reserve? What exactly is “small batch” about it isn’t clear, and at a normal price of £30-35 you’ve got to be wondering how this is supposed to appeal to the discerning whisky drinker its press releases profess it is aimed at. Then you’ve got to ask why it hasn’t been bottle non-chill filtered at cask strength – or at least at 46%. No information has been given as to how small the batch is and, as one other blogger I read put it, what constitutes a small batch is all relative to the size of a distillery’s output.

In general, it is thought that no age statement is given because of the way you can only call it as old as the youngest malt in the mix, so even if you’ve gone to the effort of putting some 15 year old in there, you might end up having to put “aged 3 years” on the bottle. That makes using older spirit rather pointless. Though I guess you could just be specific about the ages of spirit you used in your press releases…

A quick look at previous no age statement experience might be enlightening. Let’s just take you over it:

Aberlour A’bunadhBatch 47 – renowned and classy, but not to my personal taste. Great value but by no means a low aspiration release.

Bruichladdich Rocks – good value and a good quality introduction to the distillery. Supposedly conceived for enjoying over ice, but I just don’t get why they would even bother doing that. Bottled at 46%.

Caol Ila NaturalCask Strength – you need to shell out a bit extra for this one. Great stuff.

Glen GariochFounders Reserve – bottled at a welcoming 48%, this one is trying to make a good impression, but it figures as the first disappointment on this list.

Glen Moray Classic – don’t worry, Glen Garioch, you aren’t the worst on the list. This is. Cheap and nasty stuff.

Highland Park Einar – the 1^st of two HP Duty Free releases. Not as good as the better value 12 year old.

Highland Park LeifEriksson – a more expensive HP Duty Free release. Correspondingly better than the Einar, but still nowhere near the quality of the 12.

Jura Superstition – another disappointment. This one put me off trying anything else from Jura.

Macallan Gold – I only got to try a miniature of this, but I thought it was quite nice.

So does that tell us anything? Well frankly, it tells us that, as ever, there’s a great deal of variety and variation in quality. The Bruichladdich Rocks and Caol Ila Cask Strength are personal favourites (and as such represent both the high and low ends of the pricing spectrum). Elsewhere you have ones that would be a matter of personal taste (like the Aberlour), some that are acceptable (HP) and others that are spectacularly bad (Glen Moray).

Out of those examples, only the Bruichladdich Rocks, Glen Garioch Founder’s Reserve and Glen Moray Classic are comparable to these new arrivals in terms of being low cost, entry level relations to the distilleries’ core expressions. And curiously, they fit neatly into the categories of good (Bruichladdich), mediocre (Glen Garioch) and bad (Glen Moray). Let’s find out where mores Ard and Bow fit in.

The Test

one on one

I decided to open both at the same time, and had Mrs Cake pour two doubles for me – one into a Laphroaig glass and one into a Lagavulin glass – the idea being that I’d decide which was best on a blind basis, and use what little knowledge I had or had gleaned from reading about the products to determine which was which.

Presentation

Both give a decent impression of “standard” by being presented in a manner typical of £30+ single malts. Ardmore has its own cardboard tube, Bowmore a rectangular box – both of which display a little bit of light reading. Bottles are of a more or less standard whisky bottle shape (Bowmore with the trademark, slightly angular shoulders, tapered body and wider base), label design is reserved and contains representations of each spirit’s place of origin, and both have a little bit of gold trim – Ardmore’s in the shape of an eagle.

Colour

There isn’t a whole world of difference, but The Ardmore is more yellow/uriney, while the Bowmore is golden.

Enjoyment

Time for the blind tasting.

I tried writing up my results in terms of what I thought was in each glass, but I soon realised this was confusing, and that you wouldn’t be left with any clear impression of how each product did. I’ve re-written it then, thusly:

Nose: the Ardmore was peaty and sweet – very promsing – while the Bowmore was far more restrained. Before the contents of each glass were revealed, I had assumed them to be the other way around.

Palate: In contract to the Ardmore’s flamboyant nose, I noted that it was disappointing on entry and a little rough. The peat gave good fumes, but in comparison to the lighter bodied Bowmore, it failed to impress. The Bowmore developed very well in the mouth.

There hadn’t been a lot to pick between them, and nothing between the nosing and the drinking made me change my mistaken mind about which was which. I made sure to finish both glasses before revealing what they were, so that I could be sure I’d absorbed all there was before making any rash decisions. Nevertheless, I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised to find out I had been wrong. That turn of events actually made things more interesting. The Ardmore, which is presented as only partially peated offers far more peat (on the nose, at least) than the Bowmore  – which is the one I’d been expecting to be overtly peaty.

At that stage I tried to decide which was best, but it wasn’t really possible – swings and roundabouts. To be fair, at these prices, these are both great value. You might be a bit put out if you had to pay £40, but they are both good examples of no age statement single malts. I probably wouldn’t be bringing them out to impress guests though.

Second tastes

The next night it was time to evaluate each separately on its own merits. The Ardmore was first. The first hit on the nose from the bottle is great, but on the palate the spirit is a little sour and lacking in sweetness, though that does settle into a pleasant woodiness.

The Bowmore though, has a better balance of flavours and no bitterness, which overall means I’m tempted to pick that as my favourite.

And the rest of the experience

It’s been nice having these two, fairly similar products on hand at the same time. I’ve been tending to alternate them on different nights and, while I’d probably still say that the Bowmore is my favourite overall, it has turned out that there’s a lot to enjoy in the Ardmore. There have even been occasions where the sourness was absent, leaving a fully rounded taste that matched up to the aroma emerging from the bottle.

Overall then, both of these are excellent for the price I paid for them, but at their normal prices, perhaps not quite so much.

There’s a whole world of no age statement whisky out there, and if we were to stack these two up against the ones I mentioned earlier, I’ll admit, these would be in the top half. As ever, I’ll keep trying more and eventually we might have a definitive list. In fact, I’m approaching the end of another no age statement release right now that I think might just be a bit of a game changer. You’ll have to look out for that in (at least) a few weeks though.

Musing on Merchant Bottlings: Hepburn's Choice's Fettercairn 2008 (7 year old)

When you’re perusing the online spirits retailers, it often seems that some of the more interesting products are the ones that have been produced by reputable distilleries, but bought, aged and bottled by various merchants. Long ago I decided to build this observation into my whisky procurement matrix, and now it has determined that the time has come to buy a merchant bottling with no age statement, or aged under 10 years.

There actually didn’t seem to be that many that are aged under 10 years – and even less that were also from a region I hadn’t already tried an independent bottling from. I was particularly looking for a Lowland offering, but there were none of suitable youth, and all far outside my price range. So in the end I settled for something from the highland region – a 7 year old Fettercairn, bottled at 46 ABVs by Hepburn’s Choice. I didn’t know anything about either the distillery or the merchant, but frankly I didn’t care at that point. I just wanted to get something based on no recommendation at all. This one came in at just under £40 including P & P. It’s actually possible to get an 11 year old bottled by Douglas Laing for about the same price… but that would be missing the point… as stupid as it probably sounds to you.

Hepburn’s Choice

The theory is that the Laing Brothers sought out the best casks they could find and then filled them with product from well known but “off the beaten path” distilleries. Quite what criteria classify you as both well known and off the beaten path, I don’t know, but I do wonder whether it’s a waste to leave spirit in great casks for only 7 years. We’ll find out.

Fettercairn

Based at the foot of the Cairngorms, it appears Fettercairn’s distillery bottlings tend to lean towards the side of older spirit. Aside from the no age statement Fior, the others are 24, 30 and 40 years old – and they ain’t cheap, except Fior, which is an almost reasonable £40. So if you want to try something a bit younger, you have to go to the independents.

I didn’t do any research  before plumping for a Fettercairn on this occasion, though some things I’ve read suggest I might’ve done well to’ve done so. This particular bottling isn’t featured in the edition of the Jim Murray Whisky Bible that I have, but he is positively scathing about all the other expressions – except the 40 year old which sells for in excess of £700, so a little bit outside my comfortable spend zone. I don’t really care what Jim Murray says at this point anyway.

Thankfully a brief squiz at internet reviews suggests many more people have nice things to say about the distillery’s output. Once again, it could go either way, and if it is as bad as Murray would have you believe, it will be interesting to find out just how bad that is. I won’t be happy about having dropped 40 notes on it, but frankly I don’t think there’s any way it can be all that bad.

Particulars

So this was distilled in 2008 and aged for 7 years in a refill hogshead before being displayed in a basic bottle (itself within an unremarkable but dignified grey tube), showing its pastiness in all it’s glory. The label is suitably old school, there’s no chill-filtration, no colouring (something would have had to have gone wrong if there were), and 432 bottles were produced.

Opening

A quick sniff of the mouth of the bottle reveals biscuity tones that remind me of the Grant’sSignature. It immediately started me looking forward to enjoying something a little less rich than the various single malts I’d been trying of late, with their advanced years and sherry cask finishes.

I wasn’t expecting too much by this point, but first impression was that it was surprisingly nice; rough but fresh, soft but definitely on the young side, pleasantly warming. It seems like ages since I’ve tried anything like this, so I’m pleased I decided to include young spirit in my matrix, and this seems way better than anything like it I remember trying before.

You can see how it can go wrong with such immaturity, but my feeling is that any telltale roughness can easily be forgiven when it is accompanied by such depth of flavour and length of finish. It probably won’t be for everyone and it’s hard to know what to say about value. It’s no secret that for £40 you can get some excellent, well known single malts of 10 to 12 years’ maturity (even more sometimes). Is this better than those? Probably not. Is £40 too much for a 7 year old? Probably… but this is a single cask release, non-chill filtered and bottled at 46%. How much does any of that matter? Well I can’t say those factors didn’t influence my decision to buy. As someone who buys whisky fairly frequently, I’m used to dropping 40 notes on a bottle, so I’ve got to the stage now where it doesn’t matter – I was probably going to drop 40 notes anyway, and as long as there is some level of enjoyment to whatever I purchase, I’d say it’s money well spent. You could buy a well renowned bottle and not enjoy it.

In all then, this has been a good purchase for me. It has provided a refreshing alternative to types of whisky I’ve been trying lately and I’ve been enjoying the experience. So; good.