ArdBen: The BenRiach 10 Curiositas

I haven’t been kind to BenRiach as of late. Kind I have not been, but fair.. that I have. As it stands, the core range at 16 years and under are uninspiring, and I would never buy a bottle for the cabinet. The 20 year old is another story, and at $80, very affordable for a 20yr. That said, I’d rather spend such money on a 20yo Bladnoch at cask strength, given the choice.

Cue the Curiositas. An inexpensive peated Speyside that has picked up some attention and high praise in the whisky community. At $64, I decided to try it. I have not been disappointed. It comes off rather like a sweet heavily-peated Islay than a peated sweet Speyside. Where I draw the line here is in how the peat comes across. In peated non-Islays, they always come across as rather synthetic peat to my tastes. That is, the peat has been noticeably ‘added’ in some way. Islays, on the other hand, feel so organically joined, the spirit and the peat. They’ve done some good work here at BenRiach, and at such a young age. Puts my faith back in the distillery.

Nose: Peat and smoke upfront. A true Islay nose. Banana bread. That’s right, you heard me: banana bread. This might be why I love it so much. Cinnamon. A couple drops of water opens it all up nicely.

Palate: The peat is there, but it takes a backseat to the BBQ smoke.

Finish: Long and pleasant.

Grade: B

I can’t fault this whisky in many ways: it’s delicious, and a great wood-fired dessert dram that works both in the winter, and as the sunsets on a cooler summer evening. If all your new releases have this quality/price ratio, BenRiach, you can be sure that I’ll be picking up what you’re putting down.

Review Stub: BenRiach 20

This is review #4 from my BenRiach distillery collection taster pack (HoS, 12, 16, 20). This is where age makes a difference.

Nose: The nose is fat and buttery. Buttered bread with some vanilla and other sweets. Peaches and a bit lighter on the apple. Malty, and oddly, a little celery in the background. A tad bit of furniture polish, but in an “Oh, that’s cool!” way. A surprisingly powerful nose for 43%, and damn if it isn’t very pleasant.

Palate: Medium oily, savoury and buttery. More of that olive oil on french or italian bread. The second wave is malty with graham crackers, then it comes in slightly fruity with peaches, apple, brown sugar and cinnamon. Much less jagged than the 16 by a long shot.

Finish: Long, mostly sugar and vanilla sweetness. Terribly pleasant.

Grade: B+

This dram makes the tasting pack worth it. The HoS was a pleasant surprise for something so inexpensive, while the middle of the range (12, 16) were rather muted or lifeless. The 20 is something BenRiach can be proud of, though they get more whisky out there faster if they could do more at the younger years. I’d love to try this at 46%, too.

While the HoS, 12, and 16 are very similar, and not all that inspiring, the 20yo takes BenRiach to a whole new level. Perhaps they need some work with their maturation process, because they could really do better work at the younger ages, and go for pure quality instead of this high quality-to-price ratio. An $80 bottle of 20yo whisky is a steal, yes, but I’d pay $80 for a really good 16yo bottle, too.

Review Stub: BenRiach 16

This is review #3 from my BenRiach distillery collection taster pack (HoS, 12, 16, 20). This far in, I’d say there was a noticeable difference between the HoS and the 12yo. The 12yo and 16yo, however, are very similar.

Nose: Apple, but not so artificial. Similar muted nose to the 12yo. Slightly buttery, with a bit of anise. Noticeable malt and a bit of brown sugar.

Palate: Medium oily, malt and oak. A little jagged, burnt brown sugar.

Finish: Medium, mostly honey, malt and oak.

Grade: B-

About as impressive as the 12yo. Nothing much as changed in 4 years, except for maybe the finish length. A little too rough for what I’d expect a 16yo to be.

Review Stub: BenRiach 12

This is review #2 from my BenRiach distillery collection taster pack (HoS, 12, 16, 20). I’m fortunate to have a sample of the 12yo and 16yo that are at 43%, instead of the 40% I’ve seen other reviews based on. Maybe that’s what makes the difference.

Nose: Similar Jolly Rancher nose to the HoS, but green apple this time. The nose isn’t as open, but what comes at you, comes across as thick, almost buttery. In that way, it’s much like a Mortlach. It’s quite sweet, though, and in that way, it isn’t so much like a Mortlach. Barley and bread baking. A number of fruits I can’t figure out.

Palate: Medium oily, savoury and bitter with an indiscernable spice mix. Heavy on the olive oil on some type of french or italian bread. Very malty. Slightly fruity.

Finish: Short to Medium, mostly floral and fruity, and also nice and warming, a plus for a 43% ABV whisky. That said, BenRiach needs to work on this part.

Grade: B-

Compared to the Heart of Speyside, I found this one a little thicker, more mature (as it should be) but the HoS had a liveliness to it that this malt doesn’t have. It’s also a tad sharp on the palate. I hope this is not the case with the 16yo.

Review Stub: BenRiach Heart of Speyside

This is part of my 5cl BenRiach distillery collection (HoS, 12, 16, 20) that I will be reviewing throughout May and June.

BenRiach seems to be fond of their slogan, “The heart of Speyside”.  I don’t know Speyside enough to confirm such a claim, but I can surely say, it’s a pretty good, easy drinking 40% whisky.

Nose: Pear jolly rancher, honey, oak and hay. Savoury spice package with cloves. Makes it kind of meaty. Like clove-spiced mince.

Palate:  Medium oily. Sweet canned pears in syrup. Sweet white wine, like a Riesling or gewurztraminer. Honey and cloves. Coffee chocolates.

Finish: Short. Mostly pear jolly rancher, white wine and malt.

Grade: C+

If this is indicative of what the rest of the BenRiach collection is going to be like, then the 12 should embarass the similar offerings by Glenfiddich and Glenlivet. I have read unfavourable reviews for the 12yo, but they were all at 40%, whereas this new batch is at 43%. With hope, that’s the winning formula.

The Cherry Bomb: Glenfarclas 10yo `105`

After my let-down with Glenfarclas 15 at the bar, I decided to give them another go when the ‘105’ recently returned to the LCBO. I mean, I haven’t really been let down by a cask-strength to date, so why not try and extend the streak? I mean, I really did love the nose of the Glenfarclas 15. The mark was almost entirely based on that nose, truth be told.

Nose: Christmas cake and spice with sherry. Honey, toffee. Many of your sherry bomb characteristics (think Aberlour a’Bunadh) but this one is a bit more straight-forward and balanced. A bit of red cough syrup, but in the strangest pleasant way. And that’s saying something, as cherry cough syrup sends me running for the hills.

Palate: Rich, and sweet in a big way. Huge on the intro with the dark maraschino cherry chocolates. This flavour is the lead singer of this band. But this one’s no prima donna. Instead, this one shares the stage with every other flavour in an excellent balance. Coffee, raisins, and a bit of a mustiness. Honey on toast. Hints of smoke, but not your blackened, dark and stormy ‘burning fires of hell’ smoke like you’d get with a really strong Islay. Instead, it’s a quiet fire in a wood-stove where you’ve likely been baking. Add a dollop of water more than your usual teaspoon, and it’s a bowl of mixed nuts. Beautiful.

Finish: A flash of the cherry chocolates, quickly going tart into some of that cough-syrupyness. Hints of delicious Turkish delight and woody undertones. When the sweetness is all gone, it’s a drying pipe-tobacco finish—so mature and beautiful. It’s a very long, warming, perfect-for-winter finish.

Grade: A-

Didn’t think it’d happen, but I can officially say I’m in the Glenfarclas ‘105’ camp in the 105 vs. a’Bunadh sherry-bomb debate. While they’re similar enough in quality, there is something about the ‘105’ profile, and how it all comes together, that really wins me. Perhaps it’s the ‘cookie-like’ profile. It’s nice and baked, but a mix of savoury and sweet. Not your overly-sweet store-bought fluffy cake, but rather a soft cookie or a more dense coffee cake (on that note, it pairs really well with chewy white chocolate and craisin cookies!). In any case, I can see why maltmanics rave about Glenfarclas. Rest assured, I’m going to track down a bottle of the Glenfarclas 15 and give it it’s fair shake. The nose was spectacular, so I’m assuming I either over-watered it, or something else threw me off.

Peat in the Highlands: Ardmore Traditional Cask

Finally getting around to reviewing the Ardmore Traditional Cask. Like Laphroaig’s Quarter Cask, this one, too, is aged for a short period in traditional quarter casks. Like Laphroiag, it is a good’un, but not that good. For the price, it pretty much can’t be beat, though. It has taken me so long to write up a review because this bottle became my office bottle, and as I’m not in my office until the late dramming hours all too often, I rarely afford myself the chance to open the bottle. Each time I do, however, I am reminded about what a great bang-for-your-buck this really is. Given the data of 2 QC whiskies being so good, I’m guaranteed to try the next cost-effective QC whisky that makes it to our shores.

Nose: Sweet barley. Honeyed pears, and oak. Peat (of the Ardbeg variety). A bit salty too. Cinnamon hearts. Reminds me of that Simpson’s moment where Homer says “Look boy! I’m in Australia! Now I’m America. Australia! America!”. I find myself saying “I’m drinking a Glenfiddich! Now I’m drinking Auchentoshan! Glenfiddich! Auchentoshan! …Bruichladdich?”

Palate: Reasonably smooth for such youth. Oily. Sweet cinnamon red hots, baby. Fruit, sweetness, some cinnamon and pepper. It, again, reminds me of Auchentoshan, but not so bright and vibrant. The peat and rich Speyside characteristics take it down a few shades, and that’s alright!  It’s interesting to have a dessert whisky be peated so well. I was worried that a $44 peated whisky would turn out like Dun Bheagan’s 8yo Islay: fruit with peat sprinkles. No, this one is well married together. The peat is a compliment, not the goal itself.

Finish: Tart fruit and smoky peat. This is the end you’d expect, and love.

Grade: B-

I had this at a B upon opening, but it’s a tad rougher than my B should be. It’s by no means bad, however. A few years in the cask (get it up to 10yo and we’ll talk) would make the peat a little more “sexy” as I’ve heard others describe aged peat. Of course you’ll ask, “if the notes are so kind, why is the mark so poor”? Well, the notes are as kind as those of Highland Park 12, Oban 14, and others in it’s range. Nothing sticks out as being bad, but nothing makes me want to buy a case and sit on it with a sling-shot in fear that it’ll never come back. It’s just a good whisky, and in the end, for $44 in Ontario, that’s damn fine. We can’t all be drinking Uigeadail every week. If you’re a peat fan, this is a must-try. In fact, it’s a must-own.

The Proof is in the Overproofing: Glenfiddich 15yo Distillery Edition ‘102’

After my success with the Glenlivet 16 ‘Nadurra’, I decided to give Glenfiddich’s mid-range cask-strength a try. After all, if I liked the Glenfiddich 12 more than the Glenlivet 12, what’s to say I wouldn’t like this as much, or more, than the Nadurra?

Nose: Noticeably sweet. Malty, apple juice with cinnamon right off the bat. Let it sit and we’re talking orange peel, sherry and burnt sugar. Some water brings in toffee, salt and pepper. I’ve read others call the nose “floral”, but it’s more minty to me.

Palate: Smooth, oily, mouth-coating. Rich and waxy off the bat with jammy notes and burnt sugar. It then turns creamy with sherry and orange chocolate. The palate then spices everything up with some chili and pepper. There is also definitely some peat here. Retaste: Similar, but a bit rougher and more sour than I remember.

Finish: A malty long finish with more of that orange chocolate, oak and honey. Mouth-drying. Right on the end, when your mouth goes bone dry and the finish feels like it’s died off, it comes right back with a bang of something you’d never expect: a mouth full of gummi bears. Bangarang!

Grade: B+

Quite superb. Not as great six months later than it was about half-way through the bottle.  It balances well in a way that other whiskies don’t: orange chocolate, peat, mint and pepper don’t mesh, so why not have it in stages? This whisky oddly compartmentalizes everything, and rolls it out bit by bit. I don’t know how, but it feels like it only ever gives you one note at a time, though in no particular order. I’ll mention, also, that the first dram was rather spiritous and rough, and the last few were similar. The first drams were much more savoury than the middle. It reminded me of a meaty, starchy British dinner with candied carrots, all coated with a maly flavour. While it wasn’t bad, it surely wasn’t the superstar the whisky is now. In short, it benefits from some oxidation.

Note: I must confess that I love orange cream chocolates, so there may be a bit of bias mark-wise when it comes to that, but it’s hard for me to tell.

Review Stub: The Macallan 12yo Traditional

At a local pub (with a fairly comprehensive selection of basic single malts,) last night after work, I managed to try the Macallan 12yo Traditional. The traditional line has removed that initial dislike of Macallan I had picked up after tasting the Fine Oak 10yo.

Nose: Baking. Cookies, probably, but something spicy like gingerbread cookies. Hella waxy, too, but in a good way. It has this end note that smells like watercolours—that is, the paints as they sit, hardened in the tray. It’s not bad, it’s just rather shocking to have a scent you may remember so distinctly from your childhood come back at you in this way.

Palate: Creamy, waxy, burnt sugar, oak and honey. Sherry, of course. This one is quite sweet, and I like it. Much of what Glenfarclas 15 was, but not as rough.

Finish: Much of that burnt sugar, oak and sweetness lingers.

Grade: B

An excellent entry-level showing from Macallan. At $65 a bottle or under, this would be a real cracker. It’s $95 in these parts, however, so I’ll probably pass on it. In my search for a nice medium-sweet, rich, waxy dram that began a couple months ago, this one was a step up from the Glenfarclas 15. I’ll say that after trying a few, the one that really satisfies my craving for that profile at the moment is the Glenfiddich 15 Distillery Edition. A deliciously rich and waxy auburn-coloured dram with some heft to it. Review coming soon.

Review Stub: Glenfarclas 15yo (and “Remembering the Family Cask”)

A friend’s recent birthday get together just happened to be at a bar with a decent Scotch collection, stocking many whiskies that I would be unlikely to buy a bottle of because of the price and/or review consensus.

Nose: Cookies. Butterscotch, cinnamon, orange peel and cherry. A real basket of great, sweet flavours. Smooth. Smells older than 15.

Palate: Rather hot and rough, with or without water, for a 15 year old. Creamy sherry, raisins and other soft fruits. Almonds.

Finish: Medium length with a noticeable dark chocolate note.

Grade: B-

Retasted and re-evaluated UP. See the updated notes HERE.

I really wanted to like this one. Going into it, I had heard great things, and I wanted so badly for it to knock me off my socks and make me buckle down and buy a bottle. The nose began with so much promise, but the palate was a rather rough let-down. Not terrible, not even bad really, but just your average speysider with some maturity. To that end, I’ve currently got so many other Speysides that, for a similar price, do the same thing so much better.

Coarse Notes on the ’97 Glenfarclas ‘Family Cask’ for Kensington Wine Market (Calgary, AB):

Something about this review really makes me think about the merits of cask-strength and small batch for some distilleries (the going consensus on the Scotch blogs I follow seems to be that Highland Park is fine, if not better, at the standard 43-46% ABV, for example). Upon tasting the 15yo Glenfarclas, I compared it to the (14 yo) ’97 Glenfarclas Famiy Cask I tried at Kensington Wine Market in Calgary, which came in at 56.3% ABV. It definitely makes the 15yo look flat-out boring in comparison. Neat, the nose is powerful, but not too spiritous—mostly a bowl of mixed nuts, brown sugar and sherry, all in beautiful balance. On the palate, the ’97 FC hits you like a ton of bricks, but they are delicious bricks. Mouth-coating, creamy, with sherry, raisins, brown sugar, nuts, and a whole fruit-bowl, just… just everything you could want in a Speyside, and all in turn. I had about 10 minutes to try it, so the notes were never clear enough in my head to write even a review stub, but man was it good. In hindsight, I should have bought the bottle, as it was only about $20 more expensive there than the 15yo is here. Sadly, it was limited edition, too, and it’s gone. My rational originally was “Oh, I have too many Speysiders at the moment”, and I’ve regretted rationalizing my way out of that bottle. To those that have found their way to this post searching for thoughts on the Family Cask series, the 14yo ’97 Family Cask is a solid A.