Whisky Online Blog

It’s no great secret in whisky circles these days how brilliant Longmorn can be. An oily and rugged distillate that benefitted from direct fired distillation until the year 2000, it can develop over time the most glorious fruit character. I think it is among a handful of distilleries that are capable of serious aging and if you get a chance to try some of these older Longmorns from the early seventies or before then go for it because they’re almost all brilliant and will inevitably, one day, be gone.

Longmorn 1964-1994 30yo. Signatory. Cask 324. 150 bottles. 43%. 70cl.

I did an on the hoof, somewhat over enthusiastic (possibly tipsy) video review of this one for the good folks at connosr when I was at the whisky show in London a few weeks back, lets do it some real justice today.

Colour: Straw

Nose: Very old school, smells like some of these old 8 and 10yo malts bottled in the early seventies and sixties, think old G&M Longmorn 10yo or dumpy Aberlour 8yo. I wonder if this has gathered some OBE since being bottled in 1994. Lots of minerals and all kinds of delicate fruits, greengages, guavas, dried mango, white flowers and a little gentle lamp oil and camphor. This is very delicate, I suspect that it was reduced to 43% before bottling. Now some cereal and hessian notes with elements of muesli, honey and buttered toast, obviously a breakfast whisky this one. Great flickers of clean flints and stones.

Palate: Really soft delivery full of minerals, a little vanilla cream, some very pleasant metallic notes (quite OBEish really). Caraway seeds, liquorice, cumin, green bananas, nutmeg and rice pudding. Really gentle texture in the mouth, this one tip toes across the palate. It has a really attractive dry, floral austerity about it. Like an old riesling that’s just at the end of its prime before it starts to decline. Fresh butter and olive oil now, beautiful.

Finish: Medium to long with lots of green tea, dried fruits, tropical fruits and more metallic mineral qualities.

Comments: This one is tough because it feels a tad weakish overall, I suspect that time in the bottle has done that to it. However it is beautifully understated, perfectly balanced and the flavours are pure, old school class. I love it but I suspect that bottles may vary, some may be even better than this one if they’ve kept their intensity a little better. Anyway pretty much same score as in London, minus one point in the cold, analytical light of day.

Score: 91/100

Longmorn 1964-2010, 46yo. G&M Private Collection. Fresh sherry Hogshead. Cask 1534. 164 bottles. 51.9%. 70cl.

Colour: Very dark treacle.

Nose: Immensely polished, pure and intense sherry at first, it doesn’t cloy the nostrils though, rather it sort of bathes them in a thick fug of dundee cake, stewed fruits, concentrated dark treacle, dark rum, caramelised brown sugar and high quality furniture polish. Further notes of antique shops, old books, old leather, cigar tobacco and big dollops of chocolate, resin, mocha, cocoa and freshly chopped walnuts. This is a pretty stupendous sherry cask, the kind that almost certainly doesn’t exist any more. Now we get down to fresh earth, leaf mulch, mushrooms, hints of cannabis resin, black tea and rancio. If you like sherry you’ll probably die for this nose. With water there are a few more fresh leaves and notes of espresso, more chocolate and caramel.

Palate: Very big arrival, massive notes of apples baked in cinnamon, treacle, bitter dark chocolate, tobacco, prunes and big clean woody notes. Very tannic round the sides of the mouth, this is a stupendous sherry cask but it’s maybe a bit active for my liking. Lets try with a little water… that’s softened the tannins quite a bit and brought out lots of roasted coffee beans, more dark chocolate, truffle oil, concentrated dried fruits, candied peel and orange muscat.

Finish: Long and packed full of dark chocolate, aged tokaji, espresso, mixed nuts and some big tannins.

Comments: Well you have to like sherry. I’m not the biggest fan of immense sherry in the world but this is very impressive, the cask is absolutely flawless and it really is a great whisky. I’m not sure I could drink too much of it as the tannins become just a bit too cloying after the first dram. If you like your sherry big, dark, polished and intense then this is for you. The nose is stupendous neat but the palate is better with water so pour two glasses, one for sniffing one for sipping.

Score: 91/100

Longmorn 1978-2010, 31yo. Speciality Drinks, ‘Masterpiece’ Series. Bourbon cask. 135 bottles. 58%. 70cl.

Colour: Amber

Nose:  This is not as distinctively Longmorn as some of the early seventies casks floating about, it’s more a low key, very well aged highland style nose. Vanilla, damp sackcloth, old books, caramel, creme brulee, some dried herbs and a few hints of petrol and minerals with a little background waxiness. With time some white flowers and Longmornesque green fruits begin to emerge, greengages, pineapple, bananas and notes of buttery digestive biscuits. With water it becomes much oilier and fruitier, it’s much more recognisable as Longmorn now. Hints of fresh butter, candle wax, spice, Cointreau, candied peel, strawberries and cream and some confectionary sweetness.

Palate: Big notes of hessian, sweet vanilla, woody spices and several kinds of oil. Quite pleasantly sweet with some very nice supple fruits in the background balancing things out a bit. Toasted cocoanut, chocolate McVites, marshmallows, apple sourz, mandarins, orange marmalade, coriander seeds and a bit of alcoholic prickle. With water there’s big spice, baked bananas, fresh custard, flowers, sweet oak and some hints of old dessert wine.

Flinish: Medium to long and focused on these reduced characters of old desert wine and dried fruits.

Comments: I tasted these in ascending order of strength but the first two were pretty stellar whiskies and I feel this may have suffered a tad by latter comparison. Having said that this is a very good whisky and an interesting snapshot into the life and times of latter seventies Longmorn. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is damn good whisky. Excellent cask selection methinks.

Score: 88/100

Glenfarclas is one of a handful of spirits that can age with a wealth of grace and dignity unlike many others. It is also a distillery from which there are, fortunately for us all, many aged examples available at accessible prices, just look at this for example. However I always found it a little more difficult at great ages than its not too distant cousins Glen Grant, Strathisla and Longmorn. Not always I would stress, I have been fortunate enough to taste many deliriously beautiful aged Glenfarclas, I just find that the heavily sherried expressions can sometimes be a little too dense, a little too tannic or cloying. So it will be interesting to see what happens with the three 40 year old plus sherry monsters I have lined up for today’s tasting. First up is the one I have no photo for…

Speyside’s Finest 40yo 1969/2009. Douglas Laing. 50%. 70cl. ref OMC 1672.

Colour: Ronseal wood stain

Nose: There’s that big chunky sherry. Lots of dark chocolate, mulling spices, and a very clean fruitiness, some notes of red fruit and jam also. I find it quite lively and even a little alcoholic on the nose. No off notes, very clean and quite succulent sherry characters. Cloves and mincemeat, lots of christmasy characteristics as per usual in these ancient sherried drams. After a little time in the glass it develops some unusual aromas of wet sawdust and maybe even a hint of cardboard, it also becomes slightly appley.

Palate: Its a big spicy chocolate bomb at first but quickly settles down to become surprisingly soft. The nose suggested it might require water but so far the neat palate is very gentle. Its not the most complex of drams, lots of stewed fruit, lean bacon and nutty dryness, in other words some classic sherry flavours. The oak is a little too much for my taste in all honesty but I know many sherry fans who will love it.

Finish: Delicately spicy and quite long with those soft tannic oak notes fading away into the distance.

Comments: This is a good, uncomplicated sherried whisky. I find it too drying and heavy for my palate but its quality is undeniable, should be lots of fun for sherry heads.

Score: 88/100

Speyside’s Finest 42yo 1967/2010. Douglas Laing. 50%. 70cl.

Colour: Old Tokaji

Nose: Again quite prickly but with very similar profile to the previous one. This one is perhaps more flowery with some notes of rosewater and violets. There is also something slightly vegetal about it as well with orange marmalade, hessian and just a hint of struck flints but not what I would call an off note. This one is not technically as clean as the first one but so far I enjoy the nose more because I think these flinty/vegetal aromas make it more entertaining and unusual, they also seem to tame the intensity of the sherry quite efficiently.

Palate: This is quite different now, more expressive fruitiness than the first one and some really nice flavours of fig rolls and macaroons. It feels generally lighter than the first DL though not as light as the OB 40yo. That slight dirtiness has manifested itself as a beautiful earthiness on the palate, like freshly dug soil. Very deft spicy flourishes amongst the fruit and yet more dark chocolate. Quite an easy one to drink this one.

Finish: There is some lovely subtle menthol character on the swallow and a long well balanced finish to follow.

Comments: I like this one more than the first and I think its unusual nuances make it a more ambiguous and entertaining dram. Still an excellent example of a long aged, sherried Speysider.

Score: 89/100

Glenfarclas 40yo. OB. 46%. 70cl. circa 2010.

Colour: deep mahogany

Nose: Much softer and oilier than the previous two, similar level of wood influence but its much more balanced and delicately deployed here, feels straight away like it has benefitted from being bottled at 46%. Bags of stewed fruits, red berry compote and jam with quite a rich and elegant chocolate aroma. After a while it becomes slightly mentholated in the way that the best aged spirits often do, very attractive. The tannins on the nose in this one are much less aggressive than the other two, it even starts to develop some new fruit elements with notes of green and tropical fruits.

Palate: Rich and very sweet, quite a thick, oak laden delivery. The oak brings more of that menthol character and is very big but also very clean. I think that the oak works quite well to give the spirit some body and control. Quite raisiny, all the fruit character has become dried and concentrated and the drying oak and dark chocolate combo is well integrated, a very focused flavour profile. Opens up flavours of rancio and tobacco leaf along with a hint of something dirty but its entertaining not distracting, on the whole its very clean and highly polished sherry.

Finish: Big, drying, menthol and tannic finish. Quite mouthwatering and tingly. The finish is fairly long and leaves some lovely earthy, wet leaves flavours hanging around with more tobacco and old leather bound books.

Comments: Probably my favourite of the three and a fantastic fireside armchair dram. Not the easiest Glenfarclas for sure but a great example of well aged whisky and one where oak, though very prominent, has held the whole thing together very nicely.

Score: 90/100

And now the sacrilege part…

A vatting of all three

Its actually better than the sum of its parts. It seems to combine the best qualities of each individual sample. Lots more menthol and fruit character here and the oak has somehow become very deft and controlled. Very soft and easy on the palate with all the chocolate, fruit and spice components floating around together very harmoniously, great balance. Whoever said blending was difficult? This seems to happen so often when similar drams are quickly mixed together, I have seen it before where spirits can quickly bring out the best in each other. Try a vatting of all official releases of Port Ellen if you get the chance, or perhaps Port Ellen 30yo 9th release and Brora 30yo 2009 release, these are just a couple of other premium mixes that work really well. Obviously it helps if you’re very rich or a pretentious, scrounging twit like me. Have a glorious evening.

As I write this I am sitting in a shop that is doing its best to morph into the world’s first walk in microwave. Should I be working? Probably. Should I be drinking this beer under the counter? Probably not. Do I care? Nope.

Cold Beer. Two words that are to me this hot evening like a bubbly, well hopped symphony.

So it is with a fair measure of weary trepidation that I meander into the quagmire of this latest post. For I have decided that I will add my two farthings to this great big Hornet’s nest of a debate that Chivas have stirred up. When I say stirred up what I really mean is they’ve take a nest of Hornets, put it in a re-fill hogshead for at least 12 years till they’re really pissed off, then rolled it down a hill and released it as a special surprise bottling at this years whisky live. Its safe to say that everyone has aired their dirty laundry over this one. The whisky blogosphere has gone into indignant overdrive, some applauding and some bitching furiously about Chivas’ latest promotional, marketing thingy. Anyway before we go any further, here is the offending ad…

Now firstly lets get one thing clear, there are loads of shit whiskies in this world. There are young shit whiskies, ones that taste like nail varnish strained through a sock-full of pear drops. There are of course also a shed load of shit old whiskies, ones that are akin to a tannin smoothie garnished with a twist of sulphur. So obviously regardless of age there are badly made, badly matured whiskies. Now on one hand I have issues with what Chivas have said, specifically this bit from their PR bumf “One of the greatest influences on the flavour of whisky comes from maturation. Much of the complexity of Scotch whisky comes mainly from its time in oak casks in Scotland; with outstanding spirit and excellent wood management, it follows that the longer the maturation period, the more complex the whisky” Well that’s plainly a big pile of gibberish, yes of course good casks are important and when expertly handled in conjunction with great spirit there is the potential for fantastic whisky at a variety of ages. However it doesn’t mean that whisky can just keep on improving with age, the spirit of most distilleries declines in cask after 30-40 years. Distilleries that produce spirits that can age exceptionally and consistently are rare, Glen Grant, Strathisla, Macallan, Dalmore, Longmorn, Glanfarclas and maybe Balvenie spring to mind but there are many that simply fade out after too long. Wood inevitably conquers all, given enough time it consumes all traces of distillery character and complexity.

Bottled at around 45 years of age this is probably one of the finest 'old' whiskies ever bottled. But for this beauty how many 45yo, over oaked duds have there been?

However part of me really does sympathise with Chivas on this one, I don’t think their point is to get everyone to believe that older is better, just that no age statement, designer, youngsters dressed up in premium branding are not the way forward. I agree with this sentiment, there have been a plethora of NAS overpriced young bottlings in recent years, with quality and price very out of sync. There are exceptions of course, Chivas’ own A’bunadh, Longrow CV, Caol Ila Cask Strength and Laphroaig Quater Cask, although those are all either bolstered by peat or sherry. There is obviously the problem for many companies now that they have insufficient stock as well, the demand for premium malts, single casks and the increase in independent bottlers have all put a big strain on supplies of aged malts.

Glenmorangie has been holding the flag for a different attitude towards premium whiskies, that of the NAS designer, cuvée style malt.

I tend to lean toward supporting Chivas on this one because, for me personally, the best whiskies tend to be between 12 and 25 years of age. There are many older malts that I love but they become quite hit and miss after they get past 30. There are barely a handful of bottlings I can think of under ten years of age that would be considered great bottlings. But then there is the issue of bottle aging seeing as most of the ones I can think of were bottled some time ago. However I don’t think we need to open a big can of worms to go with our already ungainly Hornet’s nest.

A handy visual metaphor for the bottle aging debate which we'll tackle another day methinks.

Obviously this is very much IMHO, everyone enjoys different styles of whisky. I remember when many of the very young heavily peated malts started appearing, they were fun but I think the novelty is starting to wear off now. We’ve all grown up a little, they’re like cannabis, something you flirt with giddily as a young student but that you ultimately grow out of. However maybe that analogy isn’t so good, I don’t want to compare the finest aged whiskies to class A drugs, who wants to inject 1937 Strathisla when you can drink the stuff? Lets forget that one. Sometimes it is very refreshing to enjoy a young malt, their zingy, vibrant, youthful characters can be nourishing and fun. However I can’t help but feel that they just don’t stand up to their slightly older counterparts. I love complexity, balance and depth of flavour in whisky (who doesn’t?) and this just cannot be developed without time. No amount of wood technology can sufficiently accelerate the process and too long a time, even in great casks, can just as easily undo all a spirit’s luster. As I said before there are many dreadful whiskies of all ages, but there are also many great whiskies of all ages, its just that in my experience the greatest ones have had a little bit longer in the cask to come to their full potential. I suppose in the end we arrive back at that old chestnut “Its all about balance”, yawn. Sod whisky, I want another frosty beer…