Wardhead 1997 & Ardmore 2008 for r/Scotch Reviews

Hi everyone,

Okay, bit of back story first… Last year we managed to get two samples from Hunter Laing (Sherry cask Blair Athol and an Inchgower, both over 20 years old). They were rejected for not being good enough.

I organised two more samples from The Single Cask to be sent to u/scotch_fanatic. Once again, not good enough.

u/t8ke then gets Morrison MacKay on board and they send us 9 samples from casks they have that we could bottle. They are sent out blind and we (the tasting panel) taste them, rate them, etc.

Our favourite being an older single grain, we decided that the best course of action was to bottle the second and third favourites.

To be perfectly honest, I didn’t rate anything in the blind tasting super high and I gave both of these 7.5/10. I have lost my notes from the blind tasting but I remember guessing the Ardmore was a Croftengea and the Wardhead as some young Speysider. But blind tastings can be deceiving and stuff changes sometimes when it’s bottled as well as changing as it opens up and you spend more time with it. So let us see what the r/Scotch bottlings offer!

Also, this was a huge load of fun and I have to thank u/t8ke and u/scotch_fanatic for generally being awesome, organising this and including me as a part of it. It has been a privilege and an honour and I can’t wait for more bottlings in the future!

Wardhead 1997 for r/Scotch 54.7%

Colour: Gold

Body: Medium

Nose: Fresh nose, younger than its years. Green apple and malt first off, grassy, very clean, milk chocolate, hot chocolate froth and some heather, honey. Creamy with vanilla after a minute. Under ripe orange and green grape appearing. Malted milk biscuits too.

Taste: Really wonderful clean arrival, lovely mouthfeel with oils and malt, then a burst of fresh fruit with green apple and lemon, milk chocolate, heather, some oak and spices, some white pepper, stem ginger, softening again into the finish.

Finish: Medium/Long length. Darker and more malty here, malt biscuits, a little cocoa powder, more oak.

Hogshead #40, bottled at 22yo. The nose and the beginning of the taste here are a lot better than I remember from blind tasting. The mid-palate goes into some average territory with the spices and oak just a little flat. Still, a great release worth picking up. Water made the nose much fresher and fruitier but I found it lost body and depth on the taste.

77/100

 

Ardmore 2008 for r/Scotch 57%

Colour: Straw

Body: Full

Nose: I remember first tasting this blind and then the first taste out of the bottle thinking that this was just another pretty average peated whisky. But the nose keeps opening up more... Creamy, lemon citrus, the malt is there quite gristy giving a complexity and body, an Agave note- maybe kinda Mezcal-like, some ash, a little white grapefruit, maritime notes of cold seafood buffet, lobster and crab flesh with cracked black pepper. The more you dig and pay attention, the more you get.

Taste: Clean arrival, oily, lemon citrus and then BIG peat, lots of intense minerality and rocky seashore notes, licking the inside of old shells, chewy mouthfeel. Great, and again, very different from my blind tasting and first pours.

Finish: Medium length. Not as long as the Wardhead but still plenty going on with salt, peaty malt and the oils coating away. Quite dry too.

Bourbon barrel 702430, bottled 11yo. Love Ardmore and very happy to have a bottle of this. I also have to say that this is supremely drinkable at full strength but doesn’t seem to do well with water.

80/100

Thanks for reading!

Updated Distillery Rankings

Scotch Reviews #813-#814

Whisky Network Reviews #969-#970

Network Average: 75.1

Best Score: 94

Worst Score: 12

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as the Global Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. In this case, I was also a part of selecting these whiskies, so may be even more biased than usual... Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and I am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and I am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Glenfiddich 23 Grand Cru Review

Hi everyone,

Continuing from Ardbeg 19, we have another expensive whisky today from Glenfiddich.

This Grand Cru will cost you £220 in the UK and has not been particularly well explained. I thought this was a continuation of their Experimental Series but is, in fact, part of a new series of whiskies modestly entitled ‘Grand.’

I had also thought that this was finished in Grand Cru red wine barrels, but this is not the case either. It is instead finished in barrels that had been used to ferment what would become Grand Cru Champagne. Interesting…

What does the whisky taste like though, let’s find out.

Glenfiddich 23 Grand Cru 40%

Colour: Gold

Body: Light/Medium

Nose: Oxidised red apple, orange, some sulphur, icing, red grape, mixed spice, toffee. Good complexity but notes don’t quite work together.

Taste: A bit sharp, apple and spice, lacking power then watery apple and orange juice, a little sulphur, tannin, flat throughout.

Finish: Long length. Chocolate, watery again, quite long but lacking.

Very meh for the money you’d have to pay. And, much like Winter Storm, I really don’t see much of an influence the casks have had on this. And seriously, 40% William Grant? 40%?!

64/100

Thanks for reading!

Updated Distillery Rankings

Scotch review #791

Whisky Network Review #943

Network Average: 75.1

Best Score: 94

Worst Score: 12

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and I am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and I am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Glenfiddich The Original Review

Hi everyone,

The other day I reviewed some Ardmore’s, as we’ve selected one as a selection to be bottled for r/Scotch.

Today I’ve got another nod to the other whisky that we selected; a Glenfiddich. The selection that we will be doing as the r/Scotch bottling will actually be a Wardhead, a Glenfiddich blended with a teaspoon of Balvenie. This practise is used to make sure that their high name is not sullied by those that would release their whisky willy-nilly, however every whisky company seems to have stocks that they don’t want or need to sell off, so some of this Wardhead ends up on the market. It does tend to be quite different from the usual Glenfiddich though. For one, they are normally single cask, cask strength whiskies released by independent bottlers.

Anyway, the review I’ve got today is an official. Glenfiddich were the first single malt and they released this to celebrate that fact with a salute to the original packaging and an attempt to recreate the style.

Glenfiddich The Original 40%

Colour: Light Gold

Body: Light

Nose: Fresh and fruity, loads of green apple and pear, shortbread biscuit and vanilla, some malt, classic but lacking complexity

Taste: Lacking some mouthfeel, a little watery, pear juice, green apple, a little red apple then some dry oak and average spice.

Finish: Long length (surprisingly). Quite long but simple with more shortbread and malt, even a little harsh.

12yo Glenfiddich in a fancy tin? One for the collectors I feel.

62/100

Thanks for reading!

Updated Distillery Rankings

Scotch Review #787

Whisky Network Review #936

Network Average: 75.1

Best Score: 94

Worst Score: 12

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and I am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and I am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Glenfiddich 21 Winter Storm Review [From Paris with Love]

Hi everyone,

hypehypehypehypehypehypehype

That’s been the message coming from Glenfiddich at the moment about a certain ‘experimental’ release, finished in Canadian Ice Wine casks.

Go to any other whisky blog for the whole press release.

Glenfiddich 21 Winter Storm 43%

Colour: Gold

Body: Medium

Nose: Sweet fruit, green apple, white grape, powdered sugar, toffee apple.

Taste: Sweet, green apple, soft, lacking power but pleasant, toffee apple, white grape, icing sugar, some ginger and dry oak.

Finish: Medium length. Intensifies, with oak and sour green apple.

Seems almost the same as the 21 to me... which is really disappointing. Ice Wine finished whisky is a cool idea, but it hasn’t seemed to have added anything here.

74/100

Thanks for reading!

Scotch Review #473

Whisky Network Review #540

Network Average: 74.3

Best Score: 92

Worst Score: 22

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Let's Talk Direct Fired Stills [Discussion]

Hello again everyone,

Today I’ve got another vaguely interesting discussion post on direct fired stills. What are they? Why should I care? Does it make better whisky? All these questions and more will be answered!

First though, a lot more information can be found at the whisky science blog. This guy is much more professional than me (he uses references) and essentially, I’m just updating his list.

Much like maltings, having been onsite for many distilleries 100 years ago, direct fired stills would have been the norm. Back then they would have used a coal fire underneath the still as a heat source so that the alcoholic vapours would evaporate and could be collected.

Steam heated stills were introduced as early as 1887 to Glenmorangie, but many distilleries used direct fired stills until the 1950’s and 60’s when much of the industry was modernising (including the maltings).

A few distilleries stubbornly clung on though, and there is at least one distillery left that still direct fires all of its stills.

So, let’s talk a little about direct fired stills. What are they? Do they give a different flavour? If so, why?

 

To understand that, maybe it is useful to understand the other approach; steam.

The steam is generated in a steam boiler by natural gas or oil. The most common use of steam is the steam coil, where a coil of steel tubing inside the still is submerged in wash when the still is filled. The steam coil is pumped with hot steam to heat the wash and the rate of steam pumped through can be increased or decreased to change the temperature. The steam condenses in the pipes and returns to the boiler.

The other method is using steam cylinders or jackets, although these have now been outdated by the more modern steam coils. Whisky.com has some pictures of Linkwood and Glenlossie but I believe both these distilleries have been updated with new steam coils since these photos.

Quote from whisky.com on steam cylinders:

“Several of these hollow cylinders are placed inside the pot, standing upright. That way the wash can enter from below and leave heated at the top. The cylinders are double-walled so the hot steam enters the walls from above and runs down as condensed water. Small baffles between the thin walls of the cylinders lead the steam into a homogeneous flow in order to guarantee a constant heat emission. The steam is channelled through pipes at the top of the cylinders. Ring pipes collect the condensed water.”

I don’t believe there would be any difference in flavour between these three steam heating methods, other than efficiency and energy use perhaps.

Steam replaced direct fired stills for a number of reasons. Better heating efficiency, more control of heating, more even heating of the charge, optimising charge quantity and better heat transfer.

‘Direct Firing’ on the other hand is very different. It involves a direct flame to heat the still. Originally, all distilleries would have used coal or even peat to heat the stills. Nowadays, the EU have put regulations in place so that distilleries can no longer use coal but some still use natural gas or oil.

Because there are quite a few solids left over from the fermentation of the wash, these can burn to the bottom of the still and bring a ‘burnt’ or sulphury flavour through into the low wines. To stop this burning, direct fired stills will have a ‘rummager’ installed, which is a spinning contraption with sheets of copper chains to agitate the wash while it is distilling.

Also, the copper has to be much thicker on the bottom of direct fired stills. Partly because the rummager is going to scrape off some of the copper and partly to withstand the intense heating of the direct flame. The shape of the bottom of the still is also different, with direct fired stills the bottom of the still is concave to spread the heat of the fire more evenly. With steam heated stills it is the opposite, a convex shape giving more room for the bulky coils.

Glenfarclas is the only distillery
to direct fire all their stills

Similarly, the heat from direct firing is different to heating with steam, in that the heating with steam is very even and controllable. Whereas direct firing is uneven in its heating and less easily controlled. This might mean that over-frothing of wash stills is more common (called entrainment), burning of solids in the wash still even with a rummager and too fast or slow distillation of the spirit. It would be much easier to overcompensate with the heating (particularly with coal), turning the heat up, have it be too hot and turn it right down again to try and control it, see-sawing from one extreme to the other.

So, it’s uneven, harder to control and not as energy efficient. Why then do some distilleries stick by their direct fired stills?

Well, they’ve got some advantages too. For one, I would say (couldn’t find a reference but I’m sure others have said this too) that direct firing of stills is going to give you a more traditional tasting whisky. More substantial, more character and more flavour. Maybe not all good flavours, but those will mature with a long interaction with oxygen and wood (often good Sherry casks work best) to give you a better long aging whisky, à la old Macallan or any Glenfarclas, old Springbank, pre-closure Ardbeg, Karuizawa or pre-2005 Glendronach.

These whiskies tend to be able to age almost indefinitely, keeping their spirit character without being overwhelmed by oak, Sherry or oxygen.

Macallan stopped using their last direct fired still in 2010

Perhaps this is partly because of the partial cooking/burning of solids in a direct fired still, then removed by the rummager. This would allow any cooked or burnt flavour chemicals created to distill off into the spirit. The chemical associated with this phenomenon is Furfural, giving you a nutty or burnt flavour to the spirit. What this Furfural does during maturation is anyone’s guess…

(Of course, there are a tonne of other factors that go into the character of the whiskies I mentioned and direct fired stills is only one aspect.)

People say that ‘back in the good old days’ and ‘they don’t make whisky like this anymore.’ Well, it’s true, a lot has changed (more on that to come) but when did the direct firing of stills change?

Some very recently, Glendronach and Ardmore in particular changed recently and have had a hard time replicating their pre-steam stuff. Ardmore, I read, took months to change the cut points to a point where it was similar to the direct fired spirit.

Glenfarclas still direct fires all its stills, although other things have changed there in the meantime (Switching from wooden washbacks, and ummm no longer putting soap in the fermentations to stop the froth… Back in the 1980’s mind you). Glenfiddich and Macallan are the other distilleries well known for having direct fired stills, urrrrrr still.

Still House No. 2 at Glenfiddich

However, after some digging it may seem that Glenfiddich do not direct fire all their stills anymore (Source here says that only still house no. 2 uses direct fired stills. Which would be 13 stills out of 32. I think…), while Macallan may have stopped a while ago. I emailed both distilleries to clarify but only heard back from Macallan. I had seen sources say that Macallan stopped direct firing in 2002 and another said 2010. Both are correct in a way, Macallan started converting their stills to steam in the early 2000’s and finally finished in 2010. Their new distillery, which will be starting this year, will also use steam.

Other distilleries only direct fire their wash stills, for instance Springbank, Tobermory and Glen Garioch. This might be because any cooking/burning of solids could only occur in the wash still, as there are no solids in the low wines going into the spirit still. Therefore, the most difference to the final flavour of the spirit may come from the direct firing of the wash still.

Anyway, below is a small list of distilleries and when they stopped using direct fired stills. Of particular interest to me was Glen Grant and Glenlivet as older versions from this time and before are pretty available (although not cheap). Strathisla and Longmorn are two others that tend to fly under the radar, and stuff from their direct fired stocks are available.

Direct Fired-

Glenfarclas (All stills)

Glenfiddich (13 stills of 32)

Springbank (Wash still only)

Tobermory (Wash still only)

Glen Garioch (Wash still only) (1995 spirit still)

Macallan (2010)

Glendronach (2005)

Ardmore (2001)

Longmorn (1994)

Strathisla (1992)

Ardbeg (1989 wash, 2001 spirit)

Glen Grant (1986)

Glenlivet (1986)

Caol Ila (1974)

Thanks for reading!

Let me know what you think! Does direct firing of stills make a difference? Do you like the flavours from direct fired whisky? Do you drink nothing but the finest Golden Promise, pre-war, direct fired Macallan? Do you give a shit? Let me know!

[Scotland Stag] Glenfid-dicking around: Tour

Hi everyone,

Back with part three of the Scotland stag. Please excuse the title, I couldn't think of another Glenfiddich pun...

Day two we woke up pretty damn early because it got light at 5:00am. First thing today was the tour at Glenfiddich, so we drove over to Dufftown.

I had tried to get a tour at Balvenie but they only do one tour on a Friday and it was booked months in advance, oh well, something to come back for anyway.

Of course, Glenfiddich is a huge attraction to the area for a lot of people, being one of the most famous distilleries in the world. The tour started with a very over-dramatic video presentation, followed by a look at the surprisingly traditional distillery. The mash tun is very modern of course, but they are still using wooden washbacks and direct fired stills. The stills are also pretty small with downward sloping lyne arms, all of which should lead to a full bodied, rich whisky. From what I’ve tasted though, it doesn’t come through in the whisky. Glenfiddich is huge and we only saw one of the stills rooms, all packed full of small stills humming away.

Anywho, warehouses were next and we were shown one of the traditional dunnage ones with another dramatic video on barrel making. One very cool part of the tour was to get to smell some of the different types of barrels that had held Glenfiddich; a Bourbon barrel, a Sherry Hogshead and another one I can’t remember. The barrels had all held Glenfiddich for quite some time, I think one for 38 years or something, so they all smell really fruity and I couldn’t recognise any Sherry in the hogshead at all.

Next we got shown the ‘solera’ tuns. If you don’t know, it’s a method used for Sherry where you take some out of a barrel to bottle it but not all and you refill the rest of the barrel with slightly younger Sherry.

Glenfiddich took this idea and modified it slightly. They have some huge oak marrying tuns, the original recipe was blended and left to marry in the tun and some was removed for bottling, but the tun always remains at least half full and they top it up. This brings more consistency to the final product, which is the Glenfiddich 15 Solera.

Then it was over to the tasting bar, to try some whiskies I hadn’t bothered trying for years.

Glenfiddich 12 40%

Colour: Gold

Body: Light

Nose: Fruit, malty and ethereal. A little sharp, pear drops and toffee.

Taste: Very soft, fruit, pear, then malt. Sour pear and bitter oak.

Finish: Short length. The oak comes in.

Well, this isn’t complex but it’s much better than I remember from a few years ago.

62/100

Glenfiddich 15 Solera 40%

Colour: Gold

Body: Light

Nose: Spicier and richer but still ethereal. Ginger, oak and malt. Cheap perfume.

Taste: Soft, thin, oak, spice with ginger and white pepper, a little harsh, then chocolate.

Finish: Medium length. Virgin oak comes in with bitter tannin and spice.

So apparently this is finished in virgin oak then married in that Solera vat. I remember this being a nice floral dram, but was disappointed to find that I preferred the 12 over this.

58/100

Glenfiddich 18 40%

Colour: Gold

Body: Light/Medium

Nose: Very nutty, malty, orange peel, sweeter raisin suggesting more Sherry casks.

Taste: Soft and thin again, pear, some orange peel, then spice and oak, very spicy actually, clove and ginger, a bit harsh again, malty.

Finish: Long length. Harsh oak and harsh tannin.

Again, thin but quite harsh. Seems like it could do with better casks and a higher strength. Again, I preferred the 12 to this.

61/100

Glenfiddich Project XX 47%

Colour: Dark Gold

Body: Light/Medium

Nose: Oh dear, I was expecting so much from this. Ethereal and perfumed but cheap cologne and a little soapy.

Taste: Sweeter raisin, oak, cologne, some bitter oak then chocolate. Still remains thin at 47%.

Finish: Medium/Long length. Chocolatey which is nice but still a bit harsh.

Poor Glenfiddich, I think the distillery edition at 51% remains my favourite. I assume that they could make some great whisky, they just choose not to.

65/100

Thanks for reading!

Scotch Reviews #379-#382

Whisky Network Reviews #425-#428

Network Average: 74.4

Best Score: 92

Worst Score: 44

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?