Opposite here, I dislike peat, so Springbank is ideal for me. It’s interesting enough, unlike McCallan, Dalmor, and a bunch of others that are quality but boring.
Thanks for the comment. I’ve only tried the 10; chat gpt (which is wrong half the time), thought I might not like the 15 as it said it was more peaty, and less bright than the 10.
Do you prefer the 15 to the 12 cask strength (the latter chat GPTs recommendation).
This board leans towards peatophilia so hard to sort out recommendations.
I have not had the 12. I’m a cretin who doesn’t get their fascinating with cask strength. I’m going to water it down anyway, why pay a large premium for cask?
To me Glendronach very sherried and Glenfarclas 21yo is just the most balanced whisky, without overt sherry notes. Springbank 15 is more intense than Glenfarclas, but not as overt as Glendronach. 21yo Glendronach ratchets up the sweet sherry notes even more.
I recommend Glenfarclas 21yo to a lot of customers and they are always very happy campers when they taste it. I prefer the 21yo to the 25yo as it’s a bit more elegant.
2 Likes
I would take the 12 c.s. over the 15, but that has a lot to do with my strong preference for c.s. bottlings, as well as my strong preference for ex-Bourbon over ex-Sherry; once I got into the world of Sherry, Sherry-aged and Sherry-finished whiskies often taste much too strongly of Sherry to me. The 12 c.s. is Bourbon-barrel aged, whereas the 15 yo is Sherry-cask aged.
1 Like
Two reasons:
- why let the distillery choose for you the extent to which a whisky will be watered-down? (this is the big one); and
- why pay for water?
To be clear, I do have some bottles in my tiny little collection that are watered-down at the distillery, but I wish each and every one was c.s. instead.
I would agree, except that you generally pay a premium that is more than you gain without the dilution. That’s particularly true for American whiskey. I’m going to water down to well under 50% anyway, so not a deal breaker for me. Plus, there isn’t even an option for most Scotch.
Yeah, there may be a “premium that is more than you gain without the dilution,” but that’s where my first-stated reason comes into play. I’m just giving my reasons for preferring c.s. – reasons I know are shared by many. That said, “many” is not “all,” and I first and foremost advocate for folks buying whatever it is they prefer.
1 Like
Now here is an exquistie example (two, actually) of “they don’t make them like that anymore.” On the left, Glenlivet 20 year, Baretto import, distilled in the 40s, bottled in the 60s at 45.6%. On the right, 12 year Giovinetti import, distilled in the 60s, bottled in the 70s at 43%.
Both are old school spirits, more than a touch of peat on them, a little sherry on the 12 year. It also shows some OBE. I don’t 100% agree with @M.Kaplan that OBE has to be a negative, or is always the product of poor storage. That said, the 20 year has better body and is more complete and distinguished, likely due at least in part to the higher ABV. It’s also the much more highly sought-after bottle.
These showed powerfully on first opening, and should get better with a little time open. I miss this kind of whisky.
2 Likes
That sounds like a fun experience! Question for you: what do you identify as “old school spirits” markers? And/or, how is that “they don’t make them like that anymore”? Is that comment specifically in regards to Glenlivet, or whisky in general?
Well a lot of it is literal - they don’t make them like that anymore. Floor malting, peat sourcing, barrel treatment, barrel choice, prevalence of NAS, among other things. They don’t put in the same time, effort, investment. They build stupid fancy distilleries.
As for taste A lot of it defies description. They are just different. A little old fashioned, in that there’s no polish or manipulation. People looking for flash could even find them foursquare at times. But to me, it’s complexity, depth without relying on wood treatment. None of the cheap cask signatures like bandaid. Really drinkable. Balanced. Things like peat on Glenlivet, that’s obviously specific. They can still be over the top, but it feels honest, not constructed. I mean no one would argue that Ardbeg Provenance is a modest whisky.
I don’t entirely know. Modern whisky can be great, too. But it’s not the same, and if you’ve had a lot, you recognize it. I am sure more experienced drinkers like Mark or Jonathan could put it better.
1 Like