Alrighty. So over the weekend I tried three new whiskies, courtesy of
@Luben above.
------------------
First up, the Bell's Special Reserve. So this whisky was one I wasn't REALLY looking forward to, because it's known as a cheapy, and I'm familiar with Bell's. Well, colour me impressed. For the price of the offering I wasn't expecting a whisky this complex and smooth, to be honest. Sweet is obviously upfront, quite strongly, and it can actually be a bit overwhelming if you try to think about it all at once. However, the creamy caramel helps, and if you add a drop of water and let it sit for a few minutes, there's oak, peat and a hint of grass. It's really not bad for the price, and I think I've found my favourite "cheap whisky" in this. If you haven't tried it yet, really, it's worth it!
------------------
Next up was one he sent me just marked "mystery". I poured a bit (still have a tiny bit left), gave it a try. From what I could see the whisky was quite light in colour, which was one of the things that promted me to think it might be a younger whisky. On the nose it was a bit sharp, but sweet and sugary, with a strong hit of honey. I actually thought up front that maybe it was a whisky that was blended with a bit of honey, to be honest, that's how prominent the honey note in this is.
Anyway, on to the taste. The taste mirrored what I smelled. Sweet, caramel, honey. A bit sharp. Harsh was maybe not the right word, but it was one of the whiskies that burned me a bit over the weekend. When I added a drop of water it quieted down a bit, and revealed some fresh hay, and a tiny bit of oak. I also mentioned dessert pears and watermelon here.
When I gave him feedback I told him if I had to guess, it's probably a young Scotch, because of the harshness. Based on the flavour profile I guessed Highlands as my first region, and then Speyside as the second and lastly I told him if it's not a Scotch, I'll guess a Japanese whisky as they're known to try and mimic Scotch flavours. As a "after the fact" I also told him I figured it might be a limited or special bottling, because it's a bit unbalanced for me to be sold as a regular offering. Turns out I was correct on the country and the region. Ben Nevis 19YO. Also, it is a single cask bottling, at cask strength. We both agreed - the whisky is a bit disappointing. It's not very expensive for a 19YO from what I know, but there are a whole range of other whiskies I'll buy before I spend that money on this bottling.
------------------
Lastly, the one I was looking forward to most. I kept it aside and attacked it with a bit of an already made up mind, considering I know what it costs, and what you can get for R30 more. The Ardbeg Wee Beastie. On the pour it was clear it's a young whisky - the colour is light, and the whisky doesn't present the longest legs I've come to associate with Ardbegs. I was all set to have all my predictions proven right - this is a young Ardbeg for the same money, a RIPOFF.
But then not. The nose was a lot of the same Ardbeg, but the smoke was hotter and the sweet notes a bit subdued. Yes, that points to a young Ardbeg 10, but I found myself enjoying it more than I thought I would.
Then the taste. This was where it hit me - this isn't just Ardbeg 10 at half the age. Yes, you can taste the young age in there. It's a bit green, with a hint of hay in the mix, but it's not like it tries to act older. As an aged statement, it means that's what Ardbeg wanted to show. And it works. Man, it works!
There's smoke. Quite a lot of it, actually. Hot smoke, reminding me more of a forest fire than the Ardbeg 10. There's also less of the earthy notes than I get in Ardbeg 10. It's more focused on smoke, less fruity, less sweet, but somehow it still balances, even though the balance is way out. It finishes with more of a fire smoke, reminding me of smoking meats with Mesquite wood chips, than the 10YO. The finish is a bit shorter than I get on the 10YO, but I'm not sure if that's because of the age or because the smoke just takes over and "lingers" a bit shorter. I honestly don't know.
The reviews I've read on this have said that it's mostly a young Ardbeg. Yes, it is. It's a 5YO Ardbeg. But that's not bad. I like that this does not try to be a 10YO in half the time. Instead it does it's own thing, and doesn't trod on the 10YO's playing field. It's not bad. At all. If you pour me this as a darm I'd take it gladly.
But then the question popped into my mind. Will I buy it? I had to think about it for a while, and then I realized the answer is the same - no. I won't. Not at that price. For me, there are cheaper malts that cover the intro to malts, like the Laphroaig Select (which I also happened to taste a week ago), that covers peat better than the Wee Beastie. It's still too aggressive for an intro to peat, but it's not developed enough (for me) to be a sustained drink. It's not bad, at all, but it comes down to this for me - for R30 more I can buy a 10YO. The 10YO is smoother, more balanced, rounder and way more complex on the palate. I like the Wee Beastie, but I don't see where Ardbeg tried to hit the market with it. I just don't.
------------------
Finally, Luben, again, thanks for the options. Next I'll sample the Laphroaig 10YO and then I want to tackle that Ben Nevis again. After you revealed it's a cask strength 19YO I think I need to approach it differently, perhaps with more time, so that's what I'll try.
www.whiskybrother.com
Sign up with Google
