Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Isle of Jura vintage 1977 'Juar'

Exotic sweetness, but Expensive

0 392

@galgReview by @galg

12th Mar 2013

0

  • Nose
    ~
  • Taste
    ~
  • Finish
    ~
  • Balance
    ~
  • Overall
    92

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

Filled to cask in 1977, this vintage release was originally matured in three first fill bourbon casks before being finished in a ruby port pipe for 12 months. Only 498 bottles are available, and the price is a hefty £600 a pop, which is totally beyond mortals reach. I am very lucky to be able to try this wee dram. So let’s go.

Nose: Starting with wood varnish, mint , then after a few minutes in the glass the nose is revealed with all its glory: sweet notes of vanilla ice cream , caramel with bits of peaches and some more tropical notes of ripe papaya and pineapple with crème Catalan.

Palate: Sweet and spicy. Apricots , sugared kiwi, cinnamon , pepper and liquorice, then off to Vanilla and thick juices and touches of maple.

Finish: Dark chocolate crushed apricot and maple.

the long maturation in addition to the 12 months in port pipes, lend this one a very nice profile, with the old wood and varnish one can expect from over 30 years in oak, and exotic fruits and sweet maple you can expect from the port. Lovely stuff all in all. The only down side is the price and of course again, it’s a pity this kind of dram is bottled only at 46% and not at its natural cask strength, being a limited and expensive dram, i wish watering down would be skipped. Should this have happened, this one would shoot towards the 95 mark easily.

Related Isle of Jura reviews

3 comments

@systemdown
systemdown commented

Cheers for the review, yes you are very lucky! Any idea when this was bottled? The "natural cask strength" might not have been much higher than 46%. Just a thought. I might be wrong.

11 years ago 0

@galg
galg commented

@systemdown it was bottled only a few months ago. not sure of the date, but just released. as for the ABV, i guess it could have been closer to 50% and no water is nicer ;)

11 years ago 0

@systemdown
systemdown commented

Okay thanks, was just after an idea of how much over 30 years it is. RE: water.. yes no water is nicer. At least they didn't go to 43 or even 40%!

11 years ago 0

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in