Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Bruichladdich 1989 Black Art 2.2 21 yo

Living in The Shadows

0 884

@VictorReview by @Victor

11th Jun 2014

0

  • Nose
    24
  • Taste
    21
  • Finish
    19
  • Balance
    20
  • Overall
    84

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

The reviewed bottle has been open for 4 weeks and began the review as nearly full. I shared this bottle with @Nock, my share being 300 ml

Nose: raspberry chocolate fudge; discreet soft semi-sweet peat; underpinnings of vanilla and natural caramel from oak; the sweet and dry balance is excellent; subtle and complex; seductive. Water added made the nose more unified and pentrating in intensity. Give this one some time and experimentation, and you should be able to coax a 24 pt nose out of it

Taste: the palate shows some stronger and sharper peat and wine flavours than does the nose, otherwise the flavours do translate from the nose relatively well, but with a rough and heavy-handed edge. The result is a deep gravelly mush combining bass register peat and wine flavours together. This turns to the sour the longer it is in the mouth. Water added mellowed out the palate and added a little sweetness. I do recommend trying this with water added

Finish: intense, complex, mostly on sour fruit, with some peat in the background. Water mellowed and homogenised the finish

Balance: this is a very deep, complex, and interesting whisky, which is by no means mellow or tame. The balance of sweet and sour is lost from mid-palate going into the finish. If you like your malts robust, deep, and complex, you may very much enjoy Bruichladdich Black Art 2.2. If you are looking for light and elegant, look elsewhere. I recommend trying this one with a little water added

Related Bruichladdich reviews

8 comments

@Nock
Nock commented

Thank you for the thoughtful and descriptive review. I have only tried my portion of the bottle on two occasions. It is certainly an odd one. I have been waiting to find other whiskies in the ballpark to help give me a handle on this guy. I feel like I have no point of reference to begin this journey. This review certainly helps. And the recommendation that water helps is always an important reminder for me (because I usually don't add water).

It looks like you find the nose to be the best part of this malt, with the finish being the biggest misstep. Is that fair?

7 years ago 0

@Victor
Victor commented

@Nock, this malt is so mysterious that I considered many titles for the review. I do find it odd and unusual.

Yes, I definitely find the nose the best part of Black Art 2.2 and the finish the least attractive part. Like you I found this one to be extremely hard to get a handle on. I had done a previous review of Black Art 2.2 of three times the length of the current one and just threw it away and started over. I find Black Art 2.2 to be extremely murky and jumbled together. There have only been a very few whiskies which have left me baffled for descriptors. This is one of them...not so much because these flavours are unfamiliar, but more because they are both multiple, overlapping, and jumbled together. They don't sort out easily.

As you know, like you I am not big on adding water to whisky. I did find adding water to be interesting and helpful in the case of Black Art 2.2. Tell me what you think.

7 years ago 0

@Victor
Victor commented

@Onibubba and @Nock, I just returned from Quebec where I had the opportunity to sample @CognacFan's bottle of Bruichladdich Black Art 2.2. I had sampled from this same bottle with him one year ago, and it was my favourite of all of his whiskies, including his 2009 30 yo Brora. During the interim, I had wondered whether the 2.2 edition which is the bottle @Nock and I have now was the one I had tasted the previous year. It was. But I must say the two bottles seem very far away from one another. @CognacFan had given the bottle at least 3-4 weeks of air last year prior to my having tasted it, whereas the current review is with minimal air time. My conclusion? Maybe @Nock's bottle with me will shift a lot with more air...and maybe there is some difference relating to the two individual bottles. I would have rated @CognacFan's bottle around 92-93, both last year and this year. @Nock, I returned from Canada with 250 ml from @CognacFan's bottle, tightly sealed up with wax. We can do a side-by-side tasting one day of our bottle and that one, if we have any of our bottle left by then.

7 years ago 0

@Victor
Victor commented

Yes, give the Black Art 2.2 lots of air time. I would rate tonight's sample at 91/100 points (24-23-22-22).

7 years ago 0

@MadSingleMalt
MadSingleMalt commented

Is there a consensus that these Black Arts get better as they sit open?

4 years ago 0

@Victor
Victor commented

@MadSingleMalt, that has been my experience, and, I think, also the experience of @Nock and @CognacFan.

Complex seems to me to be a word that was invented to describe Bruichladdich Black Art. Black Art is one hell of a whisky!

4 years ago 1Who liked this?

@MadSingleMalt
MadSingleMalt commented

@Victor , great! Thanks for your—ummm, devilish?—take on things. I've got the Black Art 3.1 lined up as my club's thematically appropriate bottle for October. It sounds like we'd be well-served by me opening the bottle as soon as it arrives next week. If I steal a wee dram, don't tell anyone.

4 years ago 0

@Victor
Victor commented

@MadSingleMalt, yes, opening the bottle next week sounds like a very good plan. You would almost be remiss not to take a taste then, in order to make some comparisons later. Also you probably want at least a couple of ounces out of the bottle in order to give the bottle sufficient air with which to work. You could decant a 2 oz sample bottle of course, ...or you could just drink your 60 ml worth.

4 years ago 1Who liked this?

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in