This sample was provided by a friend who warned me that my first tasting would probably be "sulphury", but that if I gave the second half of the sample some time, the sulphur would dissipate. Well, here goes.
Glen Garioch 1999 (14 years old) Batch no 30 56.3 % abv Sample bottled Oct 16, 2018
First tasting (January 16, 2019):
- Nose (undiluted): oranges, light brown sugar, golden raisins, oak, spent match (sulphur?) that dissipates a bit (but not totally) with a good rest in the glass, and then a mint and balsamic vinegar aroma appears
- Palate (undiluted): medium bodied, much gentler than the 56.3% abv would suggest, milk chocolate-covered raisins, yielding to a bright grapey note with a bit more oak
- Finish: medium length, light toffee, wine gums (without the gag-inducing texture of gummies), oak lingering, and a hint of lemons at the tail end.
Second tasting (February 11, 2019) with 1 teaspoon of water added:
- Nose: raisins, mint, balsamic vinegar, brown sugar, walnuts. The sulphur (spent match, a bit of rubber/eraser) is not as pronounced as before, but it's still there. I feel as though given enough time, the sulphur might disappear altogether, but who knows?
- Palate: medium bodied, very gentle arrival, oak, brown sugar, raisins, milk chocolate. The bright grape note is diminished significantly with water.
- Finish: medium length, more oak, a slight waxiness, some lemons, black pepper, a herbal note at the end, rosemary or sage maybe?
This whisky feels "muted" with and without water. Maybe it's me, or maybe this is simply a subtle, nuanced malt. The lingering sulphur would make me wary of purchasing a bottle, but those who don't detect it as strongly would probably enjoy it. The herbal notes on the finish are drying and very interesting. But since I it would appear that I am sensitive to sulphur aromas, there's just no getting around its presence. That's not to say I don't appreciate my friend donating this sample. I do. Some people don't perceive sulphur odours very strongly, and some don't perceive them at all. Unfortunately, I do. It's not overpowering here, but it can't be ignored either.
@OdysseusUnbound I might suggest that Serge' review and reference to smoke is result of food references. He mention's "Mexican chocolate sauce" which I equate to a Mexican mole sauce used in a roasted chicken dish. "Ovatine" has a smoky component when eaten straight from the can/jar. Brunt Brownies should be pretty self explanatory. "Marmite" has a particular astringency and not many people I know consume it on a regular basis. The "pretty smoky" comment should be taken as a qualitative reference to particular flavours from subjective experiences. "Pretty Smoky" but in the context of reference to the taste of food and maybe not in the "Islay whisky" context.
Your review is your take on the whisky. I have been meaning to do much the same exercise which Serge's review of Deanston 2008 Bordeaux which he rated at 78 but I would put in the 88. Whereby, I am in full agreement with his review of Compass Box No Name Edition #1.
One of the challenges when describing the flavours of a spirit is that taste experience and memory are personal and thus subjective. A recent challenging whisky was @Cricklewood's Blacone's Rye. I thought the flavours were similar to licking damp freeze dried coffee stains off a diner counter.
Just for fun, and to revive an old review, I found a Serge review of this exact batch of Glen Garioch. Spoiler alert: despite the sulphur, he rates it 89/100. Some of our notes are similar, but I'm puzzled that Serge says it's "pretty smoky" yet rates the peat/smoke level at a 2/9. I'm working on "understanding" Serge's palate and how it relates to mine, but it seems to be a case of me being me and Serge being Serge and "never the twain shall meet" as he doesn't seem to like bourbon or big oak flavours, which I adore.
whiskyfun.com/archivejanuary19-1-Laphroaig-…