Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Old Pulteney 21 Year Old

A Small Step Up From the 17YO

0 291

@OnibubbaReview by @Onibubba

5th Jan 2013

0

  • Nose
    ~
  • Taste
    ~
  • Finish
    ~
  • Balance
    ~
  • Overall
    91

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

Opened this baby up on NYE. Have had a chance to play with it a bit, so I thought I would post my notes. First off, let's talk price. Old Pulteney is expensive in my neck of the USA. The 17, a fine dram, goes for 95.00 when I can find it. I have only seen the 21 available at one store in Louisville KY and it was priced at 125.00. Both are crazy expensive. Good, but crazy expensive.

Nose. Honeycomb, honey suckle. Slight sherry. Fresh, bright, "new." Reminds me very much of a recent Duncan Taylor release of an 18YO McCallan. Stewed/rotten fruits playing around the edges. Pear and green apple up front.

Taste. Sweet honey. Quick burn. Salt. Sweet trickling, lasting burn down the throat. Butterscotch hard candy.

Finish. The burn lingers. Honeycomb and butterscotch Life Savers. Butter Rum Life Savers. No bitterness, but not cloying either.

I do not get a hint of oak, vanilla, spice, wood, or anything of that nature. This is all about fresh sweet honey, salted honey peanuts maybe. It is mouth watering stuff and dangerously drinkable. For only 30 or so dollars above the 17YO, I'd buy it if I saw it. However, if the 17YO was available and this was not, I would not knock myself out trying to track it down. I guess what I am trying to say is better than the 17, but not worlds apart from it.

Related Old Pulteney reviews

2 comments

Rigmorole commented

I got a bottle in Houston when I was down there for under $130. Not terribly expensive for such a great whiskey. The 21 is not available in Oregon where I live. What a superb dram. Superb, and yes, it will put a little hair on your chest. Great in summer or winter. I tried the 17 year OP the other day. It had some astringent qualities that surprised me-- a "gauze" like overture that was very faint. It was also delicious, but does not measure up to the 21 in my book. I definitely prefer the 21 and find the difference of four more years of aging more than a little noticeable.

6 years ago 0

@Onibubba
Onibubba commented

You know what? I'm going to agree with you now. I would bump this up a point or two, and take the 17 down a point or two.

6 years ago 0

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in