So I got Covid while I was working on this review set. Before I had it and then eventually lost my ability to taste acidity (for 2 months), I reviewed the next one. Then I have been attempting to heal.
Not to mention I’d really be happier hiding from wolves and doing very little during this month, but capitalism has to keep going for… reasons? Yeah, let’s go with that.
So where were we? Oh yes, we were looking back at Glen Moray. So far I’m buying fewer Glen Moray then I was before, which some would say is a reality impossibility and/or the reason that Through the Looking Glass was written.
But those were OBs, and I’m anything but predictable in my preference for whiskies from IBs due to being cheap. So let’s introduce Glen Moray 22 1996 Archives, the Glen Moray for today, as it waited ever so long.
This is the oldest so far, cask strength, single cask, ex-Bourbon, and from an independent bottler some would say I’m biased towards (myself included). Most would assume I’m going to prefer this one more, but is it good enough to change my mind on Glen Moray in general?
Let’s see, shall we?
Price: € 185
Vintage: November 12, 1996
Bottled: September 2019
Cask type: Barrel
Cask number: 7840
Number of bottles: 189
Colour: 5Y 7/8
Nose: Grapefruit, butterscotch, floral, cider
Citrus, sweet, a tiny bit of funk/effervescence, and some indistinct floral notes. I should prefer this over others, because I do like that grassy/Lowland profile, but this is feeling a tad too generic.
Unless you’re not used to flowers or just breathing in a wild flower field that hasn’t been found by influencers yet, you should be able to pick out at least a type of flower. Here it felt weaker and never really coalesced.
Taste: Rich caramel, chives, almond milk, earth
So on the one hand you have rich dairy notes here. Really interesting. Some nuttiness to it too. On the other you have strong, biting onion notes and some vague earthiness. Not a bad thing at all.
Oh, wait, they are together. Yeah, it’s a tad odd. You’d have a better time getting rival gangs to hang out then these flavours.
Finish: Grassy/earth, mineral, almond, ginger, chemical/hot plastic
I’m very happy to say the finish fixes the taste. It keeps the nuttiness, there mineral to balance it, and it takes that earth/grassiness and lets it just help and not be the main actor.
Sadly there’s this rough chemical note that ruins it all. Too bad really.
Conclusion: Hot damn, it was going alright, heck one would even say nice until that final rough note. There’s people who can ignore it, and there’s me. I’m me in this case and thus it sinks it for me.
I think I get why you’d release this whisky: There’s multiple interesting and unique elements. The nose seems like it’s going to be a different take on a Lowland, the flavour isn’t perfect or even good but unique and if you can sort the individual flavours in your head it’s quite strong. And the finish shows what it could have been, but sadly there’s something rotten in Denmark.
Oh well, next time!
Scotch review #1610, Speyside review #462, Whisky Network review #2337