Càrn Mòr Glen Grant 1992 (26 Years)

The aroma exhibits a scotch's characteristic richness from extended aging in a gently seasoned cask. Honey and citrus notes emerge immediately, underpinned by a deep maltiness. This is straightforward, unadulterated scotch. It evokes Glenmorangie 18, yet feels more subdued, with a stronger tangerine presence (not apricot) and less pronounced citrus. The scent promises a superb drink, though perhaps not an astonishing one. It's somewhat reminiscent of Bushmill's 22's aroma, but with less depth and none of that grainy oiliness typical of Irish whiskey. The nose suggests a well-crafted flavor profile. First sampled on February 29, 2020, a fitting date for my 1000th beverage review. This choice is particularly appropriate as it was distilled and barreled in my birth year (1992), aged 26 years (the age I realized my fondness for scotch after a dram of Macallan 12 at a corporate event), hails from Speyside (the region of Macallan, which introduced me to scotch, and Balvenie, a constant presence in my father's home), comes from a distillery consistently recognized by a prominent critic for its exceptional scotch, is bottled at cask strength, and is independently bottled (qualities I've grown to value more as I've explored new spirits and experimented with aging my own). Its scarcity in the US makes it a rare and special experience. Only 197 bottles were produced. Regardless of its taste, it's a fitting selection for my milestone review. The absence of hay in the aroma is a positive sign. Subtle floral notes meld harmoniously with hints of vanilla, all very delicate. These complement the fruit aromas well. The honey scent is less prominent now, possibly with a touch of coconut, though it might just be the intensifying vanilla. It possesses more body but less fruit than Green Spot. Despite the bourbon barrel maturation, the nose offers minimal spice, though there might be a subtle bourbon-like undertone beyond the vanilla. Unusually, this is the first time I've reached the second comment section without moving past the aroma description, even with occasional tangents. While not a spirit to be savored for its profound richness and complexity over extended periods, it does smell very pleasing. Moving on to the taste. The palate is less sweet than anticipated but notably engaging, with a richness that develops alongside substantial vanilla (a significant amount of vanilla), introducing indistinct nutty notes and definite coconut (un-toasted) with traces of spice. It's remarkably smooth, without tasting diluted (the mouthfeel is moderate but acceptable given the richness). The overall flavor profile features a prominent nectar quality, balanced by restrained malty notes, a touch of well-managed bitterness, and a pleasant, non-assertive citrus (the tangerine is evident, but light and vibrant). It's a very competent scotch, comparable to Tullibardine but lacking its distinctive finish. The palate is certainly superior to Dalwhinnie 25, exhibiting less harshness and a more balanced flavor, though the overall impression isn't particularly exciting. It surpasses Glenmorangie 18 in smoothness but isn't a dramatic improvement. It's unfortunate that the cask strength results in a lower ABV. It's commendable that it doesn't taste of wet wood, though there's a slight lightness emerging from the intense vanilla. Further swirling and nosing enhance the vanilla's richness. It's a somewhat distinctive experience, and it's impressive that a spirit of this age can be so gentle (meaning it lacks strong flavors and flaws). It's an easy-drinking spirit, though not the one I'd choose for perpetual enjoyment. It is lighter, less rich, and less broadly complex than Glenfiddich 14 Bourbon, a position not ideal for a premium spirit, though not inherently bad. It possesses a deep, mild woodiness absent in the Glenfiddich, yet I still wouldn't estimate its age at 26 years; 15 seems more plausible. The flavor is somewhat subdued for an 18-year-old, and the complexity is lacking, but it's too smooth for a 12-year-old. Overall, it's a very satisfying dram that I'm pleased to be drinking, but it truly demands careful attention to its subtleties. I considered a score as low as 15, but it's definitely not below that. A 16 seems appropriate based on this tasting, as discerning the nuances requires considerable effort. Ultimately, it's smooth and balanced, but quite mild. I might consider raising it to a 17 or even 18 in the future, but for now, it's a 16. I do eventually detect a subtle alcohol presence, surprisingly low for the ABV. The palate is executed significantly better than Dalwhinnie 15, perhaps by several points. I look forward to tasting it with a clean palate to better identify subtle notes. Still, I suspect it may be too subtle. It seems less assertive than Highland Park 18, which is often already on the subtle side. Comparing directly with Highland Park 18 in this final tasting, the latter is richer, with more butterscotch and spice. The Highland Park is substantially better, though it also lacks complexity, suggesting my palate may be compromised. Nevertheless, the Highland Park tastes superior and has a faint hint of sea spray on the finish. Returning to the Glen Grant, it is lighter, but with a lingering woodiness that is neither bitter nor overly rich, providing a pleasant base of vanilla and a light nuttiness without oiliness. It's actually quite similar to a milder Green Spot, which isn't ideal, though my palate might be impaired. This differs from Green Spot with more vanilla, contributing its own form of richness. Still, the comparison is quite accurate. I enjoy this, but its price point is difficult to justify, and it's puzzling how it aged so long yet developed such a mild character. Nevertheless, for the aforementioned reasons, it was an excellent choice for my 1000th review! No regrets. Also, this is by far the longest single tasting note I've ever written, largely due to circumstances, but it feels rewarding. After all these tastings and comparisons, I have a homemade bourbon blend sitting here that is comparable in quality, with added complexity and less age than I would ideally prefer. It costs $35. For the money, I'm certainly better off creating bourbon blends based on Ezra Brooks. Subsequent tasting: It's rich and sweet with pleasant honeyed nectar and floral notes, including vanilla. It's somewhat more indulgent than my initial Ezra Brooks blend, offering a really nice fullness. It's quite enjoyable, though not profoundly complex or contemplative. Nevertheless, a very good scotch. I'm upgrading my score to a 17. It carries much of the light fruitiness of Irish whiskey (primarily pear, with some apricot) and floral notes, but without the unpleasant oiliness. Despite slightly less complexity, I believe I prefer this for its grain character, fullness, and hint of spice. Still, I consider the two to be very close in quality, with Green Spot being clearly better value for money. I'm leaning towards a 17 for this, but if I assign that score, Green Spot should receive a 16.

Nose - honey, vanilla yogurt, pear, strawberry, cereal grain, lemon zest, oat, applesauce, green peppercorn, cinnamon, sweet oak, white wine, grape, hay, nectarine, sweet floral and bitter herbal aromas, mild to moderate ethanol sting. Taste - lemon, strawberry, orange zest, honey, pear, salted caramel, vanilla bean, tart apple, cinnamon, ginger, floral and herbal notes, white and chili pepper, hay, coconut, barrel spice, fruit blossom, cereal grain, moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium length with citrus zest, assorted floral and herbal, vanilla, and mildly tannic oak flavors. What a beautiful example of long, gentle Speyside aging. There’s a subtlety that belies its age, but there’s also a depth and richness of flavor that you don’t find in young whiskies as well. The nose is a veritable fruit basket of aromas, sweet and tart with a satisfying honey and vanilla component that complements the fruitiness nicely. It’s a bit like the smell of mixing vanilla yogurt with oats and honey and an entire refrigerator drawer’s worth of fruits. Understatedly delicious and inviting. The palate follows suit, with deeply tart fresh fruit dominating the arrival. Next come the gentler floral notes which give way to some cinnamon, dry herbs and spices, and soft, yet tingly pepper. The finish continues with these notes but also brings some tannic wood, not unpleasant but just enough to immediately turn your mind to the next sip. The tart, slightly salty, electrolytic remembrance of the palate ignites a mouth watering, Pavlovian response that is quite remarkable. This dram seems to continuously quench and rekindle your thirst for it, until the glass is empty and you’re left with but a memory of the encounter. Overall, this is delicious. There is a non-trivial amount of maltiness that I feel detracts from the experience and holds this back from true greatness, however it certainly decimates all other Speysides I’ve tried and ignites my interest in a region I don’t often consider all that exciting. It’s also my first real taste from an independent bottling, which is a category I look forward to exploring more in the future. Many thanks to a friend for providing the sample and allowing me to have this wonderful experience.

Rating: 17/23 I felt compelled to revisit this bottling after using it as a reference point in my review of Glenfarclas 28 1990 Cask Strength Sherry Hogsheads (or whatever its name is) and discovering I preferred it and could discern more flavors than previously. Nose: Dry wood, spices (cinnamon, ginger, pepper), a touch of nectar-honey sweetness linked to a hint of robust minerals akin to crystallized sugar. Faint nuttiness and possibly the slightest trace of melon. This evokes my Cadenhead's bottling of Tullibardine 25, although that one has more pronounced spices, more tropical fruit (with a hint of cucumber), and a bolder, more bitter overall aroma. Palate: More fruit than I'd previously detected. Sultana alongside that nectar and honey flavor. It's sweeter than I recalled, though the spice (cinnamon with ginger) and dry, mellow woodiness are still present. The minerality is noticeable but mostly adds complexity rather than diluting the profile. A bit of vanilla. Some subtle smoke. It's remarkably well-balanced with a good amount of character, but it's clearly aiming for easy drinking rather than intriguing complexity. Cadenhead's Tullibardine 25 offers greater complexity with significantly more spice, some melon, traces of other tropical fruits, and a full honey flavor, including bitterness - all layered over a mellow spirit with ample wood influence (almost excessive, actually). Finish: Dry wood and a hint of cinnamon with a touch of sultana that quickly fades. Some faint vanilla richness lingers in the background. - Conclusion - I'm beginning to understand the excitement surrounding whiskies that undergo extended aging at lower proofs. I don't miss the higher ABV here as it feels substantial and possesses a pleasant profile. However, I began this re-evaluation expecting to elevate the score to a 17 or 18, but I'm less certain now. I'm considering a 16 or 17. Cadenhead's Tullibardine is superior, but I rated it a 19, and I don't believe the difference is that substantial. I might have overestimated the Tullibardine, so it could actually be a 17 (though it's more likely an 18). This suggests the current bottling is a 16 or 17. The maturity and pleasing nectar are growing on me – it merits a 17.

Upon returning from a lengthy trip and my first scotch tasting in four months, the initial impression is of a mellow aroma with abundant vanilla nectar and subtle barrel spice, akin to cinnamon and pepper. It bears a resemblance to an oaked Chardonnay. A faint apricot scent is present, accompanied by even more delicate strawberry and cherry notes. A simple wood aroma is also detectable. Contrary to initial thoughts, it's not entirely flat, perhaps benefiting from being open longer. The palate offers pleasant peppery wood notes at the forefront, blended with smooth, nectary vanilla. It's tarter than anticipated, with an unexpected, slightly bitter mintiness from the wood, which, while not unpleasant, differs from expectations. Herbal notes from extended aging in bourbon barrels emerge, though surprisingly understated. It certainly doesn't present as a 26-year-old spirit. The mouthfeel is moderately viscous without being excessive. It's quite enjoyable, but its limited complexity places it in the 16-17 range. Adding a few drops of water smooths it out, enhances the nectar, and balances the herbal notes, which also gain more presence. This is an exceptionally subtle scotch that highlights the positive aspects of aging in refill bourbon barrels through its mild yet mature herbaceous, spicy, and vanilla characteristics. Nevertheless, the extended 26-year aging seems excessive for this outcome, with the subtlety bordering on "too much." With water, hints of smoke and eventually tobacco emerge from the herbal profile. The interplay and balance with the sweet nectar vanilla are genuinely appealing. I'm rating it a 16, with a potential for a 17. It's peppery but less harsh alcohol-wise than a certain other brand, though its flavors are less engaging due to minimal smoke and red fruit. However, it has significantly less sulfur and better balance.

The aroma starts with prominent apples and pears, typical of a Speysider, followed by berries, toasted malt, citrus, dried fruits, and floral notes. It's delightful! The taste is smooth, slightly chewy, and semi-sweet. Apple and pear flavors are most noticeable, with citrus, pastry, nuts, and dried fruits attempting to make their presence known. The finish is long and has a spicy character. Thanks to a friend for the sample.