Dunedin Double Cask 18 Year

Rating: 14/23 I haven't previously tried whiskey from New Zealand, and this one is 18 years old! I'm unsure of the grain used, but at least its maturity is confirmed. Nose: It has a clean quality, lightly spicy with ample mild wood, though not exactly smooth. After a minute, some sweetness emerges, adding richness and body. There's a note of sweet corn, paper, and a hint of vanilla. A slightly herbal touch introduces the faintest hint of mint. The nose isn't highly complex, but it smells reasonably appealing. Palate: Surprisingly tart! It's lemony. While I detected I.W. Harper 15 on the nose, I'm now getting single grain scotch. It's less corn and more unmalted barley, accompanied by very dry wood with a distinct tannic quality, though not harsh. However, this grain character isn't very prominent. Sipping further, there are faint suggestions of other citrus and red fruits. Occasionally, the slightest floral note is present, though all the flavors here are subtle. I even detect a hint of rummy molasses, which I also noticed faintly on the nose but wasn't certain about. The tannins are drying but at a good level, not overpowering. It's also considerably smoother than most single grain whiskies I've sampled, especially for its age. Finish: Faintly waxy with some lingering sweetness, possibly from barley. The paper and hint of vanilla notes are noticeable here too. - Conclusion - My bottle of 29-year-old Caledonian from 1987 by Signatory (12/23) is harsher but also sweeter and fuller. I don't know the ABV of this bottling, but I'm confident the Caledonian's 54.7% is higher. The Caledonian's flavors are less refined than those here. I wouldn't say I love this dram, but it's more refined than the Caledonian without being as challenging and retains some interesting character. When tasted side-by-side, the rum flavor really stands out here; it's surprising. Still, the flavors here are so subtle that the complexity fades before finishing a pour. In comparison, I.W. Harper 15 (14/23) offers a bit more character (which says a lot about the lack of character here), although it's rougher around the edges. If I.W. Harper 15 is rough, perhaps my nuance scale is off, as IW Harper 15 is quite a dull dram. The I.W. Harper is definitely closer to this than the Caledonian is. However, the slightly over-oaked character of the I.W. Harper places it slightly behind this one. What else do I have around here from the 15-year mark? Ah! Dalmore 12 (15/23). I'm inclined to say the Dalmore is superior to this. I believe this is closer to the I.W. Harper, so I'll stick with a 14. If this had the harshness I typically associate with single grain whisky, I'd likely rate it around 10 or 11. I do wonder if it avoided that simply by being bottled at a lower proof, but regardless, finding the right proof enhances quality, and I appreciate the smoothness here. Thank you, a friend, for sharing this!

Remember Action Park? That was the "death ride park" in New Jersey that caused so many teenage injuries due to poor ride quality. You'd ride there and feel fortunate to escape unscathed. Even though I was only in elementary school, we younger kids knew it was a rite of passage to get an Action Park tattoo (which signified a bruise or injury). I never got to go, primarily because I was too young, but more significantly because my immigrant parents couldn't afford the tickets and lacked medical insurance. However, Action Park taught future theme park creators the importance of ensuring basic elements, like quality control, are solid, or the business wouldn't survive. I believe the same principle applies to distilleries. In today's climate, where prices are extremely high and demand for young spirits competes with well-aged ones, you might see initial tolerance, but long-term market share may not be sustainable. This brings us to this pour—a rather uncommon one from the now-defunct Willowbank distillery in New Zealand. Willowbank ceased operations long ago and sold its equipment to a rum producer in Fiji. Any remaining stock is from old reserves. In current times, a ghosted 18-year-old will sell. But I can understand why it went out of business. This 18-year-old doesn't quite measure up. It seems somewhat unfocused, unable to decide if it should be a grain or malt, or if it should lean into the fruity New Zealand red wine notes or the malty character. It's not light enough for a fruity cocktail mixer, yet not substantial enough as a neat drink. It's like schizophrenia in a bottle. It needs to address the fundamental question: what is its intended purpose? Mixed drinks or neat? Should the grain or malt be the star? Should we emphasize the red wine fruitiness or the bread-like malt character? Regardless... appreciate it for what it truly is: a spirit from a closed distillery that won't return, aged for 18 years, from a region no longer producing whiskey. Given those circumstances, a 375ml bottle for $50 served its purpose exceptionally well.

Nose: Intense malt extract, rubber, burnt wood, dried dates and figs, orange liqueur. Palate: Delicate and unexpectedly weak initially. Slightly bitter and excessively oaked with a noticeable cardboard character. A moderately sweet jam or jelly taste like cranberries, sweetened sour cherries, dark grapes, or raisins. The wine cask influence is evident. Some subtle spice (ginger, pepper) and a muted, leafy flavor. The texture is adequate but a bit thin. Finish: Moderate in length. Sweet and spicy with oak and a trace of ashen or smoky malt in the aftertaste. The aroma is substantial with a dense, rich quality but lacks finesse. The strong rubbery scents are akin to the hogo found in Jamaican rum and could be seen as either "bold" or "heavy-handed" depending on the individual's perception. It's an acceptable aroma, but far from elegant. The palate is less robust than the nose but errs too much in the opposite direction, becoming blandly sweet. The cardboard note is unpleasant and suggests an overly wide distillation cut, but I don't believe that's the reason. It's more likely that the casks are exhibiting lignin breakdown. There's a point where aging reaches its peak, and a spirit can quickly decline afterward. This might have been better if bottled at 16 years. Adding water significantly improved the nose, softening the rubbery scents, but it made the palate appear muddled and anemic, further supporting the over-aged theory. It's not a bad spirit, but a tasting was sufficient to confirm I don't need a bottle, especially considering the cost. While this is priced at AUD$117 for a 500ml bottle, the equivalent for 700ml would be $165. There are numerous far superior spirits available at that price point. My tasting #4 at the Sydney Whisky Show, May 15, 2021 "Acceptable": 73/100 (2.25 stars)

A long time ago, I sampled a 25-year-old New Zealand whisky from a defunct distillery, which would have been quite costly by the bottle, but fortunately, a sample was reasonably priced. My primary recollection was of tutti-frutti bubble gum-flavored rubber mulch. Fortunately, a friend was kind enough to provide a sample of an 18-year-old for me to evaluate. Let's see if that memory aligns or if that was simply a flawed bottle. The aroma begins with a floral, rubbery note, akin to perfuming a vehicle's tires, followed by tutti-frutti bubble gum, tart cherries, and sautéed apples, transitioning to ginger, chestnuts, and moderate oak spice with minimal ethanol burn. The taste presents a thin mouthfeel, starting with that floral, rubbery note, more like bitter rubber mulch with perfume that you chew, then expelling the perfumed mulch to be replaced by chewing tutti-frutti bubble gum with the wrapper still on, tart cherries, and grapefruit, shifting to ginger, chestnuts, acetone, and moderate oak spice with low ethanol burn. The finish is of medium duration, featuring rubber mulch, a subtle red berry flavor, and burnt leaf ash. This was a challenging experience, and my memory was quite accurate. The aroma served as a warning of tart fruit, rubber, and light spices, but the taste is bitter with rubber, perfume, tutti-frutti gum, and acetone notes, concluding with a medium finish showcasing faint fruit in the background of rubber and ash. I'm very appreciative that a friend shared a pour from this defunct distillery and can understand why they ceased operations.

“I suspect the French are to blame for this. Not because I'm English…” Nose: Oak tannins are immediately apparent, slightly masking a stewed fruit compote with a hint of vanilla. The aroma is delicate, light, and gently warming. Palate: Drying, astringent wood leads, accompanied by some light citrus and the beginnings of a dark, figgy, jammy character that nearly achieves a lovely cherry flavor. However, tannic wood intervenes, halting further development. The syrupy texture is pleasant. Finish: Short. Peppery and oaky, then it's gone. I've long wanted to sample this ultimate geographical whisky. The price has decreased, and the opportunity arose, so I was pleased to acquire it. My expectations were high, and I hoped for an excellent experience. Sadly, it was merely satisfactory to good. Two types of oak are present, and unfortunately, the tannic wood flavors are too dominant. I believe the French are responsible for this. My reasoning isn't rooted in my English nationality, but rather in my growing perception that European oaks, when not carefully managed, can be aggressive. Six years in American oak followed by 12 in French Oak – quite intense. What is present is light, delicate, and very interesting. It's a clean spirit, and I suspect these Kiwis might be quite skilled, but they allowed the oak influence to become somewhat unbalanced in the end. A distiller whisky tasting #82

Nose - raspberry, pomegranate, apricot, fig, mint, rubber, allspice, cereal grain, faint sulfur, orange peel, floral notes, butterscotch, vanilla, moderate alcohol burn. Taste - peach, rubber, raspberry, butterscotch, vanilla, mint, lemon, grapefruit, cereal grain, cinnamon, ginger, dry oak, moderate alcohol burn, ending briefly with cereal grain, red fruit, and dry oak flavors. This is my first whiskey from New Zealand, originating from the defunct Willowbank distillery. It's 18 years old and finished in bourbon and red wine barrels. The aroma presents rubbery red fruits, similar to those found in Del Maguey Tobala mezcal, along with a light, grainy profile and hints of butterscotch and citrus zest. The palate is also light and grainy, with the same rubbery quality and some juicy fruits. The texture is thin, and the finish is disappointingly short. This is subpar and tastes significantly younger than its 18-year age statement suggests. While the bright, juicy red fruit character is interesting, it's watery, unpleasantly rubbery, and sour. Nevertheless, I truly appreciate having the chance to try this rare whiskey. Many thanks to a friend for sending it over!