Hazelburn 10 Year

The nose is new make notes coming off with that just slight note of something off the still. I get a bit of vanilla, pear, smoke, earthy elements, and overall it's a relatively clean but youthful coastal peaty whisky. Forgettable. Hazleburn 10 - I honestly get vanilla and some kind of fruity and barely funky note I could say is Springbank only because this is in my glass. Bread and perhaps marzipan (not even fully sure I know that smell) are here with a slight fruity element. Springbank 10 - OK first off this is the most smokey whisky here and it's not close. After I get past the smoke the sherry elements coming in big time, good dark fruits, and wine elements. It's cleaner and perhaps missing some of the earthy notes of the Longrow, the actual peat note. A very nice all be it not overly aromatic nose. Taste - Longrow - Once again new make and off the still elements come in. It's a bit sour and has some unripe and odd young and acidic peat notes. Then there is this nice very salty and earthy, dirty malt that's bringing that classic Springbank under baked cookie and fresh breads. It's bold, it's full of flavor, but it's got off notes. Hazelburn - So on the first taste what really stands out is that there are multiple distinct layers that I'll need to address individually, already a sign of a more mature and complex whisky. The arrival is funky, sour, bitter and somewhat off putting. The arrival is followed by the Springbank malt and if there isn't some sherry casking here, there's something about this bringing with it a lot of fruity malt esters. Nothing over the top but enough to add a depth and complexity. Finally, the finish brings some nice oak tannins and mixes them with some coastal salts and a bit of a vinegar meets Springbank funk. Springbank 10 - The opening brings that sherry note but then I get a touch of sour milk, transitioning to rich smoke, and then smoked oak and sweet malt. The finish on the Springbank is by far the longest with it coating the mouth in a way none of the others do. Please note I have a full review on Springbank 10 and I might update it. OK so this was supposed to be super easy but I'm a bit unsure on ranking right now. OK so I have my ranking. 1. Springbank 10. Why? Well the nose is the best of the bunch bringing in some sherry elements and with that smoke. The flavor profile doesn't at all stages top the Hazelburn, which is surprising to me, but that smokey finish and the Springbank malt character comes out the best on the finish. 2. Hazelburn 10 Why? Shockingly nice nose for this range of whiskies, sweet, pleasant, and incredibly inviting but not bringing me back. My memory of this one was always a fairly simple whisky but the finish is really impressive for a 10 year whisky and the depth is great here. 3. Longrow NAS - When people say Heavily peated...well remember peat is NOT smoke. It's that earthy element that often is accompanied by smoke. My favorite peated whiskies are the more smoke forward and this Longrow is much more earth forward. The Longrow is an intense pour but lacking in layers or depth. This being the Hazelburn review - I'm scoring this a 2.0 which is higher than I expected to give it. Honestly the finish on this should justify at 2.5 but that opening is just so much of this youthful earthy, distillate forward and not just distillate but very raw one. The lack of peat I think takes some balance out as well. Still, if you're a finish guy and I'm one and you dig this nose and I do...I think you'll be very pleased. I paid 90 for this and I'm not upset right now. But that's hardly a value either. Don't think of this as a 10 year old whisky. Think of this is a craft whisky by the best damn distillery in the world, and just know you're not getting their best here. But it's still Springbank distillate, unpeated...

Rating: 15/23 My initial experience with Hazelburn wasn't particularly impressive; it was good but pricey. Upon finding a bottle at a more reasonable price point, I purchased it, expecting a significant improvement. It exceeded my expectations and is an excellent bottle I'm very pleased to own. I'm now trying a third Hazelburn, one I recently saw locally at a surprisingly good price. I'm hopeful it will be comparable in quality to my Hazelburn 13 (2021). Nose: Grassy with stone fruit. Dry grass accompanied by fresh notes. An interesting funk emerges, reminiscent of Springbank but less intense. I detect a faint phenolic sharpness that suggests peat, though I know this isn't peated, leaving me uncertain of its source. Subtle hints of meat, lightly roasted, are present but well-managed. Regarding the stone fruit, white peaches are most prominent, with some tangerine and hints of bing cherry also present. Overall, it's a great nose, perhaps slightly young. Palate: Peach, tangerine, and apricot are the first flavors. Bold Springbank characteristics follow briefly before the fruit reasserts itself. There's a slightly sharper edge than I prefer, and a somewhat hollow center that yields to the alcohol, if that makes sense. Revisiting the Springbank notes, I perceive seashells, dry grass, and a touch of wax. There's also some bitter barrel influence with a bit of vanilla, but limited spices beyond a generic peppery heat. The sherry presence is more pronounced here. Finish: It has a slight burn. It presents a clean alcoholic profile mixed with creek water and lingering stone fruit. It's too delicate, lacking substance, and has a slightly bitter undertone. - Conclusion - This is very good, but I won't be rushing to purchase a bottle. My Hazelburn 13 (2021) (rated 20/23) is considerably superior, offering greater complexity, balance, and more prominent Springbank character with less burn. While this expression has more enjoyable sherry notes, it falls short in other aspects. Glen Grant 18 (18/23) is smoother, more balanced, and nuanced. This one is more intriguing but distinctly less accomplished, with a significant difference in quality. Loch Lomond 12 (16/23) is funkier, sweeter, richer, and more balanced. It also has a noticeable peppery burn, but it's better integrated. Ah, Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (1994-2014) (15/23) - this bottling is of similar quality. Comparing them side-by-side, I now detect more cinnamon, clove, and ginger in this one. This receives a 15, likely on the higher end, but not quite a 16. It's enjoyable, but a disappointing step back for Hazelburn, to be sure. Many thanks to a fellow taster for sharing this sample, allowing me to continue my exploration of Hazelburn!

Nose - Features lemon, apple, charred orange peel, honey, cereal grains, yeast, vanilla, dry herbal notes, caramel, and a mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - Exhibits lemon oil, apple, light peat, pineapple, cereal grain, vanilla cream, orange, ginger, flint, walnut, sour oak, bitter herbal notes, a moderate alcohol intensity, and a medium-length finish with citrus oil, flint, and bitter herbal flavors. My exploration of the distillery's offerings begins with this 10-year-old expression. While certain other expressions often take center stage, this unpeated entry-level bottling also merits attention. The nose is subtle and fleeting, with aromas appearing and disappearing rapidly. There's a distinct citrus presence, likely lemon and orange, but not fresh; more akin to aged, slightly scorched citrus peels. Complementing this are elusive flinty, bready, and fusel notes, along with honey, orchard fruit, and grain aromas. The palate is considerably less reserved, though I'd describe it as relatively light. Additional citrus notes are present, but with a more bitter, pithy character. I also detect a tropical fruit essence, which I'll identify as pineapple. Youthful graininess and a faint hint of peat are noticeable. The texture is oily, and the finish is well-crafted. This is a solid spirit, offering a richness and depth not commonly found outside of its region. Although its youth and graininess prevent it from achieving greatness, it warrants a place in my collection. However, with prices escalating, at its current cost, it no longer represents a good value.

Nose: Stone fruit, earth, apple cider, yellow cake, cherry pie, caramel custard with vanilla cream, a touch of ethanol, and a hint of baking spice. Palate: Cooked apples, cinnamon baking spice, dried leaves, overcooked pie crust, vanilla cream, darker fruit, slightly sour, overripe white grapes, with a hint of seaside character or sea spray with salt. Finish: Creamy caramel, chalky minerals, barrel spice, dusty book, dried leaves, a hint of ethanol, cinnamon burn, and an old boat dock aroma. Incredible for a 10-year entry-level single malt. It definitely competes with another popular single malt for the best on the market. If you see it, purchase it. I was fortunate to find a single bottle during a rare visit to a familiar place. I would definitely do it again.

I've wanted to try this distillery's products for some time but always opted for something else. Fortunately, a friend facilitated a tasting session featuring several expressions, including this one, allowing me to delve deeper. The nose is quite delicate, initially presenting hay and light citrus notes like lemon and orange, perhaps even peach, with a sprinkle of sea salt. Vanilla cream and a subtle, background peat weave through it all, accompanied by a mild alcohol burn. The palate has an oily texture, with hay, light citrus (lemon, orange), sea salt, vanilla cream, ginger, and light peat all harmonizing, along with a gentle alcohol burn. The finish is medium in length, featuring hay, sea salt, vanilla cream, lemon, orange, ginger, and a lingering mineral-like wet rock flavor. Now that I've finished the sample, I might need to acquire a bottle to further explore its nuances. It offers excellent value for its price, and I'm eager to sample the remaining offerings from this distillery, given the quality of this 10-year-old expression.

Nose: light yet intricate. I perceive hints of faint fruits and salt. It reminds me of cured meats alongside herbs and spices. There's also a slight chemical, medicinal quality to the aromas. A very intriguing nose, reminiscent of springbank 10, yet distinct in many aspects! As mentioned, no peat smoke is detected. Palate: Light but deceptive! It coats the mouth wonderfully!! I detect fruits and sweetness, but it's a very understated sweetness! Bitterness and saltiness are also present! It possesses a rather notable chemical-style funkiness as well. I suppose that's what they call campbeltown funk! It's also quite spicy! A complex combination of flavors! Similar yet different from the springbank! Finish is of medium length. Overall, a highly impressive dram! It's quite unique and is a whisky for contemplation, much like other campbeltown offerings. I favor this considerably more than the Hazelburm 13 oloroso cask (2007). Would certainly endorse its purchase!