Inchmurrin 17 (1996) (Signatory)

Score: 15/23 This '96 bottling marks bottle number 1996 on my path to 2000 reviews! I acquired this some time ago from a seller who advertised it with a picture of a 23-year-old cask strength Inchmurrin. They included a note that the proof might differ from the image, but made no mention of the age. Upon receiving it, I was let down to find it was 7 years younger and only 43% ABV. However, the cost was reasonable for what I got, and I decided against pursuing a return, as the best outcome would be a refund. So, I kept it. Later, I opened it and the cork crumbled. I wasn't opening it with extreme care, but I was reasonably gentle. This was the driest, most brittle cork I've ever experienced. Many corks have split into two or even three parts, but this one broke into about six large chunks and many smaller fragments. Fortunately, it was nearly the same size as a spare Càrn Mòr cork I had, so I could swap it out easily. With that behind me, I'm eager to taste an Inchmurrin! Nose: It's immediately funky, like used dish towels, but not entirely unpleasant. It's vegetal and grassy, with other notes I can't quite place. I definitely detect Loch Lomond 12 (as expected) and Deanston influences. There's a noticeable sweetness, though lighter than anticipated. It also feels a bit out of sync and presents a challenge. Gradually, I pick up hints of lightly roasted chicken and very subtle tangerine. Palate: As the nose suggested, it's light, with prominent grassy notes. It has a pleasant sweetness that transitions into dry grass with a subtle toastiness. I taste light tangerine and lemon, with the faintest traces of lime and orange. There's certainly a dishwater funk, but it's not overly intrusive. It's a demanding palate, but I'm enjoying it. There are clear Loch Lomond characteristics present (again, not surprising). I also get some nice spicy elements, led by white and black pepper, but they aren't overpowering. The dishwater note has a slight waxiness, though it's not the dominant characteristic. A gentle nuttiness emerges from the oily and toasty profile. Finish: A diminished version of the dishwater note becomes the primary element. It's not very complex, but that bold undertone remains. It's a somewhat disappointing conclusion. - Verdict - It's acceptable, but a bit underwhelming. Loch Lomond 12 (16/23) offers a more intense profile and is more engaging with some tropical notes. One could argue that this expression shows more maturity due to its restraint and integration, and I mostly agree. It's more subdued, with fewer distinct flavors. However, the Loch Lomond possesses appealing spice, fruit, and coffee notes that this lacks. They are comparable, but what stands out is that Loch Lomond 12 is already quite demanding, and I find this one even more so. I'm leaning towards a 15 for this. Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (15/23) also seems to be in a similar category, so I don't anticipate this surpassing a 16. The Deanston is surprisingly sweeter and maltier than this expression. It still requires careful addition of water to avoid excessive harshness without sacrificing flavor. Side-by-side, the Deanston's flavor profile strikes me as slightly superior to this. The difference isn't significant, though. I'm now considering a 14 or 15 for this. Revisiting this the next day, I'm experiencing largely the same notes, but they are more refined and enjoyable. It now truly resembles a more mature, less assertive Loch Lomond 12. I suspect the somewhat bitter, muddled dishwater character (still present) that detracts from it is a consequence of the low 43% ABV (compared to Loch Lomond 12's 46%). I believe the 43% ABV was a misstep. I still appreciate this, but I think it would be exceptional at around 47% ABV. It's now clear to me that Loch Lomond 12 is less developed and intricate, but it also has a bolder flavor with fewer flaws and some truly decadent fruit notes. The two are now much closer in quality. I'm ruling out a 14 for this and it might be a 16. I could potentially be persuaded to a 17, but that would be difficult. The Deanston remains a strong contender against this, aside from its intense burn. Actually, perhaps this is indeed a 14. Yes, I'm not convinced this is superior to the Deanston. I'm definitely not considering a 17 and will settle on a 15. One could do worse for the price, but I certainly wouldn't repurchase this for over $40.