Loch Lomond 18 Year

The Loch Lomond 12 was one of my most pleasant surprises. That was partly due to my low expectations for it, but even more so because it was actually very good. I’m hoping the extra 6 years makes this that much better. Like the 12, this is an older bottle from before they changed the packaging. Let’s get into it. Nose: The same fresh-baked croissant note I got in the 12. Hazelnut and toasted almond. Apple, pear, and apricot. Butterscotch, honey, toffee, malt, and vanilla. Honeydew, roasted pineapple, and lemon citrus. Graham cracker and sugar cookie. Cinnamon, black pepper, clove, nutmeg, and oak. Reviewing my notes from the 12, it’s almost identical, which is interesting, because I remember it being very different. The difference was the 12 was at the end of the bottle, and this is almost half full. I guess it just needed time to open up. Very good. Palate: A huge hit of grape jam. Apple, pear, apricot, and raisin. Dried cranberry. Hazelnut, toasted almond, and cashew. Vanilla, toffee, honey, butterscotch, and sugar cookie. Orange and milk and dark chocolate. Fudge. Honeydew. Buttered roll. Earthy smoke. Clove, nutmeg, cinnamon, black pepper, and oak. Finish: Toasted almond. Caramel, vanilla, toffee, malt, and butterscotch. Milk chocolate and orange citrus. Apple, pear, apricot, and raisin. Friend apricot and cranberry. Earthy smoke. Cinnamon, black pepper, clove, nutmeg, and oak. Moderate length. This is a worthy sequel to the 12-year. It’s a dirty malt. You could call it unrefined, but I’d prefer to call it brash. Traditional Highland malts are known to be clean, formal, and predictable. That formula works well to bring new Scotch drinkers into the fold and to establish brand loyalty with those uninterested in exploration. I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed this profile 10 years ago. But it’s hitting the mark now. It’s strong at every turn: nose, palate, and finish. At $85, for an 18-year at a respectable 46% ABV, you’d be hard-pressed to find a comparable buy. Not that it’s the best 18-year old out there, or that it’s the paradigm for a Highland malt or even that it’s the best sub-$100 bottle. But what it does do is neatly thread the needle between the bottles that hit these marks, carving out its own place on a whisky shelf. Unbelievable value for money. Unique profile. Well-executed malt. The coalescence of these features earn this a 4.75/5.

Nose: Like fresh bread and raw oats. It presents as dry and slightly off-smelling rather than sweet. Notes of apple skin, lemon peel, ginger, freshly cut grass, and wood shavings are present. No peat smoke is detectable, perhaps only a trace of barrel char. The aroma feels a bit anxious yet strangely muted when tasted straight. Perhaps a splash of water will improve it? Indeed, it does. The aroma becomes more relaxed with a small amount of water. Palate: A spicy, intense malt with fermentation characteristics reminiscent of beer upon the first taste. A sourness then develops, with dominant flavors of bitter orange peel and oats. The mouthfeel is acceptable but thin. A small amount of water enhances the palate, bringing balance (and unexpectedly, texture) and softening the prominent youthful harshness. A subtle wood smoke emerges on the palate, and the heat is thankfully reduced. Finish: Moderate to short in length. Sour, hot, and slightly bitter grain notes fade into a sour, tannic sensation that approaches metallic with undertones of damp cardboard. After dilution, it becomes more palatable, and the sharp notes are controlled, but the lingering taste remains the same. Age doesn't always guarantee quality. This is a prime example. The aroma of this spirit is surprisingly bright and sharp for an 18-year-old single malt, with a noticeable absence of significant positive cask influence. It doesn't convey a sense of maturity or complexity. The taste is similarly youthful in character and offers little. If presented blind and told it was five years old, I would believe it. Water significantly improves this malt. Drink it neat at your own risk. I can understand how this profile might appeal to some, but it's far from my preference. Considering it costs an exorbitant AUD$130 in Australia currently, I would definitely not suggest it. Personally, it's less impressive than the 12-year-old, which was itself less appealing than the much more affordable Original (malt) and Reserve (blended) options from Loch Lomond. Here, for $130, you could get Ardbeg Uigeadail, Port Charlotte 10, Laphroaig Triple Wood, or Kilchoman Sanaig, so why would anyone choose this unfortunate expression? "Acceptable, barely, but absolutely not recommended": 70/100 (2 stars)

I noticed a three-pack of 50ml samples for AUD$30. I thought, why not. My first tasting was two nights ago, and it served as an acceptable starting point, leading to an unceremonious decline last night with the 12-year-old. Now, the 18-year-old awaits. And I'm still feeling down from last night and my scorched palate! Nose: Off to a poor start with a weak profile. Some faint honey, dusty/musty oak, and a little malty cereal. It's drying and has a touch of acetone; this isn't great. Palate: There's still some of the 12-year-old's burning intensity, but it's significantly less severe; it's definitely tempered. It's abruptly malty and a little sour. There's a background iodine peat note, but without any smoke. It feels thin and somewhat watery, which is disappointing given its increased alcohol content to 46%. Finish: Moderate. The heat is present, but if you bother to look, you'll find more slightly sour malt. Ever drunk water from a very old water fountain, perhaps in the back hallway of a high school? That metallic, coppery taste? Yes, that's here. A decent amount of water has brightened the nose, and there's some welcome sweetness. The palate cools down and reveals a pleasant smoke with an increased body and fullness (that's unusual). Water has eliminated the finish, leaving heat high up and far back in the throat. Ultimately, another failure. Better than the 12-year-old, certainly. Most things are, though, like dirty dishwater or an oily puddle. I could suggest more, but it's making me sad again. For an 18-year-old, this is harsh, lacks depth, flavor, or a well-balanced profile. If you need almost as much water in your glass as whisky to make it palatable, something is seriously wrong. My own fault, I suppose; the AUD$115 price for an 18-year-old should have been a warning sign for the Australian market. Stick with the Original at half the price; that one is at least interesting (though I still don't know if I like it). (Kenyanthrops platyops pictured because that's just how I roll). A whisky taste #90

Wow, the aroma is considerably richer and better than the Loch Lomond Original. It has a rich quality with a hint of smoke and apples, smelling interesting but slightly unbalanced. The nose also has a fair amount of grass and malt. The flavor has more peat and smoke than anticipated, along with a tartness and a distinct waxiness similar to Clynelish. The disharmony doesn't quite suggest an 18-year-old spirit, but it remains interesting and tasty. Unfortunately, the mouthfeel is somewhat watery, a watery presence that permeates. It's also hotter than it should be. For a 12-year-old, it's quite good, but I expect more from an 18-year-old. The richness is a positive aspect, and I detect some complexity in the malt and grass. The richness works well here even though the flavor isn't exceptionally full. The distiller is correct about it being a dusty scotch, but wrong about it being fruity. While they mention raisins as key to its fruitiness, they also state it's not very fruity, and I agree. A touch of orange peel also emerges, just barely. The finish is more pleasant than expected, with some waxy Clynelish notes. I believe it's comparable to Clynelish 14, though my rating for Clynelish 14 is likely too high; it's closer to a 16. This is quite similar in quality. It's interesting and fairly complex, but lacks outstanding flavor, and some aspects are questionable. It's certainly drinkable, but not exceptional. The heat is also a bit excessive for its age, although the proof offers some justification. The finish includes pleasant floral and vanilla notes. It works out acceptably.

A nice, affordable 18-year-old. The nose is a blend of funk, oak, and citrus peat bog; it's very interesting, with an almost meaty umami mixed with apricot fruit and smoke over wax. The taste features citrus, tea, smoke, oak, and an amazing rich smoky, charred oak finish. A delightful and surprising whisky for its low price point, I had no expectations. It's rich and vibrant, though the notes can compete. The citrus, smoke, and funk don't quite harmonize, and it feels a bit disjointed. The mouthfeel is good on the finish but could be better initially. Some unusual notes are present, and it might not pair well with certain foods. It's not perfect, but it's a fun and complex whisky at a reasonable price, and I'd likely buy it again. Rated 3.0.

The 12-year-old had some impact for me, so I anticipated this would be significantly better. That wasn't quite the case. The profile is similar, featuring exotic fruits, autumn leaves, and malty woods (refer to the 12-year review). This expression tones down the rich, bold vibrancy of the flavor, maturing and flattening it out. It still has nice depth, but the fruits are now dried and the casks are aged. The finish has fading dry fruit and malt with parched wood. It's a bit tannic but lasts and is pleasant enough. On its own, it's still very good scotch, but at the price of $79, it falls a little short. Rated 85/100. I know this sounds like a high score given my review, but it's still good; I just expected more from the age and price. Honestly, I doubt I would repurchase it since the 12-year-old is quite good for less than half the cost.