North British 1991 28 Year Cask Strength Collection (Signatory)

Rating: 17/23 It felt like a day for a special pour. The occasion? Two weeks since my second CoViD vaccine! I am now permitted to touch any surface, but I'll stick with this single grain scotch for the moment. I've sampled another North British bottling before. It was merely 7 years old, yet it proved surprisingly sweet, substantial, and smooth. Based on that, I hold reasonable expectations for this one, even though I do not typically enjoy grain whisky. Appearance: This presents as quite dark with a deep reddish tint. It's lovely when light shines through the bottle, as the glass's varying thickness creates a color gradient, lightening from top to bottom. The bottle itself is also very appealing, apart from the low-quality paper labels Signatory employs. Upon removing the cork, an inviting stain is visible where the spirit had coated the sides, leaving a darker, slightly reddish mark. Nose: After a few minutes to settle, this is quite rich. There's a subtle savory spice alongside rich yet restrained wood that suggests French oak. This then yields to a distinct tartness akin to oloroso sherry. A whisper of sweeter, red fruit notes like strawberry or cherry emerges too, but it vanishes rapidly. This is remarkably full-bodied for such a low proof. I'm rather astonished, even considering its age and cask type. I'm not detecting significant complexity, but the richness and fullness are captivating on their own. Palate: Initially, it's sweet wood. That bitter yet sweet French oak fullness is abundant, including some rich (not sweet) vanilla. This is precariously close to being over-oaked. In fact, it might be over-oaked - but it still possesses considerable sweetness! Very swiftly, an intense wave of spice arrives. As this is a grain whisky, even at 28 years old and only 47.4% ABV, it does sting. The spice is peppery to the point of being aggressive. Some tart fruitiness, like lemon, appears as the spice subsides and unfortunately enhances the perception of harshness. It becomes slightly oily. A hint of leather comes through, but not prominently. Some mildly caramelly sweetness from the grain persists and blends well with the barrel, but aside from the stinging spice, most of the grain character has been diminished. What continued to impress me is just how full and substantial this whisky is at only 47.4% ABV. I would have estimated it to be closer to 60%. Finish: That burn certainly lingers. There's some vague oakiness remaining as well as a bit of the tartness. I still sense and taste the boldness of the palate, but the finish offers no further development or end with a most delightful lingering flavor. - Conclusion - I appreciate the prominent core oakiness. It reminds me of Pure Scot Virgin Oak in its directness. You desire French oak? Here it is. I suspect the sherry used was oloroso due to that lemon note. Unfortunately, I don't believe that aspect functions particularly well in this whisky. Some sweet fruits might have worked (though they could have also been overwhelming), but what this genuinely required was something to introduce complexity and mitigate its spicy burn, while potentially enhancing its fullness. The oloroso character contributes somewhat to the fullness, but the lemon is truly not ideal here. This possesses the bold, assertive flavors of something like Booker's Country Ham. It may not have the same intensity of heat, but it achieves a fuller and more integrated flavor, with a comparatively large presence of red fruit. This is actually an excellent scotch to enjoy after a robust bourbon, as this one can surprisingly hold its own. There's nothing subtle or delicate present, but that's not entirely a drawback. From a technical standpoint, I can discern significant issues here, and it presents a challenging character, but it's bold in a manner I rarely encounter, presenting a paradox of highly concentrated essence. In that respect, this bears some resemblance to Kavalan Solist Port Cask, which remains the most astonishingly concentrated whisky I've ever experienced. Seriously, 10 ml of that spirit is sufficient given its intense flavor. This doesn't reach that level, but it's also only 47.4% rather than closer to 60%. Both also share that pronounced French oak flavor. Another clear comparison is Cambus 27 (also from 1991) aged in a sherry cask. The Cambus is around 60% ABV, and the alcohol is consequently more noticeable, but it has absorbed far less wood character. Both exhibit a substantial amount of that raw sherry influence, however. I believe this is definitively the superior single grain whisky. Pure Scot Virgin Oak shares a similar oak profile, but it certainly tastes much more aged. That's not inherently negative; sometimes I prefer something lighter and less demanding. I would still consider this one clearly the better whisky, though. Which it should be, given the significant price difference at minimum. Garrison Brothers Single Barrel Cask Strength (just under 60%) feels stronger in proof, but less full. And that's a bourbon with considerable wood influence. Considering that, the immense fullness here is truly remarkable. Water is a significant aid here, softening the experience and imparting better balance and depth. I wouldn't have anticipated that such a low proof spirit would necessitate water so badly, but it truly does. This is an unusual one. And that's precisely why I enjoy it so much. It's undeniably flawed by conventional standards, yet it's also incredibly bold and distinctive. I've considered ratings ranging from 14 to 19 for this, but I'm currently leaning towards a 16 to 17. Actually, I'm settling on 17. This displays some genuinely appealing character, and despite its rough edges, it remains within a reasonable price range for whisk(e)y – it just needs to be compared against bourbon. Ultimately, this proves to be a very straightforward dram, but one with a pleasant core, offering fullness and richness that provide a sense of indulgence.

The aroma is oak with a sugar crust, meaning oak with sweetness on top. There's something slightly vegetal, but charred. I have a feeling this might be more oak than I prefer, but we'll see. The nose is quite intriguing, and I spent more time smelling this than I usually do. The palate displays abundant wood. Layers of wood upon wood. There's some sweetness, perhaps vanilla, and then more wood. It's a bit overwhelming for me, but in small amounts, it's quite an experience. Wood-flavored candy or candied wood? Probably not something I'd wish to try again, but I am extremely thankful for the chance to sample it. My thanks to a friend for the sample!

Nose: Aged oak, citrus, leather, raisins, prunes, and milk chocolate. Palate: A sweet and sour combination, medium dark chocolate, red grapes, dark berries, dried fruits, toffee, leather, and cream-filled chocolate cake. Some of these flavor combinations sound unusual, but they work well for me. Finish: Long, with a bit of spice. The figgy/chocolaty/prune flavor lingers for a long time before giving way to a lemon bar note at the end. Many thanks to a friend for the generous sample.