Springbank 12 Year Cask Strength

Score: 19/23 Nose: Farmyard funk with a sulfurous edge, complemented by chocolate, baking spices, and a fruit syrup of plums and oranges. The aroma is delightful and rich, but the young sulfur is a bit overpowering. Palate: Robust and full-bodied, featuring that farmyard character along with an unwelcome wave of sulfur. Notes of juniper, baking spices, gentle oak, chocolate, stewed plums, and a hint of candied orange peel. The waxy texture and a subtle crab note are appreciated. Overall, the palate is pleasing and its richness is enjoyable, though the sulfur remains a significant issue. Hints of vanilla bean are present, along with a touch of oloroso nuttiness, I suspect. A pleasant grainy, papery flavor emerges at the finish, paired with vanilla. There's a lot going on. Springbank 15 and Springbank 21 exhibit overly pronounced sherry influences, with distinct oloroso flavors. This expression offers some sweet red fruit, but it's neither tart nor syrupy; its sweetness enhances the inherent Springbank funk. Unlike the reserved character of Springbank 18, this is cask strength. While less polished, it effectively showcases the Springbank essence with few rough edges. However, the sherry and bourbon cask influence impart a strong sweetness that masks some of the finer subtleties. Finish: Farmyard, juniper, lingering sulfur, chocolate, and plum with a slightly more bitter and tart profile. A touch of that oloroso nuttiness is also detectable. - Conclusion - Frankly, this is a very good dram suitable for any occasion. Nevertheless, it doesn't quite match the exceptional memory I have of it. I've been enjoying this bottle for a couple of years, anticipating the moment I'd need to spend a considerable amount to replace it. Based on this tasting, a repurchase might not be in the cards. It's possible that air exposure has negatively impacted it, but oxidation usually benefits young, cask-strength whiskies like this. This bottle fits those criteria, and the level of oxidation isn't extreme, so I highly doubt it's the cause. My primary concern is the excessive sulfur, which air exposure typically mitigates. Secondly, some elements feel slightly unbalanced, another issue air usually resolves. My third critique is the apparent absence of some delicate flavors. This could be due to oxidation, but the cask influence also seems quite strong (this is purely subjective, considering my fondness for the 2018 Springbank bottled solely from bourbon casks, which many found unremarkable). I'm uncertain if a different bottling would improve things, as reducing the cask impact would likely accentuate the sulfur. Potential enhancements could involve using spicier bourbon casks or perhaps experimenting with cognac barrels. One possibility is that oxidation altered the flavors, allowing the oloroso to become more prominent and blend with the smoke and other notes, creating an illusion of sulfur. This is because I don't recall such strong sulfur notes previously, and now they are quite noticeable, though not entirely dominant. So, what's my final assessment? It surpasses my bottle of Longrow (17/23), but it's definitely not the 22 I previously awarded it. A score of 17-21 is high praise for a spirit I've criticized for its sulfur content. Sulfur is a flavor I find off-putting, typically leading to a significant reduction in my rating. After further comparisons, I've adjusted my rating for this to the 18 to 20 range. It lacks the distinctive character to reach a 21, and the sulfur isn't consistently overwhelming. Honestly, I'm surprised I didn't detect that sulfur earlier in my tasting journey. For those who taste this and don't notice the sulfur, I recommend trying Craigellachie 13, which I enjoyed similarly. This expression is substantially better than the Craigellachie, much like how Future Diary is superior to Deadman Wonderland, but both share that intriguing barnyard funk, hampered by sulfur. Consider the standard Longrow if you enjoy this. I tasted this alongside Ardbeg Uigeadail (19/23) and was genuinely surprised by the Uigeadail's intensity. This experience (despite the differing spirit profiles) solidifies my rating for this at 19. It's not just the Uigeadail; this has consistently underwhelmed me in the 20-21 range. Therefore, an 18 or 19 seems appropriate. Upon further tasting, my doubt about this being in the 18-19 range is minimal. Alright, I'm settling on a 19. There's much to appreciate here. However, the sulfur remains a concern. This is a 19 for now, but it might decrease in the future. I wish I could still love it as much as I used to, but I simply can't. This is disheartening, as considering the price, I'm uncertain when I'll be purchasing another bottle of Springbank. Okay, after a brief moment of clarity, this is a 19, but its price point still makes it difficult to justify. It's more of an interesting (though still quite good) option for variety. I wouldn't be too disappointed with a bottle at $120, but I wouldn't actively seek it out.

It's officially 2022 and I've decided to "Spring"bank into it with a series of samples. Continuing on my Springbank series, I have three different batches of the 12-year Cask Strength. Batch 17 comes from a friend and was matured in 70% ex-Sherry casks, 30% ex-Bourbon and bottled at 56.2%. The aroma starts with slight funk, toasted barley, dark chocolate-covered raisins, and dehydrated apricot, followed by a smoldering campfire by the ocean that fades into the background of persimmons, charred tangerine, and red grapefruit. This then transitions to candied ginger, light leather, and moderate oak with a strong ethanol burn. The taste has a medium mouthfeel, starting with slight funk, toasted barley, and dark chocolate-covered raisins, followed by moderate peat smoke with light drying spice that slowly fades to apricots, charred tangerine, and red grapefruit juice. This transitions to ocean brine, light minerality, candied ginger, light leather, and moderate oak with a strong ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with shortbread cookies, dark chocolate-covered raisins, ocean brine, candied ginger, light leather, and mild ashy oak. A very enjoyable dram with the sherry barrels front and center, but they play well with the traditional Springbank funk, fruit, and smoke without overpowering or giving too much of a sulfur influence. The bourbon barrels add some enjoyable creamy citrus notes. Final Score: 4.0 Batch 19 comes from a friend and was matured in 65% ex-Bourbon casks, 35% ex-Sherry casks and bottled at 57.1%. The aroma is big and rich, starting with a mild funky butterscotch pudding and caramelized apples, followed by light sherry, then a soft and delicate pipe smoke that fades to the background of creamed corn, maraschino cherry, and sun-baked salted orange. This transitions to ocean sea waves crashing over seaside rocks and antique leather-wrapped oak furniture with a strong ethanol burn. The taste has a rich, creamy mouthfeel, starting with a mild funky butterscotch pudding and caramelized apples, followed by dark chocolate raisins, then a mild spice that quickly fades to soft and delicate pipe smoke, creamed corn, maraschino cherry, and orange creamsicle. This transitions to ocean sea waves crashing over seaside rocks and antique leather-wrapped oak furniture with a strong ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with orange creamsicle, dark chocolate-covered raisins, shortbread cookies, light ocean brine, and antique leather armchair. Wow, this one is incredible! The flavors are bold, rich, and creamy with a near-perfect balance that can easily beat bottles that cost several times more. The bourbon influence really brought a lot to these, with the sherry flavors adding additional complexity to slightly elevate it to near perfection without either overpowering those traditional Springbank funk, fruits, and moderate peat smoke. Final Score: 4.75 Batch 21 was matured in 45% ex-Sherry, 25% ex-Bourbon, 25% ex-Burgundy, 5% ex-Port casks and bottled at 56.1%. The aroma starts with bales of hay and dark cherry cordial, followed by moderate peat smoke with fruits of fresh-picked strawberries, caramelized apples, and Sunkist raisins. This then has ocean sea waves crashing over seaside rocks, light leather, and moderate oak with a strong ethanol burn. The taste has a viscous mouthfeel, starting with big and bold orchard fruit, followed by burnt bales of hay and dark chocolate cherry mocha, followed by moderate peat smoke and drying spice. This then fades to fresh-picked strawberries, caramelized apples, and oatmeal raisin cookies. This has ocean sea waves crashing over seaside rocks, light leather, and moderate oak with a strong ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with burning hay, a dark chocolate cherry mocha, ocean brine, cinnamon oatmeal raisin cookies, strawberry jam, leather, and moderate oak. Overall, a great dram that manages to bring in citrus, dark berries, along with Springbank funk, moderate peat, and minerality, but the balance seems off to me, with higher spice on the palate and finish overpowering some of the flavors. Compared side-by-side with the 10-year-old, I like this one slightly more for its bolder flavors and red berry fruits, but I could easily prefer the 10-year on days I don’t want a high-proof whisky and want an easy sipper instead. Final Score: 3.75 Conclusion: What a fun experience to try three different batches and compare them to each other. Springbank seems to keep you on your toes with these different batches, and each one brought a unique spin to complement those traditional Springbank notes. Personally, I found that the high bourbon influence with a light sherry for additional complexity to be my Springbank match, but I can see how either one of the other batches could better fit a person’s palate. Overall score for all: 4.25

Batch 21, 56.1% ABV. This is indeed the new, intense one. I should really make a new category, but I'm stuck using the app and I despise it. Smell: I'm detecting coffee cake with a savory cream cheese frosting. Following that are notes of smoke and oak, then a deeply rich, gritty sweetness. It's almost like a reduction sauce combined with cooking wine, and a hearty, savory, whole-grain bread baking in the background. This is completely unlike the first Springbank 12 I tried, and not very similar to the 57.1 either, where I'd say the first-fill bourbon casks had a significant impact. Taste: The flavor brings me back to Springbank with its salty and savory characteristics, yet it's distinct. The wine influence is prominent, but while the burgundy wood in that expression was rich, earthy, and meaty, this one is different. It's sweet, exceptionally sweet. It's as if the sherry casks were intensely sweet, the port amplified it further, and the burgundy simply introduced new notes while allowing the sweetness to continue. These weren't even tired bourbon casks contributing oak without vanilla; there's vanilla present here. The peculiar aspect is that it then delivers a spicy and alcoholic kick that was neither anticipated nor particularly desired. The alcohol feels almost drying, to the point where the overall rich and creamy body becomes too drying, detracting from what should have been a very pleasant mouthfeel. I keep revisiting this, and my conclusion remains the same: this isn't a great Springbank 12. It's not terrible, either, but if you're seeking that classic 12-year-old profile, this has taken a peculiar turn, one I hope they don't repeat. I purchased two bottles, and I'm content with that. However, it's an A for effort but a C- for execution. This scores a 2.50, which feels outrageous for a Springbank 12, but I must be truthful with you all. The sweetness would work if it weren't for the spice and alcohol notes. And believe me, adding water doesn't help. After one final sip, it came across as slightly more traditional sherry with port, and less spicy, but then I really noticed the lack of finish or depth. It's a complex whisky that is simply too disjointed and, frankly, falls flat. I suspect Springbank attempted to incorporate too many cask types into what is still a relatively young whisky. This type of blending is best suited for older expressions, where secondary or active casks might invigorate a tired cask with age, not for younger casks.

This might be the 2018/2019 release, weighing in at 54.8% alcohol. Based on what I've found, it's a 50/50 split between bourbon and sherry cask aging. Nose: Surprisingly vibrant! I definitely detect sherry influences, alongside notes of grapes, apples, and pears. There's also a pleasant dry, chalk-like, or limestone quality. The peat is present but not overwhelming. Palate: It's lighter than anticipated. Quite smooth, with fruit flavors (primarily red and green apples) and a mild malty taste. The peat is sooty and quite light. It has that signature Springbank character – think rubber hose and synthetic oil – though less pronounced than in other Springbanks I've sampled. After a bit, just a hint of darker fruits emerges. Finish: Continues with that chalky essence from the nose. Green apples. A subtle sweet broth note. Sooty peat. Just a trace of rubber. Overall: On one hand, it's expertly made and offers good depth. On the other, it doesn't deliver the intense punch you might expect from a cask strength Springbank, feeling somewhat lacking in that regard. Furthermore, the more I try Springbanks, the more I realize those funky notes don't excite me as much as they do some others. That said, I do appreciate the general style of this whisky – lightly peated, with a bourbon/sherry blend. I'm rating it 3.75 because it's well-executed and aligns with many of my preferences, and it's close to a higher score. I did go back and forth on this one; at times I considered a lower score (when compared directly with Lagavulin 16, it suddenly tasted like the sweet smell of burning/melting plastic…), but at other times, a higher one. It truly walks a fine line…

Comparing Springbank 12 Cask Strength, batches 19 and 21, kindly provided by The aroma of batch 19 is more intriguing and appealing to me. I detect less sherry and more of the characteristic Springbank funk and peat. Batch 21's aroma has a stronger fruit presence and a floral note, with the peat seeming less pronounced. On the palate, batch 19 is like an intensified version of the 10-year, which is what I anticipated. There's some sherry, but it takes a backseat to the delightful Springbank funk and peatiness. On the second taste, I notice more sherry. It seems to have a good balance between bourbon and sherry cask influence, while still showcasing the spirit's funky peat character. Batch 21 is also very good, but more fruit-forward. The funk and peat are less prominent here, though it's still quite enjoyable. I added a little water to both. Initially, I strongly preferred batch 19, but after adding water, I might actually prefer batch 21. I now notice its thick, mouth-coating texture. Batch 19 seems thinner and a bit hotter after just a splash of water. So, neat, I prefer batch 19. With a splash of water, I prefer batch 21. It's difficult to choose a definite winner now. I think I'm slightly more drawn to batch 19, but I would be happy to have either in my collection. Scores: Batch 19 - 4.5 Batch 21 - 4.25 Thank you to CT for the opportunity to sample these. It was a real pleasure.

Nose - oily peat, dark chocolate, charred orange, lemon, red berry, strawberry jam, nutmeg, yeast, hay, apricot, hazelnut, glazed ham, with a moderate ethanol burn. Taste - red berry, ginger, lemon oil, charred orange, oily peat, allspice, brine, green apple, red wine, burnt chocolate chip cookie, ginger, tangerine, rich malt, spicy oak, with a moderate to high alcohol bite. The finish is medium-long, featuring oily peat, citrus pith, ginger, and spicy oak flavors. This is the last of my Springbank 12 Years, Batch 21, matured in 45% sherry, 25% bourbon, 25% burgundy, and 5% port casks and bottled at 56.1%. Unlike my previous two batches which had simpler sherry and bourbon cask combinations, this one offers more complexity. The wine casks are very apparent on the nose. Without knowing the cask makeup, I might have mistaken this for a milder Longrow Red expression. The Springbank character is still present, but jammy red fruits and dark chocolate are highlighted alongside the more typical aromas. The palate is similarly darker and fruitier than its predecessors. Unfortunately, it also presents as slightly hotter and more bitter. Overall, this is an excellent whisky. While not my absolute favorite batch, it's a strong contender and provides more jammy complexity than is usually found in these 12-year releases. At the $115 I paid for this bottle, I would gladly purchase it again.