Balvenie Single Barrel 21 Year

Grab a drink, folks. This might take a bit. I don't have the 12-year expression, but I plan to rectify that soon. First, I'll review this 21-year-old, then compare it to the 15-year-old. I've actually done this before, so this is a repeat performance! There's quite a bit to discuss, so please disregard the score and follow along; it's going to be a while. Quick note: this bottle is just over 22 years old, approximately 22 years and 2-3 months. I'll be comparing it to a "15 year" that's over 16 years old. Regarding the 25-year expressions, I've encountered bottlings up to 29 years old. Also, I've heard the 15-year sherries, though not labeled as such, can reach close to 20 years old. Nose - I won't keep you waiting. This has one of the finest aromas I've ever experienced from a whisky. It's not so intricate that it requires elaborate descriptions. It presents as honeycomb cereal and a warm cinnamon bun frosting (just the frosting). It's incredibly BOLD, lively, deep, and rich... truly exceptional. The alcohol acts as an enhancer, carrying the aromas, and the oak present feels like an irresistible vibration of deliciousness. I can't quite articulate it... the sensation of smelling this is amazing. I could honestly just keep my nose in a glass of this until it's no good anymore. Taste - The initial impression is remarkably smooth... just sweet, gentle honey with cereal grains gradually appearing. A wonderfully soft and subtle delight (feel free to insert your own whisky joke here). Then, the oak emerges, providing a rich, spicy character that isn't harsh or off-putting, leading to a very long, lingering finish. Honey, vanilla, oak spice, a hint of what I'd call ginger, though not quite that potent... and an incredibly long, long finish. It's straightforward, focused, and in every aspect, perfect. Yet, while the aroma astounds me, the taste doesn't quite reach that level. Before I conclude, let's contrast it with the much-missed, discontinued 15-year-old. If the 21-year-old is an elegant, pristine white cloth, the 15-year-old is a nice off-white, suitable for a casual dinner table where spills are likely and stains might need concealing. It offers more fruit and caramel notes, still maintaining a honey and oak candy profile, but it's darker and denser. Even when drinking the 15-year-old, there's a greater presence. It's fruitier, and while not savory, in comparison, it's the difference between a somewhat stale caramel chew and a light drizzle of caramel on an ice cream cone. The finish even carries a HINT of tartness that might be mistaken for an off-note. Is the 15-year-old superior to the 21-year-old? Well, I reviewed the 15-year-old previously and, damn it, I need to revisit that review because I significantly underestimated it. I was clearly considering the price and perhaps was looking for something "more" (like peat or sherry), and I was mistaken. Over time, I've found that younger, harsher whiskies, like a Springbank 12, are less appealing to me now. However, this 15-year-old is wonderfully well-aged, delivering richness, depth, and complexity. It achieves this while being both easy to drink and full-bodied with a coating mouthfeel. That's a difficult feat for most distilleries. I'm now detecting a slight glue note in the 15-year-old; I don't mind it. It's peculiar that the 21-year-old isn't more like the 15-year-old – more robust and "challenging" given its extended time with the oak casks. Instead, the 15-year-old acts as both the older and younger whisky here, possessing harsher notes and more traditional oak characteristics. The 15-year-old has slightly more alcohol presence, reminding you of its youth, though both are 47.8% ABV. Returning to the final product, the 21-year-old... its aroma is truly astonishing, but it's not a masterpiece in terms of drinking experience. I'm trying to make sense of this. If this were solely about smell, I'd award the 21-year-old 5 stars and the 15-year-old 3.5. However, the taste presents a challenge. The 15-year-old offers more character, though it has some aspects that can be criticized. The 21-year-old... it's flawless but somewhat subdued. It's pleasant and wonderful, yet dull. And yet, I'm still tasting it five minutes after pouring. Perhaps ten... fifteen? So, the final score is 4.25 for the 21-year-old. I'm giving it HUGE bonus points for having an aroma unlike anything I've encountered. The taste is somewhat underwhelming compared to the nose, but folks, at $250, the bottle was worth it just for the aroma. For those who prioritize drinking it, the mouthfeel is very solid, and the taste is good too. I'd lean towards a 3.5 if this didn't transport me to my VERY happy place with its aroma. That said... there isn't a single flaw in how this tastes or feels. If you enjoy honey, this is your ultimate whisky. Would I opt for the 21-year-old or the 15-year-old, considering the secondary market price for the 15 is HIGHER than this 21-year-old? That's intriguing. I believe the 15-year-old is richer and more flavorful, but the 21-year-old is simply flawless. Honestly, I'd happily pay $200 for either and consider both worth $250. These are simply excellent whiskies, and I must admit I underestimated the 15-year-old on my first tasting. Anyway, 4.25... I know it seems high, but there's just something special about it. It shouldn't score that high based on flavor alone, but the overall drinking experience is quite unique. Oh, and I hear they go for around $300 in the US, compared to the $250 I paid in the UK. Just buy it at $300. It's WELL WORTH IT! And usually, I'd add a "single cask warning," but... they do an outstanding job with these programs, perhaps with the exception of the sherry cask expression (which I enjoy, but do observe the color).

The 21-year-old single barrel is a masterpiece of what a single cask spirit can be. The complexities of this spirit are hidden behind a soft layer that blurs the definition of each distinct characteristic. One might mistakenly believe the spirit is somewhat one-dimensional. By far the most enjoyable aspect of this spirit is the aroma – it's full of floral sweetness blended with vanilla. So incredibly sweet and pleasant. The spirit tastes slightly spicy at first, then melts into a sea of caramel and honey. The finish is long, drawn out, and emphasizes sweetness over complexity. I would have loved a subtle wisp of peat smoke to conclude the taste, but that never happened. Is it worth the high price? If you appreciate the sweet notes of oak, then yes. But if you're seeking a spirit that takes you on an extended journey of complex flavors, shifting and changing with every moment of the taste, this might not be the ideal choice.

A solid expression, as expected from a 21-year-old Balvenie from a single barrel at a respectable proof, supposedly meeting the criteria of a favored distiller. Having recently sampled the Tun1509 batch 2, I can clearly discern how this 21-year-old likely contributed to that blend, with its woody astringency, creamy texture, and of course, honey notes. It possesses a bit too much wood spice to be truly exceptional. Nevertheless, it presents as clean and crisp from the outset. I would happily purchase this if it were priced in the high $100s to low $200s. At $300, I'm content that I shared a bottle but would not buy it again.

This is an outstanding pour. Very rich and flavorful, and the alcohol content is just right. Perfect balance of honey, vanilla, and grain notes. Perhaps a hint of lemon. I'm not sure you can get much better with a bourbon cask finish. I absolutely love this one.

Warm vanilla. Graham cracker. Toasted notes. Mild spiciness. Dry finish. Slightly oily.

Sweet and fruity, Pineapple Best consumed neat