The Octomore has been released in two formats – the original, aged for 5 years in bourbon casks, and the Orpheus, finished for six months in Petrus casks. I have reviewed both already, and clearly enjoyed them, if you’ve read my reviews. The Petrus finish adds incredible character to an already-stellar whisky. I’ve decided to sample the two side by side as an experiment – and to take my mind off of my recently-dislocated elbow. This will be my discussion of the experiment.

Sitting the two glasses side by side, the relationship between the two drams is self evident. The original Octomore is a very pale straw. The additional aging of the Orpheus has darkened it slightly, and adds a slight pink colour on top.

Nosing the two whiskies side by side, the peat and leathery notes of the original Octomore come through in the Orpheus as well. Where these are the dominant characteristics of the Octomore, they exist strongly in the Orpheus, but with fruit and cherries overwhelming the leather.

The original Octomore is a beast in its own right, the Orpheus is – well – not. Where the peat and smoke and leather in the original overwhelm the senses on all fronts, the Petrus finish of the Orpheus balances them, and smooths things out, adding the overtones of fruit, and mild citrus to the palate of the whisky, and losing the honeyed sweetness of the original. The Orpheus is as strong as the original – just softer.

The true evidence that these two drams are related is in the finish. Big, bold, peaty.  The original finishes sweeter – the honey staying on the back of the tongue – both last well, and warm the body immensely.

Overall, these are two absolutely stellar whiskies. I found the Orpheus more approachable than the original, with the Petrus finish softening some of the harsher aspects, and adding greater balance.  While I enjoyed the taste of the Orpheus more in my mouth, I found the finish of the original to be superior bold, sweet, warming, and staying in the mouth for what seemed like eternity (in a good way). I’d recommend the Orpheus first, because it’s more approachable, but would not hesitate to drink (or offer to guests) either one.

Penderyn Single Malt Whisky (NAS)

Region: Wales

Presentation: Two colours on the box, and on the label: black and gold. Overall appearance of the bottle is dignified, but very modern. The whisky is extremely light gold in colour – matching well with the black and gold of the packaging – and catches the light well. 4/5

Nose: Very light and sweet, primarily of apples and caramel. There is perhaps a hint of honey on the very, very back of the nose, but it takes a while to get there. 4/5

Palate: On the first little sip – beautiful. The whisky begins tasting sweetness and fruit, and grows as it sits in the mouth. The sweetness fades quickly, but not completely, and opens up allowing notes of rasins and licorice (the nice kind) to come through at the back. 4/5

 Finish: Mellow, starts quite soft, but it grows, leaving a warming sweetness coating the mouth for quite some time. 4/5

Overall: 17/20 = 80/100

Penderyn is a relatively new offering, and the only single-malt produced in Wales. Both surprising and delightful, this malt is very well balanced – no individual aspect overwhelms the senses, allowing for proper enjoyment of the whole, as a whole.

Bruichladdich Octomore Orpheus

Region: Islay

Presentation: Very similar to the original Octomore, except that the tin is red instead of black, and there is some red lettering on the otherwise black bottle. The bottle is tall, modern-looking and elegant. The dram pours very light amber, with just a hint of pink to it. The dram is very clear, with no fogginess. 4.5/5

Nose: It’s an Octomore – there are some things that can be expected: namely peat and smoke in abundance. There are hints of citrus, and perhaps a slight nuttiness hiding well behind the peat. Overall, the Orpheus noses quite smooth. 3/5

Palate: I have been waiting for a long time to give this whisky a try – and I wasn’t sure what to expect. That being said, I know that I was NOT expecting cherries or soft fruit.  While the peat and smoke of the Octomore comes through with incredible strength, the first taste across the tongue is a sweet cherry fruitiness that really is quite a pleasant surprise. The sweetness helps balance the whisky quite nicely. There are some slight buttery notes as well, well hidden in this dram. Pleasant, and somewhat more balanced than I remember finding the original Octomore. 4/5

Finish: The finish starts quite strong, warming the insides for several minutes. The finish is a touch bitter – not unpleasantly so, but bitter none-the-less. Fruity and peaty, still feeling warm inside 15 minutes down the road.  5/5

Overall: 16.5/20 = 82.5

In a word – wonderful. This is not the FAVORITE, favourite bottle in my collection – but I have a pretty impressive collection for a 25 year old - however it’s definitely a damned good whisky. This is a touch less abrasive than the original Octomore, and generally compares favourably with it. As with the Octomore, I wouldn’t specifically recommend that you buy this bottle unless you enjoy the very peaty whiskies – although if you’re offered a dram, you’d be an idiot to turn it down. That being said – I thoroughly enjoyed this, and am in no way ashamed to admit it, or to recommend it for a  friend.

In conclusion, my (most likely) next piece will be a side-by-side comparison of the Octomore 2.0 and the Octomore Orpheus 2.2. I’m really rather looking forward to that.

So in the middle of a bit of a dry spell on my finances (and therefore my ability to buy and review new whiskies), perhaps I should explain my ratings system to everyone. First off, my ratings are subjective – wholly and completely subjective. There is not a whit of hard “fact” about them – however they DO reflect what I taste and smell and perceive about a given whisky. In attempting to rate a whisky, I consider four separate characteristics: the presentation of the whisky, the nose (for newbies, what smells I perceive in the dram), the palate (what I taste as the whisky goes over my tongue), and the finish (effectively the after-taste).

 People (and I have been told this directly by a couple of friends of mine) say that presentation of a bottle does not matter – it doesn’t affect the dram in question. They are both completely correct – and utterly and completely wrong. Obviously, I COULD fill a (brand new, clean, etc) 2L pop bottle with, for example, my three bottles of Bruichladdich Black Art, and it would still be Bruichladdich Black Art. (for the record, I would NEVER do such a thing, and anyone who DOES should be shot) From the perspective of pouring a drink, it makes no difference. However, I consider the creation of whisky to be an art form (and you may feel free to argue with me if you choose) – and the presentation of the whisky – the bottle, the colour of the dram, the box or tin the bottle comes in – to be a part of the artistic endeavour of the distiller in question. While the presentation does not affect the TASTE of the whisky, it does affect the experience of the tasting – for this reason, I rank the presentation. I place high importance on reflecting the nature of the distillery itself, and the specific product in the presentation of the dram, as well as colour, apparent viscosity, and overall artistic merit. A 5 means that the whisky is well presented for what it is, looks pleasing in the glass, and was presented artistically. A 1 would suggest that someone actually HAD decided to put a whisky in a 2L pop bottle (and assumes that I would purchase such a monstrosity).

 The nose of a whisky is, to me, like a handshake between two strangers. It’s a meeting – a first impression – a sizing up. A drams nose needs to be approachable and honest – I look for a nose that reflects the nature of the whisky, and also one which will draw me into the whisky rather than push me away. I try to use several minutes – and several sniffs – to properly nose the whisky, ensuring that the complexity that’s there (if any) comes out. Ultimately, I’m looking for something I enjoy, and that gives me an idea what the whisky is going to be like. A 5 would be given for something that is exceptionally pleasing to the nose throughout, and is a true representative at least of the taste of the whisky. A 3 would be for something that smells pleasant and gives at least some representation of the whiskies taste. I have not, as yet, encountered anything so bad as to deserve a 1, and I hope never to do so. That said, a 1 in this category would pretty much smell like manure.

 The palate of a whisky is ultimately the tastes that I perceive as it crosses my tongue. I look for something that tastes good, something that is complex, and that the taster can really get in to and turn into an experience – something that exemplifies the art of whisky production. For the record, I never take my whisky with water. I don’t think there’s anything WRONG with it specifically, but it’s not my preference. What I write is tasted exactly as it comes out of the bottle. I also do not judge the palate with respect to any other characteristic – it stands on its own. I consider taste (personal preference), complexity, balance, and universality in my ranking. I personally enjoy a very peaty dram, however many people do not and would be turned off of the experience by a heavily peated whisky, and I endeavour to reflect that. A 5 would be given to a truly beautiful, complex, and pretty universally enjoyable dram. A 3 would be something that is generally average – nothing spectacular about it, or something good, but very limited in its scope to the average drinker. A 1 would be Johnny Walker Red Label, or some other such thing I would have drunk in university in an attempt to look classy.

 The finish is, to me, the most important part of the whisky – it’s the part that stays with you long after everything else is gone. A beautiful finish can salvage a below average dram, and a poor one can poison an otherwise fantastic experience. I look for pleasant aftertaste, and how long it lasts primarily. A 5 would generally be a complex, long-lasting, and truly wonderful finish. A 3 would be overall good, but generally lacking either complexity or longevity. A 1 would require a good tooth-brushing to remove the taste.

 In my later posts, I attempt to give an overview of the dram as a whole – how it’s intended that you experience it – rather than as a sum of parts – again, entirely subjective. As with everything else in life, ratings are negotiable. I adjust the numbers a touch as I see fit – if I’m blown away, if I’m underwhelmed, if I really enjoy something, but I expect most people won’t (or visa versa) – I’ll adjust my rating accordingly. I do not claim to be an expert in the field (I’m not), nor do I claim to have the final word on what to taste in a dram (I don’t). This blog is just a guide – to my sense of taste, to my feel for a dram – to give you my impressions.

Kind regards, and happy drinking,

Jason

GlenRothes 1984 vintage, 21 yr

Region: Speyside

Presentation: At long last (and beer drinkers will love this), the stubby has made a comeback – although it’s gotten a touch classier. Really, presentation is hard to judge as this was a sample bottle I picked up at a liquor store. That said, it’s the same vintage as I am (1984) – so I had to give it a try. Appears a dark amber/burnt orange in the glass, and less viscous than some whiskys I’ve tried. 5/5 (Nothing really special, but it’s my own vintage)

Nose: Soft fruit and spices, primarily, sweetness – perhaps a bit of caramel behind, with a hint of almond.  Really quite lovely. 3.5/5

Palate: This is a very light malt in comparison to what I’ve been drinking lately (primarily Islays) – actually, it’s a very light malt in general. Primarily tastes of sweet honey, with some fruit and a faint touch of cinnamon. As the dram opens up, notes of vanilla come out, overpowering the honey, and complimenting the cinnamon and fruit quite nicely. This malt, in my opinion, starts rather weak – not BAD, just weak in flavour, however opens up nicely by the third or fourth sip. 3.5/5

Finish:  Fairly sweet, with citrus notes in the beginning. The aftertaste fades quickly, however the warming sensation lingers for a long time. Definitely not AMAZING, but pleasant. 3/5

Overall: 15/20 = 75/100. Two words can best describe this malt: “pleasant” and “subtle”. There is nothing overwhelming – positive or negative – about this particular malt, however it is generally positive in all aspects. It makes a fantastic beginners whisky, or a wonderful daily drinker if you don’t gag on the price point for such. Overall, this was a smooth, pleasant, subtle whisky, but didn’t overwhelm in any way at all. For the price point – I expect to be overwhelmed.

Bruichladdich Octomore 2 (5 years)

Region: Islay

Presentation: Housed in a black box, sits a tall black bottle. The look is very high-tech (comparatively), very sophisticated, and very simple. One of only 15000 bottles produced, the bottle will look good in any collection, and is designed to do exactly that – inside the box or out. The whisky pours clear into the glass, a very light straw colour. This whisky has not had a lot of time to mature in the barrel, and has little colour as a result, making an interesting contrast with the black bottle and presentation. 4/5

Nose: Wave after wave of peat and smoke come pouring out of the glass even a couple of feet away from my nose. A touch of leather in the back, but primarily peat and smoke. Exceptionally intimidating for anyone who either doesn’t drink whisky, or who doesn’t have an affinity for peat. 3/5

Palate: The Octomore is designed and built to be a peat monster, and it does not disappoint. Every single one of the 140ppm in the bottle comes out from the very beginning of the dram – but don’t be fooled. Jim McEwan is a master blender of the highest order. While the peat and smoke are the defining characteristics of this malt, there is a hidden sweetness of honey, and faint citrus notes at the very back of the palate. This malt opens up, but the overwhelming peatiness dominates the dram. 3.5/5

Finish: Long and warming. It starts bitter, but the faint sweetness of the palate comes through in the end, coating the back of the throat. The feeling lasts for several minutes on the tongue and at the back of the throat. 5/5

Overall: 15.5/20 = 77.5/100 Wow – what a dram. This is definitely not a dram for the faint of heart, but if you’re willing to take the plunge, it’s truly stellar. There are a lot of people who will simply not enjoy this whisky. The smoke and the peat are overwhelming, and will not be to everyone’s taste. That being said, if you enjoy peaty whiskies (or aren’t afraid to try them lol) – then this is definitely worth a taste if nothing else. The rating is lower than the dram truly deserves because it will only be appropriate for a small number of whisky drinkers, and many others would not choose to partake. Oh well – more for the rest of us.

Arran Madiera Wine Cask Finish (NAS)

Region: Islands

Presentation: A simple, open-face black box encompasses a clear purple-labelled bottle. The liquid inside is a burnt orange-peel colour. The label only provides basic information, with tasting and bottling notes attached on a tag around the neck.  3.5/5

Nose: Primarily sweet fruit, sherry, and honey. This dram carries an almost perfume-like quality. 5/5

Palate: Orange and honey. Sweet and bitter simultaneously, with notes of vanilla and spice opening up at the back. Not overly complex – but a really, really nice dram. 4.5/5

Finish: Warming and sweet. The orange moves to the back and loses it’s bitter qualities. The close is very smooth in comparison to the palate, and lasts for several minutes. Quite a satisfying close to a very satisfying dram.  4/5

Overall: 17/20 = 85/100 The distillery at Arran is a fairly young distillery (founded in 1995), and have released an entire line of different finishes – all as limited releases. The Madiera finish came highly recommended to me, and doesn’t disappoint. This is also a great starter scotch – even my whisky-hating girlfriend liked this one when she had a sip.

Ardbeg – Airigh Nam Beist (Array nam baysht) 1990 Vintage, NAS

Region: Islay

Presentation: Dark green glass and an artistic black label hold liquid of a beautiful light amber. Aromas of heady peat come out upon opening. Label notes do not give a direct age statement, however this bottling was laid down in 1990, and bottled in 2008. Appears classic, yet modern simultaneously.         4/5

Nose: Initial waves of peat,  with sweet fruit in the back-ground. Says my non-whisky-drinking girlfriend: “it smells like apples”. Hints of caramel and honey in the background are barely perceptible – but present none the less. A distinct spiciness rounds out the nose. Overall  quite complex, mostly pleasant, although there is a prevalent smokiness that permeates throughout.  3.5/5

Palate: Unexpected. Thoroughly unexpected, but exquisite. Initially, notes of sweet fruit, citrus, and some wood waft over the tongue. As the dram opens up, the peat comes through, sweetened by the ever-present fruit. While not the most complex malt I’ve ever had – this is simply stunning.  5/5

Finish: Incredibly smooth and warming. The sweetness and the smoke linger in the back of your throat, and the warmth expands throughout your body. The smokiness dies off after about 5 minutes, leaving honey-sweetness coating the back of the throat, and warmth permeating through the body. Again – wonderful.  6/5  (15 minutes in, as I’m still writing, and the warmth and sweetness are still there – this is fantastic)

Overall: 18.5/20 = 92.5/100 Aside from a quick test-dram of their 10-year old, this is my introduction to Ardbeg – and what an introduction. The nose is quite smoky, but don’t be fooled by that.  The smoke and peat that identifies an Islay is present, but wonderfully offset by the other characteristics of this malt. This is a beautiful, well balanced dram. It was a limited release from 1990, bottled in 2008, and has no age statement. As an aside, yes, I ranked the finish as a 6/5 – don’t argue with my math, it really is that good. As a limited release, this is getting harder to find – but if you can, it’s well worth the effort.

The Balvenie Double Wood 12 Yr Old

Region: Speyside

Presentation: A simple oaken-coloured label on a clear bottle provides contrast to the darker golden coloured malt inside. Traditional black on background with no significant modernization of the label suits this well established Speyside distillery. The casking specifics of the bottling are indicated as well (showing the use of a bourbon cask with a few months finishing in sherry). The dram pours clear and dark-gold – the sherry not having had a long time to add a redder tinge to the malt. 3.5/5

Nose: White wine and caramel, with barely a hint of peat. This dram noses very light and sweet. Notes of chocolate and butter are also present –the chocolate readily noticeable, the butter less so. Quite a pleasant dram to nose, and seemingly well suited as a summer malt, should the dram stay true to it’s initial presentation. 3.5/5

Palate: Again, very light, tasting primarily of caramel and vanilla, with a hint of sherry. This is a comparably sweeter malt, with a tinge of honey to complement the caramel. There is a faint nuttiness to the dram at the back as well, although it’s difficult to detect. Not overly complex, but pleasant. While not exceptional, this dram makes for a good daily drinker, if you’re a fan of the Speyside malts, or of the Balvenie line in particular. 3.5/5

Finish: Virtually non-existant to start, however it broadens and grows over the span of a few minutes, with the chocolate primarily, with some sherry notes, and some sweeter fruit on the back. This dram finishes nicely, complimentary to the rest of the experience, yet remains unexceptional. 3.5/5

Final: 14/20 = 70/100

This is a pretty average, if thoroughly enjoyable dram. It’s been my daily drinker ever since I discovered it, as it’s pleasant, not overpowering in any way, and complex enough to not leave you bored, yet not so complex as to require 30 minutes of contemplation before you’re half-way done drinking. This also makes it a good choice for a starter whisky.

Bruichladdich Single Cask Range – Chateau d’Yquem Finish – 1994 Vintage, 13 yrs

Region: Islay

Presentation: As ever, Bruichladdich has one of the more distinctive packages for most single malts – artistically designed cans. While their single cask series is in no way the most artistic and/or distinctive in their range, however it still is the expected artistic package expected from Bruichladdich. The bottle is a “stubby” Bruichladdich bottle, with a light lemon-yellow label. The dram pours a clear light straw, which catches the cheap fluorescent lighting in my kitchen rather well. 4/5

Nose: Citrus and honey, with hints of sweet fruit and ginger – stunning in combination. The tiniest hint of peat compliments the bouquet presented wonderfully. While there is very little hidden complexity to this dram’s nose – none is needed as it’s comparably simplistic beauty is sufficient. Absolutely wonderful. 5/5

Palate: Citrus and fruit to begin, with hints of maple and honey. This is a very sweet dram on the palate – not unpleasantly so. There is definitely a hint of peat, but it’s very minimal. Bruichladdich is known as one of the least heavily peated malts from Islay, and this release is no exception. 3.5/5

Finish: Smooth, gentle, and sweet. Primarily tastes of more fruit and citrus – a common theme to this malt – with notes of vanilla. Additionally, a slight herbal quality is prevalent at the back of the mouth. There are notes of chocolate as the finish fades away, adding an extra layer of complexity to a truly beautiful malt. 4/5

Total: 16.5/20 = 82.5/100

Wonderful malt – and a great way to end an evening off. This is a rare find – a limited edition run of about 400-600 bottles made exclusively for the province of Alberta. It’s an excellent dram, from an excellent distillery, and if I could readily obtain it, would be one of the first drams off my shelf on any given evening.