The Glenlivet Nadurra 16 yr

[TBoner]

Just to offer a dissenting opinion on cask strength Scotch, I find many of them quite worthy: Laphroaig CS, Ardbeg Uigeadail, the aforementioned A'bunadh, and many of the Gordon & Macphail single-cask bottlings.

That said, the argument could be made that the lack of chill filtration and the added strength and variety of ages (not including the G&M) in these bottlings add dimension to otherwise less nuanced whisky: either peat bombs or sherry bombs. I can't disagree much, except to say that a cask-strength Dallas Dhu I sampled once was mind-blowing (and other G&M efforts, too), to say that I find Ardbeg and Laphroaig quite complex even at their standard strengths, and to say that cask strength bottlings do afford the luxury of adapting a particular flavor profile to fit your own palate more readily than do already-diluted iterations.

All of the above being said, I wonder if slightly lower barrel entry proofs among Scotch producers account for some of the "difficulty" inherent in enjoying cask-strength Scotch. I have rarely seen a cask-strength Scotch go over 115 proof, while barrel-proof bourbon exceeds 125 proof regularly. Stagg, Booker's, etc., seem to benefit greatly from water being added, while 100-114 proof bourbon fares well. Scotch with comparable percentages of dilution, rather than comparable proofs, might be a more fair comparison.

Throw all of the above out the window, natch, when tasting barrel proof rye. To wit: Handy rye (2007 batch) is the finest whisk(e)y from anywhere in the world I've tasted. It suits my palate and my "objective" definition of good whisk(e)y, too.

All of this brings to mind what may be an obvious question: where is the barrel-proof Irish whiskey? Can you imagine how rich and multi-dimensional Redbreast 12 would be at cask-strength, given its already mouthfilling, fruity depth?

[drrich1965]

Great comments Tim. There are many, many exceptions to every "rule" and you are correct about the Ardget Oogy- a wonderfully complex whisky at over 54%, especially the 2004 botteling- spendid.

[Gillman]

There is a cask Connemara, or at least offered at a high-than-normal proof, which is very good.

Gary

[drrich1965]

There is a cask Connemara, or at least offered at a high-than-normal proof, which is very good.

Gary

Here are my notes on this one, scored 80, reccomendable...

Conemara Cask Strenght (57.9%, OB, circa 2006)
August 30th, 2006. Blind, I would have guessed this is Laphroaig at first, when I spell in the 50ml bottle. Deeply peaty, big yet smooth. Ok, not as big as a Laphroaig, but perhaps Laphroaig's little brother, yet not the medicinal, hospital gauze notes. In the glass, a touch spirity, better add some water and open this up. Wow, water opens up something sweet. Now the smoke is almost gone, but there is a sweet flower smell, not lavender, but something like that. Mouth: Sweet and smoky, that sweet floral quality right before the finish. A bit too thin to be truly great, perhaps too "smooth." Yet, this is pretty good stuff here, that sweet floral quality ads a really nice layer of complexity. Not complexity, perhaps, but balance for the peatyness. I wonder what this would taste like at an older age, with added complexity. that would be a hell of a dram! Finish is long, smoky. Second taste: I think a bit of the newness has warn off, and I a really wishing for something more complex. A good malt.

[Dramiel McHinson]

I just got a good chuckle over the author who wrote he wound not clear his gums with it! Ill trade for mouthwash.[/quote]

I was also a little negative about the Nadurra in my earlier quote. After the bottle I commented on went untouched for six months I went back to it and for some reason it had really smoothed out. I guess a little oxidation isn't all bad for some whiskies. Anyway, I must dispute my earlier claim that the Nadurra was one dimensional and good deer camp whisky. AS it turns out, a teaspoon of filtered water with 50 ml of Nadurra on the latter tasting gave me a sweet rich surprise with good malt, honey, fruit and a light taste of vanilla candle wax and all spice. The alcohol was still warm and mouth coating but not astringent.

I also committed an unpardonable sin which I'll confess in hopes of salvation. I added a shot of the Nadurra to a glass of my Glenlivet 18 year old and I loved it. The 18 year old received a boost in octane and taste that elevated it to "darn good dram" status.

So, I judged too quickly and now give the Nadurra more respect. yes, there are better, more balanced and complex whiskies but this one is good and the price is right.

Bottoms Up!

[Gillman]

Here is a 53.7% ABV unchillfiltered Bushmills Single Cask from a sherry hogshead. This seems a version of 1608 although "specially selected for Canada". The label states it is "mellowed" in a sherry cask so perhaps the whiskey was finished in such a cask, not aged throughout for its life, hard to say.

Nose: rubber, sulphur, wet moss.

Taste: sweetness is first to the fore, with good oak and malt underpinning. Some petrol, so typical of good Irish even though this is not pot-still whiskey. Oddly a kind of distant smoky effect appears. (Bushmills does not use peated malt. It did at one time. It had stopped (surely) by 1989 when this was distilled, still, I get a faint smokiness).

Aftertaste: Not long-lasting and now some of the scents of the nose seem to recur.

An interesting whiskey to say the least. Old Irish whiskey can offer stupendous complexity, of which this is an example, but it's not for everyone.

I see this as going well after a long bike ride, with a Guinness on the side and a piece of seed cake followed by a steaming cuppa (tea that is). As so often and not least with bourbon, drinks always taste best in their native environment.

Gary

[AVB]

Gary,

Are you sure you wanted to post about the new Bushmill's 1608 Irish Whiskey in the Glenlivet Nadurra Scotch Whisky thread?

[Gillman]

I realise I am mixing some notes in here which should go in another thread, sorry about that. I was inspired by the comments about Connemara cask strength and simply wanted to highlight another Irish whiskey of impressive strength (and taste).

About 1608: this brand was around years ago in duty free stores, then I think it went away for a while, and now I understand it has come back.

My bottle isn't really a 1608 but I think it may be a special version of it, since the words 1608 are on the label albeit not emphasized. It is a kind of one-off I think, but also the profile probably is similar to that of the restored 1608.

Sorry for the digression. By the way I have had Glenlivet Nadurra and it is very fine.

Gary

[Gillman]

Just another comment which is more within the original topic, which is that while Nadurra delivers excellent Glenlivet character, people looking for excellent but reasonably-priced malt should not overlook The Glenlivet 12 years old. This was THE malt in the old days and it still sets a high standard. I tried some recently and was wowed by its balance and elegance. While older expressions of Glenliver such as Nadurra are interesting, as e.g., the French oak expression of the 12, the regular 12 has been fine-tuned to great quality. It is almost wine-like in its balance, elegance and in an odd sort of way its taste. Nadurra, by all means, but malt enthusiasts should not overlook an old standard, The Glenlivet, which in truth is better than ever.

Gary

[Mr. Smith]

In my opinion the Glenlivet Nadurra is one of the best x-bourbon matured single malts available from any Speyside distillery. First-fill bourbon maturation gives this whisky an excellent freshness and zestyness seldomly found in a Glenlivet. Please don't compare Scotch Single Malts with bourbon. It is just as bad as a comparison as doing the opposite. A great bourbon is very hard to compare to a great Scotch Single Malt.