Hi all,
I have just conducted a most interesting vertical tasting of two Tomintouls
1967 36yo from Adelphi Distillery. The only difference between these two (if you look at the bottles only) is the number of casks they come from. They are nos. 4479 and 4481 - only two casks away from one another, so I assume they must have been put into cask within, say, 15 minutes from one another. And they most obviously come form the same distillation. Both bottled at cask strength, which in this case is 47.2% and 46.9% respectively. Could they be any different in flavour? Absolutely!The one that's approx 15 minutes older (though who knows in what order they were bottled), i.e. cask no. 4479 is a light straw colour with a lemony tinge. The undiluted NOSE is quite spirity, very light, grainy and flowery, with fresh peat, slightly peppery-ish. What fantastic legs! A few drops of WATER (I'm fond of adding water to my whiskies, and it does change their flavour - though not always for the better - ad vocem a different thread), the spirit goes away a bit, whisky becomes lighter, the aromas sort of spread wider. Some interesting woody notes appear, the floweriness becomes accaccia-like. There are wild strawberries and cherry tree resin (a childhood memory). Very pleasant overal. On the PALATE, it's light, delicate, beautifully, smoothly sweet. A mixture of soft fruits, hard to define, but with dominating strawberry flavour. Plus vanilla. Delicate peppers, coffee, very delicate wood, and finally some fresh walnuts. Not much happens on the palate, the flavours come as if at the same time, but they are very well balanced, distinctive. The FINISH is not too long, sweet and peppery, with echoes of woodiness (rather unusual, but I'm lost for words to desrcibe it more precisely), fresh peat. Score 4.5 (from 1 to 5).
The younger one (cask no. 4481) is just a touch darker, with ambery hue instead of the lemon. They almost look the same. But it seems this is where the similarities end. The undiluted NOSE is remarkably heavier, with marzipan, chocolate and coffee cake, fruity syrup sweetness, peach-like and grapey-ish, fresh peat. A few drops of WATER draw some woodiness to the front and a lot of herbal notes, especially dill. Toffee. The coffee, chocolate and marzipan notes are still there, but they are more subdued. On the PALATE, it is light too, less obviously sweet, more herbal, with the herbs growing, and the whole thing becoming gradually more and more assertive, tickling your tongue deliciously. Then suddenly, the tingling on the tongue ceases, and teh mouth is yet again full of smooth, silky, fruity sweetness. Bitter chocolate notes appear towards the end. Seems as if the cask had been used for sherry maturation, but then used and re-used repeatedly for whisky maturation. Don't know if this is the case, but it sure has echoes of what seems like sherry influence. The FINISH is considerably longer, sweet, woody, with heavy syrupy notes. Score 4.5.
There you are - the same whisky, two different casks, only two numbers away from one another, 36 years of maturation, and the result is no longer the same whisky. That echo of sherry in the second whisky intrigues me a bit. I mean, is it possible that the cask had been used for maturing sherry in the distant past? It definitely was not a first- or second fill - the sherry influence would be much more obvious. It was not a butt - it yielded only
163 bottles, even fewer than the other cask (194), which was definitely an ex-bourbon. Any comments on that? Because if it had been used for sherry, if there was such a possibility, then the flavour differences would be more easily explained. I'm going to write to Adelphi and enquire. See what they have to say about it. Their website is not helpful in that respect at all.Cheers, Rajmund