Glen Scotia - Night Four

Another night, another tasting of this Glen Scotia. As I approached the shelf to grab the bottle, I saw the Japanese-imposter that I procured not too long ago and was reminded that it, like this Glen Scotia, is also fifteen years of age. Finding the numeric coincidence interesting, I decided to pour a bit of the Shin to accompany tonight's dram.

Same rules as before - capture my impressions in real-time and post at the conclusion with minimal editing. No TV viewing companion this evening, instead the heavenly sounds of Oscar Peterson and his Trio are gently wafting through the room.

The Smell

Holy moly.... this is genuinely mind-blowing. These two whiskies smell *very* similar to each other. I'll admit, I poured the Shin as a bit of a goof, thinking it would be nothing like the Glen Scotia, but alas, the joke is on me. These are so close in aroma, I'm wondering if the Shin's mystery distillery of origin is a Campbeltown distillery? Statistically unlikely of course, but these two really do smell similar. As an aside, smelling these two side-by-side really brings into focus how little Mizunara influence there is in the Shin.

As for specific smells in the Glen Scotia, caramel, faint vanilla, not-so-faint oak, toasted oak though, not charred/burnt oak. A bit of leather furniture and white pepper. There is a grassy, fresh grass vibe just lingering in the far reaches of the nose. 

The Taste

Neat from the bottle, the Glen Scotia still has too much of an alcohol punch. The electricity running over my tongue blocks out most of the flavors. I definitely feel the Glen Scotia needs some water to be totally enjoyable. As for the Shin - these two are similar in taste, but not as similar as they were on the nose. Not only does the Shin have a good bit more oak than the Glen Scotia, but the oak is of a different variety - more charred than toasted. I am going to put the Shin to the side for the moment and continue on with the Glen Scotia.

The peppery spice remains front and center on the taste. That impression has remained consistent from the beginning. Barley sugar, a molasses sweetness rather than a brown-sugar caramel sweetness, think a savory, not overly sweet dessert. After the sweetness fades, a rush of more spice and oak and then slightly drying tannins lead into the finish. The drying finish is reminiscent of a very gentle black tea.

I know this sounds wackadoo, but there is a rye-bread impression to the tail-end of a sip tonight. I am flashing back to visiting some of my favorite Jewish or German delis and having a pastrami/corned beef on rye. There is a distinctive pungent spice that rye bread can deposit on the back of your tongue/throat and that is precisely the impression I am getting tonight. That is a first for this whisky.

The Finish

The finish remains medium-length for me. We start off with a nice mouth-coating of pepper, then toasted oak, a bit of lightly-sweetened black tea, and then the spice reemerges and remains until the finish fades away into the ether. All in all, a very pleasant finish that is totally consistent with the nose and taste of the whisky.

Fourth Pour Overall

I've tossed around plenty of flip-flopping speculation on whether the Glen Scotia is artificially colored or not. Tonight, alongside the Shin, I am less positive that the Glen Scotia is artificially colored. The Shin proclaims on its label that it is indeed natural color, yet it is darker than the Glen Scotia. Both are the same age, both were aged in American oak (though the Shin had a finishing in Mizunara oak), and yet the Shin is darker. Of course, this could be due to a number of variables, but taking the Shin at its word that it is natural color, I am still leaning that the Glen Scotia is artificially colored due to its mild orange glow compared to the Shin's reddish-brown hue.

As for night four, I'd say a comparable level of enjoyment to night three. I feel like this whisky has plateaued for me in terms of improvement. It has been a solid improvement however - after night one, I was not all that impressed by the malt and was not convinced there would be a night two. Yet night two marked such an improvement that I eagerly anticipated a night three with Glen Scotia. This whisky has gone from meh on night one to a pretty good on night four. While I don't plan on always keeping a bottle of this malt on the shelf, it has proven itself to be a solid, respectable whisky.

In the coming days, I'll plan on having a fifth tasting where I share reviews and tasting notes that I find on Glen Scotia. I will at some point, a handful of months down the road, crack the bottle again to see if an extended period of rest with a good chunk of air in the bottle changes the experience to any degree, perhaps even revealing new smells and tastes.

Until August my good friends. Cheers and salutations. Oh and OP, you sir are a piano player for the ages.

Group Tasting - Pandemic Edition

No refunds, consider your refund escaping this death trap with your lives!

It's been six months since we've had a group tasting and heck, we're enduring a pandemic, so what better excuse to raise a glass and dilute our concerns. While this tasting won't be as grand as the taste-off spectacular between some of Ireland's most affordable whiskeys, I suspect all will find something to enjoy in these samples. Look for the reveal sometime in August.

All samples guaranteed COVID-free*!

*At the time of shipping. No one can guarantee what happens to them once you filthy animals get your grubby paws on them.

Glen Scotia - Night Three

What better night for a third pour of this mostly-a-mystery-to-me - Glen Scotia 15 Year - than to cap a hump day. Tonight, as I poured the whisky I was struck by its color. In my first tasting I proclaimed that the whisky did not have an overly fake orange glow leading me to believe that if it was artificially colored, it was not to an excessive degree. I'd like to amend that observation. The lighting in the kitchen is a bit cooler than the lighting in the room where I poured the first two pours. In the cooler light, this malt does indeed have a bit more unnatural orange glow so now I'm thinking this whisky does indeed contain artificial coloring and it is colored a fair amount.

As I departed the kitchen and trundled to my trusty chair of contemplation, smelling the whisky as I went, I was surprised at how different the malt seemed to me. Perhaps there are some surprises in store for me tonight. Same rules apply - a real-time capture of my impressions as I sip. Tonight's malt companion is the tenth episode of the hit 1964 series from Great Britain - Stingray.

The Smell

Whoa, now this is interesting, tonight I am getting a grassy honey vibe. The immediate memory that comes to mind is the smell of Drambuie. Baking spices, toasted oak, and a bit of vanilla are also present. 

The Taste

Surprise surprise, the spice is still front and center, but there is a bolder oak influence this time around. The second half of the sip reveals a bit of citrus sweetness, a dusty grass note, and just a bit of cigar tobacco. Three pours in and a savory spice (thyme, cayenne, and black pepper) still dominates the taste - think three parts spice to one part sweet and one part oak with just a whisper of aged tobacco.

The Finish

The finish is every bit of medium length. Definitely not short nor long to me. In order of proportion, spice, oak, and sweetness are the characteristics most observable to me. I do not detect any of that cigar tobacco that I encountered in the taste, but there is a taste sensation in my mouth reminiscent of a sauvignon blanc wine - an acidic, vibrant citrus-sweet yet tart paradox. Unlike a sauvignon blanc however, the presence of toasted oak also persists in the finish.

Third Pour Overall

For reference, tonight's pour was 1.5 ounces and I added ~1 teaspoon of water early in the tasting. After adding the water, I feel the nose became less interesting - lost was that grassy Drambuie vibe but a cotton candy sweetness emerged. 

While water muted the nose a bit, it absolutely improved the taste for me. The spice level dropped just enough to allow honey sweetness, toasted oak and cigar impressions to surface. Very interesting change in taste for me. 

Far and away, I'd say tonight's pour has been the most enjoyable of the bunch. I was disappointed after my first pour, thinking this whisky's profile was not a good match for my palate. The second taste was better, but not by a large margin. Had you asked me after night one or two, I would have said that I would not purchase another bottle, nor would I often reach for this whisky. Tonight however is a much different experience, I quite enjoyed this malt. Is the whisky opening up a bit in the bottle now that it has a bit more air as the fill-level has dropped? Perhaps my palate is just a bit more open to this whisky's uniqueness? I have more questions than answers at the moment.

I suspect there will be a fourth pour, I am most curious to see if this improvement trend continues. By the by, tonight's ounce and a half took three episodes of Stingray to complete. Troy and Phones make excellent hooch buddies.

Glen Scotia - Night Two

For the second tasting of Glen Scotia 15-year, I thought I'd bring some friends along. The first companion is Balvenie's 12-year 'The Sweet Toast of American Oak'. The Balvenie joins tonight's party because like the Glen Scotia, it too was matured exclusively in American oak. The second friend - Talisker 10-year - joins the Balvenie because my dominant memory of Talisker is it being a spicy dram which is precisely the impression that dominated my first tasting of Glen Scotia.

Just as with the first tasting, I am recording impressions 'live' and will post with minimal editing at the conclusion of the tasting.

The Smell

Uh-oh... we have a problem. Smelling each whisky exposed an immediate flaw in my memory. I selected the Talisker because I remembered it to be a spicy malt, but as soon as I uncorked the bottle, I was reminded of what is almost certainly Talisker's most dominant note - peat. Isn't memory a funny thing, vivid yet often flawed. Oh well, the Talisker is poured, but I will avoid tasting it while tasting the other two for fear of the peat unfairly polluting my palate.

Glen Scotia - a bit more alcohol on the nose than I remembered, but there is also a candy-apple vibe this time around. Reminiscent of the smell emanating from a candy apple stall at the local fairs of my childhood; notes of caramel, boiling sugar, and yes, fresh apple. Incredible, tonight this whisky smells quite different than how it smelled to me the first night. Alongside the caramel, there is a candied-vanilla smell as well tonight, not like vanilla extract, but like a cream soda. 

Balvenie - less alcohol on the nose than the Glen Scotia. A very enticing sweetness with a hint of sawdust believe it or not. Citrus, specifically lemon and orange jump out as well. A faint vanilla, but this is more of a vanilla extract smell compared to the Glen Scotia's vanilla syrup vibe.

The Taste

Glen Scotia - There is that rush of spice that I remember from the first tasting. There is minimal fruit on the taste for me - spice and oak dominate. There is a passing impression that comes across every now and again that I just can't put my finger on. It is an impression that is frustratingly within my grasp, yet just beyond range of coming into focus. It is a dark, stewed fruit kinda impression, a bit similar to Cognac. I need more time with this malt...

Balvenie - The taste progression is pretty interesting and (overall) satisfying - a gentle alcohol harshness in the beginning then a strong lemon-peel impression and then a sweetness that reminds me of honey. Present throughout the sip is a smell of sawdust - think the smell of those old-school lumber yards that were cutting boards nearby. This is a dry sawdust smell, not a resign type smell.

The Finish

It's difficult to discuss the finish of each whisky when tasting two at a time. I'd say both have comparable finishes in terms of medium length and intensity, but it's difficult to say who is bringing what to this party.

Second Taste Overall

Well that was interesting - the nose of the Glen Scotia yielded some radically new impressions this time around. The taste however was quite similar to what I remember from night one. As for the head-to-head with the Balvenie, I'd say the Balvenie is more my speed in terms of experience - citrusy sweet vs the Glen Scotia's oaky spice. The biggest knock on the Balvenie is being a bit too prickly in terms of a youthful alcohol presence.  For the second tasting in a row, the spice level of the Glen Scotia remains my biggest criticism.

As an added bonus, just because I poured it, some Talisker 10 impressions. Peat on the nose along with a briny salt air like driving down a coastal road. The peat continues on the taste, but just as remembered, a good dollop of peppery spice accentuated by a gentle sweetness as well. The peat level is ~50% less than what I'd expect from an Ardbeg, but is similar in character. I'd say the finish of the Talisker is longer and more intense than either the Balvenie or Glen Scotia but in all fairness, the presence of peat really makes the Talisker's finish stand out and linger and could be skewing my impressions.

At least one more tasting of the Glen Scotia before I compare to any official tasting notes and reviews. I must admit, I have been supremely tempted to Google Glen Scotia to see what others have said about the malt, but I promise, I have resisted those urges. I remain blissfully in the dark regarding Glen Scotia.

Glen Scotia 15 Year - Night One

Typically, before posting a writeup for a whisky, I try to have (at least) three separate tastings, recording impressions for each. Once the tastings are complete, the process of creating the actual blog writeup begins. This process takes anywhere from two to three weeks as I spend a few hours on a handful of nights shaping, editing, and finalizing the structure of the entry. Tonight, I am trying something different, essentially a live tasting of a whisky. I foresee posting two more such entries as I conduct more tastings with this whisky in the coming weeks.

Tonight, my much better half and I will be tasting an impulse purchase that is a total mystery to me - Glen Scotia 15 Year. Just as with my impulse purchase of Loch Lomond 18 Year, this Glen Scotia satisfied three of my four requirements for purchasing an unknown whisky - age statement, non-chill filtered, and higher-than typical proof. Coming in at $69.99 and having never read a single review nor visited the producer’s website, I decided to take the plunge. My goal - taste, record my impressions in real time, and then once complete with three or so separate tastings, post the official tasting notes as well as review consensus to see how closely my impressions were.

Here is what the box and label tell me about this Glen Scotia: Single Malt Scotch Whisky. 15-years of age. Distilled, matured, and aged in Scotland. Classic Campbeltown Malt. Gently Matured in the Finest American Oak Barrels (the label on the bottle; the label on the back of the box proclaims gently matured in old American oak barrels). 46% ABV. And on the box’s back label: Campbeltown whiskies are intriguing - appealing to those consumers looking for something a little off the beaten track.

The appearance is somewhere between dark gold to medium amber. The label offers no proclamation that the whisky is indeed natural color, so it's a fair assumption the whisky is artificially colored. The appearance is not a glowing orange, so if this malt does indeed have a fake tan, it is not done so to an excessive degree.

The Smell

The smell is quite nice. An intense honey/vanilla sweetness leaps from the glass. A barley sugar note is right behind the honey/vanilla sweetness. There is also a subtle dried grass vibe here, but it is dwarfed by the sugar vibes. Zero peat on the nose, so I feel it safe to say this is an un-peated malt. A mild alcohol punch, nothing too excessive here. There is a gentle oak but a toasted oak, not a heavy char or wood resin. This absolutely smells of a bourbon barrel aged malt, so the label's proclamation of American oak maturation is totally believable.

The Taste
Holy moly, what a tongue punch. The initial sip packs way more of an ethanol punch than expected based on the smell. There is near-zero sweetness in the taste which also defies the expectations set by the smell. After the explosive arrival there is a meteoric rise of spiciness that continues well into the finish. This spiciness is much more than simple alcohol burn, there is a sharp, intentional spice here. Off the top of my head, the spice level is reminiscent of Talisker 10-year. Based on the initial wallop, I added a few splashes of water in the hopes of taming the malt. 

Water definitely helps tame the initial wallop. The spice remains however; what surprises me is how little sweetness there is. In a totally unscientific guess, I'd say the spice influence is four times that of the sweet influence. Towards the end of the sip there is an interesting, and pleasant, gentle bitterness. Perhaps the only area where the smell and taste are in total agreement is the lack of peat - this is definitely not a peated malt.

After a bit of time, I'd say the spice does subside enough to reveal some fruit sweetness, but make no mistake, the fruit sweetness appears like sporadic light beams breaking through a dense, overcast cloud layer of spice. 

The Finish

The spice found in the taste absolutely remains in the finish and lingers for some time. As the spice subsides, there is a whisker of sweetness followed by a slight tannic drying sensation. That pleasing, gentle bitterness on the conclusion of the taste reappears on the tail-end of the finish. Usually, one would not describe bitterness as a pleasing attribute, but in this malt, it not only works, but seems perfectly complementary to the overall experience. The finish lingers for a respectable amount of time - absolutely a medium-length finish, flirting with a long finish.

First Taste Overall

What a rollercoaster ride. Based on the smell, I was expecting a far sweeter dram than what I experienced. The level of spice was really unexpected and in my first taste, I'd say it's a few notches too strong. If I could rebalance this malt, I'd leave the sweetness where it is but dial down the spice two clicks. 

Re-reading the prose on the box's back label: Campbeltown whiskeys are intriguing - appealing to those consumers looking for something a little off the beaten track, I'd say mission accomplished. This malt is entirely intriguing and I cannot think of another malt on my shelf that is similar. Perhaps Talisker 10-year for spice, Deanston 12-year for sweetness on the nose, but as a complete package, this Glen Scotia 15-year is very much unique. If pressed to give a recommendation, I'd say to pass on this malt, unless spiciness is your thing. Please note though, this is the very first tasting, let's see how the malt evolves to my tastes over subsequent tastings.

More to come!