When I first tasted this expression, I didn't really know what to make of it. It didn't have an age statement, but that was a trend that was beginning to take hold anyway. so I didn't think much of that. It tasted fresh, but punchy: something I didn't expect from a Campbeltown whisky. Later, when I tried to do some research, I found out the Glengyle distillery issued new expressions each year until they could release their first 12 year old standard in 2016. This one is from 2010; a six year old whisky, that promises a lot for the twice as old standard, set to be released in 2016.
Nose: Fresh, grass, little bit of lemon zest, sea air and smoke
Palate: Vanilla, cereal, citrus, grass and herbs. Hint of smoke and white pepper.
Finish: medium long. The hint of smoke stays as well as a little bit of a straw-like flavour.
When I read about the age, I was pleasantly surprised. This is an example of how age is less important than the way you treat the whisky.
@Mikey09, thanks for your review. It is especially nice when we are able to get reviews of newer or less common whiskies and distilleries, so that we can have some idea of what they are doing there.
OK, this one is a maltly malt. Is it as briney as its neighbor Springbank? Also, on peat/smoke levels, is this closest to Hazelburn, Springbank, or Longrow? (Sounds like Springbank; pretty clearly not Longrow)
Long age in whisky is very nice, but younger age whisky done well is so much better than older age whisky done badly. A lot of the previous "old age is better" malarkey was to convince the stupid public that ruined old Scotches were worth their high price tags. I have tasted some of those lousy old Scottish malts, and I am glad that I never paid for a bottle of any of them. There is plenty of decent younger product available, fortunately.
I do wish they'd put age statements on this series, though, despite the pass they're getting in this discussion.
It's not that I think Glengyle is giving us a raw deal with the NAS labeling (or however you want to phrase the usual NAS criticism). Rather, it's just confusing as-is. They don't clearly label them as "WIP 1/2/3/etc." to begin with, and then if you do know which edition you have, you then need to know how old #1 was (five years) to know the age of the current one.
Maybe we're just supposed to enjoy it without worrying about the age? I get that argument in the general endless NAS debates, but in the case the point of the series is to watch Kilkerran go from very young to mature. The lack of information makes that pretty hard to actually do.
OK, I started a general Kilkerran thread a few weeks ago, so I should just continue my thoughts over there. Thanks for the review of #2, Mikey09! This one and the new CS version are the ones I'd most like to get my hands on.
connosr.com/wall/discussion/…