Nov 192013
 

GlenDronach 15 y.o. Tawny Port FinishTP4

46% abv

Score:  81/100

 

This GlenDronach Tawny Port Finish is not so much a good whisky as it is an interesting one.  

GlenDronach is a Speyside distillery known and revered for the stunning depths of its sherried malts.  Its accolades are many and well-earned, and its trajectory is only on the upswing since the owners (BenRiach) began investing plenty of time, attention and money to bring the distillery back from a five year silence in the late ’90s and early ’00s.  For that, of course, we’re eternally grateful. 

Regular readers will know I’m a big fan of this distillery.  It’s a profile perfectly suited to my proclivity for bold flavours and flawless use of sherry maturation.  Of course there is the occasional dud of a cask with hints of sulphur, but for a distillery so heavily reliant on these barrels, they are surprisingly few and far between.  Marry that standard of excellence with a spate of beautiful older single cask releases in recent years and I find myself in sherry heaven. 

So…having said all of that…to see a GlenDronach release floundering under the weight of this experimental ‘finish’ is somewhat disappointing.  At the risk of offending the purists, at the heart of the matter sherry and port are not dissimilar.  They are both brandy-fortified wines.  The actual ins and outs of regional regulation requirements, maturation processes, fermentation, etc absolutely make these two beverages unique, however I’d be hard-pressed to always be able to identify a port-finished whisky vs a sherry-finished whisky. 

I suppose what I’m driving at is simply an articulate way to voice the following question:  is this whisky’s profile defined primarily by the 15 year old malt itself, or by the finishing period in port pipes?  I ask this in light of one particular fact: that port should be sweeter than sherry, by nature, and this whisky is not nearly as sweet as I’d expect in even the most basic of unfinished GlenDronach releases. 

Just my two cents, folks (and not even worth that).  Either way…not a bad dram, just missing the soaring highs I’ve come to expect from one of the most exciting distilleries out there.

Nose:  Maltier than I’d expect in a 15 year old GlenDronach.  Where are the big fruits?  Some dark breads here and maybe a touch yeasty.  Whole unground nutmeg seeds (milder than the pungent ground spice).  Raisin and caramel.  Fine dark chocolate.  There’s simply not enough going on here.  Kinda disappointing, really.  Expected a lot more fruit.

Palate:  Malty bread notes.  Currants.  Lots of spice.  Maybe some bitter grapefruit.  Citrus pith…with none of the sweet accompaniments.  Some woods and bold red wine notes at the back.  Behind the coffee aroma, that is.

 

– Reviewed by:  Curt

– Photo:  Curt

 Posted by at 2:03 pm

  5 Responses to “GlenDronach 15 y.o. Tawny Port Finish Review”

  1. I agree that the ripe red fruits are missing but I think that’s why I liked it enough to get a 2nd bottle – something different to the Glendronach sherry bombs that I’ve tried (and very much love). There’s something almost metallic about it. I found the English mixed spice on lightly toasted rye bread somewhat like you describe… nice initial mouthfeel but all in all a little dry and flat on the finish. I think I made some note about old preserves from an aluminium can…

  2. I didn’t get the chance to buy the 20 yr old but I have to say this 15 yr old was really enjoyable. Great for after dinner with a nice kick at 46%. It was sweet but not overwhelming. I plan to buy a bottle of the 18 yr old. I would rate it in the high 80’s.

  3. You may be confusing tawny port with ruby port. Tawny port has much less fruit and much more caramel, raisins, nuts, dark chocolate, and toffee. Ruby port & vintage port have loads of red fruit. I recommend trying a 20 year old Taylor Fladgate or Warre’s Otimo, or a 40 year old Sandeman’s.

Leave a Reply to Malty Mugwump Cancel reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)