Taste Review #95 – Glenlivet 12 old vs new
Whisky history. It’s something that has gone through my mind a fair bit when I’ve been reviewing the old vs new drams. In fact it has been something that I’ve been reflecting on for a while. What sparked this mini confession was looking at the older bottle that I’m away to consume tonight. The label was in good condition, the fill level was good and it struck me that this was an almost immaculate bottle of at least 41 years of age. I wished that I was in as good a condition at 41! However, like me, the bottle couldn’t be preserved any longer and was away to meet its destiny. The end of its journey had been reached and had to be opened for the purposes of this review. And while sad as it was to destroy this history after reaching that age without a scratch, it was opened with the mantra ‘its made to be drunk’ running through my mind. After all, it was only a Glenlivet.
This thought of whisky should be destined to be drunk has been going through my mind more and more of late due to the rush on the newest Daftmill, Ardnamurchan and by the end of this week, the inaugural Torabhaig. I don’t mind the frenzy for new bottles. It’s understandable to a point, that perhaps people want to the the first to taste it, to have one for collecting or worse, to flip. As a collector myself, I’m not immune to criticism in this case, but it has saddened me to see Ardbeg ‘Arrrrrrrdbeg’ go on sale for over £100 more than the RRP. That is little more than gouging. A collector will know this and move on, knowing the value isn’t really there and wait for prices to subside, but it takes advantage of those who really want to drink it and forces them to pay through the nose. The distillery doesn’t care as they’ve sold out, but it is potentially damaging to their image. It’s a subject that I am determined to look into in the near future.
Anyway, from what I’ve heard, a source revealed that in his opinion Arrrrrrrdbeg tastes not too different to the 10 year old. I’ll save my money and buy Laphroaig or Octomore instead.
So, thinking of whisky history, It’s been a bit of a while since I last looked at Glenlivet. The Captains Reserve was the last bottle I looked at in 2019. You can read a little about the distillery history and what I thought about it here. Despite its massive output, Glenlivet is a distillery that I rarely look at. Perhaps because I feel their massive output is just ‘meh’. Not that I feel there is anything wrong with it, but my attention gets grabbed elsewhere. Perhaps it is just the ubiquitous nature of the brand that puts me off. I feel the same way about Glenfiddich, Chivas Regal or Johnnie Walker. Not that there is anything wrong with these brands either, I just don’t seem able to engage with them, plus wherever I seem to travel in the world with my work, at least one of these is always obtainable.
The Glenlivet 12 year old was discontinued a few years back, and was replaced by the Founders reserve. This appears to have been a lamented decision, as the Founders Reserve just hasn’t appeared to have been as well received, most reviews I have seen in the passing seem to prefer the 12. Perhaps this makes this age statement a prime candidate for old vs new. Besides, it’s not really enough to write a distillery off just because I don’t pay attention to their product. It is time now to put that to bed, and try what is one of the most popular of the Glenlivet age statements.
Glenlivet 12 (Old 1970’s bottling)
Region – Speyside Age – 12 y.o Strength – 70 Proof / 40% Colour – Deep Gold (0.8) Cask Type – Not known Colouring – Yes Chill Filtered – Yes Nose – Light honey, vanilla, apple, slight leather, milk chocolate Palate – Quite sugary sweet on the arrival, with alcohol burn slowly arriving, golden syrup on toast, chocolate raisins, slightly heathery, creamy vanilla Finish – short to medium. spicy ginger as the last of the alcohol burn goes, chocolate bananas, custard, almonds. Adding 2ml of water only smoothed the spirit out, and has made for me the finish last that little bit longer with less of a gingery kick.
Glenlivet 12 (new / Double Oak)
Region – Speyside Age – 12 y.o Strength – 40% Colour – Amber (0.7) Cask Type – American and European Oak Colouring – Yes Chill Filtered – Yes Nose – Creamy toffee, slight hint of bitter citrus – grapefruit or lemon, lightly nutty smell at the end, possibly almonds Palate – Creamy, buttery, toffee, apple, vanilla. Finish – Super short. Blink and you miss it. If I was forced to say something that it is drying, my mouth is left as dry as Mother Theresa’s sandals. Very quick burst of wood spice then nothing but a light hit of creamy vanilla. Adding 2ml of water has increased the spiciness and reduced the dryness slightly. There is a bitter citrus note that builds then fades away. However, at least this has lengthened the experience at the end. But in truth, I took a bigger sip this time.
Conclusions
This has been a bit of an eye-opener, mainly because I never had expected to get such a pristine miniature in an auction. There was very little old bottle effect in the older sample and I have to be honest that so far out of all the older bottles that I have tried so far in this series, this has to be one of the best, if not the best. It is certainly up there with the Glenfarclas 10 and Clynelish Flora and Fauna that I have tried at the start. Don’t get me wrong, I am well aware that the whisky that I am tasting is not the premium sips, but it is still a valid exercise to compare old to new to assess any differences.
Turning my head sadly to the newer Glenlivet, I have to say that nose wise it was fine, palate wise a bit light to my tastes but still an acceptable whisky, although I found it a bit boring, but my other eye was opened when I sampled it a few times and was getting pretty much zero finish. My palate went dry and it was almost like I hadn’t just tasted a whisky. Ok, perhaps zero was a little cruel, and I did get more of a finish once I added a bit of water, but even then, it wasn’t very exciting. Perhaps something I might put into a hot toddy or a cocktail.
I was a bit concerned that I was missing something, so I took it upon myself to trouble somebody in the industry as to what actually is responsible for providing the finish. It was as though there were oils or something missing, my thoughts were the chill filtration had perhaps stripped the newer spirit of the taste. So, I messaged one of the distillers I follow on Twitter, and he graciously answered my plea for answers. I feel that he put my thoughts into a more articulate way, and suggested that in the 70’s there would have been a greater range of ages available to make up a vatting, and it is entirely likely that there was more 1st fill casks used. The more modern version is probably made of product a lot closer to the 12 year old mark, possibly with less first fill casks, meaning the wood has a bit less to give in producing not only the nose and palate, but also the finish.
I’m a bit reticent in naming who helped me lest what I write causes a bit of fallout, but I hope I have interpreted your answer correctly, if not then you can give me a proper hazing on Twitter and I’ll go and sit on the naughty step knowing I must try harder.
Both drams were balanced, but the older one was definitely moreish. To conclude my reviewing session I finished the newer one so I could spend more time with the older dram. The newer dram was pleasant enough, certainly more enjoyable than the Aberlour 12 I recently tried but it just wasn’t really engaging for me, and the length of finish when neat was extremely disappointing. I’d recommend it as training whisky. The older dram was definitely the winner here.
Yours In Spirits
Scotty
Scotty’s Drams encourages responsible drinking. To find out the facts about drink, and where to find help if you need it visit Drinkaware.co.uk by clicking on the link.
Photo Credits
All Photos – Authors Own
Scotty’s Drams 