Dailuaine 34 Year (1980), Special Release 2015 (Blind Re-Review)
Whisky: Dailuaine 34 Year (1980), Special Release 2015 (Blind Re-Review)
Country/Region: Scotland/Speyside
ABV: 50.9%
Cask: Refill American Oak
Age: 34 Years (Distilled 1980, Bottled 2015)
Nose: Bright citrus and chalk, almost beeswax with pressed florals and marzipan, malty sugars remind me of cookie dough, citrus-scented cleaning chemicals and polished marble.
Palate: Medium-bodied, waxy and chalky, citrus up front, slightly sour yeast and herbs on the finish, preserved lemons, hints of mint, white chocolate, macadamia nuts, dried mango, a bit of spirited heat on the mid-palate, slightly numbing at the end.
Finish: Short to medium-length with chalk, marzipan, and white chocolate.
Score: 5-6
Mental Image: A Stolen Christmas Stollen
Narrative & Notes: I poured this as dram #14 on a “Holiday Mystery Whisky Advent Calendar” and guessed it was a teenage Clynelish in a bourbon cask. I thought there was an off chance that this could be a Tormore or Aberlour as I typically find they have similar citrus and sometimes even wax, though I tend to get more grass from those distilleries.
I was a bit conflicted about this whisky. I enjoyed the aroma with its waxy, citrus, and mineral qualities that constantly seemed to rearrange themselves in interesting ways. However, I did not care for the slightly sour yeast-herbal finish or the spirited prickle on the palate. The whisky was close to coming together pleasantly but had some rough edges that I could not get past. I thought a few drops of water softened the whisky but seemed to wash out some of the depth.
It turns out I have had this before! In fact, I reviewed it earlier this year. My notes are comparable between the two reviews— even my descriptions were quite similar. To quote from my review back in November: “The palate was a slight letdown after the nose, but still enjoyable. I was not keen on the herbal-medicinal bitterness that occasionally popped in, but the finish was pleasant, and I appreciated the restrained sweetness of the whisky.” Judging by the preceding paragraph, I practically wrote the same review twice, though I scored the whisky a bit higher the first time.
I should go back and re-review more whiskies as blind pours. I was pleased that the notes and discussion closely matched one another, but I was surprised I graded this a few ranks higher the first time. Perhaps further evidence that, while scores are all just made up, my notes and thoughts are consistent.
