Ben Wyvis 31 Year (1968), Signatory Vintage Cask 687
Whisky: Ben Wyvis 31 Year (1968), Signatory Vintage Cask 687
Country/Region: Scotland/Highland
ABV: 50.6%
Cask: Oak
Age: 31 Years (Distilled 5 June 1968, Bottled 25 Feb. 2000)
Nose: Honey and chrysanthemum with floral tea and beeswax— a bit like a floral scented lip balm, gentle with a soft mineral undercurrent, moss and the fragrant greenery of an ornate garden, tea cakes with lavender and blueberry, high tea with honeysuckle.
Palate: Medium to light, austere and delicate at first, chrysanthemum and red tea with a kiss of smoke, dry leaves, wood shavings— a wood carving studio— waxy fruit skins emerged amongst the herbal with orange and tangerine rinds, funky fermented herbs toward the end with a rising waxiness.
Finish: Medium to long and drying with slightly waxy fruits and floral tea.
Score: 7 (84)
Mental Image: High Tea in the High Garden
Narrative & Notes: I was a bit split on this one— it was one of the rarest ghost distilleries I have been lucky enough to try, there were only about a dozen releases from Ben Wyvis, and this was bottled nearly a quarter of a century ago and distilled well over half a century ago. I wondered at how long the bottle at Singapore’s Auld Alliance had been open— though a trusted friend reckoned it was only opened earlier this year. But considering the age and rarity, was there any real rating I could give the whisky? Was there a point since I doubt I will ever try one again? I know I have said that about other distilleries, but this time I really mean it.
The whisky left me questioning my taste— do I love floral whiskies? This had plenty of floral teas and garden flowers with a touch of waxy spirit; I loved it and found it reminded me of some vaunted early 90s Clynelish. I wish the finish were longer and the palate a bit more intense— the aroma was fragrant, but on the palate the flavors were a touch fragile and quick to disappear. They did lengthen throughout the glass as more of the waxy malt coated my palate— so maybe over the course of a bottle those critiques would fade. Sadly I was not blessed with that kind of time, or volume.
Overall, I remain a bit mixed— how would I have rated this if it were blind? Would I have scored it lower without knowing that it was unicorn or white whale of a whisky— or would I have scored it higher without any preconceived thoughts or questions as to whether I was going too easy on it?
I have no idea— it was good whisky though.
