Dunglass (Littlemill) 5-year-old

Bought: Online Whisky Auction, 10^th January 2017

Ratings:
77/100 – Whiskybase (average from 5 member votes)
69/100 – Malt Maniacs (average from 5 maniac votes)

Dunglass was the name given to an experimental whisky produced for one year in 1967 at the Littlemill distillery. Whiskybase only list 4 independent bottlings of Dunglass from 1967 and two distillery 5-year-olds labelled ‘Pure Malt’. As much as I’d like to think my Dunglass 5yo was bottled in 1972 as a ‘single malt’ (as it’s classified on Whiskybase) I know it’s not the rare stuff from 1967. According to one auction site that sold a Dunglass 5yo ‘Pure Malt’ (old term for a blend) it was bottled in the 1990s. I also discovered online (so it’s bound to be true) that ‘Dunglass’ was a name used by Amalgamated Distilled Products (ADP) when selling whisky in Italy. ADP bought the Littlemill distillery in 1982. So, joining the dots, I’d say the Dunglass 5yo is a blend from the 1980s/90s that used a trading name inherited from purchasing the Littlemill distillery. If anyone else knows more please comment below.

Just when I thought I’d got it sorted out I see the Malt Maniacs classify the Dunglass 5yo as a single malt from the 1970s. AAARGH!!! But one of the maniacs, Serge Valentin, says he isn’t 100% sure it’s the experimental Littlemill from 1967. So I stand by what I said, that this is a more recent whisky, unfortunately.

Scoring 77/100 on Whiskybase is a below-average score. One voter who scores it 62/100 leaves these notes, “Grass and freshly cut barley. First you have the feeling of pleasant sweetness on the tongue, but after a short time oily bitter notes come to the fore. For me, this very young Littlemill bottling is little attractive, perhaps this is the reason why there are not very many bottles available?”

Clearly this dram is more of a talking point than for drinking. It may not be the original Dunglass of 1967 but it keeps the memory alive. By all accounts the original Dunglass single malt wasn’t very good, which explains why the experiment only lasted a short time.

Tasting notes, Serge Valentin, Whiskyfun.com:
Nose: light and very grainy, as expected. Gets quite grassy (hay, heavily sugared iced tea). Dried flowers, caramel, hints of praline.
Mouth: aromatically weak, sweetish… Hints of lavender ice cream, pear juice, apple juice.
Finish: rather long, and slightly peppery

Incidentally, Dunglass is a hamlet in the lowlands of Scotland, south of Edinburgh, with a coast on the North Sea. Dunglass Castle is a ruin, constructed between 1400-1542. Obviously there wasn’t any urgency in medieval Scotland to build affordable housing. Apparently the poet Robert Burns said of Dunglass “the most romantic sweet place I ever saw” when visiting in 1787. In 1919 the Usher family came to the Dunglass Estate. An ancestor, Andrew Usher, co-founded the North British Distillery, which is a grain distillery still active today. Andrew Usher is sometimes referred to as the “father of Scotch Whisky” because he perfected the eventual blending of whisky, which he started in the 1840s. This is probably why ‘Dunglass’ was chosen as a whisky name.

Here’s Ben of ‘A Dram A Day’ on YouTube with his thoughts about the Dunglass (April 2016):

Nikka Taketsuru ‘Pure Malt’

Bought: Whisky Exchange, 28^th September 2016

Ratings:
82.34/100 – Whiskybase (average from 120 member votes)
89/100 – Scotch Test Dummies (their video review below)

The details of this Japanese blend on The Whisky Exchange (TWE) reads, “Taketsuru’s no-age-statement blended malt contains a high percentage of malt from Miyagikyo, with the remainder coming from Yoichi. Aged on average for around 10 years in a variety of different cask types, including some sherry wood for extra richness.”

TWE are selling a full 70cl for £47.95, which is quite expensive but it seems this whisky is better than your average blend no matter what its country of origin. Scoring 82.34/100 on Whiskybase is a very good mark. Comments include “Elegance and finness. Excellent sipping whisky.” And “A lovely smooth and delicate malt, I highly recommend this one, nothing flash about it but hits the spot every time.”

Here are Scotch Test Dummies with their review on You Tube (July 2016):

P&M Pure Malt from Corsica

Bought: Online Whisky Auction, 3^rd February 2016

Ratings:
91/100 – Whisky Bible 2009
65.67/100 – Whiskybase (from 3 member votes)

Now here’s an interesting whisky, and one that causes extremes of opinion. I spotted it in an online auction and the word “Corsica” caught my eye. Although I already have a whisky example from France, the island of Corsica is big enough to earn its own pin as part of my European whisky map. And we all know how different an island’s whisky can be to that of the mainland when you consider Orkney, Skye and Islay.

Whiskybase have categorised this ‘pure malt’ as a grain although it’s described as a ‘malt’ in Charlie Maclean’s ‘World Whisky’ book. I doubt it’s a single grain but whether it’s single malt is unclear. The Distillerie Mavela in Corsica started out as a brewery in 1996 but soon moved into whisky production. My bottle roughly dates between 2005 and 2008. The distillery has produced 7-year-old single malts since 2011.

Less than 66/100 on Whiskybase isn’t a great score but since nobody has left any tasting notes it’s unclear what the voters actually thought of the whisky. Jim Murray’s 91/100 in his Whisky Bible 2009 classifies this whisky as “brilliant”. He describes the taste as “amazingly sharp and mouth-watering. There are flavours new to me here – and that doesn’t happen often” and summarises with “an outstanding whisky which, being French, seems to offer a style that is entirely different from anything else around. I have been told there is chestnut within the grist which, strictly speaking, means this is not whisky as we know it.” And concludes with “delicious dram”.

If I’d only had Whiskybase to go on I wouldn’t have bought this whisky but, thanks to Jim Murray, I’m intrigued to discover the unique Corsicaness of this chestnut-infused malt.

Nikka White Label

Bought: Amazon, 30^th December 2014

Ratings:
90-92/100 – Whisky Bible 2015
81.23/100 – Whiskybase (average from 148 member votes)

Amazon got me again with another great discount in a “Daily Deal”. This Japanese vatted malt comes in 3 different colours: white, red and black. Both the red and the black are based purely on Japanese whiskies but the white includes an element of Islay. What exactly this means is a bit of a mystery, along with the Islay distillery adding the influence. But ‘guesswork’ is part of the fun in the world of whisky, or do I mean ‘frustration’? Curiously Phil of Whisky Wednesday says in his video below that the peat in the White Label comes from the Japanese brands of Yoichi and Miyagikyo, which isn’t what my initial research revealed. Perhaps my initial source was simply hinting at the peat connection with Islay but the White Label is 100% Japanese whisky.

There are 3 different versions of the white label in the Whisky Bible 2015 scoring 90/100, 91/100 and 92/100. Each has a different batch number that sadly doesn’t match anything printed on mine. Jim Murray, the bible author, includes remarks in his reviews of “big peaty number”, “real class” and “peculiarly Japanese feel to this delicately peated delight”. So, depending on the blend, I could either have a “big peaty number” or a “delicately peated delight” or something in between. Whichever it is, anything scoring between 90-93.5/100 is considered “brilliant” in the bible.

Scoring over 81/100 on Whiskybase is very good with comments of “I found this a very friendly whiskey, fit for most occasions” and “not bad, the peat profile was very present but subtle”.

Here’s Whisky Wednesday with their thoughts about the Nikka White Label, which they score 8/10 (YouTube May 2017):

Glen Scotia Pure Malt (1980s)

Bought – Online Whisky Auction, 22nd December 2013

Ratings:
81/100 – Malt Maniacs (from 1 review)

I’ve been thinking that my collection is complete and I own a single malt from every active Scottish distillery but this Glen Scotia could be a fly in the ointment. Until recently I believed if anything was called ‘pure malt’ it was one of the old ways of describing a blend. I then kept stumbling across vintage bottles of Glen Scotia from the 1980s in auctions and certain online shops where ‘pure malt’ was being labelled as ‘single malt’. I then read on Malt Madness that both blends and single malts are effectively ‘pure malt’. CONFUSED!

I’ve attempted to find out if Glen Scotia were issuing a blend around the 1980s and, if so, what they called it but I’ve drawn a blank. I’ve had to take a guess with the rating from Malt Maniacs because my bottle looks like the 8yo from the 1980s but it’s missing the 8yo label. I may have to bite the bullet and buy another example of Glen Scotia where it clearly states “single malt” on it.