Great review as always! Bottle was opened on Christmas Eve with friends at Jack Rose! It’s a stunner - the early 70s Brora’s were heavily peated and all amazing. Cheers!
The original Clynelish distillery was renamed to Brora in 1969 so you are getting those original dirty nasty yet succulent Clynelish wax but in a heavily peated style around 45ppm between 1970-1973 so you are tasting part of that golden age of Brora in a bourbon style. So glad you guys could try this. You guys have to try one of the heavily sherried Douglas Laing 1972 Broras will blow your minds! Cheers boys!
None of old WT's negativity here. It's so nice to drink whisky from days long gone. I'm half way through an incredible Cadenhead's Highland Park 24 year single ex-bourbon barrel, distilled in 1979 and bottled in 2003 and it's amazing. I picked it up on auction yonks ago and this sort of whisky is a thing of the past. Brora is kind of legendary because it's gone. However any 30 year old whisky is going to be good. I just killed a Caperdonich 18 Berry Bros (closed distillery) aged in ex-bourbon - thank you. It was great. Is whisky not as good as it once was? Serious question guys. By the way, I used to drink G&M Port Ellen 10 which you could buy in shops in the late 80's after the official bottles shut down. It was 40% and it was my first Islay whisky. Serge reviews that bottling. At 10 years old it gave me an idea about Port Ellen and I bought a few of them. I've no idea how the old bottles Diageo release these days taste except that they are old and all old malt whisky tastes good. Thanks for sharing. WT
@@welshtoro3256 right, 30 year-old whisky should be pretty good. Especially Peated whisky. And I can’t say I’ve ever had a young whisky from this distillery. It’s a very human response to want something more when you’re told you can’t have it Cheers, Mike
There’s still a lot of great whisky available. But there’s also an immense amount of whisky on shelves that would’ve only been put in blends 40 years ago. The casks are younger wood, the grains aren’t as unmodified, and the distillers are scientists and chemical engineers instead of multi-generational in-house taught simple folk. Don’t worry, I got the negativity covered for ya. Sláinte 🥃
I think I agree with one point from Steve, the wood isn't as old. And another, that much of what's being sold to us today would be sold into blending back then. With popularity comes well...crap. Distilleries are rushing the product to have someone to sell to us while popularity is high. I'm not sure that making the profession more...well professional is a problem. I think it's almost absurd to think we can't make better whisky today with more knowledge in general. But it also wouldn't shock anyone to hear today distilleries are more interested in yield, cost reduction, and so on. I for one am excited to see the industry have a few set backs to force distilleries to wait on stock a bit longer and to have to start working harder to get our money.
@@topshelfwhisky I've started opening some of my rare stashed stuff now. It's pretty irreplaceable but I saved it for a rainy day and these days you just cant buy stuff like it unless you spend a fortune. I used to look at these bottles and get frightened to touch them like holy relics. We can't take this stuff to the great decanter in the sky though can we?
@@welshtoro3256 my whisky collection is almost like my retirement. It’s always a question of, do you have enough to last you, lol. If I had to pick between leaving some bottles behind for fellow whisky, enthusiast to pillage, or running out too early… i’m gonna pick the ladder and follow the mercy of my whisky friends 🤣🤣🤣… in other words, I’m coming to the UK to finally visit you!
Great review and even better whisky, gentleman. I could literally see the thick legs coating on the glass after y’all would sip. Dram of 90’ Murray McDavid 18yr Mortlach along with y’all. Sláinte 🥃
Great video! Off topic: You guys mentioned we get one batch of Springbank 12 CS here in the states, and you guys reviewed it (57.2%). But out of nowhere, I found batch 2 of the 2024 Springbank 12 CS (56.2%) here in NYC! I'm sure they're not a private importer and selling it. Did you guys find the batch 2 2024 (56.2%) version? I have a feeling we're going to get both batches from now on.
@ great news ! Based on your review got 3 bottles of 57.2. . Its awesome. Please give us a hint if it’s equally good compared to (57.2) and should we grab a couple or not, because by two weeks, when your review comes out it will be gone😕 lol Thanks 🙏
Im a bit confused / curious on your guys rating scale. What does merit a higher score? I think you even mentioned it, youve never gone higher than a 95? I noticed this in some of the Kavalan reviews how you talk about its one of your top/favorite whisky's (at least in the sherry bomb side) but then the score was like 90/91/92.. If something is one of the best youve ever had (and you guys have had a lot and some really nice ones) shouldnt that warrant one of the top scores out there? If theyre not, then what is??? Now, I very much appreciate being strict on your score.. But you have a full 5 points that havent even been touched? Anyways, great review as always, jealous you got to experience something like this, i can only dream of getting an opportunity some day.
Gotta hope there's something better, right? And in all fairness, the best whiskies in general by the community are whiskies we've still never had. As for kavalan, I'm not sure a sherry bomb like that can ever be that much higher. There's just limitation on them as the sherry over powers the malt.
Very good question. We’ve touched on it in a few reviews in the past, but it’s been a while. Is Dustin Mission? We’re holding up for something even more epic whiskey base there is a top 100 and 500 single scotches. I have tried zero on the top 100 list.
@@b1gsteve251 when I give that score that is truly my intent. All whiskey base I have all my ratings there and I have probably four whiskies at 94…beat so far if you will
@Ae6KaRBoN, here's my best summary on your question about the 0-100 scoring system. The problem is that a 0-100 point scale is being used in most reviews, which in theory gives a lot of room to distinguish whiskies from each other. But in reality the 0-100pt scale is being improperly used, which makes it practically irrelevant. 0-100 point range is simply far too much room to be practical. 90%+ of all the whiskies reviewed fall into the 80-95 part of the scale, which makes them feel relatively close to the same when in fact they are not for those with a developed palate. Scoring them as such just makes no sense--unless 1/2 points are added to the scale (90 vs. 90.5). And then only a very few whiskies can make it to the 96-100 part of the range (all of these can be counted on only a couple hands if you read and watch the usual web reviews)---which again makes no sense to have so few over a 5 point range when every other whisky is stuffed into a 15pt range. This scoring system leaves no meat on the bone for separating stuff properly as a 0-100 point scale suggests it should. To be more accurate and practical with a 0-100 point scale, most of the OK to very good modern whiskies should instead fall in the 50-85 part of the range, which would leave some meat on the bone for the "great" to "hallelujah" classifications of whisky instead of just lumping them all together in a tiny 90-94 point range as you've suggested here in your question. Serge and Angus at WhiskyFun.com over the past 25 years have trained all the web reviewers to do it the same as them, which has made an echo chamber of impracticality. And then all these people go to WhiskyBase.com and enter the same scores---resulting in everyone being trapped into a form of confusion. Better the whole 0-100pt scoring thing is ditched at this point, since it's just a compressed and impractical and almost useless confusing echo chamber. A more practical scoring system would simply be to rate a whisky by an appropriate name classification such as, "rotten", "bad", OK to meh", "good stuff", "very good", "great", and "hallelujah" (shout out to @MaltReviews for coining the "hallelujah" class of whisky). Then a reviewer could add subtlety by saying, "low great" or "mid great" or "high great" to separate the range. This way instead of trying to match a Serge or Angus score, a potential buyer would have a review that classifies how good something is by a name that most can understand. Based on the many great and hallelujah whiskies I've gotten to know, the Brora 30 2004 whisky in this review I would classify in the very highest part of the "great" classification or "high great". But the Brora 30 2nd release 2003 bottling from the year earlier I would put into the lower part of the "Hallelujah" classification or "low Hallelujah". Like all these high age statement old school juice bottlings, they will never be at their best when newly opened like the one from this review was. So, this needs to be clear that such a "great" whisky can get a couple notches better when one can take 3-10 years to slowly make it through a full bottle and find the point at its peak of greatness. By the way, the Brora 30 2004 whisky in this review CAN make it to the Hallelujah range (I know cause I've experienced it), but only when one takes several years to slowly go through a full bottle---a newly opened sample will not do that. As a side note for reference on the flip side of the classification range, I would rate the Jura 10 year old whisky into the "bad" classification and give it 40 points as one of the worst modern whiskies I know of---the kind of stuff used only for quickly getting wasted while holding your nose. But most reviewers are gonna put it around 70 points which is ridiculous. If Jura 10 or "Jura the Sound" is a 70, then what whisky would drop into the 0-70 part of the range?? A bottle with the cork left off for years that also had mud puddle water dumped into it? Would such even be considered whisky at that point--lol? Hence the uselessness of the 0-100pt scale. It should be the goal of a Scotch whisky fan to try out a benchmark whisky from each classification name type I noted above. From there one can really get an accurate feel for a descriptor name and what that means in reality---what each smells like and tastes like, and whether such an experience is worth the price of admission . . . . . . .
Old Springbank would be one. I’ve had a Balvenie from the 50’s that was as thick as olive oil and much too good for my palate. There’s a tremendous amount of “better than” out here. I’d just like to have the bank account to afford them. Sláinte 🥃
These were so cheap. I did not pick this one up but I got the 30 Year old 2009 release for £230 and the 30 Year old 2010 release for £280. I suspect this was around £150. Different times!!!
I spent a week on Islay back in 2011 and there were Port Ellen bottles everywhere, if I recall for 200-300 and it was a fortune for me back then. Had I known how my career would turn out and how the market would be 10+ years later, I would have filled a suitcase to bring back with me. Dammit.
@ maybe 15 years ago me and one of my buddies, Todd. A guy who really got me into single malt scotches used to have the debate what was a better deal.. Macallan cask strength 10 for $88 or old Mac 18 (1988) vintage for $169 We could go to 20 different liquor stores in Columbus, Ohio and they’d be stocked. I should’ve to get a second mortgage on my house and bought out the city. I remember going to a liquor store in a different part of town and being irritated. I didn’t have my choice of the two, they only have the 18 year stocked.
@topshelfwhisky Well I wonder what whiskies in today's market are reasonably affordable and overlooked that will generate these same thoughts 10-15 years from now.
Great review as always! Bottle was opened on Christmas Eve with friends at Jack Rose! It’s a stunner - the early 70s Brora’s were heavily peated and all amazing. Cheers!
Dustin was right, Christmas opening! Nice they let you bring in the bottle. DC has some great rules regarding spirits.
thanks again!
Jack Rose is great!
Jack Rose is one of my bucket list places to check out one of these days. Thanks again for this.
Jack Rose is my favorite bar now. Will visit it every time I'm going to DC. Had a great time with my father in law, tasting 8 bottles...
“Possibly not alive”…..”alright Dustin.”
Is Mike afraid of death? What a little bitch 😅
The original Clynelish distillery was renamed to Brora in 1969 so you are getting those original dirty nasty yet succulent Clynelish wax but in a heavily peated style around 45ppm between 1970-1973 so you are tasting part of that golden age of Brora in a bourbon style. So glad you guys could try this. You guys have to try one of the heavily sherried Douglas Laing 1972 Broras will blow your minds! Cheers boys!
The heavy peat by DCL (Diageo) was to supplement the temporary closure of Caol Ila from 1972-1974. Thank God!
Great info, cheers buddy.
2 more ounces of Brora 30 gone forever. Glad you were able to review and enjoy!
lol, gone forever! At least it was spent on two guys who appreciated it, thoroughly.
Ze visky dissappears not vhat rather relocates to ze visky belly.
Such a great dram, and great review. Cheers!
Thanks! It was a special one.
None of old WT's negativity here. It's so nice to drink whisky from days long gone. I'm half way through an incredible Cadenhead's Highland Park 24 year single ex-bourbon barrel, distilled in 1979 and bottled in 2003 and it's amazing. I picked it up on auction yonks ago and this sort of whisky is a thing of the past.
Brora is kind of legendary because it's gone. However any 30 year old whisky is going to be good. I just killed a Caperdonich 18 Berry Bros (closed distillery) aged in ex-bourbon - thank you. It was great. Is whisky not as good as it once was? Serious question guys. By the way, I used to drink G&M Port Ellen 10 which you could buy in shops in the late 80's after the official bottles shut down. It was 40% and it was my first Islay whisky. Serge reviews that bottling. At 10 years old it gave me an idea about Port Ellen and I bought a few of them. I've no idea how the old bottles Diageo release these days taste except that they are old and all old malt whisky tastes good.
Thanks for sharing. WT
@@welshtoro3256 right, 30 year-old whisky should be pretty good. Especially Peated whisky. And I can’t say I’ve ever had a young whisky from this distillery.
It’s a very human response to want something more when you’re told you can’t have it
Cheers, Mike
There’s still a lot of great whisky available. But there’s also an immense amount of whisky on shelves that would’ve only been put in blends 40 years ago. The casks are younger wood, the grains aren’t as unmodified, and the distillers are scientists and chemical engineers instead of multi-generational in-house taught simple folk. Don’t worry, I got the negativity covered for ya. Sláinte 🥃
I think I agree with one point from Steve, the wood isn't as old. And another, that much of what's being sold to us today would be sold into blending back then. With popularity comes well...crap. Distilleries are rushing the product to have someone to sell to us while popularity is high.
I'm not sure that making the profession more...well professional is a problem. I think it's almost absurd to think we can't make better whisky today with more knowledge in general. But it also wouldn't shock anyone to hear today distilleries are more interested in yield, cost reduction, and so on.
I for one am excited to see the industry have a few set backs to force distilleries to wait on stock a bit longer and to have to start working harder to get our money.
@@topshelfwhisky I've started opening some of my rare stashed stuff now. It's pretty irreplaceable but I saved it for a rainy day and these days you just cant buy stuff like it unless you spend a fortune. I used to look at these bottles and get frightened to touch them like holy relics. We can't take this stuff to the great decanter in the sky though can we?
@@welshtoro3256 my whisky collection is almost like my retirement. It’s always a question of, do you have enough to last you, lol.
If I had to pick between leaving some bottles behind for fellow whisky, enthusiast to pillage, or running out too early… i’m gonna pick the ladder and follow the mercy of my whisky friends 🤣🤣🤣… in other words, I’m coming to the UK to finally visit you!
Great review and even better whisky, gentleman. I could literally see the thick legs coating on the glass after y’all would sip. Dram of 90’ Murray McDavid 18yr Mortlach along with y’all. Sláinte 🥃
Best way to watch!
Many thanks for the descriptions ; I open my lapharoig-18 and sit next to my chimney = I HAVE THE EXACT SAME EXPEREINCE !
The new 18 or one of the old ones?
@@topshelfwhisky pre-2008 dark green label in a round tube (not the white label of 2018)
@ Green Frog.. I'm down to my last two.
I mean...minus the sunshine feeling. Maybe on a nice summer day with the windows open or on a covered deck?
I’m in Canada and a few stores near me have Brora 34 and 38….maybe one day I will seriously consider buying myself a birthday present 😂
I had a sample of 34. It was a bit off profile from the other ones. I’d go for the 38 year.
@ thanks, good to know
Where in Canada are you?
Great video!
Off topic: You guys mentioned we get one batch of Springbank 12 CS here in the states, and you guys reviewed it (57.2%). But out of nowhere, I found batch 2 of the 2024 Springbank 12 CS (56.2%) here in NYC! I'm sure they're not a private importer and selling it. Did you guys find the batch 2 2024 (56.2%) version? I have a feeling we're going to get both batches from now on.
Yep, seems we're getting both now and yes it's reviewed...I think we're like 2 weeks from that one dropping. Mike and I got a bit too far ahead lol.
@ great news !
Based on your review got 3 bottles of 57.2. . Its awesome.
Please give us a hint if it’s equally good compared to (57.2) and should we grab a couple or not, because by two weeks, when your review comes out it will be gone😕 lol
Thanks 🙏
@@Faisalhossain-s5h we did! And reviewed it. The first release is batch 25 and the second is batch 26, which will post in the next five or six weeks
@@Faisalhossain-s5h we prefer the one you have three of.
@ thanks a bunch 🙏
Compass Box Ultramarine review request.
Im a bit confused / curious on your guys rating scale. What does merit a higher score? I think you even mentioned it, youve never gone higher than a 95? I noticed this in some of the Kavalan reviews how you talk about its one of your top/favorite whisky's (at least in the sherry bomb side) but then the score was like 90/91/92.. If something is one of the best youve ever had (and you guys have had a lot and some really nice ones) shouldnt that warrant one of the top scores out there? If theyre not, then what is??? Now, I very much appreciate being strict on your score.. But you have a full 5 points that havent even been touched? Anyways, great review as always, jealous you got to experience something like this, i can only dream of getting an opportunity some day.
Gotta hope there's something better, right? And in all fairness, the best whiskies in general by the community are whiskies we've still never had.
As for kavalan, I'm not sure a sherry bomb like that can ever be that much higher. There's just limitation on them as the sherry over powers the malt.
Very good question. We’ve touched on it in a few reviews in the past, but it’s been a while. Is Dustin Mission? We’re holding up for something even more epic
whiskey base there is a top 100 and 500 single scotches. I have tried zero on the top 100 list.
Every whisky could be better in some aspect. I think 95 is about as close to perfection as it should be.
@@b1gsteve251 when I give that score that is truly my intent. All whiskey base I have all my ratings there and I have probably four whiskies at 94…beat so far if you will
@Ae6KaRBoN, here's my best summary on your question about the 0-100 scoring system. The problem is that a 0-100 point scale is being used in most reviews, which in theory gives a lot of room to distinguish whiskies from each other. But in reality the 0-100pt scale is being improperly used, which makes it practically irrelevant. 0-100 point range is simply far too much room to be practical. 90%+ of all the whiskies reviewed fall into the 80-95 part of the scale, which makes them feel relatively close to the same when in fact they are not for those with a developed palate. Scoring them as such just makes no sense--unless 1/2 points are added to the scale (90 vs. 90.5). And then only a very few whiskies can make it to the 96-100 part of the range (all of these can be counted on only a couple hands if you read and watch the usual web reviews)---which again makes no sense to have so few over a 5 point range when every other whisky is stuffed into a 15pt range. This scoring system leaves no meat on the bone for separating stuff properly as a 0-100 point scale suggests it should. To be more accurate and practical with a 0-100 point scale, most of the OK to very good modern whiskies should instead fall in the 50-85 part of the range, which would leave some meat on the bone for the "great" to "hallelujah" classifications of whisky instead of just lumping them all together in a tiny 90-94 point range as you've suggested here in your question. Serge and Angus at WhiskyFun.com over the past 25 years have trained all the web reviewers to do it the same as them, which has made an echo chamber of impracticality. And then all these people go to WhiskyBase.com and enter the same scores---resulting in everyone being trapped into a form of confusion. Better the whole 0-100pt scoring thing is ditched at this point, since it's just a compressed and impractical and almost useless confusing echo chamber. A more practical scoring system would simply be to rate a whisky by an appropriate name classification such as, "rotten", "bad", OK to meh", "good stuff", "very good", "great", and "hallelujah" (shout out to @MaltReviews for coining the "hallelujah" class of whisky). Then a reviewer could add subtlety by saying, "low great" or "mid great" or "high great" to separate the range. This way instead of trying to match a Serge or Angus score, a potential buyer would have a review that classifies how good something is by a name that most can understand. Based on the many great and hallelujah whiskies I've gotten to know, the Brora 30 2004 whisky in this review I would classify in the very highest part of the "great" classification or "high great". But the Brora 30 2nd release 2003 bottling from the year earlier I would put into the lower part of the "Hallelujah" classification or "low Hallelujah". Like all these high age statement old school juice bottlings, they will never be at their best when newly opened like the one from this review was. So, this needs to be clear that such a "great" whisky can get a couple notches better when one can take 3-10 years to slowly make it through a full bottle and find the point at its peak of greatness. By the way, the Brora 30 2004 whisky in this review CAN make it to the Hallelujah range (I know cause I've experienced it), but only when one takes several years to slowly go through a full bottle---a newly opened sample will not do that. As a side note for reference on the flip side of the classification range, I would rate the Jura 10 year old whisky into the "bad" classification and give it 40 points as one of the worst modern whiskies I know of---the kind of stuff used only for quickly getting wasted while holding your nose. But most reviewers are gonna put it around 70 points which is ridiculous. If Jura 10 or "Jura the Sound" is a 70, then what whisky would drop into the 0-70 part of the range?? A bottle with the cork left off for years that also had mud puddle water dumped into it? Would such even be considered whisky at that point--lol? Hence the uselessness of the 0-100pt scale. It should be the goal of a Scotch whisky fan to try out a benchmark whisky from each classification name type I noted above. From there one can really get an accurate feel for a descriptor name and what that means in reality---what each smells like and tastes like, and whether such an experience is worth the price of admission . . . . . . .
Is anything better than old Brora & Port Ellen?
I wouldn’t know and am unlikely to get to find out!
i.m.h.o. Old Talisker (25+ cask strength) is better than Port Ellen.
@@pl3317 I would like to believe that's true, I still have 4 unopened SC T25/s
Rosebank 😊
Old Springbank would be one. I’ve had a Balvenie from the 50’s that was as thick as olive oil and much too good for my palate. There’s a tremendous amount of “better than” out here. I’d just like to have the bank account to afford them. Sláinte 🥃
These were so cheap. I did not pick this one up but I got the 30 Year old 2009 release for £230 and the 30 Year old 2010 release for £280. I suspect this was around £150. Different times!!!
Years ago I bought a Laphroaig 40 for 5K... the guy got it for 400 in 2001 in somewhere in Texas... he bought two 🙄
That hindsight though. Laphroaig 18 was $70 15 years ago. And Ardbeg 10 was $30 in 2004. Now everything is an arm and a leg
I spent a week on Islay back in 2011 and there were Port Ellen bottles everywhere, if I recall for 200-300 and it was a fortune for me back then. Had I known how my career would turn out and how the market would be 10+ years later, I would have filled a suitcase to bring back with me. Dammit.
@ maybe 15 years ago me and one of my buddies, Todd. A guy who really got me into single malt scotches used to have the debate what was a better deal..
Macallan cask strength 10 for $88 or old Mac 18 (1988) vintage for $169
We could go to 20 different liquor stores in Columbus, Ohio and they’d be stocked. I should’ve to get a second mortgage on my house and bought out the city.
I remember going to a liquor store in a different part of town and being irritated. I didn’t have my choice of the two, they only have the 18 year stocked.
@topshelfwhisky Well I wonder what whiskies in today's market are reasonably affordable and overlooked that will generate these same thoughts 10-15 years from now.
Well that sounded terrible 😎
It's hard work we do.
They say, if you love what you do, you never work a day in your life. If I was whisky tasting for Brora, I’d be that guy.
Hi guys, nice review. I have a bottle of Brora 38 for sale and wanted to see if you guys would be interested?
Man, just had a child.... worst time! thanks for the offer