The 1963 (WF 93) and the 1964 (WF 90) were much to my liking so this one should be too, especially since 1965 was a very good ‘vintage’ at Springbank. Oh yes, remember, vintages in whisky have nothing to do with vintages in wine, it’s not a matter of nature, it’s a matter of man’s will (barleys, fermentation, cut, wood, firing, yeast, purifiers, sold stocks, whatever). Colour: gold. Nose: the 1972, only with even more complexity. Same ‘antique’ aromas (old books, fur, wool, wardrobe, old wood, old garage… well, anything old, really.) What’s amazing is that you can also nose ‘the barley’, or at least something barleyish. Also many herbal teas and straight teas, some camphor, cigars, old humidor… All that isn’t big, it’s complex just like some old white wine of extremely high quality. Montrachet-esque. Mouth: perfect. Immensely complex, ever-evolving, nervous, citrusy, sappy, herbal, spicy – but not too spicy –, more coastal and briny than the others… Just one main flavour because we call the anti-maltoporn brigade: lemongrass. Smashing whisky. Finish: very long, still very nervous, chiselled and, once again, Montrachet-esque. Comments: huge whisky that did need neither heavy peat nor heavy sherry to become, err, big. Not even high strength! I love it even more than the 1963 that we had back in June, remember? It’s bigger whisky.

---

Show more

---

---

Show less

---