Sunny day at the Old Man's. It calls for a celebration dram. One is waiting for precisely such an opportunity. It is a recent addition to the family, but the fill level is scarily low. Probably best to not delay consumption too much.
 |
| Woops! |
Dunglass 5yo (43%, OB, b. 1970s): it hardly gets rarer than this, you will agree. For the record, Dunglass is the lightly peated version of Littlemill that was produced between 1967 and 1972. The proprietors have released this one at 43% and another version at 40% which might not even be a single malt. There are four expressions bottled by the indies, and that is it. Dunglass has a horrible reputation amongst the few people who were (un)lucky enough to try it. A certain Jim Murray even famously gave 17/100 to one of those expressions, commenting that Dunbartonshire probably ran out of soap for weeks after producing that particular cask. The fill level of this mini is pathetically low and the liquid is as cloudy as a drunkard's morning piss. Let us hope we will not suffer from poisoning! Nose: soap, shower gel, bubblebath. Not just any soap, mind! Pink grapefruit and mango-scented. Cut, juicy apples also fill the nostrils. Knowing that the whisky is lightly peated, I can sort of imagine a thin veil of smoke in the far distance, but it is probably my mind playing tricks. Mouth: watery. This has little alcohol left in it. I would bet it is below 10%. Slightly soapy, I suppose, with notes of shampoo, yet it would be unfair to to go further than that. This is no longer whisky. Finish: the same -- not whisky. The dominant notes are shampoo and wet campfire, after a night of rain fall. How unfortunate! This was very promising, before it collapsed. I cannot decently score this. I will have to procure another bottle.
Dunglass 5yo (43%, OB, b. 1970s): it hardly gets rarer than this, you will agree. For the record, Dunglass is the lightly peated version of Littlemill that was produced between 1967 and 1972. The proprietors have released this one at 43% and another version at 40% which might not even be a single malt. There are four expressions bottled by the indies, and that is it. Dunglass has a horrible reputation amongst the few people who were (un)lucky enough to try it. A certain Jim Murray even famously gave 17/100 to one of those expressions, commenting that Dunbartonshire probably ran out of soap for weeks after producing that particular cask. The fill level of this mini is pathetically low and the liquid is as cloudy as a drunkard's morning piss. Let us hope we will not suffer from poisoning! Nose: soap, shower gel, bubblebath. Not just any soap, mind! Pink grapefruit and mango-scented. Cut, juicy apples also fill the nostrils. Knowing that the whisky is lightly peated, I can sort of imagine a thin veil of smoke in the far distance, but it is probably my mind playing tricks. Mouth: watery. This has little alcohol left in it. I would bet it is below 10%. Slightly soapy, I suppose, with notes of shampoo, yet it would be unfair to to go further than that. This is no longer whisky. Finish: the same -- not whisky. The dominant notes are shampoo and wet campfire, after a night of rain fall. How unfortunate! This was very promising, before it collapsed. I cannot decently score this. I will have to procure another bottle.
No comments:
Post a Comment