Hazelburn 12 Year

Rating: 16/23 Another Hazelburn release. I'm hopeful, but not placing any bets. N: Stone fruit with some funkiness that has an interesting bitterness to it. It's super grassy, but with a lot of that grass being dry. A bit of baked chicken breast. Somehow it has just a very dry smell that's hard to describe. It also, unfortunately, isn't all that complex. P: Stone fruit that quickly gets covered by wood and smoke. There's a hint of phenols that make me think of peat as well. Actually, that peat character is growing. It's still mostly smoky though. Still, it's somehow not all that rich and there's a clean water flavor coming though. I do get ginger and clove here, with a little cinnamon. There's also an odd faint hint of something syrupy like spiced rum (but quite faint). That part really brings out the complexity though. A touch of wax, perhaps, comes out of the smoke. Fortunately it isn't very ashy smoke. The complexity is solid and the balance is adequate. I do start to get a little bit of Springbank character here, but really not much. As for the fruit, I get tangerine, lemon, and white peaches. That's about it. And it doesn't last for long. F: Smoke that starts to trend a bit more ashy. A bit of stony minerality. Some dry grass for sure. The fruit is mostly gone at this point, but there's a touch at the beginning of the finish. There are still some notes of Springbank funk, but they're very light and only when I exhale. Not a great finish. - Conclusion - This isn't that exciting overall. It's fuller and burns less than Hazelburn 10 (2019), but it lack the nice fruit vibrancy. Of the two, I think I prefer this a little. It's more balanced and smooth, and it reminds me a bit of Paul John Christmas Edition 2020 (16/23). Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (1994) (15/23) is also close to this in quality, but it isn't quite as good. It burns more and has some funkiness that is slightly less appealing. Loch Lomond 12 (16/23) is smoother, funkier, richer, and more complex. It's also more challenging, for sure. This isn't far, but it just isn't quite as good. Paul John Cristmas Edition 2020 has more bright fruits and smoke with a bigger richness that sort of rolls in. I'd probably take the Paul John over this. So this is toeing the line between a 15 and a 16. that makes this a tough call. I think that this is close enough to the Paul John and far enough from the Hazelburn 10 to earn a 16.

I swear, gets harder and harder to remember which bottles I've yet to review here. Will be nice once I finish reviewing my open bottles so I know they're all in here :) Nose - sherry is the first thing that comes to mind. There's that classic springbank element here, I know some have called it sulfer but its' something else. It's sparky, gives me a bit of a vinegar note, oak is a part of it. It's almost like going into a rickhouse where wine has been spilled over the oak, it's gone a bit sour, but then I get a buttery bread and caramel. Taste - There's a lot of oak on here, it might be the most oak forward springbank. The sherry I get in big ways on the nose is much more subtle here. I would guess a lot of the oak here is pretty tired and well used. It's sweet up front then turns bitter and given a bit sour, there's a bitter bite from oak tannin. The finish brings in some off sweetness almost an aspartame note (though it's not a bad thing as that note tend to be) and then it heats up on the mouth and brings with it more of the oak and sherry notes again. Just noticed but should note there's a bit of salt at the end I almost missed. Unpeated but I dunno, I get some elements of peat here all be it in low parts. Hazelburn has been for me a weak spot in the springbank lineup (minus the oloros sherry 13 and 14 year bottles) and this is as springbank goes one of their lesser offerings. It doesn't drink like a 100+ dollar bottle of whisky. It is however complex as can be and frankly it's if not in the context of being a springbank, it's really good. Still I can't go over a 2.0 here. I would struggle to find who to recommend this one to. This is for someone who just wants to drink everything from Campbeltown of course I am most certainly one of.

The nose is very malty with a big dose of salt and a hint of caramel and some oak. I get some dry sherry notes, something like fino. The palate is definitely light, with lots of biscuity malt at the front. The flavor is light, but the texture is oily. It's got a bit of a funky flavor, which I associate with Springbank, it's probably in part due to the sherry cask aging. There is a pleasant saltiness to the whole package. I get sherry notes in this, but they are dry - more like fino and not PX. I get a bit of lemon zest, again likely from the sherry. Something about the finish reminds me of yellow cake. The finish is very astringent with some dry woody notes, but it's not "licking a board" woody. This is not my favorite whiskey from the Springbank family, but it's definitely unique amongst their lineup. It's one of the most malt forward scotches that I've had in recent memory.

The first impression from the nose is of one of my favorite granola recipes—baked with a touch of honey, orange zest, and coconut; the longer it sits the more spiceful it becomes, with a more careful nosing presenting notes of creamy banana and aromatic sweet tobacco. If your nose leads you to believe you're taking a sticky-sweet and spicy sherried malt, the initial taste quickly recalls one's attention to the fact that this is the work of a seaside distillery—I taste notes of musty, sea-sprayed driftwood in addition to the crystallized ginger, more candied orange peel, treacle, and toasted Brazil nuts. The body is tart and wood driven and offers sweet and spicy overtones, being fruitier and less savory than its Springbank kin; this dram sports a hot, drying, and almost eternal finish. The empty decanter smells like the first whiff of fine tobacco, right after popping open the tin.

This is listed as un-peated but on the nose I certainly get a light puff of peat that mingles with sea spray, new rubber (like a bicycle inner tube), and a core of some sherried fruits including orange and pineapple. I found the fruits are nudged to the edge during the arrival with tingly pepper and salt to the fore. It develops into tart lemon, blood orange and grapefruit and a sherry dryness at the end. The grapefruit continues to round out in the finish which is also is a little peaty and spicy. The empty glass smells of tobacco and sawdust. In summary, it was a very interesting 5cl miniature and my first Hazelburn. But not in the same league as the Springbank I have tried and not enough for me to consider getting a full bottle. However, I would like to try the Hazelburn 10 at some stage.

Quite a pricey bottle here in the states. Paid $100+. Color: gold Nose: citrus, lemon zest, honey, traces of smoke, light and funky. Palate: sweet malt, light fruitiness, but quickly overwhelmed by the oak bitterness, it’s quite tannic and woody, hint of smoke, together with the heat from the alcohol made it quite unpleasant. Finish: medium length, bitter oak and tannic taste lingers in your mouth This is just too much wood, the casks were probably refilled many times and were certainly at its last legs. Quite disappointing dram from my favorite distillery Springbank. If they used quality cask this could’ve been a great bottle.