Loch Lomond 18 Year

The Loch Lomond 12 was one of my most pleasant surprises. That’s partly due to my low expectations for it, but even more so because it was actually very good. I’m hoping the extra 6 years makes this that much better. Like the 12, this is an older bottle from before they changed the packaging. Let’s get into it. Nose: The same fresh-baked croissant note I got in the 12. Hazelnut and toasted almond. Apple, pear, and apricot. Butterscotch, honey, toffee, malt, and vanilla. Honeydew, roasted pineapple, and lemon citrus. Graham cracker and sugar cookie. Cinnamon, black pepper, clove, nutmeg, and oak. Reviewing my notes from the 12, it’s almost identical, which is interesting, because I remember it being very different. The difference was the 12 was at the end of the bottle, and this is almost half full. I guess it just needed time to open up. Very good. Palate: A huge hit of grape jam. Apple, pear, apricot, and raisin. Dried cranberry. Hazelnut, toasted almond, and cashew. Vanilla, toffee, honey, butterscotch, and sugar cookie. Orange and milk and dark chocolate. Fudge. Honeydew. Buttered roll. Earthy smoke. Clove, nutmeg, cinnamon, black pepper, and oak. Finish: Toasted almond. Caramel, vanilla, toffee, malt, and butterscotch. Milk chocolate and orange citrus. Apple, pear, apricot, and raisin. Friend apricot and cranberry. Earthy smoke. Cinnamon, black pepper, clove, nutmeg, and oak. Moderate length. This is a worthy sequel to the 12-year. It’s a dirty malt. You could call it unrefined, but I’d prefer to call it brash. Traditional Highland malts are known to be clean, formal, and predictable. That formula works well to bring new Scotch drinkers into the fold and to establish brand loyalty with those uninterested in exploration. I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed this profile 10 years ago. But it’s hitting the mark now. It’s strong at every turn: nose, palate, and finish. At $85, for an 18-year at a respectable 46% ABV, you’d be hard-pressed to find a comparable buy. Not that it’s the best 18-year old out there, or that it’s the paradigm for a Highland malt or even that it’s the best sub-$100 bottle. But what it does do is neatly thread the needle between the bottles that hit these marks, carving out its own place on a whisky shelf. Unbelievable VFM. Unique profile. Well-executed malt. The coalescence of these features earn this a 4.75/5.

Nose: Yeasty bread, uncooked oatmeal. It’s dry and feinty rather than sweet. Apple skins, lemon zest, ginger, cut grass and sawdust. I don’t detect any peat smoke at all, maybe just a hint of barrel char. It’s a rather nervous nose but curiously flat at the same time, at least when neat. Maybe a dash of water helps it? Oh yes, that’s better. The nose relaxes with a teaspoon of water. Palate: Spicy, hot malt with beer-like fermentation notes in the arrival. A sour development follows with astringent orange peel and rolled-oats the dominant flavours. The texture is OK but watery. A teaspoon of water improves the palate, adding balance (and texture, curiously) and smoothing off most of the prominent youthful roughness. A thread of wood smoke comes out in the palate and the heat is mercifully subdued. Finish: Medium/short. Sour, hot and slightly bitter cereals fading out to a sour tannic note that borders on metallic with wet cardboard overtones. With dilution it becomes more acceptable and the harsh notes are tamed, but the aftertaste is the same. Age is not a guaranteed indication of quality. Here is the proof. The nose on this is unusually bright and sharp for an 18 year old single malt and there is a significant lack of positive cask involvement. It does not suggest either maturity or complexity. The palate is similarly young in profile and does not offer a great deal. If you gave me this in a blind tasting and said it was 5 years old I’d believe you. Water improves this malt significantly. Drink it neat at your peril. I can see how this profile would appeal to some but it’s way outside my comfort zone. Add to that the fact that this costs an outrageous AUD$130 in Australia right now and I would certainly not recommend it. To me anyway, it is less impressive than the 12 year old, which in turn was less enticing then the much cheaper Original (malt) and Reserve (blended) offerings from Loch Lomond. Over here, for $130 you can buy Argbeg Uigeadail, Port Charlotte 10, Laphroaig Triple Wood, or Kilchoman Sanaig so why on earth would you buy this poor sad thing? “Adequate, just barely, but definitely not recommended” : 70/100 (2 stars)

I saw a three pack of 50 ml samplers for AUD$30. Thought, why not. Original was two nights ago and an acceptable launch point that set up an unceremonious fall last night with the 12. Now the 18 beckons. And I’m still sad from last night and my burnt palate! N: off to a poor start with a weak profile. Some feint honey, dusty/musty oak and a little malty cereal. Drying and with a little acetone this is not the best. P: Still some of the 12s burning inferno but its not nearly as bad, its definitely tempered. Abruptly malty and a little sour. There is a background iodine peat note but without any smokiness. It feels thin and a little watery, which is a shame as they’ve bumped it to 46%. F: Moderate. The heat kicks about, but if you can be bothered to look there is more slightly sour malt to be found. Ever drunk water from a really old water fountain, probably at the back end of a high school corridor? That metallic coppery taste? Yeah, thats come to the party. A good hit of water has lifted the nose and there is some welcome sweetness. The palate cools off and there is a pleasant smoke with an increase in body and fullness (thats odd). Water has killed off the finish leaving heat high and far back on the throat. Ultimately another fail. Better than the 12, sure. Thats easily achieved by most things though, like dirty dishwater, or an oily puddle. I could offer more suggestions but it is making me sad again. For 18 years this is rough, lacks depth, flavour, or a well managed profile. If you need almost as much water in your glass as whisky to make it approachable then somethings very wrong indeed. My own fault I guess, the price of AUD$115 for an 18 year old should of set the alarm bells ringing for the Australian market. Stick with the LL Original at half the price; that at least is interesting (although I still don’t know if I like it). (Kenyanthrops platyops in picture because thats just how I roll). Distiller whisky taste #90

Wow, this smells so much richer and better than Loch Lomond Original. The nose has a bit of that socks richness with a hint of smoke and some apples. It smells kind of interesting, but a tad unbalanced. There's a fair amount of grass on the nose and also some malt. The flavor has a lot more peat (and some smoke) than expected. There's also a tartness and some real waxiness like Clynelish. The discordant nature doesn't really suggest an 18 year old spirit, but it's still interesting and tasty. The mouthfeel is unfortunately a bit watery though and that watery presence pervades. It's hotter than it should be too. For a 12, it's quite good, but I expect more from an 18. The richness is good though and I do get some hints of complexity out of it in the malt and grass. The richness really works here even though the flavor isn't tremendously full. Distiller is right about this being a dusty scotch, though they are wrong about it being fruity. Well, they say that raisins are key Tonite fruitiness, but they also say it isn't very fruity and I guess I do agree with both. Actually, a little bit of orange peel comes out too - just a tad. The finish is nicer than I expected, with some waxy Clynelish flavor. I think this is about on par with Clynelish 14, but apparently I currently have Clynelish 14 rated at 19 and I don't think that that is correct - it's more like a 16 or so. This is pretty similar in quality. It's interesting and decently complex, but there's no great flavor and a couple are questionable. Definitely drinkable, but not amazing. The heat is also a bit much for this age, though the proof does validate it a bit. At the finish, there is some nice floral and vanilla character. It works out alright.

Nice little "budget" 18 year old. Nose - A mix of some funk, oak, and citrus peat bog. Really interesting nose, I'm not sure what is going on here. It has an almost meaty umami thing mixing with apricot fruits and some smoke over wax. Taste - Citrus, tea, smoke, oak, and then this amazing rich smokey and charred oak finish. What a delightful and unexpected whisky given the low prices, I had ZERO expectations here. Really rich, vibrant, and yeah look...this has some competing notes. Is the citrus, smoke and funk all playing nicely? Nah...it's a bit disjointed. The mouth feel is great on the finish but it could be better up front. I can see where you'll get some weird notes, and this will likely not do well after certain food So yeah not a perfect whisky, but it's a dang fun and complex whisky. It's reasonably priced and I think I'd buy it again. 3.0

Well the 12 yr kicks some imo so thought this would be 6 yrs better. Not exactly. The profile is the same with the exotic fruits, autumn leaves and malty woods( please see 12 yr review). This takes all the rich bold vibrancy of the flavor and matures and flattens it out . Still has nice depth but the fruits are dried now and the casks are old. Finish is fading dry fruit and malt with parched wood. Its a bit tannic but lasts and is pleasant enough. On its own its still very good scotch but at the price($79) it falls a little short....85/100.....I know this sounds like a high score given my review but its still good I just expected more from age/price...... doubt I would repurchase though if Im being honest as the 12yr is quite good for less than half the $$