Highland Park - Origins Dark and Glorious

Carrying on the peated whisky series...

Highland Park has gone through extensive rebranding recently. Killing Dark Origins, introducing the Valkyrie, redesigning all the bottles, etc. A larger emphasis on the Viking roots of Orkney, and less on the distinctiveness of Highland Park itself as a distillery. Why though? Is it because the Viking origins of Orkney makes for a more compelling tale that generates more metaphors that sell? Or is it some Orkney/Viking terroir thingy? 

According to the salesperson, the Valkyrie does not replace Dark Origins, merely continues the story. What? Was Magnus taken to Valhella? Heresy! He's a Christian preacher, for goodness sake. Can't assume that all Heavens are the same, can we? In any case, it would be fair enough to say that Dark Origins is getting discontinued, and the Valkyrie is new to the family. 

The Valkyries take the fallen souls of warriors to glory, leaving behind a single plume, according to some video games/legends. Let's see if this whisky lives up to the glory of the warriors taken away, or is it like the plume - the poignant but ultimately inadequate remains of a warrior's former glories.

Highland Park Dark Origins (46.8%)

Picture snapped and dram tried at a sale. Valkyrie not in picture

Colour - copper

Nose - Raisins and sherry - the casks really did their work on this one. But the sherry does not musk the honey, spice and smoky notes in this one. There's a bit of baked bread here as well. 

Palate - A little rough around the edges. Is this young? Spicy on ginger and cinnamon. Lots of rich sherry, but the sherry sits on top of a bed of good, baked bread smothered in honey. The peat shows too, soft and heather-y. There's also a bit of stewed apples. The balance between peat and sherry is achieved to good effect.

Finish - Fairly long, but smoke and ginger is the dominant lasting note. Not a very complex or multi-dimensional finish, but this works and leaves a nice spicy tingle.

Highland Park Valkyrie (abv 45.9%)

Colour - copper. I think it's the same colour as the Dark Origins

Nose - Sweeter, and less smoke. More honey and vanilla, though the sherry is unmistakable too. Some toffee or chocolate. I think this is fairly straightforward...

Palate - Sweeter, smoother. Despite the fairly similar abv, this one feels a lot less alcoholic. The vanilla and honey masks much of everything else. This is velvety in texture too. Some smoke kicks in late, together with pepper, a touch of peat, and maybe some pepper and mangoes at the back. 

Finish - Shorter, but with smoke and oak as the dominant notes this time.

Overall - I think the Dark Origins was the better whisky, though the flight of the Valkyrie is, of course, the better story. DO was more robust, more malty, and a longer finish. The Valkyrie is good, but feels like a M18 version of the Dark Origins, which is itself a tamer, sherrier take on the truly amazing HP18.

Peat and More Peat - Longrow 18 2017

Coninuing on with the peat theme, here's Springbank's peaty friend, the Longrow. This bottle came as part of the gifts when my sister got married. Part of Chinese culture involves giving 2 bottles of alcohol when a girl is marrying out of the family. The other bottle was a red wine that was good while it was fresh.

Springbank is one of few distilleries that manages most of the whole whisky-making process on-site. Much of its barley is imported (with the exception of the Local Barley series), but once the barley goes into the distillery, everything stays in Campbeltown until it is ready to meet the world. I guess this qualifies Springbank as a craft distillery? A giant in the industry, and massive in scale, but in terms of its ethos, I'm guess it still retains a craft spirit. Though does a distillery that is still family-owned, and still producing on-site definitely better? Is it merely an illusion of authenticity?

I'm reading a book, Whisky and Philosophy, and it is providing lots of food for thought. What makes a whisky good? It's process? It's flavour? Our impression of it affecting our evaluation of the quality? Is the search for provenance futile? What is real though, is this bottle of liquid.

Longrow 18, 2017 (abv 46%)



Colour: Gold, turns hazy with time.

Nose - This nose changes over time...Let's see. Dustiness, then baked pastry. Apple pie, I think, with cinnamon powder, apples, pastry, and all that. Plumps too! The fruit is very well integrated into the rest of the nose, which comes across as some custard, and a faint floral note. Peatiness doesn't come across so much on the nose. Maybe a hint of salt.

Palate - A little peppery, some cinnamon. Again, the fruit isn't very obvious - some raisins and apples, but the dominant note here is actually almond peel, the kind from roasted almonds. Hmm. The peat is fairly gentle, but turns a little bitter. It blends well into the oakiness and roasted almonds though. There's a bit of wet rocks, grapefruit. Oily, but gets even thicker with time in the glass. Salted butter makes a late appearance after some time.

Finish - Fresh pine leaves, mint, smoke. The almond skin sticks with you too. Fairly long. A little peppery. Eucalyptus oil? Mm. Yum.

Overall - I really like this. It really helps that the bottle came as a gift. But honestly, I don't think it is expensive for an 18 year old limited release from Longrow. Good whisky, good marriage. Good.

Lagavulin A Year Late

One year late to the party, but better late than never. Managed to buy the Lagavulin 12 from 2016's Special Release at a price just marginally higher than the Lagavulin 16. I was initially wavering over whether I should buy it there and then, or wait a day to think it over. But sales manager informed me that the price tag was wrong, and will be corrected once I walk out of the shop. It's rare that I'm pressured into underpaying for an item, but I'm thankful for having this celebratory bottling on my shelf.

The Lagavulin 12 is part of Diageo's annual Special Release, and is one of the most affordable of the lot. Doesn't make it any less special, since Lagavulin's normal offering is at 16 years old. This is pretty much a classic argument that older isn't always better, and a good young whisky has much to offer that an older bottle cannot.

This one continues my peated sequence of tastings. Let's see how this works out.

Lagavulin 12, 200th Anniversary, 2016 Special Release (57.7% abv)


Colour - Moscato wine

Nose - Big pepper, smoke, and peat rolling out of the glass. Salt, some custard cream, lemons, wet rocks. Big Lagavulin. The youth gives it a punch that the 16 lacks.

Palate - Smoked meat, roasted pork, cinnamon, pines, lemon, and lots of smoke. Peaty too, like moss. The peat feels a little different from what I remember Lagavulin peat to be, but it is big. Gentler, but big. Mm. Salted butter, and tobacco.

Finish - Good and long, with finally some dryness coming in together with spice and oak. Pepper, candied ginger.

Overall - My first ever Special Release purchase (and I think I'm only ever going to be able to afford this and the Caol Ila), but it's really good Lagavulin. Youth means that it isn't superbly complex, but there's a visceral enjoyment in watching a young one land a good, hard straight punch. So, sit back, relax, and enjoy this one with Nick Offerman.