Highland Park 2001 (2001) for Global Travel Retail

Review by: TOModera

(Thanks to slackerdude for the sample)

Replacements are never smooth. Soap Operas go out of their way to announce when a new actor is playing a character on a show. That 70’s show even made a joke about the actress Laurie being replaced. I’m sure that at least a small amount of people here have had some pet replaced by parents, even if they know it or not.

Change is a frightening thing, even though it doesn’t have to be. Every movie star who started on soap operas was, at one point, announced to replace someone else. The new actress who played Laurie wasn’t insane to work with for the other actors. The new pet you all had wasn’t the same as the old one, but probably didn’t mall your face.

So when I read that the Highland Park 2001 Vintage was a replacement for the Highland Park 1998 Vintage, I was honestly a little hesitant to try it. Then I took a deep breath, and decided that it could be better or worse, and being a replacement didn’t really pigeon hole it either way.

If you’ve been following along in the ‘Zanadu 3: Titles that suck and the Zebras that ignore them’ 3 part series, you’ll know that I wasn’t the biggest fan of Highland Park 1998 Vintage. Finding out that a similarly made version didn’t really enamour me. Again, I have bias, and try to ignore it, but I’m human.

Highland Park 2001 Vintage is aged in more First-fill American oak casks than the typical range of Highland Park. Originally just a travel exclusive, some of it has bled out to websites and alcohol retailers outside of an airport.

So let’s see how it tastes, by itself.

Distillery: Highland Park Distillery.

Bottler: Distillery Bottling.

Region: Isle of Orkney, Island, Scotland.

ABV: 40%.

Age: 11 years. Distilled in 2001. Bottled in 2012.

Cask type: First-fill American Oak Casks.

Price: N/A in Ontario.

Color: Brass.

Nose: Caramel, metal, salt, grapefruit, pine, acrylic paint

Similar to the 1998 Vintage, which is probably on purpose, however there’s a little bit more youth to the 2001 Vintage.

God, that entire sentence makes me sound so posh. I need a shower after writing it.

Taste: Lots of ash, salami, caramel, hazelnut butter, cornflake, pear

And when I say ash, I mean cigarette ash.

Once you get past the ash though, the flavours are stronger then the 1998 by a country mile. Not all of them are great, mind you, however at least they showed up, so time to hand out the participation badges.

Finish: Even more ash, cedar, macadamia nuts, vanilla, sourdough, peanut brittle

Again, the ash is ever present, and it’s young, so there’s some cedar there too.

Conclusion: Low Abv. has taken what could be an interesting project and, yet again, made me say pass. It’s better than 1998 Vintage, I can say that. The flavours are more present. However the whole thing has an ashy taste to it that ruins it.

I’d say if this had been left 2 more years and given even a little more Abv, it’d be a definite buy. As it stands? Just a reminder of what could have been for this lineup.

Final Score: 73.

Scoring Legend:

  • 95-100: As good as it gets. Jaw-dropping, eye-widening, unforgettable whisky.
  • 90-94: Sublime, a personal favorite in its category.
  • 85-89: Excellent, a standout dram.
  • 80-84: Quite good. Quality stuff.
  • 75-79: Decent whisky worth tasting.
  • 70-74: Meh. It’s definitely drinkable, but it can do better.
  • 60-69: Not so good. I might not turn down a glass if I needed a drink.
  • 50-59: Save it for mixing.
  • 0-49: Blech.

Leave a comment