Review by: ZoidbergOnTheRocks
Here’s a little flight of Rosebanks side-by-side. The distillery has been silent since 1993 though it is now in the process of being rebuilt. I’m interested to see what comes of them restarting this; it seems nothing survived from the original. I’m sure they’ll try to get as close as possible on the stills and the process, but honestly I see no way for them to produce the same thing as before. Who knows, maybe that’ll be a good thing 😉
If you’re not familiar with Rosebank, it’s a triple distilled Lowland that was pretty well regarded in its time. They closed due to the high cost of keeping the distillery up to code. Like most silent distilleries, the casks that survived ended up having some pretty good juice in them, though I have found them to be a bit hit-or-miss.
Tasted on 8/31/2020, neat in a Glencairn.
Rosebank 12 Year Flora and Fauna
This is a 12 year old Rosebank from Diageo’s “flora and fauna” series. I don’t have a firm bottling date on this one; it could be from anywhere from 1997-2006 or so. It’s a 70cl bottle for the UK market, obtained at auction a few years ago and still pretty easy to find. This was a pretty common bottle at the time.
Distillery: Rosebank
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Lowlands
ABV: 43.0%
Age: 12 years old. Bottled on 12/01/2006.
Nose: pears, peaches, fruit salad, a touch of citrus, a bit of grassiness, hay, perfume, a bit of oak. The nose is actually surprisingly hot the longer it goes.
Taste: thin, sweet peach, a bit of pepper, mineral, an odd hit of motor oil, hay, some citrus.
Finish: a bit longer than expected, pepper, grassy, musty green hay. An odd bitterness after a moment that is unpleasant, almost like a bit of burning rubber. Hotter than you would expect. Really the finish fails to follow much from the nose or palate honestly, it’s pretty odd.
This is “not great not terrible”, a solid 3.6 Roentgens. The nose is the best part. There are some off-putting notes on the palate and in the finish that knock it down to a 4. All-in-all it’s a bit boring, and I would reach for any number of base expressions from multiple distilleries before I’d pull this bottle out again. I’ve pulled this out for a few different groups and the universal response has been underwhelming: “I guess it’s cool I got to taste a closed distillery, but can I have something else now?”
Final Score: 72.
This is the OB Rosebank 21yr distilled in 1992 and bottled in 2014 as part of Diageo’s special release that year. A 75cl bottle for the US market, at a most excellent 55.3% ABV.
Distillery: Rosebank
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Lowlands
ABV: 55.3%, cask strength
Age: 21 years old. Distilled in 1992. Bottled on 05/28/2014.
Cask type: Refill American Oak
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. #4145 of 4,530 bottles.
Nose: delicate, floral, roses (psychosomatic?), peach, nectarine, a bit of dry grass clippings, a bit of sweet bright fruit. Later a bit of damp earthiness, beeswax, light oil. The whole thing is delicate and very well balanced. With water: a touch more spice.
Taste: sweet but with more citrus and tangerine than peaches, dry straw, floral, Medium+ mouthfeel, a little dry, a bit oily, the lightest touch of ginger. Not hot at all despite the ABV. With water: the fruits pop a bit more, perhaps more tropical (is there coconut in there?), and mouthfeel is still excellent.
Finish: Very nice! Long, a little bit dry, peaches, some citrus, hay, floral, some oil lingers, some ginger spice, a little bit earthy on the end, some vanilla. Not a hint of bitterness, not an off-note in sight. With water: very similar.
Drinking a field of wildflowers and tall grass on a bright summer day. The whole thing is delicate, subtle, and beautiful. The nose is clean, bright, floral, and keeps you coming back for more. It’s a really amazing nose actually, but it’s subtle and takes time. Mouthfeel is excellent, and the finish is beautiful. Honestly I never put water in this, I find it excellent neat. Water doesn’t hurt it, but it also doesn’t change it much, at most a bit more fruit on the palate.
Final Score: 93.
Rosebank 23 Year (1990) Gordon & MacPhail Rare Old Lot #R0/14/02
Distillery: Rosebank
Bottler: Gordon & MacPhail (GM)
Region: Scotland, Lowlands
ABV: 46.0%
Age: NAS. Distilled in 1990. Bottled on 06/26/2014.
Cask type: Refill Sherry and American Hogsheads
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. One of 576 bottles.
Nose: earthiness over floral, peach, tangerine, and lemon. Some vanilla, hay, grass clippings, apricots, a bit mineral like warm sand, a bit of oil, perhaps a bit of toffee.
Taste: medium-thin, earthy, a little dry, peaches, a little white pepper, vanilla, a bit simple really. It’s a shame to drink this after the 21 I think.
Finish: earthy, hay/straw, vanilla, tangerine, mango, a bit of orange rind, a bit short actually and I expected longer.
This is a great dram that’s pretty unique. It has a lot of the qualities of the other Rosebanks I’ve had, but with a forward earthy note that while quite nice does dominate it.
Final Score: 87.
Comparison
Order: 21 > 23 > 12
Both the 21 and the 23 are excellent, though I give a higher mark to the 21 for it’s great balance, depth, and it’s just a pleasure to drink. I’ll be really happy to be drinking the 23 when the 21 is gone. The 12, not so much. There’s a huge difference between the 12 and the other two, and I’ll probably continue to let it sit on the shelf and only pull it out when someone new wants to try something closed.
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.
Malt Runners 