Review by: dustbunna
In an interview on One Nation Under Whisky earlier this year, Dr. Bill Lumsden described chill filtration as a spectrum rather than a binary off/on process, and said that companies who put their spirit through a chill-filtering regime on the extreme end can introduce a harsh, metallic element into the whisky, in addition to their product coming across as thin in the mouth. Of course, this comment was not tied directly to any specific distillery, but I thought immediately of my experiences with Glenlivet when he said this. This is the #1 single malt brand sold in the United States by volume, ubiquitous in bars and in every liquor store no matter how bad the selection, to drink whisky and not recognize it would require having hidden under a rock (though there are *plenty* of folks who drink Glenlivet on the rocks, too, and it’s for this reason that their chill-filtered core range all stay quite transparent when you add water.)
It made a splash last year when Pernod Ricard, who own Glenlivet, announced a new bottling at a higher ABV and without chill-filtration, both relatively rare for the brand. Despite never really connecting with Glenlivet before (I’ve tried the age-stated central cores and a couple of IBs here and there), I do like the idea of advocating for more 48%/NCF from Pernod Ricard, and so I bought this new release. For the sake of science and because I couldn’t resist the opportunity to compare them, I also picked up a half-size bottle of regular Glenlivet 12, now branded as Double Oak with the same new teal label as Illicit Still. I’ve tried Glenlivet 12 before, but not since the re-brand, and never really considered stocking it in my cabinet before. Let’s start with the standard release.
Distillery: Glenlivet.
Bottler: Distillery bottling.
Region: Speyside.
ABV: 40%.
Age: 12 years. Bottled in 2020.
Cask type: Vatting of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks.
Price: $26 USD (375mL bottle).
Artificial Color. Chill-filtered.
Bottle open across approx. 5 months, notes taken leisurely across that period. Bold notes taken beneath the shoulder, regular-formatted notes taken further into the bottle past the halfway point, italicized notes taken towards the heel.
Nose: quite sweet up front ~ pears, apples, caramel, Dole fruit cup, some sharp floral notes in the background, cheap white chocolate, more perfume-y as the fill level drops.
Palate: thin ~ extremely bitter arrival, some apple remains but mostly ethanol here, finally opens up to some floral bitterness and cut stems but still quite muted here, a solvent-like off-note creeps in, rounds off to cheap floral candy and more Dole fruit cups.
Finish: medium-short ~ artificial sweetener straight from the packet, more bitterness, pepper, plastic, mellows but holds onto a strong floral aftertaste, potpourri.
Conclusion: How on earth did they make this so harsh? I don’t remember the regular 12 being this bad before… on the first few sips I checked my palate as harsh bitterness is often a sign that my taste is off for the night, but that was not the case here. The nose is fairly nice– inoffensive, sweet and friendly– and then it’s just this bitter, nasty turn on the palate with a sickly-sweet follow-through, hot as hell at 40% and adding water won’t alleviate it. None of these notes work together at all. Like Glenfiddich 12 in my experience, after some time open, it mellows and the worst of the fire rounds off– but the flavors that emerge from that rounding are akin to somehow eating a Michael’s craft store, a kind of fake-sweet-fruit-floral potpourri nightmare. This is just not for me whatsoever.
Final Score: 38.
On to the new NCF variant.
Distillery: Glenlivet.
Bottler: Distillery bottling.
Region: Speyside.
ABV: 48%.
Age: 12 years. Bottled in 2021.
Cask type: Vatting of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks.
Price: $56 USD.
Artificial Color. Non-chill-filtered.
Bottle open across approx. 5 months, notes taken leisurely across that period. Bold notes taken beneath the shoulder, regular-formatted notes taken further into the bottle past the halfway point, italicized notes taken towards the heel.
Nose: caramel, apples, vanilla, peach candy, a bit herbal-green in the background, various fragrant flowers, powdered donuts.
Palate: medium body ~ ripe apple, some astringency from the ethanol, floral notes expand with time, picks up a strong perfumed quality, candied rose petals.
Finish: medium-short ~ more apples and a bit of pepper, wood spice, some floral bitterness and garden-green funk on the tail end, rose petals carry through, potpourri.
Conclusion: Less sweet than the Double Oak, more in focus with a much better mouthfeel (not surprisingly, with an extra 8% ABV and without chill-filtering.) About three months in, it rounded off the sharper edges and started becoming a floral bomb, but it does not develop quite the mix of odd notes that the Double Oak does. This isn’t bad, certainly an improvement on the Double Oak, but… it’s not exactly blowing my mind, either. The nose is the best part by far, the palate is still somewhat astringent and the floral notes that emerge over time– while not as obviously fake and craft-y as those in its sparring partner– still don’t quite mesh well with the apple/woody center of its tasting profile.
Final Score: 70.
Final thoughts: I’m convinced there’s something about the way Glenlivet is distilling right now that just isn’t connecting with me, whether it’s cut points or filling strength or some other pre-bottling variable that leads to this drinking so hot. That problematic heat and roughness, though, gets greatly amplified via their chill-filtration process (as Dr. Bill suggested more broadly), and that makes the most difference between these two products.
Both of these had a really clear presence of ethanol despite the relatively low ABV, and playing with water did not do much to fix that. Only time rounded it off a bit, but the emergent crafty-floral thing in each bottle also doesn’t work well for me. Is Illicit Still the better of the two? Unquestionably, by a wide margin. Is it good? Well, that’s harder to answer, personally…. It smells great, and taste-wise I think it started out in a much better place than the Double Oak, but it still didn’t gel completely and I felt that its flavor deteriorated quite a bit over time. If you like apples and wood spice and strong floral notes, maybe go for it, but I won’t replace this.
The standard 12yr honestly shocked me-– this is the flagship liquid upon which Glenlivet stays afloat? Give me Glenfiddich 12 any day, that was also harsh but at least mellowed into something less offensive. I can’t fathom what the NAS stuff like Founder’s Reserve must be like, hanging out on even lower rungs of the ladder…. I debated whether to really give this one my lowest grade, but when a half-size bottle lingers because you’re only pouring tiny sips in the futile hope that it might not have been as bad as you last remember, and you’re still leaving those sips only half-drunk… it’s time to call it.
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 