Review by: ZoidbergOnTheRocks
Some more Bunna today, a burgundy finish and two PX. I’m usually a fan of PX and whisky, so high hopes for those two. Some interesting single casks in this group that, on paper, I’m excited about.
Tasted on 8/11/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.
(Pic from Whiskybase)
Bunnahabhain 14 Year (2005) Burgundy Finish
Distillery: Bunnahabhain
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 60.7%, cask strength
Age: 14 years old. Distilled on 10/10/2005. Bottled on 01/23/2020.
Cask type: Refill Hogshead / Burgundy Finish
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. One of 600 bottles.
Nose: ethanol. Grapes, dates. Hazelnuts. Cocoa powder. Machine oil. With Water: still hot. Seawater.
Taste: hot. Grapes. Chocolate. Mild spice; pepper. With Water: much less heat. Thinner. Same otherwise.
Finish: hot. Grapes, chocolate, a bit of pepper. Hazelnuts. Seawater. Nice length on fruit and spice.With Water: still a bit hot. More spice. A little dry. Some bitter oak.
Summary: to me this is a very simple dram. I don’t get many different flavors at all, and it’s way too hot neat. Water helps, but not enough, and sadly thins out the mouthfeel without really bringing out anything else. Fairly sweet, some nice fruit in the long finish. Lots of wine influence on this one. I feel like it gets more maritime with water, which is nice. Interesting, but simple. A solid 5.
Would I buy a bottle? no
Final Score: 77.
Bunnahabhain 16 Year (2004) Warehouse 9 PX Noe 556
Distillery: Bunnahabhain
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 54.1%, cask strength
Age: 16 years old. Distilled on 02/18/2004. Bottled on 10/20/2020.
Cask type: Pedro Ximenez Noe
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. From a single cask #556, Warehouse 9 – Hand-Filled Exclusive.
Nose: sourdough, malt. Walnuts. Seaweed. Mild pepper. Caramel. Apricot. Dates, raisins. Sherry. With Water: same.
Taste: bready. Nuts. Mild seawater. Caramel. Apricot, raisins. Mild spice, very mild. With Water: same.
Finish: apricot, caramel. Bread, nuts. Long on the fruit and salty caramel. With Water: bigger, more spice, more apricot. A bit dry.
Summary: a nice nose with a lot of bread, nuts, caramel, and fruit. Very nice. It’s a bit unexpected, though, for a PX cask. It’s consistent throughout, and water doesn’t make much difference until the finish, which feels bigger with more spice and fruit. A simple dram that’s quite good at what it does, with an enjoyable, long finish.
Would I buy a bottle? perhaps, at the right price. Checks WhiskyBase… oops, not for 200eur. Half that? Sure.
Final Score: 82.
Bunnahabhain Coterie PX Finish
Distillery: Bunnahabhain
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 54.0%, cask strength
Age: NAS. Distilled in 2004. Bottled on 11/14/2019.
Cask type: PX Finish
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. From a single cask #2004.
Nose: very shy. Caramel. Cardboard. Apple. White pepper. Sea spray. Tea. Cream. With Water: still shy. More fruit, more sweetness. Candied apricot. Sour cream?
Taste: sweet caramel apples. Minimal spice initially, builds a bit. Tea. Cream. With Water: thinner, same otherwise.
Finish: caramel and apples. Pepper. Hot. Nuts. Decent length on spice, salty caramel, and something bitter and off putting. Burnt plastic? With Water: not as hot. Oh, more of that bitter note. Oops.
Summary: wow, a very, very shy nose after the other two. Takes a long time to really get anything from it. Gets a lot sweeter w/ water, with some bright fruit and caramel, and a more sour, funky note out of it. The nose is the best part, for sure. The mouth is quite simple, as is the finish, but for me the finish has a pretty bad bitter, burnt plastic note in it that takes over and lingers. I want to drink something else afterwards for sure. Overall, a simple dram that’s let down by the nose and the finish. Damn… I gotta go 3 on this one.
Would I buy a bottle? no.
Final Score: 65.
Comparison
Order: PX Noe > Burgundy > Coterie PX
This is an easy order for me. I quite like the PX Noe. It’s simple, but quite nice, and I can dig that. I keep going back to it (especially to clear out the 3rd one.) The first one has a heavy wine influence, perhaps a bit over the top, but it’s fine. If you like a sweet, winey dram then this one’s for you. The 3rd one fails on multiple fronts for me. That finish kills it for me honestly.
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 