Review by: The Muskox
It’s always nice to tick off another new distillery from the list. Inverleven was a tiny two-still operation jammed inside the Dumbarton grain complex west of Glasgow. Though Inverleven was decommissioned in 1991, and the whole complex was demolished in 2002, the pot stills continue to operate at the Waterford distillery in Ireland.
The last bunch of Scott’s Selections from u/FederalAgents were all incredible, so I was hoping that this would continue that trend.
Distillery: Inverleven.
Bottler: Scott’s Selection.
Region: Lowlands.
ABV: 58%, cask strength.
Age: 25 years old. Distilled in 1979. Bottled in 2004.
Color: Light gold. No colour added, un-chillfiltered.
Nose: Sweet and floral. Loads of pears jump out of the glass, joined by melons and thin honey. A grassy celery note, as well as more vegetal touches of fresh oregano, habaneros, and turmeric. Soft barley and pale ginger. Club soda – both in the sense of effervescence and a mineralic character. As the whisky rests, an aged note of old library books emerges.
With a drop or two of water, there’s more malt and some light citrus.
Palate: Medium-weight, syrupy texture, some heat. Arrives sweetly and very floral, with cut grass, green apples, and mixed citrus zest. A malty backbone of oat bars and toasted coconut sits underneath. The whisky develops towards loads of acidic honey, tart lemons, and heavy minerals. Almost a hint of something metallic. Crushed vitamins. Some greener notes come back in, olive oil and maybe some rue.
With those drops of water, there’s more of a clover honey character, some underripe tropical fruit, and distinct vanilla buttercream.
Even less sweet with more water, I’m not sure it’s an improvement.
Finish: Medium-length and sweet. More mineral water, vitamins, and tart honey. Cherry blossom, banana peels, and sweet grapefruit. Patchouli and cooling mint.
Water added a hint of black pepper, more patchouli, and some sandalwood.
Possible SMWS bottling name: “Jellystone Park geyser eruption”
Notes: Interesting stuff, but I can’t say it’s really hitting the spot for me. I like the complex greenery on the nose, and the effervescent/mineral character is nice (you’re looking at a guy who drinks buckets of club soda). The acidic honey is something I’m less of a fan of… Have you ever eaten so much honey at once that it starts tasting weird? That’s the flavour I’m referring to. I usually get that flavour in Macallan of all things, not that this tastes anything like Macallan. Water introduced this very pronounced buttercream note to the palate, which seems to clash hard with everything else.
I poured a glass of this whisky with my friend and confidant u/b1uepenguin, who observed that this whisky would be a good candidate for a cask finish to tamp down some of that honey-heat. I think that could have worked very well.
I feel like I’m being overly negative. This isn’t a bad whisky at all, it’s just more interesting than good, and I had pretty high expectations given that the last 8 bottlings I’ve tried from Scott’s have averaged an 89. This one is a bit of a let-down in that sense.
Final Score: 80.
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 