Ardmore 24 Year (1997) Whisky Sponge Edition No. 76

Review by: TOModera

What was the occasion: I had a buddy who was interested in the Other old Ardmore (patent pending), and I thought, well, I reviewed one Whisky Sponge Ardmore, why not another?

Sometimes it doesn’t take much for me.

What whisky did we review? Ardmore 24 1997 Whisky Sponge is a 24-year-old single cask Ardmore that was aged in a refill Bourbon hogshead. Simple enough, we have Whisky Sponge as the independent bottler, and we have an age statement on a single cask. What more do we ask for? Usually something tasty, but I’ll get to that when I’m writing about my bias.

What’s the distillery? Ardmore is a Speyside distillery that is owned by Beam Suntory and was bought to ensure that the maker’s of Teacher’s Highland Cream always had the principal component on hand. It’s still the main element, so it seems like they did good in buying it up all those centuries ago.

What’s my bias? I’m a complete sucker for Ardmore. Do you understand what it’s like having Islay and Lowland as some of your favourite regions? Ardmore fixes that without being from either region. Unpeated or lighter peat? Has some floral elements. Heavily peated? Cheaper than Islay’s, and less salty. I can’t even swim in the ocean. I can’t handle the overt flavour of salt well.

But let’s see the forest for the trees (or don’t see? I don’t really understand the saying): This is from Whisky Sponge, and while I didn’t mind the last Ardmore, they released the oldest Ardmore I’ve ever had (of which this is now the oldest instead) and I wasn’t screaming from the hills about it. Mostly because that’s insane and my neighbours would kick me out if I did it, and also there’s not a lot of hills around me, but we’re getting off track: I didn’t love it, and I’ll be biassed against this whisky going in because of it.

That said, it’s also only the third or fourth Whisky Sponge whisky I’ve ever had, so I’ve not written them off yet. Also did I mention this is the oldest Ardmore I’ve ever had (again?) Well, it is, so that amps it up too.

I think that means there’s a bias there where I expect a lot but not so much a lot and I’m judgey? Sure, let’s go with that and get to the whisky, shall we?

Distillery: Ardmore Distillery.

Bottler: Whisky Sponge.

Region: Speyside.

ABV: 52.4%. Cask strength.

Age: 24 years. Distilled in 1997. Bottled in 2022.

Cask type: Refill Bourbon Hogshead.

Price: $475 CAD

Color: 10Y 7/8

Nose: Sugar cane, green apple, lilacs, dried basil

Sweet, tart, floral, and a bit of vegetal notes. Very green. Think  flowers right before you should probably throw them out. It’s interesting to see how time impacts peated whiskies, where they go to a completely different end of the spectrum. Any peat feels like it’s changed to more earth and dried leaves at this point, for instance.

Taste: Lemon, thyme, mushroom, plum, cola, smoke

Alright, closer to what you expect from an Ardmore, albeit still with that floral/vegetal element. There’s a bigger picture here, but it’s getting lost while I look at each element, and I’ll pick that up later.

Ooooh, someone read about foreshadowing, la di da.

Anyway, less floral, more earthy, and some fruit and smoke elements that are tasty.

Finish: Cocoa, mineral water, anise, brine, smoke

Ah, I’m getting the full picture with the finish. Earth, spice, and mineral at the end. Maybe it’s leaning into bitterness, but the earth, the smoke, and ignoring the mineral and the brine, I get it now.

This is a farmy whisky. That’s the idea.

Conclusion: There’s a lot of earth. Once you finish it, you realise it’s been quite farmy. Funny enough, that’s why it was bottled. And as such, I have to say this is whisky nerd fodder. It’s weird. 

So the question is: Is this better than the previous Ardmore Whisky Sponge release? Yes, easily. This is interesting and subtle and fun. The last one tasted simpler, this one was fun. This is more for Ardmore fans, albeit maybe the ones who like the weird aspects.

Is living up to the hype of being a great, old Ardmore? That’s where I pause. I don’t think it was bottled because of that. That doesn’t excuse it, certainly, but it’s not as complex as I’d want when buying a 20+ year old whisky. Like I said before, in this economy, we have to be picky. And if I’m being truly picky, I don’t think it’s complex enough.

It’s a fun idea. I totally agree with it existing and it being bottled. If you’re into nerd flavours and love the farm-like flavours, then it’s an easy buy. But I wish there was a tad bit more.

Final Score: 83.

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