Glendronach 15 yr. Revival

[jazz lover]

Is it just me or does anyone else
find this one rated a bit too high?
Not the best sherried whisky around.
Slightly sulphury and a few off-notes.
Should I pass on the 18 yr.?

[Ardbeg311]

No, I don't think it is overrated. I didn't pick up any discouraging sulphur notes in the bottle I had this past summer. I think the MM Awards got this right in giving it the Non-Plus-Ultra Award 2009 (Daily Drams).

[Bruichladdict]

I nosed and tasted this blind. It was top shelf. I did get a lot of coffee notes and some cough medicine out of it but it was one of my favs. One of the few I consider worth the money, even at 99$ in Canada.

Just my 2 cents.

[dramtastic]

I think it's a good whisky, but I wouldn't score it the 92 that Serge did. So if you mean overated with that score then IMO yes.

The nose is a little closed and the finish lacks the wow factor that would allow it a higher score from me. Really enjoy the palate though.
At the same abv I prefer the bottle of Tullibardine 1993 Sherry Wood I have open.

I haven't detected any sulphury notes in my bottle yet.

[hyperfuji]

i thought the revival was quite good and don't feel its over rated, and i agree with the others that the 15 is better than the 18 allardice. the 15 is a "sherry bomb" compared to the muted 18. for the money go for the 15. and if money isn't an issue go for the 1968

[laphroaig10_65]

I don't think Glendronach 15 Revival is overrated.
Both the 12 scores of Malt Maniacs and the 45 scores of Whiskybase.com have an average of 87. I have rated it 88, and I prefer it in comparison to other sherry-style bottles recently tasted (Aberlour A'bunadh batch #8, Macallan 10 yo Cask Strength).
I have not detected any sulphury notes, although I know sulphur is a matter of discussion in this bottle.
Luca

[jazz lover]

I do very much agree with the 87 rating.
When I sampled this it was along side
three other outstanding sherried samples.
I may let this bottle breathe two or three
months and try it again.

[MARS]

I don't think it's over rated too. But I don't like the 15 years old revival. It's way too agressive and tanic for my palate. After only a (small)dram my palate is completely destroyed for a few day. I will see with some month of breathing as I opened a bottle 3 weeks ago.

I prefer by far the 18 years old("lot 1", didn't try the other "lot")who is much more easy to drink(but it's a little bit expensive and I found some supphury notes inside).

Consider also to try the new 12 years old whos is incredibly good for the price and age. Still, it's not a sherry bomb(by far).

The 1968 (25 year old)is really good but at 250€ the bottle it's too expensive to my taste. I prefer the single cask from 1972/2009 (54,8°)who was available at the same price.

The single cask bottled by versaille dranken is also really good(+-83€). Better than the 15 years old and no suphury notes.

MARS

PS : I must say that I really liked the macallan 10 years cask strenght 58,6°. I drank a bottle for my birthday last year(with friends)

[Jobi]

I've been enjoying my recent bottle of 15. I'm usually sensitive to sulphur notes but haven't had a problem.

[dramtastic]

Just to clarify my previous remarks from a score point of view, I too would give it around 86-87. But I think there is a big difference between this and a score of 92. A 92 in my book would be getting up there with the best I've tried, and like JL I have compared it to some pretty outstanding sherry bombs I've had.

I look forward to seeing how this one progresses over the next few months.

My scoring reads something like this.

67 and under Terrible - Wouldn't touch it again even if offered for free
68-69 The grey area - Would maybe try again if I was already smashed
70-74 Average - would have again if offered for free
75-82 Good - would buy again if cheap
83-89 Very Good - would definately buy again
90-93 Excellent - Would always want a bottle in my collection
94 plus The absolute bomb - same as excellent but if I could only keep the best of the best these are the ones.