At the risk of disappointing you, I'm afraid I've yet to read a good review of Littlemill anywhere. (With the exception of Michael Jackson, who rates them all between 71 and 81 in his latest 5th edition. Mind you, he rates the Dunglas in the 70's, which Jim Murray scored at around 17, so who knows what to believe? )
Disclaimer: All references to Michael's and Jim's scores done by memory only and without actual books to hand! Corrections welcome, if required.
Dry and spirity, not a well produced malt, an example of just how important quality control is in Scotch whisky making. (The art of the stillman).
However most bottles are not opened but saved for the day when stocks dry up and their value starts to increase. When? Dunno.
But supposedly the 17 yo is better by a large measure, so I have it way down on my wish list. If, before I can buy a bottle, it all "softly and suddenly vanishes away", like a hunter encountering a boojum, well, so be it. Please let us all know if/when you get around to clooping the cork! Ed V.
if the Littlemill 8 years was not stored in stainless steel, it would be interesting to know, how old the whisky is that is in that bottles. Fact is there can be no Littlemill which was distilled eight years ago.
That rises two questions. First it is said that the Lowland malts were often at their best in early years. Did the "8" improve in the storage facility if it was steel tanks or did it improve in the barrel and is now at least 11 years old as Littlemill closed 1994 for the last and final time.
Or, even more likely is it even older than 11 years and starts picking up.
you´re right Mr T I must have over read the figure 13. As to why they do not give an age statement more to the point may result from superstition. In many books on whisky you can read about the Lowland whiskies that many of them were at their hight in early years and were sold often under ten years of age.
Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse may think that the Littlemill casks stored at Loch Lomond Distillery should be bottled in this "tradition" regardless of the true age of the malts.
If the Littlemill is still stored in casks I can imagine that it takes great care to get a vatting you can sell at all.
And then there is the question of collectors. Using the old label is not cheap but tricky. If you are unaware you just might think you buy a bottle of a "rare original bottling" by Littlemill. Rare is only what was bottled untill 1994, the year of final closure.
But as a collector if you never open the bottle, you will never know.
MrTattieHeid wrote:kk, as I noted above, JM says the current 8 is really at least a 13. If that's so, I can't imagine why they would not say so, unless they're just too cheap to have new labels made up.
Well, they actually did something about it and invested in new labels, tubes and bottles. There's a new Littlemill OB 12yo:
Any tasting notes?
If only quality of packaging and content were always correlated.
I'd give it a 79, not a top contender, but enjoyable nonetheless.
As for the dumpy bottle, I noticed that it (and the cork) looked kind of familiar. Sure enough, it's the exact same bottle and cork that are used for Connemara...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests