Label 5 Gold Heritage 40%ABV NAS 2017

Label 5 is owned by La Martiniquaise, who also own the Glen Moray distillery, allegedly the main contributor of malts to Label 5 blends. Gold Heritage is approaching the high end of garden variety blend pricing, if not quality. I'm going to jump ahead here for those of you in a hurry or reading this on your phone in the whisky aisle at Dan Murphy and just say, skip this blend and buy anything from Glen Moray instead. All of their single malts are considerably better and will save you up to twenty bucks. Nor will you have to put up with the ridiculous plastic bung in the neck of the bottle that makes it dribble incontinently rather than pour. The heavy rectangular bottle looks more French than Scottish, as one might expect given it is a La Martiniquaise product. With the plastic thing choking its neck a cork is out of the question, so it's a plastic screw cap atop this glass monument to marketing. According to Label 5, Gold Heritage contains malts of various ages, with some "aged for more than 20 years". 

Colour: Chestnut Oloroso. 

Nose: The sour/bitter scent of stale old casks. Grain, lemon, walnut, harsh spirit and...and nothing worth tarrying over, let's move on. 

Palate: Better than the nose portents but I struggle to find much flavour. Simple bordering on bland. Hints of pistachio, apricot and rosewater but a flourish of caramel and butterscotch is the highlight until a very grain driven finish when vanilla and cinnamon pop into the picture, fading quickly away to a somewhat metallic finale. There is a harsh little sting in its tail, but otherwise, it is an unchallenging and inoffensive blend that will, Ninja like, make it's way from bottle to gullet barely noticed. Perhaps that's what they wanted. Perhaps that's all they had to work with. 

Label 5 Gold Heritage is a less than average blend at the cost of many a decent single malt. For the price of Gold Heritage, Glenmorangie 10, Glenfiddich 12, Glen Grant 10 and numerous other malts offer much better value.

It's not a bad whisky; but, with much improvement, perhaps it could be.

69/100

William Crampton 

Edradour Bourbon Cask Distilled 2003 Bottled 2014 56.5% ABV

The first release of the 2003 Bourbon Cask Edradour was magnificent. A whisky best described as intense, it packed three litres of flavour into a 700ml bottle. Then came the 1999 Sherry Cask. The first bottle I bought was unpleasant. Undaunted, I tried again but the second bottle didn't live up up to the low standard of the first. If you would like to know more about that debacle in particular or the Edradour Distillery in general, you may like to click here. 

Edradour, I have found, is an inconsistent Malt. The first release of the 2003 Bourbon Cask was a powerful dram that many would rate in the low to mid 90's. The 1999 Sherry Cask was either the victim of a batch wide contamination that would make Union Carbide proud or just bloody awful. In any case, the buck stops with Edradour. 

Colour: Yellow gold. Nary a hint of artificial colouring here. Far too hot to drink neat; water, a lot of water, is its friend.

Nose: Grassy, green apples, lemon essence, grapefruit and peach. Yeast, grain and vanilla. 

Palate: Intense, young, (tastes much younger than its 11 years). Lashings of spearmint, vanilla, sour pineapple and marzipan. Lovely, creamy mouthfeel. Developes into a spicy, hot, spirit driven dram, not much cask influence. Spirit competes with vanilla for dominance of the lingering finish, and finally, some oak. 

I opened this bottle six months ago. Squeals of delight from the malt lovers present that evening (recalling the magnificence of the first bottling) quickly turned to howls of disappointment. And so the bottle sat undisturbed for some time. Six months later things are much improved. Time in the glass also helps; letting it sit, watered, for at least ten minutes, will reveal more flavour and less heat. If the original release was kinda Cate Blanchett; intense, complex, seductive and memorable, this bottling is more Emma Watson; young, hot, rich, and utterly forgettable. 

84/100

William Crampton