N: Burnt matches, sulfur. Yeah, fo sure. P: And its on the palate too, but it sort of works. It compliments the woody notes and just registers as resinous spice. F: More of the same. Sulfur can be a major defect or add that extra complexity that elevates a whisky to the "A" range. There's not much else that stands out with this one, however, so its hard to know if it would have been better or worse without it.
Oak cakes and cardboard. Dry and dusty. Beer/malts in there somewhere.
Palate is musty old socks and something like a moldy dryness. Coal smoke developes after a bit.
Medium long finish all on an odd funk like over-ripe papayas.
From my notes you might think this was not something you would want to taste....however, I still think this malt is worthy of the line-up...just in a different way. It is very different from the others.
I got a lot less sulphur than Chris and I agree that it can be a good thing or a bad thing. I likely characterized the same taste as a mustiness.
Nose of sugar cookies, sulfur. Where'd that come from??
Palate is rich, quite herbal and grassy, with spice zipping in and out. A nice amount of sweetness for a 29yo. Finish dries and gets bready, yeasty, with a little cardboard. As the glass drains there's... what is that? Something green-tasting. And lingering chocolate.
An unusual but tasty malt worth exploring. The more I get to know it the more it approaches "special."
Nose: Sherry notes, metallic. Palate: Sherry, chewy oak notes, some sulphuric type notes. [Tasted blind, but on the reveal I have a hard time believing this is ex-Bourbon cask as I got sherry notes in it]. Finish. More of that metallic/sherry/sulphur note.