[February, 2018]  So far I really enjoyed most of the cask strength releases by Springbank and this new release is bottled at exactly the same abv of 56.3% as the 2016 one that I liked best so far.  This new release was the first batch of Springbank in the new year bottled on January 4th, 2018.  I bought this bottle for 54 Euro today.

The colour is amber and the texture shows many small tears that slowly consolidate.  The nose offers a rather unusual profile of marzipan, cheesy and meaty aromas that do not really chime together.  To be frank, I do not like this.  The dram arrives a little hot in the mouth with almost no coating effect at all but a minor adstringent feeling (ashes).  The taste again shows this strange marzipan-cheese-meat combo that is not to my liking - but where do these flavours come from (I never had this in a Springbank CS before)?  The finish is of medium length and sweeter than the taste but with a drying end (tobacco ashes).  Water does not help either.

While the 2016 CS edition was excellent (I scored it 90 points) this 2018 bottling is not to the liking of my taste buds.  As both bottlings have the same abv of 56.3% one should be cautious to check the small imprint from the bottling hall at the bottom of the bottle.  But maybe you like this 2018 profile better than I do...

PS:  There is a minor sulphury note in this batch, too.

Slightly flinty nose, sweet, alcohol, sherried, smoky developing towards ashy, buttric.

The big sweetness (marzipan) and Fred Flintstone are accompanying from start to finish. Not really balanced and no complexity.  Actually, quite dirty.

Not my favourite Springbank profile and a dissapointment as I found the new 10 quite exceptional in price/quality relation and taste. But bourbon casked Springers tend to please to please me much more in these modern times.

Maybe let the bottle air for about 6 months?

Early this year I used the last sample I had of the bottle for a home tasting with a friend. Out of all the whisky on the table that night, this was the one that surprised us. It's a bottle that both of us were familiar with, so it was hard to accept the first nosing round's repulsive impression of smoky, dirty, and rubbery notes all out of tune. It felt like the worst whisky on the table. It took us probably 30 minutes to get back to that glass since it was an early one in the lineup. Time made all the difference: now we had a still dirty, but well integrated and no longer rubbery whisky that was big but not cartoonishly so . We hadn't added any water yet, just let it air out, so you may want to let it sit for a while if you're trying it out and it doesn't work at first.

N: Slightly sulfured, tart raspberries, dirty ash, rubber, dry gravel, minerals.

P: Creamy, sour and salty, good mouthfeel, ashy raspberry

F: Still that sour salty combo. Chlorine, Red berries. A little ashy.

Thoughts: Some good elements, but it’s not one I would buy again (this batch) due to the sulfur. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the regular old 10 year.

In early March I was wondering what would happen with 6 months of air - well, half my 10cl sample got 4 months with muh better results.

Fred Flinstone is only present for a very short time, then gives way to smoke and overripe yellow fruits, i.e. quince, with a slight dry touch appearing then overwhelmed by smoked quinces. The fruit is really concentrated and mouth watering with a touch of iodine. The smoke subsides quickly, though.The dram leaves a pleasant warming finish on the tongue, where the lucious quince remains watering with some yellow plums ...

Wow, a big change from 4 months ago, so a separate note for this encounter.