Springbank 15-year-old

Overall rating
86.75/100
ratings
4
Whiskybase ID
WB286249
Category
Single Malt
Distillery
Bottler
Distillery Bottling
Bottled
15.10.2004
Stated Age
15 years
Strength
46.0 %
Size
700 ml
Label
Beige Label
Bottle code
15 OCT 2004
Barcode
6108541570052
Added on
28 oct 2025 3:29 pm by Wedox
UncoloredNon-chill Filtered
Overall rating
86.75/100
ratings
4

  Create a free account to see all known prices

Whisky reviews for Springbank 15-year-old

3 users have left 3 reviews for this whisky. Average rating is 86.75 points.

Read the reviews
  1. irrerelevant did not rate this whisky Expert Senior

    Edmont

    Jules is the new, modern Springbank profile that feels familiar. Edmont is excitingly different, but also somewhat chaotic and less pleasing. Jules appeals to me more.

    Edmont
    Car gearbox oil, dry Oloroso, curd cheese, tannic acid, a fellow passenger on the train unexpectedly peels a boiled egg, kimchi, very fermented, surprisingly more pleasant in the mouth, but still spicier and stronger than Jules, sherry sweetness, cold distant smoke, maritime, salty, ouzo on the finish, unripe walnuts and old wet firework paper.

    Jules
    Fresh Oloroso, licorice candy, strawberry yogurt, dates in smoked ham, a slightly industrial/gritty note in the background that blends in well. A bit fresher smoke and noticeably sweeter than Edmond, more cask influence, maritime, salty, a pleasant bitterness and dryness from walnuts on the finish, very complex.

  2. Archer scored this whisky 89 points Connoisseur

    Taste comparison with Springbank 15 (2025)
    https://www.whiskybase.com/whiskies/whisky/288688/springbank-15-year-old

    1. Which of the two whiskies did you like better?
    I liked my Jules better than my Edmont.

    2. Why did you like whisky a) better than whisky b)?

    Nose
    I immediately detect a difference in the nose that I can't quite put into words, but which leads me to assume that I should already decide which of the two whiskies is the older and which is the younger.
    I'll keep that in mind and come back to it later. Edmont comes across as warm, with a note of a warm oil stove, while Jules is somewhat fresher, more maritime. Edmont seems dark, earthy, and loamy, but also has its bright moments with flashes of dried apricots here and there. There are also raisins and overripe figs. Jules is lighter; it doesn't feel as grounded as Edmont. Jules has a beautiful mineral note, delivering fresh grapes, blackcurrants, and lime zest. After increasing exposure to oxygen, Edmont has opened the door to a musty cellar. Damp walls, natural flooring, old wooden shelves. Jules, meanwhile, has found its source of peat smoke, which it now happily taps into. Otherwise, fresh and dried fruits, mineral notes, maritime, and fresh notes predominate. A few spice notes emerge later in Edmont.
    Edmond: 88/100 Jules: 89/100

    The taste
    Edmont starts surprisingly fresh and fruity; after the increasingly musty nose, I had expected something quite different. Fresh apricots and peaches, vanilla crescents, milk coffee, dry wood, damp pebbles, a touch of pepper. Jules, on the other hand, strikes the exact same note on the palate as on the nose: distinctly mineral, with a slight peat smoke note right from the start. Blackberries, blackcurrants, a hint of cherry jam. Edmont is more restrained, more refined, more composed, but no less aromatic. But unlike Jules, it delivers its aromas more subtly, with a sense of calmerness. The heaviness of the nose has completely vanished; on the palate, it presents itself as summery and light with fresh fruit and salty sea spray. Jules seems to have had more sherry cask exposure than Edmont. But that varies from batch to batch anyway, and isn't really relevant here for deciding which of the two is older, younger, better, or worse.
    Edmond: 89/100 Jules: 89/100

    Departure
    Edmond's finish is long and intense. Intense in that all the aromas cluster together in the center of the tongue, desperately resisting dissipation. It's simply wonderful how all the flavors remain intact until the very end, without anything falling apart or becoming thin. Jules's finish is also long, although here spice is added, the proportion of peat smoke increases relative to the taste on the tongue, and the mouth gradually becomes drier. Raisins, dried figs, mineral notes.
    Edmond: 90/100 Jules: 89/100

    Conclusion and comparative assessment
    To return to my initial assumption about the nose: Edmont struck me as "older" than Jules, primarily due to the oil stove note in the nose. I will maintain this assessment.
    Jules struck me as a good old friend: distinctly maritime and mineral, generous with aromas, decidedly sherry-forward, and consistently high-quality from start to finish. Just as I've come to know the last 15-year-olds. Edmond has an incredibly interesting and unusual nose – and gets better and better throughout the tasting, even surpassing Jules in points on the finish. I gave them both 89/100, making it difficult to decide which one is subjectively better. Ultimately, I choose Jules, as it maintains its high standard from beginning to end.

    3. Which of the two whiskies is the old bottling, and which is the new one?
    Edmont is the old bottling, Jules is the new bottling.
    (That was correct)
    • Nose
      88 88
    • Taste
      89 89
    • Finish
      90 90

  3. olegborgol Plus scored this whisky 86 points Connoisseur

    Blender's Glass.
    Ripe yellow (white) apples and overripe plums in the aroma, light herbal notes. Vanilla notes and sweet creaminess indicate the dominance of ex-bourbon barrels. 22 (maybe even 22.5).
    But a promising aroma doesn't mean a matching taste. Probably because of the low ABV. Wet spicy oak chips, apple skins, salt, lemon, a hint of eucalyptus. 21.5 (with a stretch).
    Aftertaste medium, patient with acidity 21
    Balance 21
    • Nose
      87 87
    • Taste
      86 86
    • Finish
      85 85

Tasting tags

Add tasting tags by clicking the flavours you recognized in this whisky.