T: Surprisingly bolder on the palate, but still?! The oak is very well behaved,… allowing the fruits to run. It’s a fully integrated vatting, as in all those layers have been compressed,… like MDF. Theres a heathery toasted-ness covering the whole presentation alongside a light, sweet cream [sign of age of course] but accompanied equally by a tartness too, albeit light. On the other hand this is rather elegant considering all the factors. Theres a sweet spot entering the finish, thats the highlight - the overall taste and mouthfeel.
F: Dry oak yes, but then more fruit notes - ‘Chewits’ candy like and vanilla cream. Earthy-burnt oak at the death with a little powdered creamy milk. Yeah, it’s good. Tell you something - an hour after i finished the glass and the empty glass still emits the stuff, with a similar intensity!!
C: I’ve only tried fourteen 40yo’s before in my life, the majority of which have been stunning. This is a decidedly lacklustre and largely uneventful old timer - full of depth but overly compressed and flattened. How much Glen 40yo+ do G&M have to be vetting these bottles? On the other hand, there are lovely touches. I read Slick’s review regarding this whisky before i bought it and hoped he was wrong but, I now concur with him wholeheartedly in his conclusion. Real shame - all those old [1940’s] casks amalgamated. Were the sum of it’s parts really less than the finished article?
Scores a B[-]