Downgraded my score from a 90 to a 88. This is my second bottle, and although very good, not quite the way I remembered it the first time around. Not as much fruit and sherry in the second bottle as the first. It's the same release and both bottles were purchased at the same time, so their shouldn't be any difference between the two, other than my palate changing slightly and being more discerning now than before.

Nose: fruity sweetness, tobacco, old wood - a bit musty, delicately spicy, some wax, oranges, toasted cereal (Kellogg's smacks from childhood), after the first sip strong elegant oak notes, a fresh fruity acidity Taste: sweet, spicy, full-bodied, syrupy, hazelnut nougat, prunes, raisins, dates, sawdust - rather grindy, slightly dry, with the second sip - full-bodied, slightly sharp on the tongue like grapefruit skin, various citrus notes, fruity acidity, balsam-like texture , hidden sherry tones, serve more as a backdrop for the bourbon flavors
Conclusion: the drop has a high quality, is quite peculiar in its wood notes, I can not quite understand the hype so yummy but nothing so special

Nose: honeyed peaches, toasted oak, ripe dark cherries

Palate: silky smooth honey, plum wine, burnt raspberries

Finish: short, salted peanuts, burnt berries

Overall: can see why some like this whisky but it doesn't quite work for me, perhaps I need to let my bottle breathe some more (>1 month open now)

https://whiskylovingpianist.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/bottle-polishing-three-3s-part-3-3/

We can all agree the vintage year is clear, but what is it with these releases? This is a 1990 vintage 2nd release bottled in 2014, though there are subsequent 1990 vintages bottled in 2015 and again in 2017, also second releases - what!? Highlighting the issue, I’ve read that the 1990/2014 & 1990/2017 [WF89] are wildly different to this one WF81. With the bottling year printed vertically as small print on the back label of the bottle, it’s crucial information retailers often fail to mention. Balblair could eradicate this long running confusion in a jiffy. I’ll write to them.

[UPDATE]
https://whiskylovingpianist.wordpress.com/2018/09/03/inverhouse-at-the-fringe/

N: Thoroughly pleasing. Beneath the initial oaky>boozy hit awaits a curiosity shop of treats. Within the fruity oily layers there’s quite a plethora of unusual smells that aren’t so easily broken down into spirit/cask camps, given 23 years of alchemy.
T: Like an oaky hummus blended to smithereens, it’s pretty woody and tart [Serge]. What emerges shortly after is a heavy putty/malty fruitiness [oranges & lemons] with chocolate to fudge and caramac - all lined by oak. Given time and some water, you have a delicious mouthful. It’s not overly complex nor clever, just tasty/gluggable - though this isn’t consistent. Also, the journey is stupidly short, especially neat.
F: We see some old paraffin-wax and a murky nondescript selection of home & garden oil & spray products joining the malty/oaky/putty dry mango/citrus action. Short again and very drying on a dry cracked peppery<zesty oaky plane with a touch of dry lime vanilla. Water however lengthens the finale a touch with an oaky-ish putty finish.
C: The nose aside, this Balblair doesn’t set my world on fire though there are moments. The solution is to simply return back to snifting and repeat the cycle, and look for the 1990/2017 [2nd release].

Scores a B-