Head to head: Glenlivet Nadurra & Nadurra Triumph 1991

[bifter]

The Glenlivet is a Speyside distillery founded in 1824 by George Smith, a farmer (but also a scholar) who, like many at the time, took advantage of the relaxation of the licensing regime. The reputation of Glen Livet as a terroire was such that many distillers appended Glenlivet to their names until such practices were outlawed in 1984 (some still do all the same) and is why the original distillery is often referred to as The Glenlivet, not least on their own bottlings. Owned by Chivas Brothers (part of Pernod Ricard), Glenlivet can claim to be the second most popular premium malt whisky in the world and number one in the US.

The Nadurra expression is comprised of three products. The standard Nadurra, according to the official Web site, is aged in first fill American white oak casks for 16 years (I'll return to the use of the term 'according to' later) and is bottled in batches at cask strength. It has won a few international spirits awards, gets a 'Liquid gold' 94 mark from Jim Murray in his 2012 Whisky Bible and certainly has a strong following among malt enthusiasts. The Nadurra Triumph is aged two years more and is bottled at a standard 48%. And the Travel Retail bottle is the same as the 16 year old but bottled at 48% and only available from Duty Free shops. Now, 'nadurra' is the Gaelic word for natural and the marketing here focuses on the fact that the whisky is unadultered. The Web site proclaims that "unlike most modern whiskies, this single malt is not chill filtered, giving the mouth feel more body and a richer texture. A bold innovation in single malt." I really take issue with this kind of rubbish. How can it be a bold innovation to actually remove a process that was not done traditionally anyway? And if it makes the whisky so much better not to do it, why do it at all to any of the range? (As I'm sure you know non-chill filtered whisky can go a little cloudy when water is added and apparently this puts some ignorant people off). Of course this doesn't mean the whisky isn't filtered at all, it will have been barrier filtered to remove any 'floaters'. Anway, rant over, on to the tasting...

Both whiskies are yellow gold in colour (any difference in shade is almost imperceptible) and have surprisingly short and irregular legs. Here the similarities begin to diverge. The 16 is, of course, cask strength, usually around 58% and the high abv pricks the nose initially. Notes such as nail varnish remover and polish are to the fore but cannot quite mask a strong and sharp barley note. Adding water, the character truly emerges with what I discerned as pear drops, creme caramel, hazelnuts/praline and cigar boxes. Interestingly I could swear that I detected quite a strong fino sherry note despite the bourbon cask provenance! The unadultered taste was sharp and peppery, dominated by the alcohol (nail varnish remover), so I quickly tipped in some water, which brought out caramel notes, ripe cherry, hazelnuts and resinous young wood. The finish was long enough but not epic, pepper still present and caramel right at the end. Overall this whisky is quality all the way, very flavoursome with no off notes. I did observe that there was very little development in the flavour profile, it strikes a note and then just holds it. Whether this should be a criticism I don't know, I suppose it just depends on what you expect of a whisky.

The Triumph (my bottle was the 1991 distillation - Batch 0310B) was obviously less prickly on the nose initially with a strong orange note and that fino sherry present again! As Jim Murray notes of this particular batch there is a slight sulphur note present, which became more obvious with water and was reminiscent of butane gas. Jim claims that this influence must be due to the presence of sulphured sherry casks in the batch and, if this were the case, would both explain the sherry notes I detected in both whiskies and would contradict the distillery's claimed bourbon cask provenance - can anyone elucidate? The taste is demonstrably sweeter than the 16, with that orange present among other fruit salad notes, less pepper/spice and a noticeable vanilla presence. Unsurprisingly it needs much less water to achieve equilibrium. The mouthfeel is incredibly creamy and this pervades the finish with a slight cocoa butter taste. Surprisingly, I found the finish rather shorter than the 16 and the flavour profile less strident though this could be due to the relative alcohol content. Overall, for me, this whisky was a tamer and slightly inferior version of the Nadurra 16 though, to deploy semantics, some may prefer the fact that it is 'sweeter and gentler'.

The Glenlivet marketing is well oiled and in my estimation these whiskies carry a slight premium. The Aberlour A'Bunadh and Glenfarclas 15, for example, are top Speysides which I have enjoyed and which cost significantly less. On that basis I can't give the Nadurra an unequivocally glowing report but the 16 is certainly a great whisky. The Triumph should be even better but, in my estimation, falls short of expectations.
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[Alexppp]

Very detailed and well-written tasting notes - nice one! I agree with your impression of the 16. For me (when watered down) it seems like a bigger, bolder version of the regular Glenlivet 18 - more intense fruit and more full-bodied, a sort of Glenlivet 18 taken to extremes (in a good way).

I don't think we should necessarily be that critical of Glenlivet's proclamations about non-chill filtering - lots of distilleries boast about it after all (not least Laphroaig for the Quarter Cask or Aberlour for the a'bunadh). The price for the Nadurra 16 seems fair to me - if a bit on the high side, I still don't mind paying £40-45 for a cask strength whisky of that age. The a'bunadh is a no-age statement after all and as such I'd expect it to be cheaper.

[bifter]

[bifter]

[Alexppp]

Yes, I guess you're right about the 'bold innovation' claim. As for the sherry notes, perhaps I'm not the best person to ask - I've only had one batch of the Nadurra 16 (the 0410J, bottled at 54.4% ABV) and I didn't detect any sherry notes there. I guess there could be a quirk in the production of the particular batch you tried though.