Mike, the only reference to the ages on Tun 1509 I've ever found are David Stewart mentioning that it is comprised of whiskies from the 70s,80s, and 90s. So it is a marriage of whiskies between 20-40 years; however, I have found nothing more specific than that. Great video!
Tall 34 nice! I wasn’t sure if you meant batch five or just 1509... Batch 4 was more oak forward and perfered that batch but they are fairly consistent. Have you open yours? Thoughts?
@@topshelfwhisky I had a pour with a good friend when he visited. I think that this 1509 Batch 5 should be part of the normal lineup, I know that's not possible, it is amazing.
I have had the 12 doublewood and enjoyed it... I never found the 17, and it's probably outrageously expensive anyway... With this bottle you guys are a couple of leagues beyond what I can afford.
I noticed you picked this up over the weekend, nice! Solid price too, always a good idea to treat people fairly it normally comes back toy you... Batch 5 is regarded by most as the best of the 1509's so good choice. I still prefer batch 4 but I'm splitting hairs.
I've actually had a sample of this (not sure which batch) and I really enjoyed it. What I found extra enjoyable and interesting about this review was the mention of the other whiskies. I'm doing a mini-series of reviews on the 12 Doublewood, the 14 Caribbean Cask and the 17 Doublewood. The 12 will be online shortly and fair to say, I didn't overly enjoy it.
@dhsilv2 At the end of the day, we all have our favourites and it's an objective thing. So much wish I had liked it more, but that's the way it goes. Crossing my fingers for the next 2.
I’ve always compared elements of whiskies to others. Especially when it’s a distillery that I’ve had most of their expressions. Balvenie is one of those distillery’s. I like the idea of core range rundown reviews and I’ve planned a few. They almost never go the way you think they are. For me, the double wood 17 is a favorite of mine. Most people disagree because of price but I think it’s a underappreciated dram.
Nice review, guys. Our whisky club had one of these (can’t remember which release). It was very nice and scored very high, but it’s really hard to justify the price.
You can find deals on these now and again, average age of most of these releases would be mid 20’s in my opinion , if that’s accurate, then 300-400 for a cask strength Balvenie is a solid deal, again in my opinion. Older Balvenie’s get expensive. My 25 year single casks were $600 after tax and they are 47.8% the 30 year is $1000.
Great review lads, I live about a 40 minute drive from the Glenfiddich and Balvenie distilleries, they have just released batch 7, I got a bottle a couple of days ago
@@raystewart365 No kidding, I wasn’t aware of that. Planned on getting work done this morning but now I’m gonna be researching how I can get my hands on this bottle.
I've heard theories about batch strength as a way to dispose of older casks like the Tun releases that may have dipped just below the legal 40% abv so when they "marry" them with younger, higher abv casks they balance out somewhere between.
Possible, thet may have applied to the 1401 series more because of the increased age. Wouldn’t that still be “cask strength” ? but what do I know. 😆🤷🏻♂️
No, cask strength is cask strength; single cask or by the batch it's cask strength without dilution of adding any water. Think of the Macallan Cask Strength releases both the NAS and 10yo, none of them were single cask releases just like the Aberlour A'bunadh batch releases (multi barrels making each release). Batch strength is bs terminology that is describing slightly reduced cask strength; if cask strength is 59.8% but it tastes better at 56.2% that's what they release it at. Batch strength is the in-between practise of reducing cask strength to a magic number like 43% or 46% abv regardless of the loss of taste and quality and leaving a cask strength as is even if it needs water to improve it. Reducing a batch release from cask strength to make it more pleasing on the palate to not a fixed number, is termed "Batch Strength". Which has more artisan to it.
@dhsilv2 I believe you're incorrect. Regardless; if it's a single cask release, a single batch release (of more than one cask within the same distillery) or a blend (of more than one distillery), if no water is added, its release is at cask strength. Cask strength has to do with the strength of the release, not whether it's a single cask, a batch or a blend, that's what those terms are used for. As for "fireworks" in terms a combination of casks in a single malt, that's a red-herring of a statement as most single malts are released as a blend of several casks for hundreds of years; HP 12, 18, 25 & 30yo as an example, and are released at a set abv which has changed over the years depending on when released. And none of those are categorized as a "blend", because it's obvious that such releases consist of more than one cask within the same distillery to make.
@dhsilv2 Yes, I agree with you on the "misleading marketing terms" that's why I don't like "Batch Strength" as a marking term, because it's bs! It gives a concept to some like Dustin on here coming up with what "Batch Strength" is on the fly, which it is not. It just adds to the disinformation out there. Here's an example of a "blended single malt" release of 2860 bottles at "Cask Strength"; Oban 21yo www.whiskybase.com/whiskies/whisky/53787/oban-21-year-old they even throw in the "Natural" proceeding cask strength to emphasize; no colourant and no water added. Also, many people thought that the Macallan "Classic Cut" was a cask strength release, even though there's nothing on the label indicating as such. Macallan designed the label to look like their old "Cask Strength" releases from 10 years ago with "Classic Cut" to infer that this might be cask strength. Cheeky bastards.
Mike, the only reference to the ages on Tun 1509 I've ever found are David Stewart mentioning that it is comprised of whiskies from the 70s,80s, and 90s. So it is a marriage of whiskies between 20-40 years; however, I have found nothing more specific than that. Great video!
Another excellent review... I was able to get a hold of a bottle, it's one of my all time favorites...
Tall 34 what batch?
@@topshelfwhisky The 1509 Batch 5, same as the review.
Tall 34 nice! I wasn’t sure if you meant batch five or just 1509... Batch 4 was more oak forward and perfered that batch but they are fairly consistent. Have you open yours? Thoughts?
@@topshelfwhisky I had a pour with a good friend when he visited. I think that this 1509 Batch 5 should be part of the normal lineup, I know that's not possible, it is amazing.
Tall 34 Balvenie that’s 20 plus years old the over 50% is just magic.
I have had the 12 doublewood and enjoyed it... I never found the 17, and it's probably outrageously expensive anyway... With this bottle you guys are a couple of leagues beyond what I can afford.
Something special about cask strength Balvenie.
Great review, boys. I got me a bottle of this yesterday! Stoked to dig in soon.
I noticed you picked this up over the weekend, nice! Solid price too, always a good idea to treat people fairly it normally comes back toy you... Batch 5 is regarded by most as the best of the 1509's so good choice. I still prefer batch 4 but I'm splitting hairs.
@@topshelfwhisky Cheers, bud. And very true. I also recently got the batch 7 so a comparison ma be in order after I get my bearings on them.
@@MaltMuserWhisky can't wait to see your review.
I've actually had a sample of this (not sure which batch) and I really enjoyed it. What I found extra enjoyable and interesting about this review was the mention of the other whiskies. I'm doing a mini-series of reviews on the 12 Doublewood, the 14 Caribbean Cask and the 17 Doublewood. The 12 will be online shortly and fair to say, I didn't overly enjoy it.
How was the 17? Out of those 3, the 14 year was probably my least favorite.
brego129 just done the 12 so far. The 14 Caribbean Cask next then the 17
dhsilv2 I remember enjoying an older 12 40% more than the 43%. It was the sadly discontinued 10 year Founder’s Reserve that drew me to Balvenie
@dhsilv2 At the end of the day, we all have our favourites and it's an objective thing. So much wish I had liked it more, but that's the way it goes. Crossing my fingers for the next 2.
I’ve always compared elements of whiskies to others. Especially when it’s a distillery that I’ve had most of their expressions. Balvenie is one of those distillery’s.
I like the idea of core range rundown reviews and I’ve planned a few. They almost never go the way you think they are. For me, the double wood 17 is a favorite of mine. Most people disagree because of price but I think it’s a underappreciated dram.
Nice review, guys. Our whisky club had one of these (can’t remember which release). It was very nice and scored very high, but it’s really hard to justify the price.
You can find deals on these now and again, average age of most of these releases would be mid 20’s in my opinion , if that’s accurate, then 300-400 for a cask strength Balvenie is a solid deal, again in my opinion. Older Balvenie’s get expensive. My 25 year single casks were $600 after tax and they are 47.8% the 30 year is $1000.
Mike - that’s why I’m in a whisky club :-)
Great review lads, I live about a 40 minute drive from the Glenfiddich and Balvenie distilleries, they have just released batch 7, I got a bottle a couple of days ago
I noticed batch 7 was released, have you opened your bottle? I was waiting for a review or two before ordering.
@@topshelfwhisky haven't opened it yet Mike, but I'm sure when I do I won't be disappointed, batch 1 is still my favourite so far
@@raystewart365 I’ve always been happy with cask strength Balvenie.
@@topshelfwhisky actually Balvenie have just released a new 21 year old single barrel, should be with you very soon
@@raystewart365 No kidding, I wasn’t aware of that. Planned on getting work done this morning but now I’m gonna be researching how I can get my hands on this bottle.
I've heard theories about batch strength as a way to dispose of older casks like the Tun releases that may have dipped just below the legal 40% abv so when they "marry" them with younger, higher abv casks they balance out somewhere between.
Possible, thet may have applied to the 1401 series more because of the increased age. Wouldn’t that still be “cask strength” ? but what do I know. 😆🤷🏻♂️
Alright boys, I went to school with a Sherry Butts😂 Kidding aside another great review.
Haha
Time to crack open the 1401 and share
Buddy, i have it open. It’s coming soon! Dark honey and malty Balvenie barley.
No, cask strength is cask strength; single cask or by the batch it's cask strength without dilution of adding any water. Think of the Macallan Cask Strength releases both the NAS and 10yo, none of them were single cask releases just like the Aberlour A'bunadh batch releases (multi barrels making each release). Batch strength is bs terminology that is describing slightly reduced cask strength; if cask strength is 59.8% but it tastes better at 56.2% that's what they release it at. Batch strength is the in-between practise of reducing cask strength to a magic number like 43% or 46% abv regardless of the loss of taste and quality and leaving a cask strength as is even if it needs water to improve it. Reducing a batch release from cask strength to make it more pleasing on the palate to not a fixed number, is termed "Batch Strength". Which has more artisan to it.
@dhsilv2 I believe you're incorrect. Regardless; if it's a single cask release, a single batch release (of more than one cask within the same distillery) or a blend (of more than one distillery), if no water is added, its release is at cask strength. Cask strength has to do with the strength of the release, not whether it's a single cask, a batch or a blend, that's what those terms are used for. As for "fireworks" in terms a combination of casks in a single malt, that's a red-herring of a statement as most single malts are released as a blend of several casks for hundreds of years; HP 12, 18, 25 & 30yo as an example, and are released at a set abv which has changed over the years depending on when released. And none of those are categorized as a "blend", because it's obvious that such releases consist of more than one cask within the same distillery to make.
@dhsilv2 Yes, I agree with you on the "misleading marketing terms" that's why I don't like "Batch Strength" as a marking term, because it's bs! It gives a concept to some like Dustin on here coming up with what "Batch Strength" is on the fly, which it is not. It just adds to the disinformation out there. Here's an example of a "blended single malt" release of 2860 bottles at "Cask Strength"; Oban 21yo www.whiskybase.com/whiskies/whisky/53787/oban-21-year-old they even throw in the "Natural" proceeding cask strength to emphasize; no colourant and no water added. Also, many people thought that the Macallan "Classic Cut" was a cask strength release, even though there's nothing on the label indicating as such. Macallan designed the label to look like their old "Cask Strength" releases from 10 years ago with "Classic Cut" to infer that this might be cask strength. Cheeky bastards.
Awesome review boys! Is it time to change the name to Mike and Dustin's Whisky Reviews? :)
Ha, Dustin and I have a nice run going. Maybe I can get another invite to the man cave for a HP25?