Loch Lomond Whisky (Old vrs New)

---

WHISKY REVIEWS, NEWS, HISTORY & FOLKLORE

---

The Loch Lomond Story

This post marks a wee milestone in the life of the Whisky Reviews blog because it is the 700th review to be published. To celebrate the occasion, I will, of course, need some interesting whiskies and for that, I have just the thing. I recently hosted a tasting for the Glasgow Whisky Group on Facebook that included a comparison of three single malts from Loch Lomond Distillery. A lot can be learned by tasting old whisky alongside its newer counterpart and this proved to be an enjoyable and educational experience.

Sometimes it doesn’t feel so long ago that I first started writing on this humble wee blog but a lot has happened in those 8 and a half years. I don’t know how confident I would have been in 2015 of reaching anything like 700 but here we are. 700 reviews and 1048 drinks tasted and opined upon. I know it’s 1048, because I just spent a lot of time going through them all. In the early days, I kept a running list of everything but over time I lost track and the list was forgotten. Well no longer! The Hit List is back in all its splendor and can be viewed, sorted and searched to your heart’s content here.

Now that the list is up and running again, I suppose it’s about time I started adding some new whiskies to it. On this occasion, I’ll be sampling and discussing three different expressions from Loch Lomond, which is, arguably, one of the most interesting distilleries in all of Scotland. By that I mean, that it has the capacity to produce a wider spectrum of flavours and styles than most of its competitors.

I think it would be fair to say, however, that Loch Lomond as a brand, hasn’t always lived up to its own potential. Back when I first got into whisky (around 15 years or so ago), no-one would have pointed to Loch Lomond as a recommendation. The whisky came in old fashioned dull packaging that was matched in dullness by the flavour profile exhibited in the glass. I remember tasting it during my early explorations and I largely wrote it off as nothing to get excited about. The distillery, it seemed, was coasting along, with the main focus on producing bulk spirit for blends and the single malt had been created as something of an afterthought.

Perhaps it’s important to remember that the single malt category only really burst into life in the 1980s. Sales of blended Scotch had fallen and white spirits like Vodka, Gin and (white) Rum took over. Malts were a convenient way to rebrand Scotch as a premium spirit, that could be sold for a new, higher price. It made sense for many distilleries, even those that were still slave to the blending industry, to release a single malt. You might as well cover all the bases after all – especially if you have a name so easily marketed as Loch Lomond!

Some achieved more success than others and poor old Loch Lomond failed to win much of a fanbase. What exactly the specific problem was, I don’t know but it feels like there wasn’t much love put into the creation of the whisky.

Fast forward to modern times and things look rather different. Lomond has undergone a change in ownership (more than once) and time and energy has been put into building a single malt brand that looks the part, tastes the part and even celebrates some of the unique complexities that make the distillery so intriguing.

The majority of the new range comes bottled at 46% ABV as standard, it’s un-chill-filtered and different varieties are given their own brand names, like Inchmurrin and Inchmoan, named after islands found in the famous loch. It seems inevitable then, that a comparison with the old bottling should reveal predictable results but I’ve always thought it worthwhile to challenge such perceived wisdom. The only way to know for sure, is to do it yourself. So that’s what I did.

An old bottle of Loch Lomond came up at auction and, naturally, there wasn’t a lot of interest so I got it for £20. My first thought was to compare it to the standard 12 year old but since the old bottle was 40%, and no doubt chill filtered, I thought that might be an unfair comparison so instead, I picked up the Loch Lomond Classic, which is available in most supermarkets. This I thought, would give a fair comparison between old and new styles. Then as I began to advertise the lineup for the Glasgow Whisky Group tasting, Gary Mills, brand ambassador for Loch Lomond, got in touch and offered to provide a bottle of the 12 so that it too, could form part of the comparison.

The tasting went well and I found the results extremely interesting so decided it would make a good subject for a review. Below you’ll find my thoughts on the old bottling (at 40%), followed by the new Classic bottling (at 40%) and finally, the 12 year old (at 46%).

Slàinte!

Loch Lomond Single Malt

There’s little in the way of useful, practical information on the label. It is “Distilled and aged to perfection in old oak casks on the banks of Loch Lomond”. While the back reads “Loch Lomond is a fine Malt Whisky produced in the Scottish Highlands by a Scottish family company using knowledge acquired during the last 180 years.” Even that, is not strictly true, although Loch Lomond are by no means the only offender when it comes to borrowed history. There was a Loch Lomond distillery established in 1814 at the other end of the Loch but it closed long before the construction of the current site and there is little to connect the two, beyond the name.

Smell: The nose starts out OK. There’s lots of ripe fruits – maybe even turning to overripe. It’s reminiscent of an estery beer – with bananas and melon. Lemon juice and pineapple. There doesn’t seem too much wrong with it until a wee touch of youth pokes through. The sort of immature peppery heat you get from New Make. Also some light cereals and a gentle oakiness. Very much a spirit-led aroma though.

Taste: Once again, first impression is OK. It arrives on the tip of the tongue in a burst of estery fresh fruits. Then there’s a wee bit of vanilla and toffee before things change (deteriorate?) around the mid-palate. All of a sudden, a peculiar liquorice note bursts in unannounced and veers towards a rubbery note with some chemically spirit heat. Doesn’t finish well at all.

Thoughts: I’m finding this dram strangely captivating. I can totally understand why people had a problem with it. The finish, in particular, is unpleasant, but it feels a shame because there is some promise in the nose – and the arrival.

I’ve read some whisky commentators discuss the effect caused by changes in yeast strains and I wonder if that’s what I’m seeing a bit of here. As I understand it, Scotch whisky displayed more of the estery fruit characteristics when Brewer’s yeast was used in fermentation and the changeover to Distillers’ yeast saw certain flavour aspects sacrificed for alchoholic yield. Indeed, people often question whether whisky was better in the old days and those most in the know will usually tell you that the consistency on offer today simply couldn’t be achieved in the past but, on occasion, that old lack of consistency could result in something spectacular. You could say that the highlights were higher and the lowlights were lower.

That same concept could be applied to this dram. The highlights – those light, vivid, colourful fruits – are brighter than I typically find in today’s whisky but the spirity heat and off-putting rubber are far worse than anything else I encounter on a regular basis.

Now, I’ve no idea if the experience I’m having with this dram is because of yeast, or some other reason, but it definitely doesn’t present like a modern dram.

Price: I paid £20 at auction. I’m happy enough with that given that I used it in a tasting and found the experience educational and enlightening. I’m not too sure what it went for at RRP but I’d estimate somewhere between £18 and £20 at the time. It was never a particularly expensive bottle. Not sure I’ll be finishing the remainder of the bottle any time soon but it could be a fun conversation piece when whisky geeks visit.

Loch Lomond Classic

Now we move onto the first rung of the current core range ladder with the Classic expression. This is a bottle that only appeared over the last couple of years. I remember raising an eyebrow when I first encountered it as it almost seemed a backward step for a brand that had relaunched as proudly 46%. Still, it seemed the most like-for-like comparison with the old version and actually, even some of the wording has remained similar. “Aged to perfection in specially selected American oak casks”. At least we get some specifics on the oak variety now. On the back label there are some tasting notes and the name of Master Blender, Michael Henry.

Smell: I picked up a wee bit of fruit that wasn’t dissimilar to the original, though nowhere near as prominent. This time around there’s more of a floral honey with caramel and vanilla. More oak, in general. There’s a peppery hint but it’s like seasoning rather than heat and it mingles with other spices, like cinnamon and maybe some nutmeg. There’s also a wee hint of smoke at the back, something I didn’t notice at all, in the old version.

Taste: There’s a nice maltiness and a more prominent cask character, with some bourbony vanilla and caramel. The cinnamon and pepper thing is there again and there’s a nice wee tail of smoke as you move into the finish. It’s not the most complex but a solid enough offering when it comes to budget-friendly supermarket drams.

Thoughts: I think, objectively, the new is a better whisky than the old. Probably by quite some margin. It has none of the off notes, it feels nicely balanced and has a decent fullness to its flavour and yet it definitely lacks the burst of fruitiness that leapt out of the old version.

Things have certainly changed. Casks have become more important and a more dominant aspect of Scotch’s profile but perhaps we have lost something along the way. Some claim that as much as 60 or 70% of a Scotch whisky’s flavour comes from the cask. Now, I’m not sure where exactly they got that figure but perhaps if we were creating a bit more complexity in the spirit, we wouldn’t need to rely so heavily on the oak. In an ideal world, we’d see the consistency of the new whisky with some of the fruity highlights of the old. Which is exactly why so many new distillers are experimenting with yeast strains and fermentation times. It’s an attempt to recover some of that lost fruitiness in the wash.

Price: Around £25 which means it won’t break the bank. Despite the name, it isn’t a classic but it’s a decent enough bargain buy if you’re working with a low budget.

Loch Lomond 12-year-old

We move onto the flagship expression! The 12 year old is the distillery’s calling card. The dram that tells the world what Loch Lomond is all about. This time the ABV jumps to the hallowed 46% and we get a declaration that it is non-chill-filtered, though interestingly no comment on colour. Come to mention it, there is a slight orangey hue which may suggest the use of E150A. The label follows much the same pattern as the Classic only this time the back goes into a bit more detail – “American Oak casks – bourbon, refill and recharred.”

Smell: Honeyed again with a noticeable malty note. More bourbon character. Almost a buttery nose. Some fresh bread. Subtle citrus. Light spices and distant peat smoke.

Taste: Arrives with honey and malt and toffee, followed by cinnamon. Sweet pastries and croissants with butter. Some marmalade with orange peel. Wee bit of oak with some peppery spice as it moves into smoke towards the finish. This time the smoke feels more prominent but it’s not, by any means, a peat bomb.

Thoughts: This feels like quite a jump – not so much in style, in that regard it feels like an obvious continuation of the Classic – but flavour intensity has been dialled up. Body and mouthfeel, in particular, are notably enhanced. There’s a subtle oiliness, which helps to better distribute the flavours around the palate. The whole experience is much closer to what I look for in a dram. It has weight. It has intensity. Although, it has to be said, I did find myself thinking about those fruity notes again…

Price: Available online for between £36 and £45. It remains a decent dram for the price. In the current climate, finding an old fashioned 12 year age statement at 46% for less than £50 is pretty good going.

Conclusions

I don’t think anyone would argue that Loch Lomond has improved over the years. The old version, despite its appealing fruits, descends too far into unpleasantness to make it an appealing dram whereas the Classic, albeit a little plain and ultimately forgettable is quite palatable. The 12, at 46%, is where we see the real difference. This is several levels above the old bottling.

Still, perhaps there is something to be learned from the past. Perhaps the pursuit of complexity and the ever increasing expansion of production has led to the loss of certain flavours. Maybe it would do no harm whatsover to think about how things were done in the past. After all, Scotch whisky has more competition for shelf space than at any point in its history and every step should be taken to ensure the product is as good as it can possibly be, otherwise, this industry, so famous for its cyclical nature of boom and bust, could quite easily find itself becoming yesterday’s news once again.

---

For more about Loch Lomond visit here

---

---

---

About Whisky Reviews

Contact

---