Every so often, a bottle comes along that forces me to wrestle with the difference between pure quality and genuine value. The Kilchoman 15 Year Old, part of the distillery’s 20th anniversary cask series, is exactly that kind of whisky. Bottled at 52.7% from a vatting of five casks, two from 2008 and three from 2009, it carries a portion that is creeping toward sixteen years of age. It is a beautiful dram. But whether it earns the asking price is another question entirely, and one I want to unpack here.
Let me start with what is in the glass, because there is plenty to admire. The nose is led by rich cherry from the casks, but wade through that and you find something more familiar to Islay lovers: that minty, Crest toothpaste note I so often associate with Laphroaig. To my mind, Kilchoman peat and Laphroaig peat are very, very similar. There is slight iodine, sea salt, and even a curious squid ink quality, the kind of raw dough note you might recognise if you have ever had squid ink pasta. A touch of black licorice rounds it out, and the colour is gloriously dark. Naturally it is unchill filtered with no added colour, all the things Kilchoman does so well.
On the palate it delivers espresso coffee, more of that iodine and sea salt, and a molasses sweetness that is far more restrained than the cherry nose led me to expect. What impressed me most is how it drinks. It does not taste like 52.7%. The mouthfeel is excellent; there is no harsh burn, and the strength sits in a genuinely flattering place. As a piece of liquid craftsmanship, it is hard to fault.
Quick whisky question
Single malt is everywhere, but what does it mean? We want to know what the word “single” means to you. Three quick questions, under a minute.
So here is my biggest beef. This bottle cost me somewhere around CA$250 to CA$260, and at that price the maths simply does not add up. For the same money you could pick up two Laphroaig Sherry Cask Tens. Put it head to head with the single cask Machir Bay style releases, like the Maciel tour that was a hundred dollars cheaper and considerably younger, and that younger bottle blows it away in my opinion.
That is why this lands at an 86 for me. On quality alone, I would happily push it to an 87 or 88, but I cannot ignore what I paid. It is a very, very good whisky, and I will keep exploring the Kilchoman line because they make great stuff. I am just not convinced this one justifies the premium. Would you pay $250 for a whisky you can almost match for far less? I would love to hear where you stand.
To see my full tasting, check out my YouTube video.
Latest On The Whiskey Wash
