Signatory Pulteney 2008
Independent bottling | 55.8% ABV
Score: 6/10
Good Stuff.
TL;DR
A perplexing whisky in some respects.
All About The Finish?
A long time ago, in a distant whisky past, if you mentioned a finish or finishing, memories of Gary Lineker, Gerhard "Gerd" Müller or the legendary Hughie Gallacher would materialise. Each six-yard box predator appearing out of nowhere to slam home a simple opportunity to devastating effect. The finish, or art of finishing, was never connected to whisky.
Times change. While other companies have embarked on the journey of finishing years prior, Signatory was one of the last to switch to such a format. That’s a reflection of their staunch and noted stubbornness perhaps, but also the reality of their illustrious maturing inventory. A visit to Edradour was worth the entry fee for just the opportunity to explore one of their large warehouses. Reviving memories of Indiana Jones and the limitless government warehouse of fantastic oddities. For a while, around each corner awaited casks of Dallas Dhu, Port Ellen and Millburn. The Signatory warehouse was always the whisky equivalent of that labyrinth of secretive casks and only potentially surpassed by Cadenhead’s and Gordon & MacPhail.
Again, times have changed. Cadenhead’s now finish on an increasingly frequent basis. An assortment of sherry and rum finishes are now available compared to their fully matured cousins. There’s a sense that despite their huge inventory, many of the crown jewels have reached a wider public with a notable exception being that last cask of Glen Mhor. The remaining king – if we can keep the royal theme going – resides in Elgin as Gordon & MacPhail. Yes, they also finish some releases, but remain committed to setting the standard when it comes to long maturation and bottling whiskies at their peak, with or without finishing.
The aforementioned footballers were viewed by opposing fans with tremendous disdain (keeping the language clean for this article), much like the idea of finishing whiskies by a segment of whisky enthusiasts. Initially, the pursuit was to give us a taste of rarely seen casks or fanciful flavours. A chance for independent bottlers to put their own stamp on maturation and differentiate themselves from more official releases. Good motivations, but beneath such Bond Street visual merchandising there is a seedy underbelly.
Poor wood policy and distillery owners engaged at minimising costs, laid down generations of whisky that was (more than likely) intended for blending requirements, or to be sold on to whisky brokers. While all the upfront effort from the distillery team was to do the best possible job, the wood failed to capitalise on that endeavour. So, faced with a clutch of tired casks, what would you do? Exactly, roll out the barrels of sherry or more active ex-bourbon wood and hey presto!
The wood quality has come on leaps and bounds since the days of cost-cutting. Financed by enthusiasts who are willing to pay a bit more. Port and wine casks have become more common and the use of virgin wood, tolerated. Whereas previously it was almost entirely motivated by poor cask management, today’s situation is very different. The roles have become skewed. The quality of wood and distillate is so consistent that there is a limited opportunity for variety. The bulk of single cask releases nowadays might not have been worthy of such a release 10-15 years ago, but now the market is so buoyant and hungry, that more average and less exciting casks are the norm.
Have we become used to finishing as a more acceptable feature of our single malt journey? Does the use of a finish provide a new taste experience without the excessive economics of full maturation, or is it a load of rubbish? These and many more questions besides will form part of the ongoing debate.
“like a layer of gloss or varnish on an old master, it’ll take years of decay or a talented restoration to remove it.”
Personally, it’s all about the details. Ask why a finish was applied and if something doesn’t stack up, then take your money elsewhere. The use of smaller casks is always concerning, whether it’s an octave or even smaller, these casks implement change rapidly and leave a forceful imprint. Duration of a finish can indicate the skill of the bottler and their goal i.e. a black as soot sherry bomb, isn’t driven by a flavour agenda. Then, the age of the whisky before a secondary cask was introduced. The Scotch Malt Whisky Society had a reputation for seemingly wheeling out sauternes casks for whiskies that failed their tasting panel – a quick six-month finish before returning to the panel for approval. While some might argue that nothing fails nowadays, there is more variety, but alarm bells should ring if there’s a well-aged whisky.
Take 31.38, Slippers by the Fire, for instance. For 27 years this Jura resided in ex-bourbon cask, before being shipped into a 1st fill (gulp) sauternes barrique for five years. Not a quick-finish by any stretch of the imagination, but a 1st fill wine cask for half a decade will have scrubbed clean most of the subtle elements of the Jura, which can sparkle at such a vintage.
A mhor extreme example would be the 50 year old Glen Mhor bottled by Signatory in 2016. Distilled in 1965, the refill sherry butt remained unscathed for most of its life, before being replaced by an oloroso cask finish for 88 months. An outturn of 353 bottles indicates that the second cask would have been of a decent size, but unless the original sprang a leak it seems a sad end to such a lengthy journey. Perhaps an extreme example? Indeed, but suggestive of the finishing that we were to see more of, particularly using sherry casks, from Signatory and taking us into today’s review.
Review
Signatory edition of 652 bottles, 55.8% ABV
£100
My thanks to Max for the sample of this particular release. Distilled on 27th May 2008, this Pulteney was bottled on 16th April 2021, after a finish of 33 months in a fresh sherry butt. The initial casks were refill bourbon barrels, we don’t know how many, but two or three seems reasonable. Then, it was vatted into the butt and bottled at 55.8% with an asking price of £100 for the experience. Quite expensive on paper for a 12 year old Pulteney, featuring just a sherry finish, as you can pick up the official 18 year old for £115, featuring sherry casks and a strength of 55.8%.
Nose
There’s plenty of woodiness and sherry influence without dominating the agenda. Toffee, dampness, almonds, cloves and moss. Fresh tea leaves, dried beef, brass rubbings and an empty crab shell. Red apples, mustiness and cigar smoke. Water reveals a gentle level of fruit and dried red meat.
Palate
A pleasant mouthfeel, a blast of milk chocolate followed by bashed apples and cinnamon bark. More wood, more fresh tea leaves. Peppercorns, brown sugar, chestnut mushrooms and a nice sweetness followed by beef stock. Water provides an old flannel and more oak.
The Dregs
A perplexing whisky in some respects. There isn’t much of Pulteney left, that touch of coast on the nose being the only remnant of the source. There’s a very good sherry cask providing the finish. Less forceful and uncouth compared to many we’re seeing. This makes sense as Signatory does have some wonderful old casks and maybe, just maybe, one of them was deemed suitable for this project. Then again, what’s fresh about this cask? An oldie, given new life by a cooperage with some charring or shaving? More detail is always welcomed, otherwise, it’s pure speculation.
There’s also this emotional sense that the finish has squatted down on the original liquid and created this thick, impenetrable layer that cannot be broken. A meatiness that you wouldn’t associate with Pulteney. Like a layer of gloss or varnish on an old master, it’ll take years of decay or a talented restoration to remove it.
The finish has taken the whisky in a new direction, but in doing so, it has become more constrained and less detailed. Engineered to a certain degree and lacking a sparkle to take it to higher heights.
Score: 6/10
Our thanks to Tyndrum Whisky for the image.
Tried this? Share your thoughts in the comments below. DM
-
Dramface is free.
Its fierce independence and community-focused content is funded by that same community. We don’t do ads, sponsorships or paid-for content. If you like what we do you can support us by becoming a Dramface member for the price of a monthly magazine.
However, if you’ve found a particular article valuable, you also have the option to make a direct donation to the writer, here: buy me a dram - you’d make their day. Thank you.
For more on Dramface and our funding read our about page here.
