Then and now head-to-head comparison | 46% ABV

Score: 7/10

**Very Good Indeed.**
***TL;DR***
*One is a bit better, and you know which already, don’t you?*

The Fanboy

Imagine a band that you love, announcing that they’re going out on tour, only to subsequently announce that they’re planning to charge £200 a ticket.

You’ve been following them for years, buying all their records, and pressing those records with unabashed zeal into the hands of anybody who will listen. You were into them way back when, when they were still virtually unknown. You eulogised to your friends for hours about how great they are. The last time you saw them live, it cost you a mere fifty quid.

Now though, for reasons you can’t really fathom, they want to charge you four times as much. They’re the same band, playing the same songs, for the same amount of time, but suddenly, they’ve decided to rinse you for as much as they possibly can.

It feels like there’s a door being slammed in your face; like they’re giving you the middle finger as you disappear in their rear view mirror; like they’re taking you for a fool. Put bluntly, it feels as if they care less about their own integrity than you do.

As you sit there at the computer, your finger hovering over the ‘buy it now’ button, while you debate whether or not you can bring yourself to part with that much money for an experience that you previously enjoyed at a fraction of the price, you’re reminded of the story of the Sex Pistol’s last gig.

Having played one of the worst shows of their career, John Lydon squatted at the side of the stage and surveyed the bemused crowd with a sneer, his voice bristling with contempt, as he asked a question that has since gone down in history as one of the music moments of the era.

The question was a simple, but brutal one, it’s vitriol seemingly directed just as much at the music industry itself, as it was at the audience: ‘Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?’

There are parallels between the price of concert tickets and the price of whisky, and what with this being Dramface, and not the NME, you’ve probably already guessed that I’m about to draw one. Both have risen exponentially over the last few years, and whilst many of these price increases have been entirely justifiable, there has also been a fair amount of flagrant opportunism at play.

In recent times, no company has become more synonymous with such opportunism than Diageo, but it’s not a Diageo distillery that I want to talk about here. Rather, it’s Balblair, a distillery currently owned by Inver House. As many of you will already know, back in 2019, Balblair rebranded their core range, something which, at the time, caused a fair bit of ire among us whisky botherers.

As enthusiasts, we moan a lot about the ever upward trajectory of prices – often quite rightly – but, believe it or not, that’s not my intention here. Although I want to talk about Balblair’s 2019 rebrand, the purpose of this review isn’t to bash them. I’ve made friends with Balblair now, and we’re on good terms again, so whatever went on in the past is behind us. That said, in order to give some context to the two expressions that I’m going to compare here, I need to first touch upon why I fell out with Balblair in the first place, as well as why, more recently, I’ve become reacquainted with it.

Back in 2019, I was something of a Balblair fanboy. Just like that guy who eulogises endlessly about his favourite band, I’d been buying, opening, and sharing their whiskies for years. At the time, you could pick up a bottle of Balblair 1990 Second Release – a whisky that was at least 26 years old – for around £110 to £120; a price which, even then, felt cheap. Needless to say, when Balblair announced that they were going to rebrand their core range, I expected them to also increase their prices. Truth be told, I’d been anticipating it for a while, and had stocked up anyway.

What nobody foresaw though, was the extent of that price increase. Because Balblair didn’t just increase their prices, they strapped them to a rocket and sent them into the stratosphere. This was particularly true of their older expressions. Their current 25yo, for example, hit the shelves back in 2019 with an RRP of £500. Consider that the 1990 vintage – a whisky that was at least a year older – had been priced at around £110 to £120 – and you can see why many of us felt unfairly treated. For me personally, it felt like something of a snub. Balblair was no longer my whisky; it was that guy’s whisky over there – the guy wearing the £200 cufflinks, drinking a bottle of Macallan with his mates from the country club.

Of course, you could argue that it shouldn’t hurt, when a distillery suddenly pivots away from its loyal customers in search of new, more affluent consumers. After all, whisky is a business, the same as any other, and businesses are entitled to do whatever they feel. For the last decade, I’ve purchased LG TVs, but if LG wanted to more than double the prices of their TVs tomorrow, I wouldn’t feel aggrieved by it. I’d just take the view that LG are entitled to do what they like, and I’d either stump up the extra cash, or I’d switch allegiance to another brand.

Whisky is different though, because like music, it’s more than simply a commodity, to be bought and consumed passively by the highest bidder. Like music, whisky is something that has the power to move us; something that brings us together; something that forms the basis of friendships; something that we invest in not just financially, but often emotionally as well.

Whilst we all agree that distilleries have to make money, we also feel resentment when distilleries that we’ve been supporting for years, suddenly decide to exploit that loyalty by hiking their prices in ways that are impossible to justify. Just like the guy who hears that his favourite band is going on tour, only to find out that he’s going to have to sell a kidney in order to be able to afford to go and see them, when Balblair rebranded in 2019, I felt like I’d been cheated.

Fast forward five years though, and things look a little different. As we all know, time has the power to change everything, and if there’s one thing that’s consistent about whisky, it’s that it continues to feel like an expensive hobby, particularly for those of us who want to indulge in older expressions. When they raised their prices back in 2019, Balblair seemed like an outlier, but in hindsight, they were actually something of a harbinger. Over the last five years, we’ve seen the prices of older expressions creep up across the board, to the point where – with the exception of the 25yo – Balblair’s core range no longer seems so audaciously priced.

Take their 15yo, for instance, which is one of the expressions I’m about to review. When it hit the market in 2019 with an RRP of £75, it seemed expensive. In the intervening years though, the rest of the field has caught up and in 2024, it sits in the same £70 - £80 price bracket as the likes of Glendronach 15, Tamdhu 15 and Glengoyne 15, among others. All of this is why, a few weeks ago, I decided, after a five year hiatus, to dip my toe back into the Balblair waters once again. Specifically, I wanted to compare their current 15yo with their discontinued 2000 Second Release, a whisky that I bought back in 2018, before the rebrand, and which I’ve had stashed away in the cupboard ever since.

Distilled in the year 2000 and bottled in 2017, the 2000 Second Release is either 16 or 17 year old whisky (or a vatting of both) so although it’s slightly older than the 15yo, they’re still pretty comparable in age. From memory, I paid about £55 for it, but there’s no point in judging these whiskies based on their respective prices. Prices are where they are, and in 2024, 17 year old whisky doesn’t come cheap. For the purpose of this comparison then, I’m going to treat both of these expressions as if they were priced at the same £75 price point. Specifically, I’ll be looking to see whether the Balblair signature style has changed over the years, and whether, in the case of the 15yo, it’s still a distillery that’s worth our time and investment.

Review 1/2

Balblair 15yo, Official bottling, non-chill filtered, natural colour, 46% ABV
£75 and wide availability

When I mooted the idea of this comparison to our editor here at Dramface, he mentioned that it would be an interesting side by side because of the similar ages of the two whiskies. Although the 2000 is 16 or possibly even 17 years old, we know that it’s no older because of the fact that it’s a vintage, so all the whisky in the vatting would have been distilled in that year.

The 15yo, on the other hand, is almost certainly 15 years old and not much older, as the likelihood of it containing any older whisky, in an age where whisky has been known to outperform gold as an investment, is vanishingly slim. Six or seven years ago, this may not have been the case, as back then, adding older whisky to the vatting was common practice.

Six or seven years ago, we were in a different place though. As I’ve already touched upon, whisky was priced a lot more keenly, and producers were happy to sacrifice a bit of older stock in order to elevate a particular expression and add complexity. Unfortunately for us whisky botherers, those days are long gone.

According to the box, this 15yo Balblair is matured in American oak, ex-bourbon casks, followed by first fill Spanish oak butts. It would be interesting to know how long it spent in both of those casks, but that information isn’t provided.

That said, this is an integrity forward expression, with the words ‘natural colour’ and ‘non-chill filtered’ displayed clearly on the label. Bottled at 46%, it ticks all the right boxes. It’s a good looking bottle as well – not a huge departure from the bottles that the vintage Balblairs once came in..

Score: 6/10

**Good stuff.**
***TL;DR***
*Complex enough, not a sherry bomb, but leaning there*

Nose

On the nose, I get some light fudge, some chocolate, and some coffee and walnut cake. There are cloves here, some cinnamon and some demerara sugar. Cutting through some of those richer aspects is some aniseed, a little wood spice, a touch of mint and an earthy, vegetal note. On the whole it’s a nice balanced nose, which is sherry forward but which doesn’t make you think you’re about to taste a sherry bomb.

Palate

The palate follows through on the nose; this isn’t a sherry bomb, although it does lean into the sherry more than the bourbon. I get fudge, chocolate, coffee, cloves, cinnamon and brown sugar – specifically, the sugary dregs at the bottom of a cup of strong, black coffee. There’s also some Horlicks or some Ovaltine and some milk chocolate as well.

Like I said though, there’s balance here. Providing a nice counterpoint to the sherry are some brighter, fresher notes. I’m a sucker for orange in a whisky, and there’s plenty of that here. There’s also a spicy astringency, though – a bitter, camomile note – that cuts through some of the richness. With a little water, I get watermelon Jolly Ranchers, some red apple and some liquorice root. It’s fairly viscous as well.

On the whole, it’s a complex, sherry forward whisky that invites you to spend a bit of time with it. Not a sherry bomb, but it definitely leans in that direction.

Review 2/2

Balblair 2000, 2nd Release, Official bottling, non-chill filtered, natural colour, 46% ABV
£55 paid in 2018 and auction only

Before we get to the tasting notes, I just want to touch upon the packaging of these vintage Balblairs. When it comes to whisky, I rarely buy with my eyes, but even so, I have to give credit where it’s due. The boxes that these vintage Balblairs come in are really something. Rather than trying to describe the box, I’ll let the photos speak for themselves.

On the inside of the box, there’s some information about the whisky, including tasting notes and some history about the distillery, as well as some black and white pictures. Somewhat ironically, there are two paragraphs dedicated to why Balblair bottle vintages rather than age statements, and how their vintages make them unique because each vintage ‘represents an exact moment in time.’

It’s a shame that they couldn’t convince the marketing suits who came up with the plan to ditch the vintages as to the merits of such an approach, but there you go. In all likelihood, Balblair’s decision to switch to traditional age statements was due to a perception that vintages were something that the average customer couldn’t wrap their head around, which is a shame, because personally, I felt that the vintages were part of what made Balblair so unique in the first place.

As with the 15yo, the 2000 was matured in ex-American oak, ex-bourbon barrels, before being finished in ex-sherry butts of Spanish oak. Unlike the 15yo, it doesn’t tell us whether the sherry butts they used were first-fill or not, but having tasted it, I suspect that some of them weren’t. Again, there’s no mention of how long it spent in either of those casks, so I won’t speculate. As to the colour, it’s slightly lighter than the 15yo, but only by a touch.

Score: 7/10

**Very good indeed.**
***TL;DR***
*A little fresher and brighter and all the better for it*

Nose

It’s quite a light nose. Initially, I get aniseed balls, strawberry laces, perhaps some strawberry yoghurt and some red apple. There are some more sherry forward notes there, but they’re very subtle and nothing really jumps out. I get orange marmalade, a light dusting of baking spices and a sappy, resinous woody note. I also get pear drops, and Fruit Salad sweets. On the whole, it’s quite a summery nose, compared with its 15yo sibling.

Palate

On the palate, I get more aniseed, some highland toffee, a little red apple, some liquorice root and some strawberry laces. The Fruit Salad sweets are there, as is some Hubba Bubba chewing gum (strawberry flavour), as well as a touch of orange. The sherry comes in the form of some very, very light coffee notes, as well as a very light dusting of cinnamon and a touch of drinking chocolate. In terms of mouthfeel, it’s thinner than the 15yo, but there’s still some oiliness there. It’s also a little more astringent, with a slightly bitter, spicy finish.

Again, it’s a complex whisky that doesn’t really jump out of the glass. There’s a lot going on here, but in order to really appreciate everything, you need to spend a bit of time with it.

Score: 7/10

The Dregs

I remember, early on in my whisky journey, there came a point, probably a couple of years in, when I started to feel like I needed to try some older expressions. At the time, I was still mostly buying and drinking entry level OBs, but I remember watching Ralfy on YouTube, opening and tasting older whiskies, and feeling as if I needed to get my hands on something in the late teens or above in order for my palate to really develop. Talk of furniture polish, leather arm chairs, and dusty books intrigued me, and before long, tasting old whisky began to feel like a sort of rite-of-passage that sooner or later, I was going to have to undergo.

It was Balblair, along with a couple of other distilleries, that allowed me to taste some older expressions without breaking the bank. For that reason, I’ll always have a soft spot for their whisky.

Whilst neither of the Balblair expressions that I’m reviewing here are stellar, they’re both pretty solid. What I particularly like about both of them is how balanced they are, with regards to the cask make-up. In the case of the 2000 vintage, the sherry influence is really quite subtle. Depending on your preference that might be a good or a bad thing, but personally, I like it. If you can find it on the secondary market, without paying triple figures, then I’d say it’s worth a punt. The 1999 vintage is better though, if you can get your hands on it.

As to the current 15yo, it definitely leans more on the sherry maturation, but that signature spiciness is still there. Like the 2000 Second Release, it’s well balanced, with the fresher notes providing a nice counter weight to the richness of the sherry casks. Whilst it still retains a bitterness, that bitterness isn’t as predominant as it is in the 2000, which makes it an easier sipper and probably a better whisky to pour for a beginner. That said, it’s not quite as fresh, though, and it lacks some of the brightness of the vintage. For this reason, the 2000 suits my palate a little more, so I’ve scored it a point higher. Objectively speaking, they’re both decent though. If you like your sherry forward whiskies, you might even prefer the 15yo.

This has felt a bit like being reacquainted with an old friend. Sure, we’ve had our ups and downs over the years, but thankfully, we’ve managed to put the past behind us. Whilst I know I’ll never part with the £500 required to partake in their current 25yo, as long as the 15yo doesn’t creep up in price, then it’ll have a place on my whisky shelf moving forward.

After a long hiatus, it’s nice to finally be able to reconnect with a distillery that I love, without feeling like I’m being cheated.

Tried these? Share your thoughts in the comments below. FMc

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 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.