Official 10yo releases side-by-side | 40% & 46% ABV

Chill filtration is worse than you think.

At the risk of sounding a little too enthusiast-focused, as I very much am, I’m wondering why there isn’t more attention paid to whisky lovers and their feedback?

Especially by bigger organisations, it just seems that to ignore it as an abundant and free metric to assist in designing products and strategies is an obvious missed opportunity. And I’m not just speaking about the geeks and enthusiasts who buy it - I’m speaking about the geeks and enthusiasts who make it.

I genuinely sense that in some quarters, even in 2025, they (we) are almost entirely ignored.

In recent times, we’ve enjoyed a ridiculously rich and varied selection in whisky. Arguably - from a business sustainability point of view - perhaps too much. As swathes of the industry swing hard toward staring austerity in the face, producers and development teams could do worse than reaching out to their invested fans and wider community of active consumers.

Knowledge, experience and expertise in whisky appreciation exists everywhere in 2025 and it’s often free. Yet it would seem very few decision-makers are paying much attention to it, because there are a lot of recent decisions causing genuine bewilderment. I’m honestly a little flabbergasted at how many are taking oddly backward steps. But I’ll get to that.

I write these notes as the sadness of Glenglassaugh’s shuttering descends. We hope it is indeed temporary, a mothballing perhaps, but jobs have been lost. Even if they share the team between Benriach and Glenglassaugh, laying one dormant while the other runs, that’s still half of them gone. We’re talking about real skills, experience, careers and livelihoods - in a remote and rural spot too. It’s pretty saddening.

We await more news, but at the time of writing - and according to the Instagram account of @ohdramit; one of the distillery team to have lost their position - Glenglassaugh has once more returned to part-time status. I wish them and their colleagues well. His post has been updated to clarify that it’s not a permanent closure, but that won’t help those, like the OP himself, who have been given notice.

Strange really, but a measure of how fickle these corporations are. Of course, we doubt the decision to close is anything to do with the relaunch of their single malts; more likely it’s part of a wider strategy where the individual needs, qualities or interests of a single distillery team are sacrificed for the greater corporate ‘good’.

Anyway, I’m guessing. As usual, I’m on the outside trying to peer through very opaque windows. I’m not sure how decisions are made.

I’m just as clueless as to how new products are developed in whisky, but it’s amazing to me how easily official bottlings seem to be handled in a clumsy way, or are even completely bungled. Glenglassaugh got very close, but not quite. They were odd. But others are making even more bizarre decisions that actively harm the value of their brand and quality of their product. It’s the short-term playbook. It feels like enshittification. So let’s talk about it. Because it’s happening at Speyburn and Knockdhu and I need your help to convince them it’s a mistake.

But first I should try to convince you.

Despite this vast ocean of choice we still have in 2025 it’s a frustration there aren’t more who are really, actually listening to legitimate feedback. Few seem aware of the growing awareness, understanding and knowledge that exists out there in whisky; or often within their own walls. Why is this? What - and who - drives product development decisions?

The same reason that Glenglassaugh was almost there with the relaunch: compromises from discussions over what’s best for the liquid versus, we’re told, ‘market demands’. What markets though, exactly? Importers? Retailers? Or consumers? It’s often pretty vague. I think it’s more likely the demands of pure short-term profit. Glenglassaugh chose to make their 12-year-old 45% and chill filtered, and then released two parallel, non-chill filtered releases, but non-age-stated. Why? Agonisingly close to transparent and natural, but not quite.

Let’s now segue into something that has set the barley alight with behind-the-scenes enthusiasts: the worrying decisions coming from International Beverage Holdings (Inver House), owners of Speyburn and Knockdhu (AnCnoc).

Specifically, the news that Speyburn are modifying their, currently natural, 46% whiskies down to 40% ABV; a huge step backwards. I’d love to understand what swivel-eyed madness could take such precious single malt gems such as the Speyburn 15 and 18 year olds and risk rendering them diluted, insipid and potentially coloured. But it seems that’s what could be happening. I’d love to understand why.

I should also quickly mention that I was beside myself with juvenile excitement when I heard that the all ex-bourbon matured AnCnoc 16 would be reintroduced once more; after a decade of MIA. It’s truly an all-time favourite of mine and - I happen to know first hand - an all-time favourite of AnCnoc’s whisky maker too. Imagine then, my crestfallen face when I heard it would be chill filtered and sold at 43%, a deflating departure from the previous all natural, 46% legend.

As a marketer, I’ve been in the room while a charismatic, high-energy, open-collared suit has teams swooning with dynamism and promises based on market ‘analyses’, but I’ve never attended one of those meetings in a whisky context. I’d love to. I’d like to understand if the room is aware that not all whiskies are the same.

Let’s stay focused on Speyburn, as it’s a very specific malt and a rare example in Speyside. One of only twenty scotch malts condensed through a worm tub. Just one of the things it does very well is carry weight, body and robustness, even when it’s spent a chunk of its life in loud and shouty sherry casks. Think Benromach or - even closer - Mortlach. I know you’re reading an emotional reaction to business decisions here, but what is whisky if it doesn’t inspire emotional responses?

Put simply; water is cheaper than whisky - there is more profit to be made when something is 40% ABV. But it’s a balancing act. Blends play happily there and can be tuned to fit their target-market profile and price point. Malt whisky, especially single malt such as Speyburn, is intrinsically a very different beast. It does not want to play this game.

Malt doesn’t like to be bottled at lower ABVs; it likes to go cloudy when cold or poured over ice and that could scare folk off! Rather than listen to the whisky, deception is brought about by chill filtration; the first compromise, but this will detract from it. Dropping the liquid down as far as 0ºC - and sometimes below - before forcing it through a dense membrane at high pressure removes compounds that can cause clouding. But remove these oils and fatty acids and you’ll also remove texture and flavour along with that ABV.

Some of you might feel it doesn’t really make a difference. You may consider this merely an opinion - or the mantra of a pedantic malt whisky snob - so if you’re yet to be convinced - let me kick off with the origins of this practice.

In the Scotch Whisky Industry Record entry for 1933 there’s an interesting entry and I quote:

“DCL experimented with chill filtration to eliminate cloudiness in bottled whisky at Glenochil Distillery. An opinion was that, while successful, some of the flavour characteristics had been removed. (Ref. Dewar.)”

Duly, chill filtration was postponed. However, post-war demands for large-scale exports of malt-laden blends soon demanded it. It’s been a staple of the high-volume bottling plants since.

Grain whisky (the main component of most blends) does not require chill filtration to such an extent. When single malt came along the vision was to sell it to the same customers, at the same ABVs and so the same practices were adopted.

Maintaining a higher alcohol bottling strength - approx. 45.7%+ - prevents these compounds from coming out of solution and reduces the risk of clouding and ‘flocculation’.

So it’s revealed that it has been known for a long long time that this practice is cosmetic and, while it ‘polishes’, it harms the integrity of malt whisky. This is something that appears to be suppressed. No one likes to talk about it.

Sometimes, those who know, make and drink malt whisky are often quieter, more contemplative of character. But in the past, there have been vociferous campaigners who have stood up and fought from the inside. Sometimes, through determination, they have got their way.

As a perfect example, consider Ian MacMillan who, at the time of taking this position, was working with the malts owned by Burn Stewart: Bunnahabhain, Tobermory (Ledaig) and Deanston.

He fought tooth and nail with the Burn Stewart board for ‘his whisky’ to be treated better, going so far as to take them to the bottling hall. In a remarkable practical demonstration, dragging his hands across the used filter membranes from chill filtration equipment, he revealed the precious ingredients that were stripped from the malt during the aggressive process.

Furthermore, he prepared pre- and post-chill filtration samples and asked them to nose and taste. He went on to invite Dave Broom along, who wrote an article on the exercise for Whisky Magazine. This was all happening as far back as 2010 and the conclusion was unequivocal: it made a huge difference.

I couldn’t find the original article in digital form listed on the Whisky Magazine website for the March 2011 Issue #94. Not sure why, this is a shame. Could it be a deliberate removal? There are some truly interesting takes to uncover, but something stood out: “marketing didn’t quite understand”.

Anyway, you can read the article here, but it’s interesting to read Dave Broom’s take:

“While there has been an acceptance that chill filtering reduced mouth impact, there's been disagreement as to whether it also removed aroma and flavour. A tasting of the new Burn Stewart range would suggest that in this case it has.
Each of the four malts not only had added silkiness on the tongue and an elongated delivery of flavours, but aromas which weren't apparent in the chill filtered examples were abundant in the new iterations. Tobermory for example picked up a new floral aspect as well as a buttery feel, Bunna's fruitiness was enhanced while its maltiness was reduced, allowing a clearer link to be established between the 12 and the 18, Deanston became sweeter and more honeyed while Ledaig - always the most difficult of the quartet for me - saw its smoke now integrated. lt was as if chill filtering made you see the whisky as if lit by strobes, flashes of different aspects, a slight harshness; while at higher strength you saw the whole picture, softly lit.”
Dave Broom, Whisky Magazine, Issue 94, March 2011

Remarkable, wouldn’t you say? This was fifteen years ago but, thank the whisky gods, Ian got his way.

Deanston, Ledaig, Tobermory and Bunnahabhain are, to this day, among the most loved official and natural whiskies in scotch malt, by those who care. Ian MacMillan needs to be remembered and celebrated for this legacy.

He may now be retired, but we’re still fighting the cause for natural malt. As enthusiasts, we know that some malts are affected more than others and we know we can’t always necessarily tell a chill-filtered whisky from a natural one. In our experience after over hundreds and perhaps thousands of malts enjoyed, we know those that have driven instant replacement, special moments, tears or hands-to-the-skies in eye-rolling gratitude - and perhaps that oh-so-precious loyalty - are almost always natural and un-chill filtered.

It’s malt whisky after all. But, we only care about this if we know about it.

So, in my curiosity as to how well known this critical aspect is amongst the wider whisky aficionado and consumer, I did what any self-respecting marketer or agent would do in 2025:

I asked AI.

I’ve recently been playing with the latest LLM from DeepSeek, the cut-price disruptor from China that has everyone invested in the AI game spiralling in a blind panic and stock market dives (it’s not all democratised, open-source wholesomeness; for kicks try asking it about its motherland - I digress).

I simply asked:

“I really enjoy whisky, specifically single malt whisky. What do single malt aficionados look for in their single malts these days?”

The following comprehensive reply spawned rapidly in a satisfying ticker-tape scroll in front of my eyes:

Single malt whisky aficionados often look for a combination of factors that contribute to the overall quality and uniqueness of the whisky. Here are some key aspects that enthusiasts typically consider:

### 1. **Distillery Character**

- **Distinctive Profile**: Each distillery has its own unique character, often influenced by its location, water source, and production methods. Aficionados appreciate whiskies that showcase the distillery's signature style.

- **Terroir**: The influence of the local environment, including the water, climate, and barley, can impart unique flavors and characteristics to the whisky.

### 2. **Age Statement**

- **Maturity**: Age statements indicate the minimum number of years the whisky has been aged in casks. Older whiskies often have more complex and refined flavors, though some younger whiskies can also be highly regarded for their vibrancy and intensity.

- **Vintage**: Some aficionados seek out specific vintages that are known for exceptional quality or unique conditions during that year.

### 3. **Cask Influence**

- **Cask Type**: The type of cask used for aging (e.g., bourbon, sherry, port, wine) significantly impacts the flavor profile. Sherry casks, for example, tend to impart rich, fruity, and spicy notes, while bourbon casks often contribute vanilla and caramel flavors.

- **Cask Strength**: Bottling at cask strength (without dilution) preserves the whisky's full flavor intensity, which is highly prized by enthusiasts.

### 4. **Flavor Profile**

- **Complexity**: A well-balanced whisky with multiple layers of flavor is highly sought after. This can include a mix of fruity, floral, spicy, smoky, and woody notes.

- **Peatiness**: The level of peat (smoky, earthy flavors) can vary widely. Some aficionados prefer heavily peated whiskies, while others favor lighter, more delicate profiles.

- **Finish**: The length and quality of the finish (the aftertaste) are important. A long, satisfying finish is often a sign of a high-quality whisky.

### 5. **Limited Editions and Rare Bottlings**

- **Exclusivity**: Limited edition releases, single cask bottlings, and rare expressions are highly coveted. These often offer unique tasting experiences and can be valuable additions to a collection.

- **Independent Bottlings**: Whiskies bottled by independent companies (rather than the distillery itself) can offer unique and sometimes unexpected flavor profiles.

### 6. **Craftsmanship and Tradition**

- **Production Methods**: Traditional methods, such as floor malting, copper pot still distillation, and slow fermentation, are often appreciated for their role in creating high-quality whisky.

- **Attention to Detail**: Aficionados value the craftsmanship and care that go into producing a fine single malt, from the selection of ingredients to the aging process.

### 7. **Packaging and Presentation**

- **Bottle Design**: While not directly related to the whisky itself, the design and presentation of the bottle can enhance the overall experience. Limited edition bottles often feature unique designs and packaging.

- **Story and Heritage**: The history and story behind the distillery and the specific release can add to the appeal of the whisky.

### 8. **Community and Trends**

- **Reviews and Ratings**: Many enthusiasts follow reviews and ratings from trusted sources, such as whisky critics, blogs, and forums.

- **Trends**: Current trends in the whisky world, such as the rise of non-age-statement (NAS) whiskies or the popularity of certain regions (e.g., Islay, Speyside), can influence what aficionados are seeking.

### 9. **Sustainability and Ethical Practices**

- **Eco-Friendly Practices**: Increasingly, whisky drinkers are interested in distilleries that prioritize sustainability, such as using renewable energy, reducing water usage, and sourcing local ingredients.

- **Ethical Sourcing**: Transparency in sourcing ingredients and fair labor practices are also becoming important considerations for some consumers.

### 10. **Personal Preference**

- **Taste**: Ultimately, personal taste plays a significant role. Some may prefer lighter, floral whiskies, while others might lean towards rich, smoky, or heavily sherried expressions.

- **Experimentation**: Many aficionados enjoy exploring different styles, regions, and expressions to broaden their palate and discover new favorites.

By considering these factors, single malt whisky aficionados can find whiskies that not only meet their high standards but also provide a memorable and enjoyable drinking experience.

This is copied and pasted; verbatim and without edit. Say what you like about any or all of that, it’s pretty comprehensive. Well done DeepSeek. Yet, something is clearly wrong.

Despite enthusiasts shouting from the rooftops in recent years, chill filtration is not mentioned. Neither is the nefarious use of E150a colouring. Which is another rant for another day.

It would seem we are not shouting loudly enough.

How dare we though. How dare we meddle in business decisions? How dare we attempt to be the ones who decide what should and should not be?

Because we dare to be the ones who fork out the money. Because we care. Because we take to the interwebs, social channels, tastings, whisky clubs, festivals and everywhere else a love of whisky manifests. We are invested in a way that’s much more profound than a fleeting bottle purchase for the sake of pure consumption.

Real, earnest understanding of the product is what drives us to dare; not always the implications of how it’s made, but always how it makes us feel; how we interact with it and what it means to us as so much more than simply alcohol. How dare we be the ones?

We dare because we know something: to crowbar malt whisky in this way is to compromise it for the sake of cosmetics and consumption by volume. Consider: if the legislation changed tomorrow to allow malt ‘whisky’ to be bottled at less than 40%, I guarantee you swathes of it would appear instantly. None of it would be bottled at the lower strengths because it tasted better.

In these more mindful times, we know the future is in tasting small sips of quality for pleasure. Cheapened ‘smooth’-and-easy malt whisky aids drinking quantity for effect. You may argue this is irresponsible, despite the bottles adorned by those “Drink Responsibly” corporate check-box logos.

Oh the irony, that higher ABV should actually encourage contemplation and slow-paced appreciation of quality as opposed to mindless easy drinking of quantity.

In the end, chill filtration of malt is destructive in more ways than what has become obvious to enthusiasts.

Review 1/2

Speyburn 10 year old, official bottling, chill filtered, 40% ABV
£34 and available everywhere

Well, isn’t this handy.

Speyburn has, entirely unintentionally I’m sure, offered us a little assistance in the debate.

While their 15-year-old and 18-year-olds are all-natural belters, their heads currently rest on the chill filtration and dilution chopping block.

Additionally, they have always offered an entry level NAS ‘Bradan Orach’ at 40% and also - the subject of today’s review; their 10-year-old. Both, of course, chill filtered.

Recently, it was brought to my attention that there was another 10-year-old available, but one that boasted an ABV of 46% and a label that clearly stated “non-chill filtered”.

This Travel Retail Exclusive offers an interesting side-by-side comparison to help us judge the wisdom of the decisions behind their up and coming sacrificial revamps.

It gets weirder though. I paid £34 for the 70cl, 40% ABV 10yo, while this litre bottle of the “Travel Exclusive” at 46% - and non-chill filtered - was €19.99.

I hope I speak for most of us when I say that we’re not after cheap whisky. We’re after good whisky at fair prices. Less than €20 for ten year old natural malt from anywhere is probably too cheap, when it’s a malt with the quality of Speyburn it’s gross underselling. I cannot comprehend how it can exist.

As I’ve already confessed, I’m on the outside; eavesdropping and guessing.

Anyway, NCF and 46% versus CF and 40%, how do they compare?

Score: 5/10

**Average.**
***TL;DR***
*Forgettable, yes, but it’s actually a pretty clean malt, no real flaws and entirely drinkable*

Nose

Floral; a little hairspray, lilies and light vanilla. Candle wax, sweet golden delicious apples and pears, lemon peel and whiffs of menthol and clean linen.

Palate

A cool arrival; with an outdoorsy feel. Shortbread biscuits, crisp apples, delicate strawberry candy; like Frutella or berry bubblegum. Vanilla fondant. A little saccharin on the finish, but not off-putting at all.

I’m actually quite enjoying this, despite the fact it’s very delicate and light. There’s nothing off-putting and in a general sense it’s a nice, if unremarkable, sweet and gentle malt. Things start to flounder when sipped alongside its neighbour, of course.

Score: 5/10 WMc

Review 2/2

Speyburn 10 year old, official bottling, Travel Retail Exclusive, Non-chill filtered, 1 litre (100cl), 46% ABV
€19.99 (£17) via cross-channel ferry

Score: 6/10

**Good stuff.**
***TL;DR***
*While still quite simple, it’s a delight by comparison; sweet, fruity and satisfying with good body*

Nose

Buttery; toffees and fudge, lemon oils, orchard fruits, clear honey, waxy lemon and a floral vanilla potpourri. Menthol once more, but everything’s warmer and very buttery.

Palate

Reassurance.

Ginger, lemon and soft brown sugars arrive with that buttery toffee and shortbread. Some fruit in the development: apple sauce, grapefruit, menthol and a creamy, minty, vanilla-fondant finish.

Heading back to sip the 40% version marks out the finish as its weakest point, there’s a graininess where we enjoy a moreish buttery feel in the non-chill filtered glass, helping the flavours hang around longer with far less of that ‘saccharin’ tang.

Switching backwards and forwards between glasses amplifies a sense of butteriness and warmer tones in the NCF pour, the contrast between the two isn’t wild, but it’s different.

I switched glasses around, covered them and returned later, every time the 46% expression made itself known. Clear as day. It’s not twice the whisky, but it’s a significant step up.

Even if these were your first two whiskies ever, you’d notice the difference.

In summary; texture, spice, mouthfeel and finish are all improved in the 46%, NCF bottling.

Score: 6/10 WMc

The Dregs

It’s almost like the litre bottle of the 46% non-chill filtered version acts as a metaphor; its scale illustrates how much better it is as a single malt whisky over its diluted and filtered sibling. The difference, to anyone, is there to be experienced.

It noses better, it tastes better, it feels better and it is more satisfying. Despite my meagre notes, the flavour complexity feels a little wider and the finish is much, much better.

These are, of course, not made from the same batch but the make up will be remarkably close, and it tastes so. It reminds me of the (now discontinued) Aberlour 12yo Non-chill Filtered version they released, a nice bottle from Chivas - despite being an odd move, drawing attention to something that cheapened almost every other release they had. So it’s rare for us to have this opportunity from official bottles. And it’s profound.

Someone made this, someone knowledgeable put in the effort, taking care to make a good whisky - only for some of it to have a not insignificant proportion of character, aroma, body, flavour and texture removed at the point of bottling.

And so, I ask for your help.

You see the 15 year old and the 18 year old that I’ve been hoarding in the images? I scored the 15 year old a 7/10 in 2022 but it’s become an 8/10. The 18 year old is also at least a 7/10. But I’m squirrelling because we’re about to lose them.

Beautiful bottles of official, natural, Speyburn Speyside Single Malt Scotch Whisky, lost to the designs of profit and volume over canny guardianship. With International Beverage Holdings decision to change all the core range to 40% - and chill filtered - precious malt is cheapened and diminished.

It’s possibly (probably) far too late to do anything about it, for now. But I think we could let the owners know how we feel.

What do you think? How dare we make a petition?

How dare I ask you to sign it and share it in every place where you enjoy sharing your whisky. Places that are less verbose and bloviated than a Wally rant; places where impassioned and engaged whisky lovers gather. Ask them to dare to sign it also.

Don’t expect much; but know that we tried to offer yet another metric, another feedback stream, for free, to those who make decisions and force compromises and politely ask them to do better. Maybe it’ll inspire confidence in the quieter voices of those in-the-know, those who exist within their organisations and know their product well, yet somehow remain an ignored, untapped wisdom.

Somewhat on theme; do you mind if I ask DeepSeek AI to draft our pledge?

Sign the petition and see the results over at Change.org

Please leave your own thoughts below in our comments section, or over at the petition to offer as much feedback as possible.

Whatever that may be.

Tried this? Share your thoughts in the comments below. WMc

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.