Dailuaine 2015 (w) Thompson Bros
Thompson Brothers 9yo | 57.1% ABV
Score: 6/10
Good stuff.
TL;DR
The wax is there, the jury’s out as to why
In search of that wax. Part 2
Last week, Ainsley took a dive into waxiness in whisky. In my possession is a bottle that is very related to his discussion, so before I do my own dive into waxiness, let’s talk about the bottle in question.
Back in November 2024, at the Glasgow Whisky Festival, as I was wandering around the venue looking for my next dram, a bit clueless and paralysed by choice. Gregor McWee, of Dramface Podcast fame, approached me with a somewhat enigmatic gesture and asked me: Have you tried that Thompson Brothers’ Dailuaine with the double U? What? Dailuaine with two Us? I thought to myself, so Dailuuaine?! It was when Dailuaine tried to be Clynelish and when they ran out of Clynelish, Gregor added.
Still a bit confused, it registered in my mind as something to try. Almost immediately after that, I ran into Ainsley and he asked: have you visited the Thompson Brothers’ booth yet? You’ve got to try the Dailuaine, it’s running out soon. Okay, now I get the urgency, if anything I’d like to see the “Dailuuaine” and ask why they’ve added an extra U into the name.
So I made a beeline to the Thompson Brothers’ booth and asked for the Dailuaine, and was duly poured a dram. The biggest disappointment though, was that Dailuaine was spelt the normal way. What on earth was Gregor on about with the double U, the only feature was a small ‘w’ in parentheses, whatever that meant. The whisky was quiet, and I can tell that there are delicate features in the whisky, but unfortunately, any subtle details were lost on me, because my first few drams of the session included the Amontillado Springbank 10 and the latest Longrow 18, both heavily sherried, so whatever delicacy this Dailuaine had to offer was buried in an over excited palate.
I came away from the experience thinking it was a pity that I couldn’t fully appreciate that whisky. It must be a good one when two trusted palates raved about it, plus the low levels in that bottle, despite it being quite early in the session. Also, what double U? I still didn’t get it.
I’m not sure how I came to make sense of the situation, but eventually I realised what Gregor initially tried to say was “Dailuaine with a W”, and that gesture was an attempt to draw parentheses in the air. Since they were supposed to be pretending to be Clynelish, presumably the W stood for wax, in other words: a waxy Dailuaine.
I’ve heard about Clynelish losing some of their waxy character in their distillate during the 2000s and - as Ainsley pointed out in his piece - the waxiness came from the gunk in the feints receiver, or so they claim. Folk at Deanston seem to corroborate this notion, also claiming that Deanston’s waxiness originates from the way their feints receiver is set up.
a malt feints receiver
Another often repeated anecdote is that some time in the past Clynelish replaced their feints receiver as part of a refurbishment, and to their shock, the waxiness was gone from the new make, so they reinstalled the original feints receiver, and the waxiness returned, at least some of it. Apparently merely fiddling with it affected its waxy output, so they’ve learned to never touch it again.
During the GWF it was my first time learning about Diageo changing the processes at Dailuaine to cover for a sidelined Clynelish, presumably to supply to their own blends, and it wouldn’t be the first time Diageo has done something similar. In the late 1960s, Caol Ila suffered a drought, and Diageo was missing a key blending component for Johnnie Walker, so Brora was brought back online to produce peated whisky. If Thompson Brothers was around then they might have released some Brora (p) bottles.
It made me realise that Diageo considers waxiness to be such an important feature in blends that they needed someone else to step up when Clynelish couldn’t provide the goods. But this is where the narrative of the magical feints receiver starts to wobble.
If Diageo can simply ask Dailuaine to produce waxy spirit with the snap of their fingers, does that suggest waxiness isn’t as elusive and mystical as it’s purported to be? Perhaps Diageo is in a fortunate position that, among their thirty malt distilleries in Scotland, Clynelish wasn’t the only one producing waxy whiskies.
A quick scour of the internet - adding my own experience, suggests that there are plenty of examples of waxy whiskies that are not produced in Clynelish or Deanston. In fact I find hefty whiskies like Craigellachie or Benrinnes (both operating with worm tubs) to be waxy occasionally, and I’m not sure if they spend much thought on how they maintain their feints receivers.
All of this is a long winded way of me suggesting that the gunk in the feints receiver may contribute to the waxiness of Clynelish, but I’m not convinced that it’s the only contributor to it; different parts of the whisky making process is probably adding waxiness to the whisky as well. After all, there isn't any actual wax in the whisky, it’s a perceived sensory experience that evokes connections to other experiences we have of wax in our memories.
But I shouldn’t get all cynical and negative about it. I have no idea what I’m talking about after all when it comes to the nitty gritty technical details of whisky. Instead, let’s see what this ‘Dailuuaine with the double U’ has to offer, especially when it comes to its supposed aim of posing as a waxy Clynelish.
Review
Dailuaine 9yo, Thompson Brothers 2015 (w), Bottled 2024, refill barrel, 1 of 258 bottles, 57.1% ABV
£95 paid at auction (plus fees), original retail was £60
Immediately after the Saturday of the GWF, I went on Scotch Whisky Auctions and found this exact bottle with the highest bid at £65 at the time. Coincidentally, Sunday was the deadline, and I wasn’t to leave Scotland until Wednesday, so I put in a bid of £70 hoping that I could collect it before going home. On Monday morning before Bruce picked me up to head up to Dornoch, I checked, and I didn’t win - no big deal, and off I went back to Hong Kong. A couple of auction cycles later, it popped up again. Once more it was sitting at £65, this time FOMO kicked in. I needed to be reunited with this whisky, so this time I put in a bid of £95, just to be sure. And sure enough, I won the bottle at £95.
If Ainsley thought his 18 year old Clynelish distilled in 1992 from Signatory at €95 including fees was expensive, this 9 year old Dailuaine set me back £95 plus fees: let that sink in for a bit. These are the sorts of prices that I pay for whisky in Hong Kong, but I’ll complain about prices another day. I also didn’t have to pay for the bottle to be delivered all the way to Hong Kong, since I have trusty mules all over the UK. This time my cousin stepped up, so I only had to send it to London where she usually resides.
Score: 6/10
Good stuff.
TL;DR
The wax is there, the jury’s out as to why
Nose
Spirit driven on the nose, not surprising since it spent 9 years in a refill bourbon cask. Fresh apples, ripe bananas, sweet pineapples, buttered pastries (croissant?), candy floss, vanilla ice cream, no hint of wax here for me, in fact it’s quite sharp on the nose.
Palate
Here it is, nice and waxy on the arrival with a thick texture. Quite a bit of oak with an assortment of fruits to follow: apples, pears, bananas, peaches, grapes, salted oranges and limes, vanilla; honey and caramel notes in the development, cinnamon, sugar cane, and white pepper. A zesty finish with a black tea note, not too long, but what a gripping experience, and a very moreish whisky.
The Dregs
If the goal of this Dailuaine was to pretend to be a Clynelish, it’s done a brilliant job - quite amazing. Comparing notes with the hand fill I bought at Clynelish, there are a lot of overlaps, but whereas both whiskies had a good grip, there is a bit more heft and texture to this one. Was it worth the hype it was given during the GWF? Maybe not; perhaps the notion of a Dailuaine in Clynelish’s skin was the gimmick, but still a good whisky nonetheless.
The thing is… if I’m looking for a Dailuaine experience, it’s not quite what I expect. If I was looking to be overwhelmed by waxiness, I would have been disappointed, although to get a mouth full of whisky wax these days, I probably have to pay through my nose. All things considered though, I’m very happy to have this whisky on my shelf, even if only to open doors to a geeky whisky conversation.
Judging the whisky on its own, a solid 6, good stuff.
Score: 6/10
Tried this? Share your thoughts in the comments below. MMc
-
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.
