Head to head: Highland Park 18 & SMWS 4.159

[bifter]

Highland Park is legendary. The most northerly Scottish distillery, it was founded in 1798 (according to the owners) in Kirkwall, Orkney but only acquired a licence in 1826. Today it is firmly positioned at the premium end of the single malt market. Some, such as Jim Murray, feel this is merited whereas others, Johannes van den Heuvel for example, feel the marketing subsidy and increasing prices now make it poor value and would suggest the quality has declined since the 1990s. I don't have the experience to attest to this or refute it so I can only judge the product as I find it.

The distillery claims to rely on traditional production methods, whatever the expense, in order to create its iconic expressions. They malt Orcadian barley, which provides 20% of their needs and is peated to 40ppm, the rest is imported from the Scottish borders at only 2ppm phenol. This results in a delicate smoke profile apparently differentiated further from other peated whiskies by the particular Orcadian peat profile, higher in carbohydrate derivatives than lignin derivatives. The distillery Web site implies that the casks used for single malt are overwhelmingly Oloroso sherry casks however the SMWS have access to the blending stock, which is often matured in bourbon barrels and goes into such blends as Famous Grouse. An SMWS employee suggested to me that around 20% of Highland Park's output is bourbon-casked. Another process that sets Highland Park apart is that of cask harmonisation. After vatting, the whisky is put back into casks (whether the same casks is not clear) to 'harmonise' for a further six months. This practice is not widespread though I am aware that Dalmore do this with some of their spirit.

The Highland Park 18 was first released in 1997 and has won F. Paul Pacult's "Best Spirit in the World" award twice. Jim Murray awards it a 'spectacular' 95.5 in his 2012 Whisky Bible. The SMWS bottle here is a 16 year old refill hogshead, ex-bourbon, distilled on 30th November 1995 and with an outturn of 241 bottles. I thought it would be fascinating to see the difference between the bourbon and sherry influences and the character of a single cask contrasted against a 'harmonised' distillery vatting. I left the drams 25 minutes or so before first nosing the 16 year old. After then nosing the 18 I drank them in the same order.

In the glass the 16 was straw-coloured and became a little hazy with water, like lemon juice, which was apt given what was to follow. The nose was to die for. Honey, vanilla, oak, heather, lemons, a slight briny note, woody smoke and incredibly juicy barley for its age. I was astounded that a single cask malt could have such beautiful balance and could have nosed it all evening.

The palate was initially hot at 55.5% abv but zingy and lemony. I had to add some water which evoked lemon drizzle cake, including the spritzy, sherbet-like tang of the zest and the cereal notes of the sponge. The mouthfeel was quite waxy. The palate didn't quite live up to the nose but was amazingly fresh for a 16 year old. The zest continued right into into a long finish with a bit of heat to the end, which became slightly bitter and dry. Subtle heather and wood smoke notes wove in and out throughout.

The 18 by contrast was a darker brownish-gold colour, though not suspiciously so (Jim Murray assures us that 'colouring has now been dropped'). The nose was also totally different with notes of dark sherry, heather, toffee, leather, dried fruit, polish, tobacco and a hint of smoke. It nosed much older and a little flatter than the 16 hinting at some significantly aged casks in the vat.

The palate was initially much smoother than the 16 but of course it is only 43%. This proved only just sufficient in my view so I added no water but it was imperiously smooth with a silky mouthfeel. Heather honey danced on my tongue, perfectly balanced with grapes, sultanas and a hint of cherries. The leather and polish notes were still present into the finish which developed a chocolate note, then dried at the end with just a hint of liquorice. Plenty of development then!

Comparing these two is difficult. My preconception was that the 18 would be more rounded and complex due to being vatted, presumably with some older whiskies, and aided by the harmonisation. This is certainly true of the palate but I was amazed by the nose of the 16, which evinced truly astounding balance and was, in my view, superior. I had expected the 16 to be more idiosyncratic and the punchy, zingy palate and long finish certainly delivered this but, ultimately, I preferred the more refined layers and development of the 18.

Highland Park 18 does carry a premium but least it delivers on that where others sometimes don't. I have to admit, although I've sampled the 18 (and the 12) before and I am aware of the sherry cask provenance, I hadn't fully appreciated just how much of a sherry-bomb the 18 is. It has all the required elements and is also layered quite beautifully with a judicious measure of smoke. I voted for it at the Whisky Fringe 2012 and it would have made a worthy winner. If the SMWS bottle could be reliably replicated at retail I'm fairly sure it would be a popular addition to the range but of course it was a one off and all the more ephemeral for that. Never mind a victor, I think I'm the winner here!
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[Gregor]

Cheers bifter, i enjoyed your review.

It was once explained to me that the reason the Orcadian peat that Highland Park uses doesnt produce the big smoky/peaty/iodine style of whisky which you can get from Islay is that there are, and always has been very little trees on Orkney as they dont survive the high wind. Therefore the peat which takes many years to form does not contain decomposing trees/roots which makes the peat very different (a lot less smoky/peaty/iodine)

[bifter]

Thanks Gregor! There is some great information on the Highland Park Web site itself, which goes into some detail about the '5 Keystones', including the peat profile:

http://www.highlandpark.co.uk/the-distillery/the-5-keystones
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[bifter]

In my review I mention a 'sherbet' note in the 16. In this SMWS bottle the influence is pretty slight but I've found it particularly pronounced in other HP SMWS bottles, which I don't really care for - other adjectives might include effervescent, spritzy, fizzy. It's not unique to Highland Park but, in my experience, it seems to be a bourbon cask influence (though certain white wines have something similar) and possibly brought out with water - so at the moment I'm guessing it's something to do with the bourbon, the charring (as opposed to toasting) or American white oak.

Can anyone shed any light?
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]