Speyside (M) 2011 13 Year Old Signatory 100 Proof #27 - 57.1%

Part of the Signatory 100 Proof series, from an undisclosed Speyside distillery. Originally distilled in 2011 and allowed to mature for 13 years in first-fill and refill sherry butts before being bottled at traditional 100 proof with natural colour and no chill-filtration.

Tasting notes

Appearance: Chestnut gold, forms a thin line which beads before slowly falling as thick, oily legs

Nose: Ripe orchard fruit, lemon citrus, Freesias, vanilla, woody oak and a little runny honey

Palate: Nutty oak, baked orchard fruit, heather honey, lemon zest, ginger, cinnamon and black pepper warmth. A few drops of water reduces some of the heat, adds more creaminess and more oaky nuttiness.

Finish: Astringent tannic oak, wood spice, lemon citrus and a prickle of ginger and black pepper. Water brings out a rich coffee note.

Overall: At a time when whisky prices continue to soar, this Signatory 100 proof range has quickly grabbed the attention of whisky drinkers. Although the distillery name hasn’t been disclosed a quick internet search reveals some pretty hefty clues, with the (M) in the name probably the biggest clue of all. 

This bottle set me back less than £45, something almost unheard of these days for a high abv whisky. So the question arises as to whether these bottlings are from poor quality casks or do these prices simply throw a huge spotlight on whisky prices in general. From this example alone, I would have to say it’s the latter. This is a very solid, well balanced whisky with plenty of depth and the richness associated with a good quality sherry bomb. For me, it represents great value for money and should serve as a wake up call for a section of the whisky industry intent on raising prices despite increasing signs of trouble on the horizon. 

I’ve just bought a couple of other Signatory 100 Proof bottlings on the quality of this bottle. If they’re as good as this one then the range will almost certainly become a regular purchase, and I’d even go so far as having to question why they shouldn’t make up the majority of my whisky budget instead of overpriced, often lesser quality, official bottlings.