Ardbeg 17 (2024) & Cadenheads Authentic Collection Ardbeg 11yo


We've got a pair of Ardbegs up for review - an old resurrected bottling alongside an older bottling from the distilleries closure period.

Ardbeg 17 (2024)

Region: Islay

ABV: 40.0%

Price: £160.00 

Today’s first review is of a whisky said to pay homage to the original Ardbeg 17, one of the first bottlings to come from the distillery after its reopening in 1997. Ardbeg claims this new 17-year-old release is an attempt to recreate that iconic expression. Details are sparse, but we know this bottling was matured in ex-bourbon casks.

Nose

On the nose, there’s a hint of peat, though it leans more toward a soapy quality. Vanilla notes appear alongside lime, iodine, a touch of must and ash, and a hint of tobacco. It’s quite tame for an Ardbeg. On revisiting, there’s a subtle earthy peat that’s reminiscent of classic Ardbeg, along with notes of orange peel, burnt s’mores, and milk chocolate.

Palate

On the palate, a prominent bitter note of grapefruit leads, with ashy smoke in the background that isn’t overly intense. There are hints of vanilla cupcake, lemon juice, tar, liquorice, and a peppery spice. The mouthfeel is disappointing, with a watery texture that lacks substance. We wouldn’t have guessed this as an Ardbeg based on the palate alone. The finish is medium in length, with the spice taking over. The age hasn’t added as much complexity as we expected.

Nose (with water)

With water, the nose reveals notes of antiseptic bandages, more ash, and generally just more peat. There’s a touch of lemon juice, but the vanilla sweetness is subdued. Hints of strawberries, banana, and plantain also emerge.

Palate (with water)

With water, the palate remains watery, with slightly less bitterness from the grapefruit. There are hints of cashew nuts, but an increase in spice. The finish remains unchanged, and overall, we find that water hasn’t really improved the experience.

Conclusion

We wouldn’t have guessed this was a 17-year-old, and while we’re not convinced that increasing the ABV would fully resolve its issues, it might have been a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this feels like another swing and a miss. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, and we might be guilty of that here. But then again, maybe the next Committee release will be the one to blow us away again.

Score: 5.5/10

Value

The distillery has many core range releases that are both more affordable and more flavourful.


Cadenheads Authentic Collection Ardbeg 11yo

Region: Islay

ABV: 59.5%

Price: ~£140.00 (Auction)

A 1993 Ardbeg that has spent its life maturing in a bourbon hogshead before being bottled at 11 years old in May 2005. 312 bottles were released.

Nose

On the nose, this is quite a savory dram with notes of toasted brioche, lime juice, and dry hay bales. A gentle level of peat sits quietly in the background, accompanied by hints of antiseptic soap, orange peel, butter, and cashew nuts. Burnt s’mores, vanilla, icing sugar, and earthy peat emerge slowly, alongside subtle touches of iodine and TCP. It doesn’t nose like an 11-year-old, as there’s a significant cask influence. There’s minimal ethanol presence, and a touch of spice that’s well balanced.

Palate

On the palate, there’s a hint of bitterness from dark chocolate, with limeade and that antiseptic note carrying over from the nose, alongside a background of peat. A touch of sea salt appears on the mid palate. This had a slightly drier profile as opposed to a sweeter one that we were expecting. On revisiting, lavender and tonka bean notes appear, along with cloves, while ash lingers on the tongue on a good finish. The mouthfeel is good, though it falls just a notch below that of its older counterparts Cadenhead have released.

Nose (with water)

With water, the nose opens up to notes of green apples and sea spray, bringing a pleasant sweetness with reduced smoke and lemon peel. There’s a hint of a smouldering bonfire, yet still no noticeable ethanol or spice. Some of the buttery and nutty notes are softened.

Palate (with water)

With water, the peat on the palate is notably reduced, leaving a subtle ashiness in the background. The mouthfeel remains good, with an almost sugary quality. There’s still a touch of bitterness, alongside more citrus notes. Lavender is present but dialed back, and there’s a bit more spice.

Conclusion

We’ve never had a disappointing 1993/1994 vintage Ardbeg from Cadenheads, and this one is no exception. That said, we still prefer its older siblings.

Score: 8/10

Value

Yes, the auction price feels a bit steep, but in perspective, this costs £20 less than the new Ardbeg 17 and outshines it in every possible category.

🥃 If you enjoy our content, consider buying us a dram! 🥃
  • 10 - Perfection. One in a million
  • 9 - Outstanding. Exceptional whisky.
  • 8 - Great. Would seek this out.
  • 7 - Good. Quality whisky.
  • 6 - Above average. Happy to have a dram.
  • 5 - Average. Drinkable whisky.
  • 4 - Below average. Passable.
  • 3 - Flawed. Noticeable negatives.
  • 2 - Defective. Significant faults.
  • 1 - Offensive. Pour it out.

    If you like what you’ve read then check out our social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) to get notifications of when we post a new review or just to chat about whisky with us.

    You also might be interested in...

    Daftmill 2011 Winter Batch
    Daftmill 2011 Winter Batch
    With Daftmill seeming to stick around on the shelves a little longer these days, we're looking at the 2011 Winter Batch.
    Read More
    Ardnamurchan AD/10
    Ardnamurchan AD/10
    We're excited to look at the first age statement 10 year old from Ardnamurchan.
    Read More
    Fragrant Drops North British 1989 Cask #O180-44 & Fragrant Drops Japanese Blend
    Fragrant Drops North British 1989 Cask #O180-44 & Fragrant Drops Japanese Blend
    We've got a couple of releases from Fragrant Drops up for review, including an old grain and a Japanese blend!
    Read More

    Leave a comment


    Please note, comments must be approved before they are published