Springbank 14 Year Bourbon Wood
How much do our own expectations affect our enjoyment of a glass of whisky? If our expectations are too high and the dram doesn’t live up to what we hoped it would be, does that mean we’re judging it unfairly? I assume the answer to that is yes, but let’s throw out the notion of high or low expectations and instead look at flavor expectations.
If our expectations are that a whisky is going to taste a certain way and it doesn’t taste like we thought it would, does that cause us to judge it more harshly? If you pour me a glass of orange juice, but I was expecting it to be a glass of milk and take a sip with that expectation, the orange juice is going to taste awful. I might spit it out. Not because the orange juice is bad of course, but because I wasn’t expecting it, I was expecting milk. Does this same sort of thing happen (on a much different scale) when we taste whisky? If I’m expecting to get a big dose of peat smoke, but the peat is subdued or nonexistent, does that mean I won’t like the whisky based solely on expectation?
Let’s continue this line of thought a bit further. Many of us believe that a little oxidization (letting it breathe) can help to improve a whisky. We’ve probably all experienced a bottle in which we were a little disappointed with the whisky when we first opened and poured a glass, but found that it got better over time as we worked our way through the bottle. I’ve mentioned this several times in past reviews. But I wonder. Is it always really oxidation at work that’s causing the bottle to get better? Or perhaps is it the fact that our expectations have been reset? That bottle of Glengoolie Blue that I didn’t like at first is suddenly tasting mighty fine today… did it really improve, or do I simply know what to expect and henceforth am far more capable of appreciating the whisky’s true characteristics?
I’ve been thinking about these questions in particular as I’ve worked my way through a bottle of Springbank 14 Year Bourbon Wood over the last month or so. I was disappointed with this bottle when I first opened it. I had high expectations. I had a vision in my head of what a 100% bourbon-matured Springbank might taste like (even though I’d never had such an expression from Springbank previously), but this bottle didn’t taste quite the way I imagined it would. I was prepared to give it a somewhat harsh review. But every time I poured a dram, I noticed that I seemed to like it a little better than the previous time. It’s still not my favorite Springbank, but it’s certainly not a bad whisky. Was my increased enjoyment of this bottle a matter of the whisky actually improving with time or a result of reseting my expectations? I’m not entirely sure to be honest. It’s something worth pondering.
OK, let’s pause there and give a few quick specifics about the whisky before I jump into the actual review… Springbank 14 Year Bourbon Wood is a one-time limited release (9,000 bottles) expression aged entirely in fresh and refill ex-bourbon barrels. It was distilled in November 2002 and bottled at 55.8% ABV in August 2017.
Springbank 14 Bourbon Wood Review
Type: Single Malt Scotch
Region: Campbeltown
Age: 14 years
ABV: 55.8%
Non chill-filtered
Natural color
Nose
Sweet and syrupy. All kinds of vanilla notes, with a hefty dose of caramel pudding on the side. French vanilla creamer. Creme brûlée. Vanilla syrup. Plenty of American oak. Fairly malty. A little almond, a little chocolate, and a little spice. Rich. Fruity. Peat smoke is mostly buried, but pops its head up occasionally. Rather powerful, even if it’s mostly vanilla. If you love vanilla, this is the nose for you.
Palate
Sweet, with tons of vanilla upon arrival. Much lighter than the nose and a little flat, but just as vanilla and caramel dominated. The peat is more evident on the palate, but still not prominent. Typical Springbank character and funk is present… this would be boring whisky without it. Some fresh mint leaves. Herbs. Floral on the backend. A bit of purfume, almost like a young Bowmore (but not as bad). Improves considerably with a little air and water. The mouthfeel is thick and syrupy.
Finish
Long, but not all that interesting. More floral than the palate. Again, a little flat. Vanilla and caramel. Perfume.
Overall
This is a real vanilla bomb. I like vanilla, but this might be too much. The nose is great, but it falls slightly flat on the palate, without quite enough depth to live up to my normal expectations for a Springbank single malt.
Interestingly, I didn’t find the bourbon barrel influence to be all that powerful. Yes, there’s lots of vanilla and caramel, but this is hardly a bourbon bomb, at least not in the same way as I characterized Glenmorangie Astar. Rather than a lot of bourbon influence, I’m simply finding American oak influence (which is a similar thing, but different). I feel like the end result would have been better if this was comprised solely of first-fill bourbon barrels, rather than including refill barrels. Springbank is a big and characterful malt, capable of handling a strong cask influence. That’s why it does so well in wine cask maturation.
By overall single malt whisky standards, this is pretty tasty stuff. But by Springbank standards, it’s a little disappointing… subpar even. But is it fair to score this poorly because it’s not Springbank’s best? If this came from any other distillery, I’d probably be quite happy with it.
The bottom line is that this whisky is enjoyable. It’s good. It didn’t meet my initial expectations (especially for the price), but the more time I’ve spent with it, the more I’ve enjoyed it.
SCORE: 7/10 (Good)
Final Thoughts
If we lived in a world in which Springbank was the only whisky that existed and I were to grade it on a scale of 1-10 in that Springbank world, this would probably be about a 3 out of 10. For better or worse, we don’t live in such a world, so it gets a 7 out of 10 instead. Even Springbank’s subpar offerings are better than most other whiskies.
Before I bought this bottle, I consulted two trusted sources for their thoughts and advice about this particular expression. One source told me the Bourbon Wood was a little too sweet, but is saved by the typical funkiness of Springbank. The other source said that it wasn’t sweet enough. That dichotomy of opinion convinced me to buy a bottle. My thoughts? I agree with the former opinion—Springbank 14 Bourbon Wood is a bit too sweet, but is rescued by the underlying Campbeltown funk.
So going back to the questions of expectation that I raised in the intro… I think there’s little doubt that our expectations of flavor do influence how we taste whisky, and sometimes we have to get past our pre-pour expectations in order to properly enjoy a good dram. Once my expectations of this whisky went through a level-set, I started to enjoy the Bourbon Wood and its vanilla madness much more. Still not my favorite Springer, but it’s not too bad either.
By the way, this is my first review using my new scoring scale. From here on out, I’ll be using a 10-point scale rather than 100-point.
Buying Advice: Let’s be honest, if you’re a Springbank fan, you see this on the shelf, and you have the money, you’re probably going to buy the bottle. But if you’re on the fence about it… I’m not sure it’s worth the price I paid (around $130). I enjoy the entry level Springbank 10 Year as much or more than this 14 Year Bourbon Wood, and the 10 Year is nearly half the price.
Drink This Not That: If you can find it, buy a bottle of Springbank 12 Year Cask Strength rather than the Bourbon Wood. It’s a considerably better Springbank expression (and less expensive, too).
Questions about my scoring system? Refer to the Review Method & Scoring Scale page.
For more reviews, check out the Whisky Review Archive.
