I will go on record to declare that the Glenlivet 12 is one of the most boring scotches I’ve run into. I haven't written about it on the site (thus far) for the sole reason that it's hard for me even to summon the enthusiasm to commit words to paper. Glenlivet 12 is to scotch what beige is to color.
For that reason, it might be unusual to see that I actually like the Glenlivet Illicit Still, which astute readers might realize is itself a 12-year-old scotch. So what gives? Isn't this simply “Glenlivet 12” by any other name? If you’ve had the Glenlivet 12 before, shouldn’t this be mostly the same general stuff? Well, no. Surprisingly, no.
“The Glenlivet 12 Illicit Still raises an interesting question: why don’t more producers make this kind of presentation the standard for a good Scotch?”
There's been a huge movement among Scotch nerds about two aspects of large-scale production: they hate when things are chill-filtered, and they hate when things are bottled at 40% ABV. As a person who doesn't usually have a dog in this fight, let me try to explain the phenomenon a little more quickly than I did the last time I wrote about it. Chill-filtering ensures that scotch never turns cloudy when poured over ice and keeps sediment from appearing in your glass, but it comes at the sacrifice of some flavor.
As for the outcry against an ABV of 40%, it’s because the producers inevitably water the scotch down to hit that percentage, giving the consumer a “weaker than” version of whatever came out of the barrel. You can always add water to suit your tastes if the bottling strength is a little too intense alcohol-wise, but it's not like you can pour more scotch in your glass to increase the spirit's innate flavor. 40% ABV, to the hard-liners, means that flavor and choice has been taken away from them.
Fanatics would say I find the Glenlivet 12 boring because it was made boring. It was diluted form the distillery and filtered to strip it of whatever character it might have had. I can see the merit in that argument.
See, the Glenlivet Illicit Still varies significantly from the base product in two respects: it's bottled at 48% ABV, and it's not chill filtered. Personally, I was skeptical that these changes would make so much of a difference, but here we are.
Where the Glenlivet 12 has basically always tasted to me like just a hint of apple with some vaguely samey supporting malt whisky and some vague insinuation of smoke, the Illicit Still comes out of the gate hard charging. The nose is amazing, flat out. Don't smell this if you're hungry. There's an avalanche of sweet and savory baked goods like cornbread and cinnamon rolls, and an orange sweetness layered over the whole package.
On arrival, it's also a winner. It's a little hot at 48% ABV, but drinkable for those who want to take their time. The orange cream from the nose rolls across the palate, flanked by chocolate, nuts, and really wonderful and generous barley flavors. The finish is not as good as the rest of the affair, but still is enjoyable as the orange turns a little bitter, not unlike an Earl Grey tea, and you're left with a bit of those baked goods and fruit glaze from before.
Another strange thing about this type of presentation: if you add water to proof it down to 40%, it still has more taste and flavor than Glenlivet 12. By a fair amount! The scotch becomes a little more agreeable this way. I noticed more orange sweetness, but also a little more bitterness in the finish. As I've mentioned before with cask-strength whiskies, part of the attraction to the high proof is not only good value, but the space and ability to play with the drink and find your own personal bliss point.
And so we come back around to this question: why don't more producers make this presentation the standard? Consider that as of this writing, the Glenlivet Illicit Still retails for about $45, and the Glenlivet 12 for $35. That's almost thirty percent more money to get eight percent more alcohol. It seems like a sucker's bet, and even more so if all scotch tastes the same to the buyer. This is a craft, niche product targeted at those in the know or those who are by nature curious and experimental.
As an addendum, this is not to say that a 40% ABV, chill-filtered whiskey is by default bad. In fact, I think I still slightly prefer the Glenlivet 15, which is indeed bottled at the legal minimum proof and chill filtered. Maybe not doing that would result in a better whisky, but I've been satisfied enough to buy several bottles for myself and others. It's only to say that all things being equal, some whiskies and distilleries really seem to benefit from the production Glenlivet has bestowed on the Illicit Still.
Will it be your thing, and will you see the value? It'd be a relatively cheap education to find out, and a fun back-to-back comparison with a 50mL Glenlivet 12 mini that is undoubtedly hiding somewhere in your local liquor store. On its own merits, however, the Illicit Still is a tasty bottle. (And you don’t need to get into the production weeds to appreciate it.)
