We Tasted Tamdhu's New $16,000, 43 Year-Old Speyside Scotch Whisky
Tamdhu 43 Year-Old Speyside Scotch Whisky
Scotland has over 150 distilleries, and it can be tricky for even the most ardent whisky fanatic to keep track of each and every one. Among Speyside single malt producers, operations like Macallan, Glenfiddich, and Balvenie garner quite a bit of media attention, especially among American drinkers. But a lesser-known, privately held producer just released an exceptional 43 year-old Scotch. And we got an early taste.
Tamdhu has been laying down whisky since 1897, and it's currently operated by family-owned Ian Macleod Distillers. (Which also owns Glengoyne, Rosebank, and Smokehead.) Tamdhu's current lineup includes 12, 15, and 18 year-old single malts, as well as a non-age stated Batch Strength release now in its eighth iteration. The distillery isn't currently open to the public, which likely contributes to a sort of under-the-radar status. (Nobody spreads the word like a tourist who had a great visit.)
Another important note: All of Tamdhu's releases are matured entirely in sherry seasoned casks, and the distillery utilizes both American and European oak for these purposes.
The distillery's latest offering is the first in its new Dedication Collection, and on numbers alone, it's a doozy: a 43 year-old, 100% sherry matured single malt bottled at 50.8% ABV, with a suggested retail price of around $16,000. Just 100 specially designed, intricately crafted decanters of the liquid will be released.
'Tamdhu 43-Year-Old's release is a landmark moment for our distillery. To have a whisky this age, matured exclusively in three exceptional Sherry oak casks, is a true gem that exemplifies the amazing depth and complexity that only time can create,' says Distillery Manager Sandy McIntyre.
Purchasing Tamdhu's new crown jewel also entitles the buyer to a rare visit with McIntyre at Tamdhu, which includes tasting 'a host of amazing whiskies with him.' (No word yet on if you're allowed to bring along a buddy.)
But how does a Tamdhu Scotch taste after 43 years in sherry seasoned casks? Fortunately, we were able to sample the liquid for review.
Right out of the gate, the nose is sherry-forward, coupled with spicy seasoned oak. Szechuan peppercorn lends a fascinating—and captivating—early aroma before the whisky turns toward both ripe and preserved fruits, along with brandy-soaked cherries. Toasted bread and honeycomb also waft out of the glass in undulating intensity. Clove and orange peel bookend a series of scents that prominently feature that sherry influence without getting lost in it; there's some noteworthy depth here owing to both the distillate and the casks.
Blackberry and blackcurrant jams lead the early palate, followed by light cola, cherry preserves, raspberry flavored dark chocolate, and tannic leather. By the midpalate, citrus rises to prominence, and I'm reminded of the Terry's Chocolate Oranges I once adored around the holidays. (The kind you WHACK on the table and then peel to open.) Lightly oxidized vermouth lends a bit of funk beyond the fruit, and rather than tasting unpleasant, it helps continue a captivating narrative on the tongue.
The finish starts slightly tart before turning to dry fruit, in this case figs and prunes. It's a little tricky to figure out where the fruit stops and lingering oak begins, but that's more of an academic chase—at the end of the day, this 43 yearold Tamdhu features a lovely finish that gives on lots to taste (and think) on.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump Is Losing His Trade War
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Donald Trump's trade war is fast turning into a fiasco. When the president started the war, Team Trump advertised it as certain to be fast, easy, and cheap. Trump would impose tariffs. The world would yield to his will. The tariffs would do everything at once. They would protect U.S. industry from foreign competition without raising prices, and generate vast revenues that would finance other tax cuts. Americans could eat their cake, continue to have the cake, and trade the same cake for pie—all at the same time. 'There's not going to be any pain for American workers,' Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, vowed in April. The advertising rapidly proved false. The U.S. economy is slowing because of the Trump tariffs; China's is thriving in spite of them. Team Trump falsely promotes vague five-page outlines with alienated former allies as big deals; China is successfully wooing some of its former rivals, such as Vietnam. America's standing in the world is measurably sinking; China's is measurably rising. Courts are ruling that Trump's tariffs are illegal; public opinion mistrusts the tariffs, regarding them as expensive and unproductive. The promise of huge flows of painless money from tariff revenues is evanescing as the fantasy it always was. Oh, and the country's largest chain of Halloween retailers canceled its traditional summer grand opening because of Trump-caused supply disruptions. What comes next, as things go wrong? Trump's first instinct is to blame the targets of his economic aggression for not cooperating with his wishes. On May 30, Trump accused China of violating an imaginary agreement with him. On June 4, he complained that Xi Jinping was 'extremely hard to make a deal with.' But Trump seldom chooses to quarrel with foreign dictators, saying in the same breath, 'I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will.' Today, in all-caps emphasis, Trump announced that a deal had been done, declaring that his 'RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT' with the Chinese president-for-life. The lack of details in the announcement strongly suggests that Trump yielded more and gained less than his publicity apparatus wants Americans to believe. That's because, in reality, Trump's global trade war has always been subordinate to his domestic culture war. Trump much prefers to vent his rage against enemies within. Get ready for him to blame the failure of his trade war on fellow Americans who did not support him enough. The Trump tariffs will be ballyhooed as an act of patriotism, a necessary sacrifice to be laid on the altar of the nation. One of Trump's television talkers reminded viewers that Americans melted down their pots and pans to win the Second World War. If the president needs to ration dolls and colored pencils, how dare any true American raise a contrary voice? The coming call for national solidarity with Trump's Great Patriotic War against imported Halloween costumes deserves all the scoffing it will get and more. Trump ordered the nation into economic warfare. He did not do any of the things necessary to create any hope of success in that war. The impending defeat is his personal doing, entirely his own fault. [Jonathan Chait: The good news about Trump's tariffs] Recall the classic Norm Macdonald bit in which the comedian marvels that in the 20th century, Germany decided to go to war with 'the world,' twice. That was meant as a joke. Trump adopted it as his actual strategy. Trump's rationalizers invoke anxiety about China as his justification. Yes, China numbered among the targets of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs. But so did Australia. So did Brazil. So did Canada. So did Denmark. So did Egypt. And on and on, through the whole alphabet of American allies and trading partners. The United States is by far the planet's strongest national economy, producing slightly more than one-quarter of the planet's goods and services. Including its historic and recent partners, the United States could potentially lead a group of nations sufficiently influential to write economic rules that everybody would need to take into account. That fact underpinned the Trans-Pacific Partnership concept of the Obama years: Form a large-enough and attractive-enough club, and China will have no choice but to comply with the founding members' terms. Trump's alternative concept is for a quarter of the world economy to cut itself off from the other three-quarters, and then wait for the three-quarters to beg for mercy from the one-quarter. Unsurprisingly, that concept is fast proving a stinker. But suppose the president sincerely believed that the U.S. had no choice: The one-quarter must fight the three-quarters as a matter of national survival, or 'liberation,' from the tyranny of foreign goods and services, foreign fruits and vegetables. Crazy, but suppose he did. What would follow? A rational president would grasp that a U.S. economic war against the rest of the world would be a big, protracted, and painful undertaking. Such an enormous commitment would require democratic consent from a large majority of the public, all the more so because the United States is starting the war itself. Trump's trade conflict is very much a war of choice. The president must explain why he chose it. A rational president determined to fight an economic war would try to mobilize broad support from the public and from Congress. He would seek allies in Congress, and not only from his own party. He might, for example, compromise on some of his other goals. If he also wanted to tighten immigration at the same time as waging a global trade war, or to roll back DEI programs, or to cut taxes for the wealthy, or to relax anti-corruption measures, or to pardon the crimes of his violent supporters, or to plan any other ambitious but divisive project, he might think twice about pursuing them. You can't ask your opponents to pay more and do without if you won't forgo even a scrap of your partisan agenda. You can ask anyway, but don't be shocked when they answer with a Bronx cheer. That president would also lead from the front. A president seeking to inspire Americans to endure hardship for the greater good would certainly not throw himself a multimillion-dollar birthday parade at public expense. He would not accept lavish gifts from foreign governments, would not operate a pay-for-access business that collected billions of dollars for himself and his family from undisclosed favor-seekers. While asking other Americans to accept less, he would not brazenly help himself to more. He certainly would not troll, insult, and demean those who may not have voted for him, but whose cooperation he needs now. This president has, of course, done the most egregious version of every item above. His economic war is adjunct to his partisan culture war. He did not seek broad support. He gleefully offends and alienates everyone outside his base. Which works for him as long as times are prosperous, as they were in the first three years of his first administration. Allow things to get tough, though, and it's a different story. Trump cannot ask for patience and trust, because at least half the country has unalterably judged him as untrustworthy and out only for himself. [David Frum: The ultimate bait and switch of Trump's tariffs] Trump bet his presidency on the theory that trade wars are 'good and easy to win,' as he posted during his first term. His second-term trade war, however, is proving not so easy, and not so good, either. He is fighting it alone, without global allies or domestic consent, because that's his nature. It's now also his problem. In the 1983 movie WarGames, a computer thinks its way through dozens of terrifying nuclear scenarios and concludes: 'The only winning move is not to play.' In other words, the only safe way to conduct a nuclear exchange is never to have one. The same could be said of trade wars, at least when fought by one nation, however big and rich, against all the others, all at once. Trump decided he did not care about Americans' support for his economic war. He did not ask for their backing. He did not make any effort to win it. He willfully alienated at least half of the public. Now that he's losing, his supporters want to scold the country because it rejects the whole misbegotten project as stupid and doomed. Don't listen to their reproaches. This is Trump's war, and his alone. The only way to win now is to end Trump's trade war as rapidly as possible. And then end the excessive, unilateral trade powers of a corrupt president who blundered into a pointless and doomed conflict without justification, plan, or consent. Article originally published at The Atlantic
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
GM doubles down on American manufacturing with $4B investment
General Motors is investing $4 billion in its U.S. plants over the next two years to boost the manufacturing of gas and electric vehicles. With the multibillion-dollar investment, the Michigan-based automaker will be able to assemble more than 2 million vehicles per year in the U.S. The latest investment comes just two weeks after the company announced it earmarked $888 million for its Tonawanda Propulsion plant near Buffalo, New York, to support production of its next-generation V-8 engine. Prior to the investments, the company was producing about 1.7 million vehicles in the U.S. It's just one of many automakers that have pledged to build vehicles in the U.S. and to support American jobs. 'We believe the future of transportation will be driven by American innovation and manufacturing expertise,' said GM CEO Mary Barra. The company's commitments, along with other heavy hitters in the industry, come as President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on imported vehicles to boost domestic auto manufacturing. In April, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on all imported passenger vehicles, followed by a separate 25% tariff on imported auto parts such as engines, transmissions, power-train parts and electrical components in May. 4 With the investment, GM will be able to assemble more than 2 million vehicles per year in the U.S. JHVEPhoto – 4 A worker installs an engine at the General Motors assembly plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, US, on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. Bloomberg via Getty Images Barra recently backed the administration's automotive tariffs, saying they will pave the way for U.S. automakers to compete more fairly in the international market. There are currently 50 GM manufacturing plants and parts facilities in 19 states, including 11 vehicle assembly plants. Plants in Michigan, Kansas and Tennessee will expand finished vehicle production of several of GM's most popular vehicles. At the Orion Assembly plant in Michigan, the automaker will begin production of gas-powered full-size SUVs and light-duty pickup trucks in early 2027 to help meet continued strong demand. Meanwhile, GM's Factory ZERO in Detroit-Hamtramck, Michigan, will be the dedicated assembly location for the Chevrolet Silverado EV, GMC Sierra EV, Cadillac Esccalade IQ and GMC Hummer EV pickup and SUV, according to GM. 4 A worker on the trim assembly line at the General Motors assembly plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, US, on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. Bloomberg via Getty Images 4 The new GM logo is seen on the facade of the General Motors headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., March 16, 2021. REUTERS At its Fairfax Assembly plant in Kansas City, Kansas, GM will produce the gas-powered Chevrolet Equinox beginning in mid-2027 after the company saw significant demand for the vehicle. Sales of the recently redesigned Equinox rose more than 30% year over year in the first quarter of 2025. The plant is on track to begin building the 2027 Chevrolet Bolt EV by the end of this year. Future investments in the plant will be geared toward GM's next generation of affordable EVs, according to GM. Meanwhile, GM will produce the gas-powered Chevrolet Blazer, the Cadillac Lyriq and Vistiq EVs, and the Cadillac XT5 at the Spring Hill Manufacturing plant in Tennessee. The company projected that its annual capital spending through 2027 will be in the range of $10 billion to $12 billion due to increased investment in the U.S., the prioritization of key programs and efficiency offsets.
Indianapolis Star
32 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Frito-Lay plant in Rancho Cucamonga shutting down manufacturing operations
A Frito-Lay plant in Southern California is shuttering manufacturing operations after five decades, potentially affecting hundreds of jobs. A statement from PepsiCo Foods U.S., emailed to USA TODAY on June 11, confirmed the "shutdown of manufacturing operations" at Frito-Lay's Rancho Cucamonga site. Although the plant will cease manufacturing operations, its warehouse, distribution, fleet and transportation teams will continue to operate at this location, according to the food, beverage and snack corporation. "We are truly grateful for all the support over the last five decades from our Rancho Cucamonga manufacturing team as well as the local community," PepsiCo Foods U.S.'s statement reads. "We are committed to supporting those impacted through this transition and we are offering pay and benefits to impacted employees." According to Frito-Lay, it has "more than 30 highly advanced manufacturing plants across the country." Is a pricey AI fridge worth it? One woman's rant about hers is going viral. PepsiCo did not disclose how many employees would be affected by the shutdown of the manufacturing plant. It is also unclear when the possible layoffs will occur, as the PepsiCo facility is not in California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) database as of June 11. The WARN Act requires employers to give 60 days' notice before a mass layoff, plant closure or relocation. Employees at the plant told KTLA that they were let go, with some not being allowed to transfer to different departments to possibly keep their jobs. The Frito-Lay Rancho Cucamonga facility also once employed Richard Montañez, an American businessman who took credit for inventing Flamin' Hot Cheetos, although the snack brand and PepsiCo have disputed his claims.
