Ballantine’s 17 Year

Jim Murray caused a bit of an uproar when he named Ballantine’s 17 year blended scotch whisky World Whisky of the Year in his 2011 Whisky Bible. In 2010, it had climbed nearly as far – winning best blended scotch of the year. The thought of a blended scotch trumping over all single malts sent many whisky nuts (this one included) into paroxysms of rage. I had to try it.

A caveat: I’ve since read that Jim was tasting a newer bottling of Ballantine’s 17 – the slightly updated bottle in a blue box and the number ’17’ in larger font on the label. Since my tasting sample was a 30ml Master of Malt vial, I have no clue whether it came from the blue-box or red-box Ballantine’s.

Like many blends that were born in grocery stores, Ballantine’s originated as a series of blends sold by a grocer named George Ballantine in 1827. It uses 50 malts, but focuses on four key ‘flavor’ malts: Scapa, Glenburgie, Miltonduff, and Glentauchers. Of those, I’ve only tried Scapa before.

Nose: Honey and honeysuckle. The honey here is refined, not raw or honeycomb-like. Very floral. Vanilla. Faint hint of woodsmoke. Sweet apple cider. Buttercream frosting. Reminds me a lot of Oban 14.

Palate: Vanilla bean up front. Milky texture – not quite creamy. Elegant malt, with pure cereal flavors. Becomes tangy near the end – lemon custard.

Finish: More honey on the finish. A touch of wood. No bitterness to speak of. Medium-long. Echoes of honey and buttercream frosting.

With Water: Water releases a puff of cinnamon, a whiff of licorice, and something herbal that might be peat. It doesn’t hurt the body too much but it roughens up the finish, making the dram taste younger than it is. Skip the water here.

Overall: What’s most impressive here is the concentration of sweet desserty flavors without even a touch of bitterness on the finish. I guess that’s what you’re paying for. I could have used a little more nuttiness somewhere to round out the flavors. There is nothing here to indicate the presence of “low brow” grain whisky. After 17 years, it has definitely smoothed out. It adds the body and likely some of the cereal flavors, although the lack of full creaminess in the body texture makes me wonder if the grain whisky percentage in the blend is low. The overall impression is light and sweet, without any eclectic or surprising flavors to distract the palate. Surely, it’s very very good whisky… but I wouldn’t call it exciting.

I’m not sold. Sure, it’s good whisky, but I’d rather spend the money on some malts that are at least as good (quality-wise), even if they aren’t as masterfully assembled. It’s like buying one piece of art from a popular artist instead of four pieces from equally-good, but less-known artists for the same money. Will you enjoy the popular painting (and its inherent value) more? Probably, but you can cover more wall space with the four also-rans. Maybe that’s a tortured metaphor, but it works for me. If the above sounds interesting, but you don’t want to drop the $90, spend the money instead on a bottle of Oban 14, which is packed with honey flavors, and a bottle of Great King Street which is almost as good for half the price.

Ballantine’s 17 Year
43% ABV
ScotchNoob™ Mark:
Price Range: $90 [Sponsored Link]
Acquired: (30ml sample bottle purchased at Master of Malt)

Share This!

5 thoughts on “Ballantine’s 17 Year

  1. Ballantine’s 17 is good blended whisky but for Jim Murray to declare that it is the best of all whiskies (including single malts) of 2011 is ridiculous. His claim would mean literally that Highland Park entire product range (12, 15, 18, etc) or Macallan, Yamazaki, etc were some how inferior to this blend.

    If he had claimed it was the best blend of 2011, ok, maybe for some, but the best of the best was the scope of his claim. Ridiculous!

  2. Try James Buchanan’s 18 Yo Special Reserve. It’s Bout $55 here, which puts it between JW Green and Gold. Definitely better than Green ( I’ve never had Gold). Good old style whisky for sipping in an oak-walled study while sitting in a comfy leather chair reading The Times. Good quality, old style stuff.

  3. Hi. A lot of reviewers are stating, that Jim Murray tasted new Ballantine’s 17, with 40% in his WB. A guy working in whisky shop where I live (Slovenia) did notice, that in Jim Murray’s WB is stated, that tasted Ballantine’s 17 have 43% ABV. So, which one it is? Old or new? :-). It better be new one, with 40% ABV, since I have one bottle in my cabinet waiting to be reviewed ;-).

  4. OK. I went and bought a WB 2016. So,, there is a sign for retasted- no change and he is writnig about finish becoming longer with recent bottlings. Balance is ” now only slghtly less weighty than of old” and ” after a change of style, it has comfortably revert back to it’s sophisticated, mildly erotic old self.” (erotic WTF) So, it seams score of 97, 5 is for both, old 43% and new 40% expresion.
    Regards
    Stane

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>