Старый Glen Grant 1952 GM получает высокие, но не единодушные оценки: хвалят глубокий медово-фруктовый аромат и долгий финиш, но критикуют тонкое тело и избыток древесины. Несколько отзывов отмечают, что при 40% крепости виски кажется жидковатым для такого возраста.
развернуть подробно
В аромате чаще всего описывают глубокие сладкие и фруктовые ноты: цитрусы (клементины, лаймы, сатсумы), розовые яблоки, манговый сок, медовый сироп и цветочные оттенки, иногда с металлически-меловой нотой и лёгкой древесностью. Один отзыв подчёркивает, что виски очень закрыт в первые минуты и заметно меняется после 30 минут, а бочка за 52 года не была слишком активной, что позволило избежать чрезмерной дубовости; при этом фруктовые ноты со временем уходят на задний план.
Во вкусе и финише мнения расходятся: часть отзывов хвалит долгий, сухой, меловой и ванильный финиш и то, что тонкое тело «уплотняется» к финишу, другие называют вкус тонким, кисловатым, горьковатым и слишком древесным, с недостатком остаточной сладости. Несколько отзывов отдельно критикуют крепость 40% как неподходящую для виски такого уровня и возраста, а также отмечают, что дуб присутствует, но не доминирует.
собрано 7/10 текстовых отзывов · полный lossless-снимок WB
· 2026-10-23T21:49:46Z · источник evidence
https://whiskylovingpianist.wordpress.com/2018/04/19/four-really-old-scotch/ I’ve been here twice before, scoring it 88 & 90 respectively. N: Sweet citrus culminating in a mixed grocery bag of clementines, limes, satsumas and rose apples as well as mango juice and an undercurrent of metallic-chalky paint. Lovely stuff but with a narrow depth of field. Don’t these wonderful fruit notes and grand old vintages deserve more than the minimum abv? T: Tasty yet thin juice, though firming up slightly on the turn. F: Soft, sweet chalky>fruity<dry finish. C: Is it fair to hold the opinion that 40% abv strength is unacceptable at this level, especially when it appears to have an adverse effect on this rare final product? It’s back to 88 points but I feel it could/should be 90+/<43% easily. Also, this very possibly struggled after the SMWS powerhouse.Scores a B[+]
WhiskyLovingPianistConnoisseur8909 mar 2017 7:45 pm
As the man himself Stephen Rankin said, “this is the bees knees”. I had this before and found it to be excellent [88], though creaking at the seams. Let’s see how i receive it today. N: Ah, that's a deep floral-sweet, nectar-syrup to die for. Wish I knew my flowers more, for labelling and naming purposes. T: Thin yet potent, very potent with a touch of acute sharpness and some soot underneath. The thin mouthfeel actually thickens into the finish - yum yum. F: Hums and purrs with an even more desirability than on the palate. C: Only the body and initial mouthfeel lack conviction for super-stellar marks but this is still excellent, more excellent indeed than in October 2016. Blog Scores an A-
WhiskyLovingPianistConnoisseur8905 nov 2015 1:09 pm
N: Its an old syrup malt of course, initially amazing as they all seem to be at this age. The characteristic speyside notes of lemon and light peppery, honeyed malt are locked in embrace - very soft, very deep. No faking the pedigree here. T: Quite sour to start. Its a dry, clean chew over soft but expansive oak. Lemony, malty paper mulch develops like chewing on a dry, thick lemon-infused newspaper F: Much the same as the palate, very long and lingering dry finishing with vanilla of course, and a lot of chalk. C: Despite all those years in wood, the oak accompanies the malt very well, much as an accomplished pianist does for the singer. This 53yo is creaking at the seems however, but theres much to be gleaned from this old timer even if it is somewhat over baked. Scores a B[+]
LiquidThoughtsConnoisseur9106 jan 2023 4:06 pm
He's a little withdrawn and has a tad too much oak for more points for me, but still a nice, not-so-ordinary old Grant.
pianomanConnoisseur9026 may 2024 8:23 pm
NicedramConnoisseur9616 feb 2023 9:03 pm
Along with 11888 and 23606
JoshNRWConnoisseur9019 feb 2023 10:51 pm
Needless to say, a 52-year-old malt is still very closed in the first few minutes and smells significantly different after 30 minutes. The whisky offers a nice interplay, beautiful and exciting aromas. In addition, the 52 years in the cask have left their mark without dominating the whisky. But the barrel was not very active, which is of course an advantage at 52 years... :-) Nevertheless, the aromas on the palate are a bit too thin and unspectacular for the key data. A very exciting whisky, but I like other Glen Grants that have matured for a long time better. Especially the oily ones with a higher proportion of ripe fruit sweetness.
нос · вкус · финиш
Нос
91
Surprisingly lively at the beginning, even if a slight note of wood reflects the maturity of the whisky. So the cask wasn't too intense, allowing the whisky to age here for five decades without becoming too woody. After a while, there are beautifully fruity, almost exotic notes of banana, light grapes, physalis and the OBF aromas with the dust are more and more in the background. Exciting development.
Вкус
90
Also here a lot of OBF and a lot of dust, also a lot of wood and not quite as fruity. I would have preferred more residual sweetness. The aromas are slightly bitter and the fruit aromas are more citrusy.
Финиш
90
The mouthfeel is just enough oily, slightly too bitter and woody. The finish is almost long, but not particularly intense.
IndianerhäuptlingConnoisseur9101 jan 2025 4:24 pm
нос 92 · вкус 90 · финиш 90
DrPepper_AddictConnoisseur9009 nov 2025 2:30 am
KennExpert Junior—02 may 2016 12:51 pm
www.whiskyauction.com 04-2016 €605
Оценки по участникам WB
WB 91.2стандартный WB-рейтинг; собрано
29 наблюдений (28 с экспертными ролями)
снимок #427 ·
статус complete · собран 2026-09-13T06:06:31+00:00 ·
сверено: строки сходятся с объявленным числом · показан более ранний доказанно полный снимок, новый #18093 (legacy_import) неполон
· ожидалось 29,
фактических строк 29, сохранено 29
экспертный allowlist: Expert Junior, Expert Senior, Specialist, Connoisseur.
Служебные роли (Administrator, Community Manager, Editor, Photo Moderator, Shoplink Moderator, Super Administrator) остаются ролью, но
экспертизой не объявляются. Авторское смещение не применяется:
author-bias correction not applied; view is raw observations.
WB-режим намеренно не показывает отдельные оценки,
чтобы стандартный рейтинг оставался единственным источником. Откройте
«собранные оценки» или «эксперты» — это те же данные, без правки
WB-значения.
Источник — append-only снимки S3
(core_vote_snapshot/core_vote_row). Режимы ничего
не записывают: страница только читает и не запускает сбор.
WhiskyLovingPianist
Connoisseur
89
19 apr 2018 11:08 pm
LiquidThoughts
pianoman
Nicedram
JoshNRW
Indianerhäuptling
DrPepper_Addict
Kenn