Whisky Advocate

Review: Springbank C.V.

September 23rd, 2010

Not the best Springbank I ever tasted, but I do like it better than the Springer C.V.  from many years ago.

Springbank C.V., 46%, $40
A marriage of whisky from bourbon, sherry and port casks, which does help give it some complexity. A bit fleshy on the nose (sooty peat, soy sauce, sherry, tannins). The palate calms down a bit (and is soothed by the sherry notes), with some additional vanilla, bitter orange, and brine. More brine and warming pepper on the finish. There’s a lot going on here in this whisky, which I like, but I’m not sure the flavors dovetail with each other well enough to deserve a higher rating.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 83

10 Responses to “Review: Springbank C.V.”

  1. I have tasted the entire new CV trilogy, and I think the Springbank is the weakest one. Longrow and Hazelburn are way better, IMO.

  2. Red_Arremer says:

    Any idea on the ages of the whiskies in it?

  3. John, have you also tasted the Longrow and Hazelburn CVs how they compare to the Springbank? I would be very interested in your opinpon on these. I have found that I generally tend to like the other two ranges more than the proper Spingers. But to put it into perspective, I haven’t had the chance to taste the legendary oldies yet.

  4. Texas says:

    Too bad….I still contend the current 10 year (2009 and 2010 bottlings) are absolutely fantastic and would love to see an updated review of the 10 year at some point.

  5. mongo says:

    well, i may still try this.

    john, it seems to me you described this and the finnealta as having a similar property: both have a lot going on and don’t seem to have a clear character of their own. you seem to have penalized this one more for that, however.

  6. Bill H. says:

    It tastes like unpeated Longrow CV to me. There’s a note they both have in common, something in the Longrow I thought had to do with the peat but which a Springbank rep. referred to as the smell of a dunnage. This is assuming he and I were talking about the same note, as I’ve never been to a dunnage, but the idea leads me to damp stone and wood moulder, something not far off from the smell of the beer distributor warehouses I worked at years ago. Does this sound crazy?

  7. Texas says:

    BTW Serge also rates this one down…an 80. he gives the 2009 10 year an 89. and the 10 year 100 proof a 90 (of course that’s the U.K. 100 proof at 57%).

© Copyright 2014. Whisky Advocate. All rights reserved.