In 1917 the focus shifted from malts to mines at Dalmore; the navy used
the location for the production of deep-sea mines. In 1920 they left the
distillery again - mostly in ruins after an explosion and a fire. Needless to
say, Andrew Mackensie undertook legal action against the Royal navy.

The Dalmore distillery, located north of Inverness, was founded in 1839.
Founder Alexander Matheson didn't actually distill the whisky himself there;
he immediately leased the distillery to the Sunderland family and they were
involved in the operations until 1867. In 1874 Dalmore's number of stills
was increased from two to four; quite an exception in those days. After
Alexander Matheson died in 1886, Sir Kenneth Matheson sold the distillery
to its former operators; brothers Alexander, Andrew & Charles Mackenzie.

Long before the legal battle about compensation for the damages between Andrew
Mackenzie and the Royal Navy was over (the debate eventually reached the House of
Lords) Dalmore distillery resumed production again. Apparently the distillery enjoyed
a few decades of relative peace until its floor maltings were replaced with a so-called
  Saladin box in 1956. The Saladin maltings remained in use until 1982, after which
Dalmore purchased its malted barley centrally, like most other distilleries these days.

In 1966 the number of stills was expanded from 4 to 8, putting Dalmore in the
top 25 distilleries, capacity-wise. Large drinks corporations mingle and merge
like swingers from the 1960's and the story with Dalmore is little different.
In 1960 Mackenzie Brothers Ltd. had already merged with Whyte & Mackay to
form Dalmore-White & Mackay Ltd. which later became Whyte & Mackay Distillers
Ltd. In 1990 White & Mackay Distillers Ltd. was purchased by American Brands.
 
After that things become confusing; according to some sources 'American
Brands' was renamed to 'JBB (Greater Europe) plc.' in 1995, but others claim
that that was the new name for 'Whyte & Mackay Distillers', assumed in 1996.

Dalmore isn't the only distillery owned by Whyte & Mackay when I
write this; the distilleries Old Fettercairn and Isle of Jura are part
of their 'stable' as well. The same goes for Tamnavulin, which was
silent for a few years until United Spirits took over the business
in 2007. The force behind this all is Indian mogul Vijay Mallya.

Whatever the case, all sources seem to agree that JBB Greater Europe was bought
from Fortune Brands by Kyndal Spirits in 2001, who then decided to change the
name back to Whyte & Mackay Ltd. Yes, I told you it was a bit confusing, didn't I?

This particular bottle (depicted at the right) switched owners for a little over 25,000 GBP.
According to our fellow malt maniac Charlie MacLean, the buyer it shared it with his friends;
the bottle was finished in a single evening. Well, I hope they enjoyed it in good spirits but
I won't put this one on my shopping list. It just doesn't make economical sense...

1) In 1870 Dalmore became the first malt whisky ever to be exported to Australia.

2) More trivia will be added later...
 

Here's are my notes on some 'core range' OB's. Indpendent bottlings are hard to find.
Although Dalmore can hardly considered to be an 'obscure' distillery, I haven't actually tried that many different expressions so far. The standard 12yo bottling has kept my happy throughout many evenings in the early 1990's, but after that the focus of my search shifted to malts that I hadn't tried before.

Dalmore NAS Cigar Malt (43%, OB, Bottled +/- 2000)
I've seen it on several occasions but never got around to seriously sampling it. The nose was much more like the 'normal' 12yo than I expected; sweet and malty. Yeah, maybe a little smokier than usual, but nothing like the 'bonfire' I expected. A little tobacco, perhaps. One difference becomes more and more obvious over time, though: it seems more sherried than the normal 12yo. Hey, maybe that was the point? I guess you wouldn't try to make a very 'smoky' whisky to complement a 'smoky' cigar. In fact, you would be looking for something very sweet and smooth. Anyway, there was some more smoke on the palate, but once again much more subtle than I had expected. Score: 80 points - recommendable.

Dalmore 12yo (43%, OB, Bottled +/- 1977, 75cl)
Nose: Wow! Loads of organics. An 'old school' malt. Extremely rich with a noble sweetness. Leather.
More spices. Tea. Now I get some funky fruity notes. Like gooseberries, but just a tad more 'herbal'.
From the empty glass the organics are even more obvious. Sellery - could that be an 'antique' marker?
Taste: Heavy sherry and some smoke at first. Magnificent sweet and smooth centre. Like a liqueur.
Coffee. The woody notes become more obvious over time and I also found a 'Buysman' bitterness.
After five more minutes I got more pine resin and maybe just the faintest hint of liquorice root.
Score: 92 points - what a knockout malt! Thanks for sharing this blast from the past, Luc!
I think Dalmore just may have earned itself an extra star on the 'still score' scale here.

Dalmore 12yo (43%, OB, 100cl, Bottled +/- 1995)
This has become a big favourite of mine since I discovered it in the early 1990's.
It's accessible and affordable. It has an overwhelming bouquet, very round & sweet.
The taste disappoints just a bit after the "nostril symphony" but is still very satisfying.
A very quick taste-development, peppery bitterness followed by a long, burning warmth.
Score: 80 points - like all my other bottles of the Dalmore 12yo so far, at least half a dozen.

Dalmore 12yo (43%, OB, 100cl, Bottled +/- 2000)
Nose: Needs a minute. Then lots of fruit and sherry emerge.
Malt and smoke? Salmiac? Big and round. Wonderful complexity.
Taste: Nice! Sherry at first. Big and sweet. Spicy. Toffee.
Great development - it just becomes richer and richer. Orange peel?
Woody later on. Some peat and salt in the finish. This malt has it all.
Score: 80 points - it seems to be a little bigger on the palate than previous bottlings.

Dalmore 21yo (43%, OB, Bottled +/- 2000)
I'm not completely sure, but I suspect this batch was bottled around 2000. I'm a big fan of the 12yo OB because it's good and affordable, but somehow I've never gotten around to sampling the more expensive varieties.The nose was polished, round and sweet - but not very powerful. If memory serves, it's fairly similar to the profile of the 12yo, but a tad more sherried and refined. The palate was malty and just a tad bitter. The finish didn't last very long. Reflecting on the experience, I'd go with 81 points - not worth the price difference with the 12yo, IMHO.

These were not all the (official and independent) expressions of Dalmore whisky I've tried over the years.
My Track Record used to contain a complete overview of all the single malts I've tried, but when I passed the 2000 malts mark (and the complete whisky list wouldn't fit on two separate HTML pages anymore) I gave up. My Liquid Log still contains my tasting notes on most single malts I've sampled and scored, though. You can find a specific expression through the search box at the top of each distillery profile. The mAlmanac now contains (purely personal) selections of some of the best single malts and the worst whiskies I've tried so far - as well as the ones with the highest 'Bang-For-Your-Buck' value. But those tasting notes and scores only reflect my own, purely personal opinions. On Serge's distillery profile on Whiskyfun you can find another perspective on the whisky made at this distillery. Check out the Malt Maniacs Monitor on Malt Maniacs for my scores on all expressions I've tried so far - and those of almost all the other certified malt maniacs as well. The Malt Maniacs Matrix contains a few thousand single malts that were sampled and scored by at least four different malt maniacs, so you can compare our individual opinions.
 
 

Let's hope that the new ownership will bring Dalmore back on track.
During the 1990's their 12yo 'standard' bottling was an dependable favourite of mine; always a good
single malt whisky for a very decent price - and without too much batch variation. The 21yo and 30yo
official releases were slightly better, but in my mind that didn't justify the significant price difference.

For a while, one of the most expensive bottles of whisky ever sold was
a 62 years old Dalmore single malt whisky, sold at an auction by McTears.

It's difficult to produce, market and distribute a drinkable whisky for less than 10 Euro's a
bottle. Let's assume that's roughly the minimum price of a bottle of (blended) whisky; you
are paying mostly for the flavoured alcohol inside the bottle. The added value of the more
expensive whiskies consists partly of a higher 'intrinsic quality', for example because the
whisky was matured longer or contains a higher percentage of malt whisky. However, as
the 'street value' of a bottle of whisky grows, a larger portion of the price is invested in
stuff like PR, marketing and packaging. In my experience the Law of Diminishing Returns
applies here - a 250 Euro bottle of whisky is rarely five times better than a 50 Euro bottle.
 
While the importance of 'quality' diminishes in the 'ultra premium' segment, the 'social'
componant increases. Especially in America and Asia expensive whiskies are not merely
drunk for their taste and intoxicating qualities; the (perceived) effects on one's status
is even more important. In this respect, the 'image' of a brand is paramount.

People that are primarily interested in outwards appearances often know little about the product.
That means that they mainly select their whiskies based on the price of the bottle (more expensive = better) and the age of the whisky inside the bottle (older = better). The whisky industry was delighted when they discovered that there was a large audience out there that was more interested in expensive whisky than in good whisky.

At a certain point it becomes very difficult to make an even better whisky - even with
the investment of a lot of capital, time and energy. Making an even more expensive
whisky is fairly easy in comparison if you're the one making the price tags. Making
those price tags seems to have become part of the job description of Dalmore's
'Master Blender' since Richard Patterson assumed this position a few years ago.
In 2007 Richard was proudly promoting a bottle that was said to contain single malt
whiskies from 1868, 1878, 1926, 1939 en 1961. The price? A mere 68,000 dollars.

I can't tell you if the whisky was actually any good because I haven't tried it
myself. Nevertheless, I dare to assume that my 'cumulative' pleasure would be
higher if I invested my money in bottles of the more affordable expressions like
the 12yo and the 'Cigar Malt' depicted at the right. The princely sum of 68,000
dollars would buy me circa 1500 bottles of the regular 12 years old malt whisky.
Even if I emptied one bottle each week, that stock would last me for another
thirty years. I would have to learn to live without the nice 'gift wrapping' that
comes with the expensive bottle, but I'll have time to learn to live with that...