The Cairn First Peek 3yo
Inaugural Speyside Single Malt | 57% ABV
Score: 7/10
Very Good Indeed.
TL;DR
Good enough to surprise everyone, maybe even the owners
Mere Toddlers.
Dramface is older than this whisky.
The first spirit ran through the safe at The Cairn in July 2022. We first hit the digital airwaves in February 2022, which means in a little under two weeks time we’ll be four years old. Still a toddler, but time flies. More on that in a wee bit.
The whisky under review today is interesting and also a ‘toddler’, proudly boasting an age statement of 3 Years Old. The stills at The Cairn kicked into life in 2022 after some significant delays caused by the Covid pandemic. However, everyone was positioned to wait patiently - until the 2030s we were told - before any mature whisky would be released. Then, out of the clear blue Speyside skies - boof! A three year old whisky appears. Why?
It reminds me somewhat of a chat I had on Islay with a senior member of the team from Ardnahoe, also in 2022. At that particular moment the whisky was only three years old, but there was a plan in place to wait until six, seven or perhaps even eight years before any malt would be released bearing the Ardnahoe name.
But the opinion I encountered was under a very different conviction - “the whisky’s ready! We should be getting it out there…”. In the end, a 5 year old was released in 2024 as the sublime Ardnahoe Inaugural. It would seem an appropriate compromise was reached. Or perhaps they just listened to the whisky.
It would also seem those in the driving seat at Gordon & Macphail, the owners of The Cairn, have realised a similar epiphany with this malt. According to this surprise (and somewhat stealthy) release, it’s also ready. I ordered my bottle from my own bubble of genuine excitement and sunny optimism, but I was also wary of clouds of cynicism. As I waited for the bottle to arrive, I started to wonder why… Why three years old?
In these days of more-whisky-than-anyone-can-fathom, surely it would only appear this suddenly if there was something notable to share? Surely this can only be a product born of confidence?
It only took a couple of days to arrive and less than that again before I had it open and sloshed into the glass. I jumped in with no predetermined bias and no clue what to expect and I can share this without spoiling too much: if we care to try, we know how to make bloody good whisky these days.
I can’t know for sure how enjoyable this malt will become in the years ahead, but right now, what pours from this bottle is shockingly good. I’m trying with every fibre of my being not to write the words “for-three-year-old-whisky”.
It’s just excellent whisky regardless of the age.
I think it might also be the first Scotch whisky that we’ve reviewed that didn’t exist when Dramface was founded. That won’t mean much to anyone but it means something to us; very soon we’ll be four years young. I think it’s pretty incredible that a website such as this can exist to record these moments, especially today. It’s not typical.
We are - currently - around thirty active citizens of Planet Whisky, buying and writing about our own whiskies and experiences, with our own money. We write for our peers. Not for the purpose of selling, but for the love of it, not for the industry, but for the punter. We certainly don’t write to be paid. So, while we don’t do any of it for profit, it’s frustrating to concede that we still need to make money.
Profit is an ugly word in some contexts but we would love to make enough of it to employ someone someday - at least part-time - to ensure Dramface can survive long term. It exists thanks to the efforts of a few.
Even if the pool of writers has a positive churn and we replace those who fall away for a while. even if we generate lots of valuable copy, curated opinions and personal stories alongside pretty pictures, we still demand money just to keep going. Hosting, plug-ins, subscriptions and essential services all take a chunk. Our business plan is currently not particularly strong. We certainly can’t pay ‘a salary’. At least, not quite yet.
So I suppose we’re not quite yet ‘a viable business’. But we do need to be thinking about how to build a critical mass - how to get to the point where it’s someone’s legitimate job to keep this thing healthy and vibrant. Maybe there’s no actual need for such a thing, but the longer Dramface continues, the more my resolve grows that it’s valuable; arguably necessary to help support the health of whisky in general. Funny then, that we are about to enter our final year.
I apologise for the potentially jarring statement, it is deliberate. But also true. Possibly.
You see, everything deserves a chance and no one knows what might play out. Dramface was given five years as ‘a project’ to see what might be achieved in that time, to measure its potential and - more than anything - measure its relevance: Is. It. Worth. While?
We’re all about people - regardless of whether they’ve been exploring whisky for months or millennia - sharing their experiences, opinions and ideas. People who, by the way, should be perfectly positioned to resonate with the majority of the readership. Is there a place for that? Do people care? As it turns out, yes, people do care. At least they seem to.
It’s already been mentioned around these parts, but we appear pretty high up on The Whiskey Wash’s 21 Most Visited Whisky Websites in the World list that was published recently (don’t worry - I’ll paste the link at the end of the article to remind you to have a nosy). Actually, we didn’t appear at first, but a wee nudge from a reader helped them re-jig things to place us at number seven. This, after existing for less than four years, is actually a little astonishing. We’ve never done this kind of research ourselves, the software to do so effectively costs money - of course it does. So we’re grateful that such a list exists where previously it didn’t.
It should come with a caveat that the list is not exhaustive (we’ve noted one or two other notable omissions such as Words of Whisky and the OSWAs) and that they measure things differently than we might. They’ve chosen unique visitors as their preferred metric, whereas we tend to focus on pages viewed. We feel doing so measures engagement - how long visitors stay and how many pages they read. This is important for a magazine style site such as ours with a large back catalogue. Maybe a YouTube analogy is useful here: you can liken ‘visitors’ to ‘subscribers’ on YouTube, while views are, er, views.
Anyway, each to their own, the numbers they published actually flatter us a smidge. Our 2025 figures are actually a little less than the 720,000 they report at 712,000 actual recorded visitors and our growth year on year is 99% as opposed to 149%.
Still, not far off at all and that engenders confidence in the other numbers they’ve reported - all of which provide genuine fascination, if you’re into such things. At the very least you’re presented with a very decent list of further reading, which we also encourage - especially if it’s independent and genuine, of course.
Since I’m sharing, I’ll confess that our growth on pages viewed is actually at a still barnstorming - but somewhat less crazy - growth of 49% year-on-year with 2.2m reads in 2025. But that number is our gold; that’s the critical metric, because we need to get eyes on the writers’ efforts and that’s the number that shows that’s happening. Now I need to share even more. I hope that’s okay, we’re all friends here after all. But this isn’t quite so positive.
These numbers are lovely and reassuring. They do confirm that we’re at least doing some things right. But it won’t surprise anyone that the people who actually step up to support Dramface as a subscribing member are actually the ones who’ll ensure it survives.
Even if it remains something that exists out of the willing of a few, without the ability to employ anyone, they are vital. If you’re a member, thank you. If you’re not a member, no need to feel guilty reading - it’s our model, but I hope you can also find a way to thank those who do. The trouble is, that number isn’t growing much at all. In fact, we’re in single digits - less than 9% year on year. Compared to our reach and traffic, that’s smaller than we’d like. By some way.
Look, this isn’t intended to make anyone feel guilty - we all live in the digital realm and we are used to enjoying things for ‘free’ these days - including Dramface. Our model may indeed be flawed. But those other ‘free’ places are littered with ads, pop ups, hidden loyalties and agendas. We are absolutely not.
It’s also true that we don’t really offer very much behind a paywall (yet!) for those who do step up, preferring to - as of today - rely on the good nature of people who find our existence valuable. There’s an argument there we need to reconsider that a little. I do have ideas, but currently they’re not a factor. It’s the catch-22 of trying not to create too much more admin, which we can’t afford.
You may feel you’ve read this script before. You have. I can pretty much guarantee it will have also been from me. But, in the same vein as Jimmy Wales; if I don’t mention it - who will? Each time I bring it up we welcome a few more supporters and that’s an enjoyable thing.
I was arrogant enough to think that if Dramface was given enough time to establish itself as a valuable and relevant whisky resource - that could save money for its readership through building a comprehensive back catalogue on brands and releases over time, for free, without ads, or sponsors, or affiliate links - all independent with original content and images, all for less than the price of a - breathe - magazine, that it would prevail.
I thought enough people would step up. I thought it might become something that people started to really enjoy and that its relevance would build with time, especially as its back-catalogue grew even further and it maintained a (close-to) daily output.
Well, as of today, with a monthly average of over twenty articles, we’re quickly heading towards our 1,500th review - and we are paying for ourselves - all our costs are covered, bar the human hours. Thus, I can reassure you the following:
With the will of our amazingly invested writing team plus at least one individual editor/builder/navigator - supported by someone enthused enough to manage socials and someone technically talented enough to keep the bolts tight, we will prevail. The job is done. It’s actually a proven model.
But I think it would be great for the platform’s future if it was someone’s actual job; not funded by the industry it’s supposed to critique, but funded by the people it exists to support.
We’ve not quite got there, not yet. But we’re on the right track and we’ll remain transparent as we do so. In many measurable ways we’re further ahead than I ever expected - or dreamt - to be. That it’s been achieved in less than four years is more than something special, it’s something to celebrate. Appeal for support over, for now.
And in the clumsiest of segues, let’s see how far The Cairn has come in a similar amount of time.
Review
The Cairn Inaugural, ‘First Peek’ 3 year old, 1,000 bottles, 57% ABV
£50 now sold out.
The Cairn is one of those on-the-edge-but-definitely-in-Speyside distilleries, much like its sibling Benromach. Both owned by Gordon and Macphail, I’m reassured that we have a very different spirit in the glass from its (fairly close) neighbour on the westerly edge of the region. I’m reassured not because I dislike Benromach - in fact I love it - but because it would make sense that the style is demonstrably different. And it is.
We spend an inordinate amount of time in the pages of Dramface to try and convey what the whisky in the glass is doing to us, through nosing and tasting notes as well as sharing overall impressions. But we hope you also notice how much time we put into thinking about what a whisky means in terms of its place amongst its peers and the wider landscape. This release comes at a time when there are arguably far too many other releases. A brand-new name in single malt is not nearly as exciting as it once was.
I think that has changed a couple of things about this particular release. The bottling strength, but especially price.
Score: 7/10
Very Good Indeed.
TL;DR
Good enough to surprise everyone, maybe even the owners
Nose
At first approach it’s youthful, no surprises. There are soft wood spices, creamy oats and porridge with syrup, perhaps some clear toffee. We also enjoy some orchard fruits; sweet with fruit pastilles and a vanilla mint too (think Tic Tacs).
With water the sweetness softens and integrates with the spices better, but a teaspoon too much and I’ve diluted it to generic vanilla. I enjoy keeping it closer to its 57%.
Palate
Comfort. The expected heat and oak spices arrive first, but they dissipate to reveal a sweet, dessert-style whisky with light cinnamon spice and orchard fruit; reminiscent of apple crowns, complete with the icing sugar and maybe a soft toffee sauce too.
It’s not all sugar and patisserie though, there’s a strong backbone of malt and creaminess with a persistent spiced tone and a light, zesty citrus on the finish.
It’s not a heavy weight, in fact I’d say overall it’s quite light, but that’s not a bad thing. Maybe in future we’ll see the higher ABV preserved to keep everything vibrant, as adding a little too much water rendered things a bit generic. My fault. A second glass with only a drop or two rectified things nicely.
The Dregs
I think this whisky has been released early because the whisky itself demanded it. Call me a whisky romantic - you’d be right - but they may have intended to make and mature a spirit that would be ready reasonably early, but I suspect that this has surprised even G&M. Some of us may have been expecting this bottle to appear, most of us were not. Even less were expecting it to be as tasty as it is.
It’s a young whisky and it states so on the label “3 Years Old”, it makes itself known that it’s young in the experience too, but it’s much better than it has any right to be. There’s heat and youth at the initial approach, but it dissipates nicely to reveal flavour and light textures and - while much of it is cask led - it slowly shares its malty depths hinting at a graceful new entry to beguile in future.
The presentation of this bottling and its lack of fuss and fanfare is interesting, although it could be that there was plenty and I just missed it; another symptom of so many brands in 2026 perhaps. But I think they’ve also done something curious here with this relative surprise.
They put out a limited run of only 1,000 bottles, at 57% ABV and - this is the really cool part - priced at an incredibly modest £50. For an inaugural. This has not happened since Ardnamurchan, and even then the outturn was much, much higher in number and lower in ABV.
Maybe this is a stealth release. Maybe they want to build a grass roots, background chatter of praise amongst the community who are targeted by this and the majority of other Gordon & Macphail products. Possibly, they invested in the liquid and put trust in the drinker.
However, I need to draw attention to a miss on the label presentation. It’s pretty and all, but we really should have something sharing their policies towards use of chill-filtration and natural colour. Arguably worse, we’re left to guess about the casks used. I suspect a mix of ex-sherry and ex-bourbon, but it leans heavily towards the latter in profile, and could be majority first-fill bourbon American oak, by my palate.
I appreciate it may be a different agency used in this bottling, but G&M have experience here of doing this without the need for the bottles to resemble lab samples. A click on the rear label QR code does nothing more than link to the website; duplication of the bottle’s label copy and some tasting notes. Another miss. In malt whisky, we live in an age of transparency, so it’s odd.
At the point of writing, the only other reviews or scores I can find are a few ratings on Whiskybase - 6 in total, with an average score of 82/100. That’s a shame as I think it deserves more. I recall the Ardnahoe Inaugural struggling for decent scores at first launch too.
I know there are those who’ll judge and score purely on the liquid without context, which is understandable, but you should know I’m not one of those. Perhaps in time it’ll climb, but I’ll stick to my own sensibilities and celebrate another excellent arrival to the malt landscape. That it’s this good at a mere three years old bodes very well for the future. Gratitude also to G&M for pricing this so fairly. It’s the right thing to do; trying to be as fair as possible. Which brings me back to us, once more.
Yes, this has been one of those very occasional appeals for everyone or anyone to consider supporting Dramface, but it is, after all, also very fairly priced at only £3.99 a month. It could be argued we could save you that sum many times over if you’re in a phase of buying whisky, but even if you’re not in a buying mood - I suspect you’re here because you love whisky every bit as much as we do.
Thank you for reading our content, for clicking those like buttons below, or commenting, maybe even sharing. It all goes a long way towards us blushing with gratitude. But hitting that Membership button may just bring tears, we’re still just a toddler after all.
Score: 7/10
Tried this? Share your thoughts in the comments below. WMc
-
Dramface is free.
Its fierce independence and community-focused content is funded by that same community. We don’t do ads, sponsorships or paid-for content. If you like what we do you can support us by becoming a Dramface member for the price of a magazine.
However, if you’ve found a particular article valuable, you also have the option to make a direct donation to the writer, here: buy me a dram - you’d make their day. Thank you.
For more on Dramface and our funding read our about page here.
Other opinions on this:
Link to The Whiskey Wash Top 21 Whisky Websites List
Got a link to a reliable review? Tell us.
