Liquid Log Entries 010 - 019 (1998) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 10 - January 1, 1998 It's January 1, 1998 - exactly one year after I started my mission.
Back in my student-days, I had neither the sense nor the dough to get drunk in style. During those years of hardship I have discovered that, contrary to popular belief, it is technically impossible to legally purchase
a bottle of good whisky for less than 20 guilders / 10 Dollars. And heaven knows I've tried. Frankly, it's amazing I'm able to taste anything these days, considering the toxic waste I threw down my throat in those days. There were
some positive sides to it, though. First of all, I've had a chance to explore the murky depths at the bottom of the blended whisky market; not a thing one would ordinarily choose to do. On top of that, I've become a dab hand at
mixing cocktails after years and years of combining inferior drinks in the hope the result would be better than the sum of its parts. I guess there must be some hidden sadomasochistic tendencies in my
character, because even nowadays I derive a sick pleasure from buying a "bottom shelf" whisky every once in a while. As the pictures in the But enough with the chitchat. 'Per Ardua Ad Nauseam' 1 Distilled Old Maltky 2 Big Blend 3 The Claymore 4 King Robert II Scotch
5 Wardlo Whisky 6 Gold Label Old Whisky 7 Mansion House 8 MacArthur's Best Blend
9 Red Tartan Whisky 10 Old Smuggler's When any of these whiskies is offered to you in a bar (or by
your liquorist), you should sue the proprietor of the establishment for crimes against humanity. Fortunately; whiskies like Red Tartan and King Robert II are mostly 'oddities'; a bit hard to find at your local liquorist - and why
would you even want to try? You won't hear me complaining about the fact that most of these lethal liquids are not widely available. But that doesn't mean it's safe to go into a bar (or liquorist) and order any whisky you
like. Sadly, there are also a lot of more famous blenders and distillers out there that seem to conspire against whisky-lovers worldwide by filling the shelves of our liquorists with inferior material.
It's amazing how much D-graded whisky is sold to so many innocent customers. My 'D-graded Whisky' Warnings Ballantine's - Widely available, and that's about the only positive quality of this whisky. I had to drink it during my skiing-trip to France last winter because it was the only thing on offer apart from a lot of strange looking green liqueurs and wine in plastic cans. BlackBarrel - Single Grain from W. Grant & Sons - the people that bring us Grant's and Glenfiddich. I should have known
better. It's more like cheap wodka than whisky. Grant's - Never trust anything in a triangular bottle... Glen Talloch - Another major disappointment. Fortunately, this is available only in Holland. Sharp and dull at the same time. Hard to believe there's any malt whisky in this blend. The 8 yrs. "Pure Malt" vatted malt version used to be quite good in previous bottlings, but these days it's major crap also. Famous Grouse
- Nasty stuff, especially considering the blend is said to contain Bunnahabhain and Highland Park. Even people I personally know seem to like it, though.... Johnnie Walker Red Label - How can they sell so much of the stuff? MacAllister 8 Years Old - The label boasts about "Pure Malt". VAT 69 - Apparently it's the favorite whisky of Freddy Heineken himself. William Lawson's - This whisky tastes just as bad as it's TV-commercial looks stupid. No character whatsoever - and yet it manages to numb your tongue for hours.
And please emember that these warnings just reflect my own personal opinion. You might disagree, and you're quite welcome to do so. After all, what fun would
discussions about whisky be if we all agreed Lagavulin 16yo is the best whisky in this galaxy?
Just a picture of your average Scottish distillery a few years back. And that concludes my ranting about exceptionally bad blends, for now. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 11 - February 5, 1998
After a relatively 'dry' period I decided to splash out and bought myself three new malts for my 32nd birthday. I started my tasting session the very same evening with the Linkwood 12yo 1984
(43%, Signatory Vintage, 70cl). It didn't give away too much at a nose-level, but that may have been a result of the sinusitis I was suffering from. The taste managed to warm
me just fine, but the impressions were too vague to warrant even a preliminary rating. Seemed very, very OK, though... The Scapa 8yo 1989
(43%, Ultimate, 70cl) looked alarmingly light of colour in the harsh light at my liquorist's, but because it's
from Orkney (home of the wonderful Highland Park) I just HAD to pick it up when I saw it tucked away at a backward shelf.
Perhaps because of my preconceptions it turned out a bit of a bummer. Nothing of the robustness I love in Island whiskies like Talisker and Highland Park. Perhaps it's just a little under age. Next up was the
Balvenie 15yo Single Barrel (50.4%, OB, 70cl). This is a 'single single' malt; cask #15986, bottle #152, on cask
17/11/80, bottled 28/11/96. It was appropriately accompanied by some sweet music; an oboe concerto by Albinoni. Very soft,
considering its strength. It needed some water to fully reveal it's bouquet, but the taste was best experienced neat. Honeyish
and woody; oilier than the Doublewood. The taste seemed almost fruity at first, developing into a wonderful honeyish sweetness.
Very, very long. A peppery "Allegro" followed by the gentlest 'Adagio'. Although not quite as wonderful as the Doublewood (it scores one point less), it's right in my Top 10. The Bowmore 'Surf'
(40%, OB, 70cl) I picked up in France proved as elusive as it's 12yo brother. It's amazing how hard it is for
me to give the different Bowmore's a definitive rating. They appear different with every glass you drink - It took me over three
bottles before I finally managed to pin down the Bowmore 12yo at 82 points. This one seemed like an mid-seventies malt, but requires further investigation. I finished with a Glenturret 12yo
(40%, OB, 70cl). Crisp, slightly oily. A bit like the Tormore 12 at first sight, which isn't a good
thing, really. Not very impressive - nose-wise. The taste seems almost watery at first, but it lights up your mouth long after it's swallowed. Despite the long afterglow not my type of malt; a preliminary rating around 70 points. At this point in the evening I decided the Ardbeg 17yo deserved a fresh palate. It is a brand-new official bottling and I'm very curious about it. So, I went for a re-fill of the Bowmore Surf instead. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 12 - March 25, 1998 I
didn't get a chance to taste the promising new Ardbeg 17yo last time around
, so I decided it was time for another head-to-head tasting of Ardbeg. I figured a confrontation of the official 17yo and the 1974 Connoisseurs Choice bottling would be interesting. (See log entry #5 for another H2H-session with three Ardbegs.) The Ardbeg 17yo
(40%, OB, 70cl) comes in a very nice retro-classic port-like bottle. At $50 here in Holland, it's the cheapest Ardbeg I ever tasted, but not the best - That would be the Cadenheads 1972. It has to be noted that the
Ardbeg 1974/1995 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, 70cl) has been on my shelves for just over a year now, and the bottle is 3/4-empty - or 1/4-full,
but let's not get into that discussion right now... This may have had an effect on the whisky inside the bottle. The Nose:
Ardbeg 17 gave away more 'sourness' than the 1974, which appeared distinctly more peaty at first. After some
breathing, the 17 developed a broad, almost speyside-like sweetness, the 1974 retained more of it's Islay character. And where
the aroma's of the 1974 seemed to disappear into some hints of chloride after a while, the 17 kept exhaling an Macallan / Highland Park sweetness. The Buds:
The 17 has a very soft start for such an old Islay, but a wonderful gentle burn soon starts warming your mouth - it
slowly dissolves into some bitterness. The taste of the '74 had the same characteristic delay in taste development, and arrived at
the same bitterness in the end - Before that, the taste took some detours and managed to express some more nuances than the 17, however. The 17 seemed somewhat less balanced than the 1974's and 1972's I've tasted
The Watering Down: The 1974 livened up just a little bit with some water, but just a few drops caused a new explosion of
aroma's in the 17 - some oiliness and impressions of vegetables? I seemed to smell a completely different malt. Wonderful surprise.
Taste wise the 1974 responded a little bit better to the extra water than the 17, but the differences weren't that big. I would be very interested in a Cask Strength version of this malt. The Preliminary Conclusion:
The two siblings seem very alike at some points, but also show a lot of unexpected differences.
Surprisingly enough, the 17 beats the 1974 in the nose department by more than a nose length. Can this be? Just to make sure I
have got a re-tasting planned in a few weeks, with a second opinion by my brother. The 17 will have to wait for it's final rating until then. It will supposedly end up in the 89-91 range, which means it's absolute Top 10 material.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 13 - May 12, 1998 When I last visited a liquorist nearby to add some new malts to collection, a fresh clerk told me that I, being a malt and armagnac
lover, might enjoy Grappa. So I thought: 'Let's go crazy' - and bought myself a bottle. Well... That was a bummer!
My senses had to be calmed down - and what better way to do that than with a Singleton 1981 - Not a real I've had quite a few comments from people that disagreed with my judgements on Johnnie Walker Red Label and Famous Grouse. I
try to stay open-minded at all times, so I purchased these two bottles last week to give both blends a fair second chance. After the Singleton, I decided I could put my taste buds in jeopardy once more, and I poured myself a
Johnnie Walker Red Label. Big Mistake. The bouquet (and I use the term lightly) was extremely sharp and petrol-like. The taste was plain filthy and it lacked
character. It clocked at 20 points in my personal rating system, which means I have tasted very few whiskies that I thought were worse.
I didn't have the stomach to try the Famous Grouse that evening, so I decided to go for a Time to call it a night... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 14 - June 15, 1998
I invited Anja (the girl next door who happens to like whisky) for a head to head tasting of a few single malt whiskies.
Nose: The Cardhu 12 appeared a bit sharp in the nose, though less so than with earlier bottlings I sampled. After a few minutes I
experienced a strong banana-sensation. The distinct aroma of those little yellow chemical banana-candy things slowly developed
inside the glass. After I pointed this out to Anja, she agreed - which means I wasn't going insane after all. The bouquet of the
Knockando 1982 (bottled 1996) was much "deeper" and seemed to change from minute to minute. Complex, the hint of pepper was a nice surprise.
Taste: On this front the Cardhu proved to be something of a disappointment. Overpowering bitterness is about all there is to tell.
If it had tasted as good as it smelled it would have received at least 3 more points - This time around Cardhu has to settle for 72 points
- Which stands for "sufficient niceness". The Knockando filled my mouth with a balanced warmth and a wonderful sweetness, that turns somewhat melassis-like after a while. A slow explosion in your mouth.
In conclusion: No match, really. The Knockando 1982 beats the Cardhu all along the line, and it seemed even better than the
1979-version I tasted over a year ago. A malt with balls. We went for a re-fill of the Knockando, but couldn't decide on a final rating yet. It should be somewhere near 80 points.
I'd like to end with a quote: 'Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 15 - August 28, 1998
This is the official report of a tasting session with international dimensions. Craig Daniels and his wife came over all the way from Australia to participate in one of my sessions. Craig proved to be a real expert and taught my brother Franc and me a thing or
two about single malts. Well - a lot more than one or two things, actually. The aeroplane of our guests arrived a little late, so my brother and I kick-started the evening in advance with a Balvenie 21yo Port Wood Finish
(40%, OB, 70cl). A lot of nose. Not as sweet as I had expected; certainly not as sweet as the Glenmorangie
Port. A hint of the blue pearly stuff you find in "liquorice all sorts". A tad too much bitterness in the taste. A magnificent malt, nonetheless. First impressions indicated a score somewhere in the 87-90 region. After Craig's arrival we continued with a "vertical tasting" of three different versions of Longmorn. The Longmorn 8yo 1989/1997
(43%, Ultimate, 70cl) received an unanimous verdict of 69 points - which was really disappointing, even considering
it's relative youthfulness. Craig showed off his malt knowledge by determining the wood - bourbon - simply by looking at the colour of the malt. My brother shared our lack of enthusiasm. The Longmorn 15yo
(45%, OB, 100cl) showed a whiff of butter beans. I never picked up that one before, so that may have been a nasal glitch. But it may also have been the result of bottle-to-bottle differences, because Craig claimed this one was
better than he remembered. The fifteen had clearly been matured in sherry wood - and my original rating of 81 stands. The Longmorn/Glenlivet 1963
(40%, Gordon & MacPhail, 70cl) that Craig brought over from Australia isn't available in Holland - which is a shame. Very rich and complex in nose - one of the nicest and most exuberant aroma's I've ever experienced, in fact.
Raisins? Absolutely incredible. After the overwhelming nose-experience the taste fell somewhat short. This is a whisky that can't
be pinned down in a single session, so I'm not even going to give a preliminary rating here. I'm looking forward to the next chance I get to taste it.
Many more malts were drunk that evening, and so were we - eventually. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 16 - November 11, 1998 I could really kick myself! Well - not really... But then again, I CAN kick myself - just not properly. After Craig's visit (see
So - what has all that have to do with kicking myself? I went to a liquorist (near Dam Square) I normally never visit because his prices are ludicrous. And there it was, proudly
dominating the top shelf: A shiny bottle of Macallan 25yo. Tears of desire filled my eyes when I reached for it. And then my blurry eyes detected the price tag; 425 guilders (+/- 200 U$ Dollars).
But... That's just crazy! The amount of money I'm willing to pay for a bottle may be slowly increasing, but for that kind of money I could buy myself:
In fact, I chose non of the above. I went home with three 'low profile' but rare single malts instead; Glenugie 1980, Millburn 1971
and Hillside 1971 (produced at the Glenesk distillery). All three distilleries closed down in the early 80's, so I may never be able to
taste their product again. I opened the bottles as soon as I got home, both for 'breaking in' and some preliminary impressions. Tonight, I put them to the test. The first malt of the evening: Glenugie 16yo 1980/1997
(43%, Signatory Vintage, 70cl, distilled 23/05/1980, matured in sherry casks # 3660-61, bottled 06/02/1997, bottle no. 534 of 604). The nose was very restrained; I could hardly smell anything at all.
'Farmy' is the first thing that comes to mind. A little woody as well - more pine than oak. The taste isn't much better. Smoky and medicinal with a complete lack of sweetness. Quite unpleasant. My rating: 63 points
. Disappointing considering it's age and price (125 guilders, + 60 U$ Dollars.) I continued with the Millburn 1971/1993 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, 70cl). The nose was quite a relief after the Glenugie.
A big aroma that changed from oily/menthol/eucalyptus to sherry/sweets/fruits over time. It lacks some cohesion, though. The
taste is smooth and sweet. A little sherry, a little malt, a little smoke. Maybe a pinch of peat. Like the nose, the palate was a little unbalanced. I decided on a final rating of 74 points
. Nice, but certainly not worth the asking price of 170 guilders (+/- 75 U$ Dollars). Finally, the high point of the evening: Hillside 25yo 1971/1997 (62,0%, UD Rare Malts Selection, 70cl, bottled September 1997,
bottle #1512). At least, I expected it to be the high point of the evening. The liquorist told me that he especially imported this
bottle. It is from a new range of rare single malts, marketed by United Distillers - the people who bring us Lagavulin 16 and Talisker 10, just to name a few.
After I tasted the first few glasses, my faith in United Distillers was shattered. What were they thinking when they bottled this?
And how could the liquorist look me in the eye and ask 195 guilders (+/- 85 U$ Dollars) for it? The nose was very strange. Pine?
Resin? Triplex? It started very clean and transparent. It improved somewhat later on, with the smell of cookies and a hint of fruit.
It has a very light taste, almost drinkable at 62%. At the same time, the palate feels a bit rough and bitter. The primary
impression I get at cask strength is menthol. Diluted, the pine and resin I got in the nose become more obvious. Strange - but not in a very good way. My rating: 66 points. This is just not my type of malt. So, in hindsight, I could kick myself. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 17 - November 23, 1998
After the last tasting session (see log entry #16
) proved that price has little or no relation to quality, I decided to have another look at some of the new 'mundane' malts in my collection. I selected three single malts; Aberlour 10, Balvenie 10 and Dufftown 10.
These bottles have five things in common; - All three are 'official' distillery bottlings
OK - Enough with the chit-chat. To be honest, I had planned to pick up the Balvenie 12yo Doublewood instead of the 10yo 'Founder's Reserve', but it was temporarily out of stock. No big deal - the Balvenie 10yo
(40%, OB, 70cl) is a very nice malt as well - and like most other single malts produced at Balvenie distillery of the same name. The new bottling was as expected; honey sweet in the nose with mint
and raisins. Maybe just a tad less balanced than the old bottling. Both tastes are extremely smooth; the old bottling seems just a little more balanced. Results: Old bottling = 82 points, new bottling = 81 points.
Finally, I poured myself two stiff drams of the Dufftown 10yo
So - what have we learnt tonight?
Second of all, we've established (once again) that you don't have to spend a lot of cash to obtain a decent malt. All the malts I've tasted tonight scored higher than the 'exclusive' ones I've tasted on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 18 - December 5, 1998 Those of you unfamiliar with Dutch folklore may be unaware that December 5th is the date of the traditional "Sinterklaas" festival.
It's celebrated the night before the birthday of Saint Nicholas, patron-saint of sailors. Every year the white-bearded character in a red bishops-robe and a big pointy hat (Sinterklaas himself) arrives from Spain on a
steamboat with an entirely "black" crew. They are called the "Pieten" and are the assistants of Sinterklaas, much like the elves
that assist the internationally more famous Santa Claus. After being greeted by the burgermeister of the town he is visiting he
gets on his white horse and orders his black "Pieten" to put all the children that have been bad into jute bags and take them to
Spain. And this is probably the explanation for Holland's low population growth. The "Pieten" aren't all bad, because sometimes they throw candy on the streets and the kids can pick it up.
Sinterklaas has got a huge red book, I which he can look up whether a particular child has been good or bad that particular year.
As a child, this gave me a slight case of paranoia, the same feeling I got from reading "1984" by George Orwell. Last year in
Amsterdam a prankster climbed on top of a government building dressed as Sinterklaas to pour some complaint-letters into the chimney and fell off the icy roof. The idiot broke both his legs. I'm sorry, but I laughed my head off....
Anyway - I'm getting side-tracked here.
Highlight of the evening: Final judgement on Macallan 18yo 1976/1995 (43%, OB, 70cl) which was long overdue. Overwhelming
sweetness. Oaky with hints of currants. Just enough sherry. The aroma grows even sweeter after a while. Wonderful! Strangely
enough, its character is more like the 10yo. 100 Proof than the 12yo. 43%. A perfect palate, round and well balanced. Powerful
smoothness and real "body". The very long aftertaste starts with a somewhat bitter arpeggio and slowly grows into the sweetest adagio. 89 points
makes it official: I prefer the Macallan 18 over the 12 - if only by a mere 3 points. The less said about the last glass of Tormore 12yo
(43%, OB, 70cl) in the bottle the better. Contrary to popular belief, I'm NOT an alcoholic, which means some bottles are on my shelves for quite a long time before they're empty. Some malts improve with
time, but the Tormore certainly isn't one of them. In the course of 8 months, it had lost 5 or 6 points on the original 71 points. I finished with the Glengoyne 12yo
(43%, OB, 70cl). What a fruity nose! First I smelled dried apples, then some ripe bananas, and then green apples. Some chloride. Very rich aroma. The taste lacked balance, but was nice nonetheless. Somewhat "dusty"
at first, dry finish. Preliminary rating: 73 points. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 19 - December 30, 1998
I decided to kick off the last year of this decade prematurely with a quiet tasting session, all by my lonesome self.
After careful consideration I decided to start off with the Blair Athol 12yo (43%, Flora & Fauna, 70cl). This bottling was released
as part of the "Flora & Fauna" series, just like the Dufftown 15yo I bought a few weeks before. A very flavoury nose, gets
sweeter after some breathing. The wonderful taste carries quite a bite for a 43%. Adding water is a bad idea - this completely ruins the palate. Too soon for a final rating. The next one, Glenfarclas 105
(60%, OB, 100cl) reacted a lot better to water, which is no big surprise at 60%! This one is simply too overpowering to drink neat. For a moment I seemed to smell red cabbage, and some peppermint after dilution. The nose
heavy and sweet, the palate big and overwhelming. Too much to handle in a single session, but it'll probably rate in the lower 80's. Amazing value for money at only fl. 70,- (U$ 35,-) for a litre. I bought the
Linkwood 12yo 1984/1996 (43%, Signatory Vintage, 70cl, distilled 9/10/'84, matured in sherry butt #4031, bottled
14/11/'96, bottle #461) almost a year ago for my birthday. It had a lot of nose. Flowery, with a fair portion of smoke and oak.
Just a hint of distant sherry. The taste is surprisingly appealing and supple. Menthol? After a while the sherry becomes too
pronounced, though. Even after almost one year, I can't decide on a final rating yet. This one will probably rate around 80 points, which is quite good. Next up: Glendullan 8yo
(40%, OB, 70cl). Spunky. Slightly oily, with almost sharp undertones. a light honeyish sweetness. This
malt is very elusive and kept surprising me. A lot of taste development; very long. Quite good and lots of character for a 8 years old. Final rating: 74 points. That's all, folks - happy new year. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <<< Previous 10 entries - Next 10 entries >>>
(Or check out the overview of all log entries)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Don't let these sad reports get you down, however.
