Liquid Log Entries 020 - 029 (1999) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 20 - January 1, 1999 My personal tasting rituals take place in my special, 'virtually antique' smoking
chair. The lights are dimmed, and there's some soothing music (preferably Albinoni or Puccinni) playing in the background. The largest cognac snifter in my collection is already warmed-up (just a little!) and the bottle I'm about
to sample is placed before me on the coffee table. I always take my time to carefully check the label for the corny stories that the marketing people have made up. Ahh.... And then the real fun starts. After sniffing with my nose
a few inches above the glass, I put my nose in the glass and take in another big whiff. Then I waltz the glass and nose once more. Finally, I have my first sip and let the taste of the whisky fill my mouth., concentrate on the
"structure" and taste development of the malt, which can be an amazing experience. After the last notes of the taste bud symphony have drifted away, I add a teensy weensy splash of water and start nosing again. When I'm
feeling particularly wild I might even add some more water. Depending on the amount of water, the taste and aroma of some malts seems to keep unfolding, releasing different layers every time. After I've sniffed the last drop I
like to smoke a good cigar while making notes in my Take your time to appreciate a fine single malt. There's no need to empty your
glass in a few thirst-quenching gulps. In fact, don't let me catch you guzzling in my presence, or I might slap you around the head a few times - just for educational purposes of course... I'm under the distinct impression that
the more whiskies you taste, the more you'll be able to appreciate the differences in character, style and complexity. Maybe it's just my overactive imagination, but I even have the notion that my sense of smell and taste have
developed considerably as a result of the tasting of many different whiskies. As soon as I became aware of this sensory overdrive I started keeping notes on all the malts I tasted and rated them in When I started out tasting single malts, I could hardly distinguish a Talisker from a Lagavulin, but after a while entire universes of complexity opened up to me. A pleasant side-effect of the sharpening of my senses is that it
has enhanced my enjoyment of the 'simpler' blends like Teacher's and Bailie Nicol Jarvie. Obviously, this sensory enhancement is completely wasted when drinking dribble like Ballantine's, Johnny Walker Red, or Old Smugglers. In my
humble opinion, the blenders of these whiskies should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity in general and my taste-buds in particular...
But wait a minute - I'm wandering off again. I was telling you about my personal "aqua vitae" tasting ritual... Except - there's not much else to tell, really. If you want to learn more about the fundamentals of malt whisky
tasting, check out the chapter on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 21 - January 8, 1999 Over the years, I have been frantically spreading the single malt
gospel. I have managed to make quite a few converts along the way. Five of them are ex-collegues from my days at the Dutch Yellow Pages publisher. Over the years, they have tasted almost all the malts in my collection, so I invited
them for a tasting session at L&B's whisky cafe in downtown Amsterdam. L&B's has a wonderful collection of single malts, and they are conveniently located near the central "Leidseplein", so check it out whenever
your in Amsterdam. (Phone: 020 - 625 23 87; Bar opens at 21:00 in the evening.) We started off with a head-to-head of Laphroaig 10yo and Linkwood 15yo. I had a very bad nose-day, so I could only pick up
some vague impressions. The Linkwood 15 seemed to have a little more smoke in the nose than the 1984 I have at home; it seemed very flowery as well. The Laphroaig 10 was as always salty, smoky and with a lot of iodine - I picked it
to introduce the malt-novices that were present to one of the extremes of the malt spectrum. They seemed suitably impressed, but most preferred the Linkwood. The Laphroaig proved quite an assault on my bladder, so I had to visit my
porcelain friend. When I returned from the toilet my colleagues challenged me to do a complete blind test. I failed miserably. Only after they reduced my choices to five malts I managed to dispose of three of the five
options, and was left with the choice between a Glen Ord or a Dalmore. I thought I detected bitter peanuts and guessed wrong - It was the Glen Ord 12
instead of the Dalmore 12. In my defence I have to say that both malts are quite similar, and both have the same score (80) in my rating-system. Around 11.00 a very attractive lady with a deep décolleté took position
on a barstool directly in my line of sight, so it was getting more difficult to concentrate on the matter on hand: single malts. The line-up of the next head-to head managed to get my attention back where it belonged, however. It
was the Johnnie Walker Blue Label against the Talisker 18yo Cask Strength. The JW Blue was very nice, but no more than that. Clearly better than the JW Black, but certainly not worth the 40,- guilders per dram. The
Talisker 18yo. Cask Strength, however, was ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! - A lot of wonderful wood; More like the Macallan 18 than the Talisker 10. Perhaps a bit early to say, but we might have a new number two malt here! Somewhere in the
neighbourhood of 94 points, I should say. I'm not sure I can afford a whole bottle to conform my findings, though.... The bartender seemed to appreciate my extensive knowledge of single malts and charming personality,
so he poured me a few drops of Springbank 1969 - on the house. Great stuff! Apples and pepper? After a disappointing first encounter with Springbank (in the form of a 1979 version some three years ago; see my We finished with a Glenfarclas 105, a
Longrow 8yo, a Suntory Hibiki from Japan and an older Auchentoshan
(can't remember the age). By that time my tongue and nose were so numb I couldn't say anything worthwile about it, except that the Longrow seemed more smoky than the Springbank, which comes from the same distillery in the Campbeltown area.
Another session that left me with the feeling that I've somehow failed to capture the magic of the evening on paper. I have to remember to drink a little less and make a little more notes at my next session. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 22 - March 21, 1999
It's 00:25 and I've just returned from a wonderful week of skiing in La Plagne, France. All the more so, because I had the misfortune of buying a bottle of YB "Why Be" whisky in France. And then we opened it. The Erm.... Sorry. I may have gotten a bit carried away here, I know it's wrong to generalise, and I'm sure there are very nice Frenchmen (and - women) - It's just that I haven't met any of them last week. And besides, I
had brought my own emergency-bottle of Lagavulin 16, so washing away the YB was'nt exactly punishment. But enough about my little holiday-frustrations - back to liquid matters. A head-to-head of
Balvenie 15yo 1980/1996 Single Barrel (50.4%, OB, 70cl) against the Balvenie 21yo Port Wood
(40%, OB, 70cl) should be interesting, especially because both score a (provisional) 84 points. The nose of the 21 is bigger and sweeter at first - but it's a deeper sweetness than the honey of the younger versions. It's more like a Macallan or Highland Park sweetness. The 15 seemed to develop some freshness and almost Glenmorangie-like pepper notes after a while - in bouquet and palate. Both have quite a burn in the mouth - especially the 15 at 50.4%. After dilution to about 40% the 15 showed a lot of development - but not necessarily for the better. The 21 had also changed considerably after a few drops. At first sight the Balvenie 21 Port is just slightly better than the 15 - but not quite enough to justify the price difference. I'll have to do another head-to-head of the 21 again the 12 to make a final judgement.
I finally poured myself a glass of Glen Rothes 1985/1997 (43%, OB, 70cl). Hmmmm...... ... (another sip) ... ... (another sip) ...
No - nothing yet. Today seems to be a "Bad Tongue Day" rather than a "Bad Nose Day". More - much more - later. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 23 - April 30, 1999 Today is 'Queen's Day' here in Holland. On April 30 (the birthday of the queen
mother), all of Amsterdam becomes one big orange party zone. After a festive day in town, I returned home for some peace and quiet. It's been a few months now without a single good nose day, and all this time there have been two
very intriguing miniatures waiting for me in my cupboard; Ardbeg 1975 and Bladnoch 1984. The Ardbeg is the new official distillery bottling and was sent to me from Sweden by Mats Ola Ekberg. Franz Konig from Switzerland
snail-mailed me the (Connoisseur's Choice) Bladnoch. I tried the "official" Ardbeg 1975 (40%, OB, 5cl) next to the Ardbeg 1974/1995 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs
Choice, 70cl), which had some more peat and sour tones in the aroma at first. The peat in the '75 bouquet vanished quite quickly and abruptly, leaving a more "Highlandish" character. The '74 kept it's peaty character a
lot longer, and the change in character was much more gradual. The '75 seemed to have less peat than the 1974, and it evaporated more rapidly. The taste was amazingly soft for an Islay, and a lot sweeter than the '74. It was almost
like there was a soft layer around the peaty heart. Compared to the 1975, the '74 almost seemed to have some chloride-tones. Mats - or rather his wife - was good enough to send me a "two dram tasting quantity", so I will
be able to confirm my findings next to an Ardbeg 17 soon. First impressions say 87-89 points - which can be translated as super nice (which is almost as good as meganice and ultranice). The Bladnoch 1984
(40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, 5cl) was, like all the Lowland malts I've tasted so far, very light in colour and taste. The nose was quite 'heavy', though. There were some very interesting variations of honey and citrus-aroma's, but not much more I could pick up. Very light taste. Although Lowlands aren't really my style, this one felt very comfortable. I guess this one would score somewhere in the upper 70's. Maybe even 80 points - which makes it one of the best Lowlanders I've tasted so far.
O.K. - That takes care of the two miniatures on my shelf. Ah... the Glenfiddich 'Special Old Reserve'. Which brings me to another topic; the nonsense
some bottlers and distilleries put on their labels. To me, this is a continuous source of entertainment and amazement. If this is so 'special' and 'reserved',
how come it's on all the shelves of all the whisky bars and liquorists in the world? And what's with the confusing 'Pure Malt' on the label? This usually indicates a vatted malt, but the Glenfiddich actually is a single malt - as it also says on the label. But then again, it says a lot of
things on the label; Glenfiddich And so on and so forth... Anyway - I've heard some rumours about So - the rating of 60 points stands. Today, I can't imagine that I once used to buy this for special occasions.
Working on the new version of this Malt Madness site has made me thirsty, so I've decided to resumed the tasting of the Glen Rothes 1985/1997 (43%, OB, 70cl). Hmmm... This is still an elusive one. Very nice indeed, but I
can't pinpoint the reason why exactly. A very delicate sweetness; the body is very smooth. This malt just "feels" very good; I'm thinking lower 80's, but I'm not quite sure yet. Maybe a few drops of water will help... No! Adding too much water to the Glen Rothes ruins the palate! The aroma became a little smokier and produced some new sweet overtones, but the palate had lost it's wonderful creamy smoothness. Time for an emergency
re-fill. And to make things interesting, I'll make it a head-to-head tasting with... let me take a look in my cupboard... Ah! The Linkwood 12yo 1984/1996
(43%, Signatory Vintage, 70cl); another malt that has managed to escape me for over a year now. It's high time for a final rating. <..... a lot of nosing and sipping ....> Perhaps
the alcohol has numbed my senses, but this is really another of those bad nose days. Let's just give the Glen Rothes 79 provisional points and call it a night. Both bottles still have enough content to last me through five or six
tasting sessions, so there's no rush. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 24 - June 14, 1999 I've been buying quite a few new malts over the last couple of weeks. The first bottle to go is the Old Rhosdhu 5yo (40%, OB, 70cl), matured in oak casks. You would think it would be distilled at 'Old Rhosdhu' distillery, but it actually comes from the 'Loch Lomond' distillery. I had never tasted anything from this distillery before, and after the Old Rhosdhu I'm not in any hurry to try anything else. The first thing that comes to mind when you smell this malt is 'Phew!'. Sickeningly slick. Castor-oil. Sweat and cheap aftershave. Hints of coffee. The taste is very oily as well. Perfumy. Just too smooth - it's gone before you know it. Rating: 44 points. This wanders into Drumguish 3yo territory. Perhaps only the truly great distilleries like Lagavulin can produce something that's enjoyable at such a young age. After this insult to my senses, I decided to try a more mature malt. Yes, I like the direction this tasting is taking. Having thus proven (again) that older isn't always better and that a Anyway - I've tasted the Paddy plenty of times in 'Mulligan's', but I've never bought a big bottle before. Now I have. I put a 'Clannad' CD in the player and started my investigation. The nose starts sweet and malty. A little
smoke. I got the same 'coffee' association I get with Jameson, but that may just be a 'neural glitch' caused by too many Irish coffee's. The taste had a very soft start, becoming drier. Smooth with a decent afterburn. Nothing there
to keep you entertained for long. My rating: 49 points. It's very drinkable, but ultimately just not interesting enough for my 'sophisticated' taste. In conclusion: Tonight's tasting produced some mixed results. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 25 - June 30, 1999 Since I started this site a little over 3 years ago, I have gotten to know a lot of other malt whisky lovers all over the world. That's a major kick for me - I just don't meet that many other
malt maniacs in real life. But a few days ago, Davin de Kergommeaux
came over from Canada for a few drams when he was in Amsterdam. He really surprised me with a generous gift; he bought me a whole bottle of the wonderful Lagavulin 1979 DE (Double Matured) before he left. Unfortunately, I neglected to take notes on the tasting session itself. See
Davin's E-Report for some more details.
Tonight, I'm having a session to make up for lost time. The DE had more
nose than the 16 at first; and more varied aromatic nuances to boot. A lot sweeter too; that must be the Pedro Ximenez finish. Certainly not as obviously Islay as the 16, with it's iodine and ammoniac. The aroma of the 16 took a
while longer to develop, but after a few minutes both glasses were exhaling the most wonderful aroma's. And then for the tasting. Ah. A very nice palate; smoother than the 16. But then I noticed the taste misses the exhausting
crescendo of the 16, which takes almost a minute to dissolve. The DE certainly isn't as "wild" as the 16, and loses it's aroma more quickly. The 16 has more "staying power", and the development of the aroma
takes a lot longer than with the DE. So then I added some water. It pretty much killed the nose of the DE, and didn't help the 16 much either. Oops - wait a minute. Suddenly the nose of the DE comes alive again. The
taste grows a little sweeter after you've added water. One of the rare whiskies that responds well to water. Back to the 16 that has blossomed also after the water. More oily, still peaty, and with a wonderful afterburn on your
tongue. Preliminary conclusion: At first tasting the Lagavulin 1979 seems like a very good malt, but it won't knock the 16 from the top of my list. The extra subtlety from the double maturation takes away some of the peaty, smoked
quality that I love in the 16. Well - I'll have another tasting session soon to confirm my initial impression, which would put it around 90 points. Up next: The final score on the miniature of the
'official' Ardbeg 1975 (40%, OB, 5cl) Mats Ola Ekberg sent me from Sweden. Next to the last glass of my second bottle of Ardbeg 17yo
(40%, OB, 70cl) for comparison, of course. Oh boy, the 1975 is also great. Like the Connoisseurs Choice '74, it had more peat and salt than the 17 yrs, although the difference isn't that pronounced. The character is a bit more extreme than the 17 at first - and I like extremities in a malt. And then there is a unexpected sweetness. And the palate is really wonderful too, with the traditional Ardbeg delay and all. After some breathing, it develops some more sweet components too. But what about the 17? The last few glasses from my second bottle of Ardbeg 17 were even better than I remembered. After some difficult deliberation, I decided that both malts fully deserve 90 points. This means that the original score of Ardbeg 17 (89 points) will be revised.
And as long as we're revising ratings; I managed to find another bottle of the Macallan 10yo 100 Proof
(57%, OB, 70cl), and this one seemed even more powerful that the one before. Truly amazing stuff. After close comparison with the Mac 12 I have to say that this one is at least as good - if not better. What it lacks in balance it more than makes up for in character and power. So the original score of 86 points has just gone up to 88 points.
Finally, I decided to go with the brand-new Tullibardine 10yo (40%, OB, 70cl). I didn't want to end the evening on such a depressing note, so I poured myself a stiff dram of the cask strength Mac 10. Amazing value at just 85 guilders. You really get several different
malts for the price of one; the malt changes with the amount of water you add. Great stuff, a very highly recommendable malt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 26 - July 18, 1999 The majority of the bottles in my current collection is around 10-12 years old. If my experiences over the last years are any indication, the good malts around this age offer the best price/quality value. But I'm on a mission, so every now and then I go out and buy me some older (and therefor more expensive) bottles. I decided to taste three of them tonight. Only three? Yes - It's very hot tonight, and my tolerance for alcohol decreases when the temperature increases. Tonight's session deals with 3 Speysiders in their late teens and early twenties. 'Legally', they are mature enough. Let's see if they are mature enough for me...
Proceedings started with the distillery bottling of Glenlivet 18yo (43%, OB, 100cl). I had high hopes for the Dailuaine 1971/1992 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, 70cl) when I bought it. I've never had a big bottle of Dailuaine in my collection before, but encountered it a few times in restaurants and bars. Some of them were excellent but this one seemed completely different. The nose started off with a very strong leather smell. Remarkable; I've never noticed that in a malt before. Quite nice actually, but after a minute it drops off, becoming very restrained. It seems to vanish completely within a few minutes. Water doesn't help. The taste showed a strong leathery start as well. The finish is dry and slightly woody. My rating: 72 points. Darned! The Connoisseur's Choice 1974 I tasted in a restaurant a few weeks ago was much better! The wood of this cask must have been very tired. Or maybe the caramel colouring has played a role. Finally, I turned my attention towards the Glen Spey 21yo (55.4%, James McArthur
Fine Malt Selection, 70cl). I had never seen a bottling of Glen Spey anywhere in Holland before, so I picked it up on sight. I have to admit that the name worried me a but. I mean, can you get any more generic? It sounds just like the name they would use for a 20 guilders blend. And that's exactly how it smelled. At first, there was absolutely nothing! After a minute, it became slightly grainy. Something like peanuts appeared, but the nose remained very watery. It was easily drinkable at cask strength. Sweetish, but no character to speak of. The proof is hardly detectable. Dilution brought no improvement. My rating:
61 points. Don't get me wrong, it's very drinkable. It's just that is has just no character whatsoever. Even light malts like Auchentoshan and Glenkinchie have more character. Who ever decided to bottle this as a single malt?
Which brings me to a final observation. That's it as far as single malts are concerned. Around 23:00 it's still around 25 degrees Celsius. Too hot for single malts. I enjoyed the rest of
the evening out on the balcony with a few glasses of an excellent tawny port by Graham's. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 27 - August 20, 1999 Davin's bottle of Lagavulin 1979 DE has sustained me through the past weeks of hard labour on my new dynamic 'Malt
Madness' site. Now it's time to clear away some of the less interesting material on my shelves. To celebrate the completion of the beta version of the new Malt Madness site I invited a friend over for a major tasting session of
some new malts. Before he arrived, I treated myself to a glass of the wonderful Linkwood 12yo 1984/1996
(43%, Signatory Vintage, 70cl). What a wonderful complexity and development in the nose. Flowery, but heavier in character than other 'floral' malts I've tasted. I keep having strange menthol sensations with Linkwood. It has taken me a while to pin this one down, but this glass did the trick: 81 well deserved points. This bottle has aged beautifully in the 7 months it has been on my shelves - it's only half empty now, so I have a few more glasses to go.
Around 19:00 I figured: What the heck, It's my sabbatical month. And then Maarten, my guest, arrived. Final rating of the Scapa would have to wait until the next session. Maarten brought a Glengoyne 10yo
(40%, OB, 70cl) with him; we decided to taste it head-to-head with the Glengoyne 12yo (43%, OB, 70cl) from my collection. For reference, we put a Glendullan 8yo
(40%, OB, 70cl) next to them. Wow! Time hasn't been kind to the Gledullan. The original score of the fresh bottle was 74, but now the bottle's nearly empty it has lost a part of it's bouquet and it would rate around 72 points. The Glengoyne 12, on the other hand, seemed to have improved considerably. It has been a few months since I last tasted it; the different components of the rich aroma were more balanced, and the taste had become a tad softer. The original rating was 73; this one would rate 74 points. I'm curious how this one develops further. The Glengoyne 10 was a very nice surprise. At least as good as the 12yo. old - maybe even a little bit better. I forgot to make notes, but I'll keep my eyes open for a bottle of my own. This may prove to be one of these rare occasions where a younger malt rates higher than its older brother. I'll give it 75 provisional points for now.
Next up was a sample from my new bottle of Glen Keith 1983
(43%, OB, 70cl). Not bad at all! No top malt, but very enjoyable. A bit of a "reserved" nose at first; gingery, oily with a sudden explosion of wood after a few minutes breathing. The taste is very nice; a simple sweetness lasts quite long.
Maarten considers himself a malt novice, but after a few malts he expressed his desire to taste some 'advanced' malts. So we went for the Lagavulin 1979 Distillers Edition,
Highland Park 12yo and Balvenie 12yo Doublewood. Not much new here, and the 'official' tasting was degrading into a social event anyway, so I'll spare you the details. Suffice it to say that Maarten wasn't as happy with
his Glengoyne as he was when he came in. We concluded the session with one of my most recent acquisitions: Cockburn 6yo
single malt. Well - the bottle says it's a single malt. I looked it up in Michael Jackson's malt whisky companion, but couldn't find it. Judging from the text on the label it's intended for the Italian market, where they seem to be unusually fond of young bottlings. It isn't too bad, but there's little or no complexity in the bouquet, and the taste disappears too soon. My nose and tongue were pretty much numbed out, so I decided to give this puppy another try at the next tasting. First impressions aren't promising, though...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 28 - November 28, 1999 I'm recovering from RSI (or a
so-called 'mouse-arm') right now, so doctor's orders are that I have to stay away from the keyboard as much as I can for a while. This report was published thanks to Karel and Jeroen. The first few weeks after I was struck by RSI I
couldn't even raise a glass properly, so you can imagine my discomfort. Lifting my glass is no longer a problem, but writing and typing still is. This means most of my tasting in the last two months hasn't been documented properly.
Fortunately enough for those of you who like to keep informed about my adventures in maltland, tonight's guests Karel and Jeroen offered to do some typing inbetween glasses. So, with a little help from my friends, I bring you good
news: I'm having a great nose-day, so I'm in the mood for some serious rating tonight. Around 20:30 we started things off with a Balvenie 21yo Port Wood (40%, OB, 70cl). And then it's time for a final rating on the Longmorn Glenlivet 1963/1996 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, 70cl) The next candidate, Knockando 1982/1996
(43%, OB, 70cl), had also lost a few points since I tasted it for the first time. It's still a very nice dram, mind you... A big nose; complex and hard to define. The bouquet is very expressive, but vanishes completely after a few minutes of breathing. A little water didn't help the nose, but actually improved the soft and creamy palate a bit. Not that it needed much improvement - this is a very likeable malt. It comes in it a final rating of
78 points. Karel felt it was the best malt yet, which proved again that the really good stuff is usually wasted on beer drinkers. Tonight seems to be about old bottles. Up until now, all bottles have been on my
shelves for over a year now. The same goes for the Scapa 8yo 1989/1997
(43%, Ultimate, 70cl). Very light, both in bouquet and colour. A restrained nose, lightly salted. A salty burn on the tongue; quite feisty and long for a 43% malt this young. Not much taste development, though. Final rating: 73
points, which means this is yet another "Ultimate" disappointment. I have tasted more than a dozen different "The Ultimate" independant bottlings over the years, but none of them really tickled my fancy - or anything else for
that matter. And then we decided to go for something completely different - a single malt from New Zealand, to be precise. The Lammerlaw 10yo
(43%, OB, 70cl) is the first 'antipodean' malt I've tasted, and not at all bad. It's certainly not scotch; very light and a bit sour. Oily, yet perfumy. Grapes? The bouquet is as surprising as it is interesting. The taste is a bitter disappointment - rather harsh and rough, with a bitter aftertaste.
69 points. We quickly turned to one of my most recent acquisitions, the Ardbeg 8yo 1991/1999
(43%, Signatory Vintage, 70cl). This one is a fast mover; a steal at less than U$/Eur. 30. The colour seemed alarmingly light for an Ardbeg. An Islay nose, but not as strong and complex as the older ones. Rather salty, a little smoke. The taste has a heavy Islay start, which develops into a surprising sweetness - and then into a bitter finish.
By now, our tongues were too numb to do any more 'frontier' tasting, but we decided to try two more malts from a previous, undocumented session to confirm my
earlier findings. The Mortlach 1984/1995 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, 70cl) lost a point and came in at 77 points. Time to call it a night. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 29 - December 27, 1999
It's now almost three years after I started this liquid log. And while I'm at it, I will also start keeping a record of my purchases and the amount of money I have to pay for my liquid fixes. Prices have started to fluctuate quite a bit
here in Holland, and I need to know what I paid for a bottle to determine the rating on the Nevertheless, I'm making decent progress in my search
for the perfect single malt. I have now tasted malts from more than 60 different distilleries - both active and inactive. If Michael Jackson's list of distilleries is complete, there are around 60 distilleries left to discover. In
other words: I'm half-way through phase 1 of And then it's on to phase 2 of the mission. That's it for now folks; Happy New Year! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <<< Previous 10 entries - Next 10 entries >>> (Or check out the
overview of all log entries) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
