Liquid Log Entries 030 - 039 (2000) 30 - 01/01/2000 - THE SYSTEM - Explanation of my rating system - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 30 - January 1, 2000 As you've probably realised by now, I'm a sad loser without any real goals and purposes in life. One of the things that make my life
somewhat bearable is writing my own little Little Black Book. It contains notes on almost all the whiskies (blends, single malts and vatted malts from all over the world) that have passed my tonsils since my amazing discovery
some nine years ago. I use my little black book to translate the multimedia experience of a fine whisky into black and white. Perhaps I take my nosing and tasting too serious and is my 'hobby' just a way to rationalise a mild
case of alcoholism. Nevertheless, since my senses went into overdrive, I haven't emptied a bottle of whisky (or, for that matter, whiskey) without sampling at least three glasses extensively with my eyes, nose and tongue. I've
taken the fact that I had to drink some of But there I go again, blabbering on and on.... So how do I come up with the exact ratings? Does the fact that Lagavulin 16yo scores 95 points and Drumguish 3yo 40 points means
that Lagavulin is exactly 2.375 times as good as Drumguish? Well, not quite... The basis of my alcoholic beverages rating system (as well as my life) is It's very hard to quantify, qualify and explain WHY I love a certain malt as much as I do. I'm trying to express my love for a particular single malt whisky in two digits. The Meaning of the Numbers: 01 - 09: Barely drinkable gagwater. Serving me this may result in physical violence. Above 50 points I'm slowly starting to warm up to things.
51 - 54: All things considered I like it, but just barely. It's a thin line between love and hate.
Here are some 'anchors' or 'benchmarks' in my rating-system; 60 points is the very least I expect a decent malt to score. I don't take my tasting and rating TOO serious, but serious enough to wait until after I've sampled at least 5 glasses of a particular
whisky before I give my final rating. Due to frequent attacks of sinusitis, my nose is often 'out of synch'. As a result, I'm often not able to fully explore a single malt on the first or second tasting session. And then there's
the time-factor. Some malts change considerably in the months after the bottle is opened. And even then my final ratings aren't always all that final. If I really want to examine a whisky closely, I compare it to two or three 'reference' malts.
I'm afraid that's about all there is to tell about my rating system. Check out the
Top 10 I arrived at using my system. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 31 - January 22, 2000 Davin de Kergommeaux came over from Canada to do some more serious tasting. During an invigorating walk from the Central Station to the outskirts of Amsterdam, Davin and I visited a few liquorists to pick up some
new tasting material. The Gall & Gall near Dam Square had a decent collection, but the prices were pretty steep. That's why I picked up the Tyrconnell Irish single malt and the Johnnie Walker 15yo. pure malt instead of a new
bottle of Ardbeg. The 17 was priced at fl. 120,- (+/- 55 U$ Dollars at today's exchange rates), and older ones were even more overpriced. After a few more stops on the way (I bought myself a new bottle of Suntory
Kakubin Japanese whisky) we reached one of my two favourite liquorists in Amsterdam; Menno Boorsma on Ferdinand Bol street. Davin was impressed by the collection. Prices used to be very low here, but the last few months they have
been increasing. There are still some very good deals to be found, though, like a litre of Lagavulin 16 for less than fl. 70,-. Even though Davin warned me that the Loch Dhu 10 could disappear soon, I avoided the bottle. I did pick
up a bottle of Ardbeg 17 (only fl. 100,- here), as well as a Signatory Glendronach 1987. Davin picked up the Laphroaig 15 (which he generously left behind after the session). We started off the session around 17:00 with the Glen Rothes 1985/1997 (43%, OB) and Scapa 8yo 1989/1997
(43%, Ultimate). The Glen Rothes had just become available in Canada. A deep and sweet aroma with old fruits, currants and pipe tobacco. After some breathing a little more oiliness and vegetables. The taste: Smooth of body with a delicate sweetness. Davin's taste impressions helped me to refine some of my own findings. I was finally able to put my finger on a 'peppery' mouth feel that had eluded description until now. Davin described the 'over cooked vegetables' component I find in the Glen Rothes as 'musty'. This doesn't sound anything more appetising, but trust me: this one is worth a try.
The next head-to-head was a creative one: Balvenie 21yo Port Wood (40%, OB) against the Japanese Suntory Kakubin
(40%, blend). No contest really, especially because this bottle of Suntory wasn't nearly as good as the last one I had. I missed the honey and flowers that gave the last one such a sunny character. This one had a distinct soy sauce ring to it. This is my fourth bottle, and I've found that the quality of this blend varies a lot from bottle to bottle. The first two rated 65, the third 69 but the preliminary rating of this one would be no higher than 62. Still worth the fl. 40,-, though. The Balvenie was, as always, great. Davin thought so too. I discovered incense in the bouquet for the first time. It's a shame it's not as 'porty' as the Glenmorangie Port; that would have meant an extra point.
Time for more serious stuff: Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, 100cl) against Davin's Laphroaig 15yo
(43%, OB, 70cl). What a treat! It was the first time I ever tasted the 15; it has a more balanced and longer lasting bouquet than the 10, with more peat and less iodine. Like most Islays, the older Laphroaig was sweeter than the younger one. The 10 seemed almost 'floral' next to the 15, but both had that trademark hint of ammonia. The 10 clocks in at 83 points; the 'riper', more balanced nose and body of the 15 would put it in the upper 80's. Davin generously left the bottle behind, so I'll be able to give it a final rating in the future.
We proceeded with the last two glasses of my bottle of the Longmorn Glenlivet 1963/1996 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail) Craig Daniels brought from Down Under over a year ago against the litre bottling of
Glenfarclas 105
(60%, OB). I wasn't having a particularly good nose day, but even then the bouquet of the Longmorn managed to surprise and delight me. One of the best aroma's I've ever encountered, but the taste ends at 'very nice'. For me, the provisional rating of 83 (a pretty darned good score, mind you!) changed to a final rating of 84, but Davin would have rated it considerably higher. The wonderful Longmorn made the Glenfarclas look bad; it's cask strength aroma seemed harsh and uncivilised next to the water of life from 1963. We looked it up in the latest edition of Michael Jackson's Malt Whisky Companion Davin brought with him; Michael rates the Glenfarclas at 88 points. To me, this is amazing - right now I wouldn't rate it over 77 or 78.
For our last 'official' head-to-head we tried the Ardbeg 8yo 1991/1999 (43%, Signatory Vintage) against my new bottle of Ardbeg 17yo
(40%, OB). The 17 unveiled a sour liquorice component I hadn't noticed in my two previous bottles. Both had the distinguishing Ardbeg 'delay'. By now, our nostrils and taste buds were quite burnt out. The bourbon miniatures Davin brought over and the other new acquisitions of the day would have to wait.
We both were quite intoxicated when I put Davin on the subway around 22:00. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 32 - February 5, 2000 Hurray! It's my birthday and I'm having a wonderful nose day. The Blair Athol 12yo
(43%, Flora and Fauna) had a very flavoury nose, with a sweetness that got more pronounced after some breathing. Smoky. Ginger? Red wine? Sweet and sour? Excellent and elusive. The taste is very nice, and it has quite a bite for its 43%. Sweet and fruity. A soft start develops into a prolonged explosion. I tried adding some water, but that proved to be a mistake. This malt is best drank straight. A very nice malt; final rating:
79 points. I was having a good nose day, so I decided to try my luck on the Dufftown 15yo
(43%, Flora & Fauna) that has managed to escape a final rating for over six months now. The aroma is smoky and very rich. Just a tad of oiliness; less than the 10yo. old, though. After a while a pleasant, malty sweetness develops. This malt is smooth of body, but with an afterburn. Sweet at first, then dry. It's better than the 10yo. distillery bottling - but not much. Nice, but not too many surprises there.
77 points. The next treat, Glenturret 19yo 1978/1998
(43%, Ultimate), was a gift from my boss last year. It's very light for a malt over 20 years old, both in colour and nose. The bouquet develops into a faint sweetness. Not very impressive, nose-wise. The taste is quite another story! A short, dry start is followed by one change after another. Very complex; way better than the 12yo. old. If it hadn't been for the unimpressive nose, this would have been potential Top 10 material; one of the few malts that taste better than it smells.
Time for the Glenfarclas 105
(60%, OB). When I got myself this bottle over a year ago it seemed like a wonderful investment; only fl. 70,- for a litre of cask strength malt that gets 88 points from malt guru Michael Jackson. Well - that was a bit of a disappointment. The nose is powerful but a bit crude. Very strong; at times even glue-like. Red cabbage and toffee? A hint of peppermint after dilution. This is a 'loud' malt; the taste is just too overpowering at 60% neat. Even after heavy dilution it's strong and overwhelming. This malt doesn't respond as well to water as I'd hoped. Not a lot of complexity there. Time hadn't been kind to it; the initial rating was somewhere around 81, but by now it has dropped to a final rating of
76 points. Still good value for your money, mind you. I figured my taste buds and nostrils could handle one more malt, and picked the Glen Keith 1983
(43%, OB), a fairly recent acquisition. A restrained nose; a bit oily at first. After a few minutes of breathing: wood, ginger and whiffs of citrus. A simple sweetness gets more malty after a while. Very nice, despite the rather bitter finish. Final score:
76 points. Looking back at tonight's tasting, I realised that all tasted malts fell in the 70 - 80 range. This is the "nice" range; all malts were very enjoyable, but none of them were special enough to reach
the heights of '80-points-or-more' heaven. I was feeling frisky, so I decided to try one of the miniatures of Canadian whisky Davin De Kergommeaux brought over from... er... Canada. Davin is one of my main malt
sponsors. A few months ago he brought me a bottle of the wonderful Lagavulin 1979 DE, and at And that's where tonight's proceedings end. - - - mAddendum 32A - The KPN Shopping Spree
Hurray! I've got a great new job; Content Manager at KPN Internetdiensten. I decided to celebrate my career move (and my nearly complete recovery of RSI) with a shopping spree. On March 4, I visited Ton Overmars - one of my
favourite liquorists in Amsterdam. They have a pretty good selection and the prices are usually very wallet friendly, about 10 - 15% below the 'standard' prices. I could have kicked myself; the Chivas Century of Malts I bought the
day before for fl. 90,- at a Gall & Gall in Doorn would have set me back only fl. 75,- here. And to think the bottle I bought probably had been in the window for a few months. It had been a while since I last visited the
shop, and they had some exciting new stuff and special offers on their shelves. In this case, only fl. 460,- (just a little over 200 U$) bought me these 6 bottles:
At these prices, I could only stay away for so long. This morning, I returned to expand my collection with another 7 new bottles I declined to pick up last time;
How's that for value for money, eh? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 33 - April 1, 2000 Today was my first day at my new job. I
figured I might as well start tonight's tasting with one of the special bottles in my collection. The Lagavulin 1979 Distiller's Edition (43%, OB) was a gift from Davin from Canada. Like before, I used the 'standard' Lagavulin 16yo (43%, OB) for reference. Nose: First nasal impression of the DE was
smoke - against peat for the 16. The DE is sweeter than the 16 from the start. After a while, the DE got even sweeter and the sherry in the nose became more apparent; it became almost a bit like Macallan in character. Meanwhile,
the 16 seemed to get saltier and oilier in comparison. The DE has lost almost all of the peat of the 16 but gained some new nuances as well. Taste: The DE is very balanced but just a tad too sherried for my taste. It hasn't lost
the Lagavulin 'punch', though. Warm, salt and sweet with a dry finish. For a moment there, I even got a flash of smoked eel! Wow, what a malt! Final rating: 89 points, which makes it number 4 in my personal Top 10! Both the Lagavulin 16 and 1979 DE are Meanwhile, the latest bottling of Lagavulin 16 seemed to be unable to reach the original 96 mark. I had planned to save the opening of the new Caol Ila 21yo 1975/1997
(61.3%, UD Rare Malts) for a special occasion, but I couldn't resist comparing it to the other two in my collection; the Caol Ila 1981/1995 (40%, Connoisseurs Choice) and the nearly empty Caol Ila 20yo 1974/1995
(55.7%, Signatory Vintage) that scored 83 points the last time I tried it. So I poured myself a first glass from bottle no. 0519 from April 1997 next to the two other versions - and was amazed by the light colour of this cask strength (61,3%) malt.
UD Rare Malts 21yo 1975/1997 - Undiluted, the nose is surprisingly subdued at first. It acquires some subtle 'low' sweet notes at first and opens up after a few minutes, displaying more of its Islay character. Amazing development that goes on like forever. It's surprisingly drinkable at this strength, but I decided to add about 1/4 of water. The nose became more oily and got a more pronounced salty/smoky sea character - then it got fresher and fruitier. The palate got sweet, then salt, followed by a slow but powerful explosion. After adding another 1/4 of water more chloride and bitterness in the nose; a softer and even sweeter palate. Wow! Great stuff - We may have a possible new Top 10 candidate here. Preliminary rating: 87 - 88 points. Signatory Vintage 20yo 1974/1995 - Nose: Sweet, with a lot of development. A little more Islay after a while, with oily and nutty tones. The nose disappeared sooner than in the other two versions, and was no real match for the wonderful growth and complexity in the RM. The palate seems heavier than the RM 1975, despite the lower alcohol percentage. Burn, baby, burn... Drinkable at 55,7%, but slightly better diluted. Dilution improved the palate (sweeter and more salt and pepper) and finish, but did little for the nose. The rating of 83 points stands. Connosseurs Choice 1981/1995
- Nose: More smoke and peat than the older ones, and considerably less sweetness at first. After some breathing it became more complex - distinctly oily; nutty and sweeter. The palate has that great Islay twang. Much too soon to warrant even a preliminary rating, though. Somewhere in the lower 80's, I guess.
I decided to put Wagner's "Fliegende Hollander' in the CD player and proceeded with a long overdue final rating of the Longmorn 8yo 1989/1997
(43%, Ultimate, distilled on 14/4/89, bottled on 30/6/97, cask no. 6052, bottle no. 208). This one has been bothering me for some time now. I've tasted 4 different, older Longmorns (two of them officially), and all were quite wonderful. I've taken 18 months to empty this bottle, hoping it would improve. Not much luck there, I'm afraid. It's very light and pale; not a lot of nose, really. Grassy and 'bourbon' clean. The taste is surprisingly strong; but it lacks complexity and development. Malty, with some sweetness. The finish is pleasant and sweet, but a bit flat. Final rating:
69 points. Then another 'Ultimate' bottling; the Bladnoch 16yo 1980/1997 (43%, Ultimate, distilled on 30/6/80, bottled 1/97, cask #98/591/40, bottle no. 219 of 440) that had been gathering dust on my
For the last 'official' rating of the evening I picked the Tullibardine 10yo
(40%, OB). Hmmmm. According to the label it's 'best procurable'? First tastings: Quite soft; a bit like cod-oil. Overcooked vegetables and some smoke. Not very impressive, it reminded me of Isle of Jura. The taste started off with a mild and distinctive sweetness, but ended very astringent with a tannine-like dryness. This one completely lost it quickly after opening. The last few glasses were pretty awful. This is one of the worst single malts I ever tasted - final rating
59 points. Well - that was a bit of a bummer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 34 - April 15, 2000 Time to taste some of the new stuff in my collection. First, I went for the Ben Nevis 8yo 1990/1999
(43%, Signatory Vintage, distilled 14/12/90, bottled 2/3/99, Butt no. 1376, Bottle no. 712 from 773). It reminded me a bit of Oban, which isn't surprising considering both are from the western highlands. The nose is big, malty and salty at first, with more smoke and some sweetness after a few minutes. The taste has quite a bite - a bit like a young Scapa, but with a longer afterglow. At first, it doesn't seem like a spectacular malt. Because of my bad nose day, I poured myself a few extra drams. I figured any of the good stuff would be wasted in my present condition.
My nose, tongue and liver have had a lot of exercise over the last few weeks, so I figured I could do some more nosing and tasting (just a few drops, mind you...) to get some first impressions from my most recent
acquisitions. Scapa 1985/1995 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail) Glen Garioch 15yo
(43%, OB, litre bottling) Royal Lochnagar 12yo (40%, OB) Inchgower 12yo (43%, OB) Inchmurrin 10yo (40%, OB) Loch Dhu 10yo (40%, OB)
Lochside 10yo (40%, MacNab Distilleries) Tobermory NAS (40%, OB) Chivas Regal NAS 'Century of Malts' (40%, vatted malt)
I finished the evening around 2:30 with the first glass from the new shipment of Black Bottle 10yo
(40%, blend). This one seemed not as heavy on the tongue as the bottles I've had over the last two years - at first that is. After a few seconds the burn starts, lasting for quite a while. The nose of this incarnation was not nearly as expressive as last year's bottling, though. I guess this one would rate somewhere near 65 points instead of the initial 72. At less than 50 guilders (+/- 20U$ dollars) this is still amazing value for your money.
Which reminds me.... I forgot to add the Black Bottle to my
And that's where tonight's proceedings end. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 35 - May 23, 2000 I'm running out of shelves to put my malts on. But even on a good nose day, it's impossible for me to accurately taste and judge more than six or seven malts. That's why I decided to expand
the H2H tasting session I had planned for a few ex-collegues to a genuine four day head-to-head marathon. That should take care of my storage problems - at least for a while... When I opened my bookcase a few weeks ago
I was confronted with the fact that I don't read nearly enough. Inside, I found four almost empty bottles I had purchased (and opened) around christmas 1998 and forgotten all about. Talk about your sweet surprise! I decided to
postpone tasting of the 'major malts' to the last evening of the marathon and finish my tasting notes on Glen Scotia 14yo, Inverleven 1984, Coleburn 1983 and Glenallachie 1985, using some clever juxtapositioning in head-to-head
tastings. 1 - Glen Scotia 14yo vs Springbank CV The Glen Scotia 14yo
(40%, OB) was something very special. I've searched for this malt for quite a while - partly because Michael Jackson rates it at 87 points, partly because the name sounds so very, very Scottish. The distillery has been closed for a large part of the 1980's, but this bottle is filled with the malt produced before the closure. This malt is from the Campbeltown region. I used 'the other Campbeltown malt' Springbank for comparison - the
Springbank NAS 'CV'
(46%, OB), to be precise. Nose: The nose of the Glen Scotia is amazing! The Springbank seems a lot sharper and oilier at first, but after closer inspection the Glen Scotia also shows some peculiar oily components. The Glen Scotia has a lot more salt too. With time, the Glen Scotia showed much more development and complexity than the CV - Even after 15 minutes the CV had hardly changed, but the nose of the Glen Scotia had completely transformed. Taste: The Springer isn't bad at all; sweet with quite an afterburn for a malt that I suspect to be relatively young. The Glen Scotia is something else; sweet and salt on the tongue, with lots of interesting nuances - almost Top 10 material.
Verdict: 2 - Glenallachie 1985/1997 vs Coleburn 1983/1997 Two of the 'hidden treasures' I've found in my bookcase go head-to-head. Verdict: Both malt score below average in 3 - Inverleven 1984 vs Bladnoch 1980/1997 And again I found a perfect partner in my collection for an interesting H2H. Nose: The Inverleven had a very soft nose with some grassy sweetness. Light, with some sherry. The bouquet grows oilier after
a while, and lasts for quite a long time. It almost seemed to get some nutty elements in the end, but I'm not quite sure about that. The Bladnoch was smoky and rich with a lot of development. Also oily after a while. Some mocha
sweetness, then citrussy sourness. Amazing complexity. Verdict: Well, all right then... One final match. 4 - Lagavulin 16yo 'old' - Lagavulin 16yo 'new' - Lagavulin 1979 DE
I've received continuous reports that the quality of Lagavulin 16yo (43%, OB) is changing for the worse. Of course, this is alarming news. Since Lagavulin 16yo is my number one malt and the touchstone for my entire rating system, I felt a re-tasting was warranted. I bought myself a new bottle and tasted a
dram against the contents of my old 'reserve' bottle of Lagavulin 16yo (distilled +/- 1995) and the 1979 Distiller's Edition Double Matured (43%, OB) Davin bought me a while ago. As it turn's out, the new 16yo
bottling is slightly less balanced than the old 16 - both in nose and palate. Still full of Islay character, with some interesting sweet and sherry contrasts. There was just a little less 'cohesion'; one of the elements that made
the old bottling such an unique drink. It is, in fact, a little more like the Distiller's Edition in character than the old 16. It's still the best single malt around, it still beats the 1979 DE by a nose length, but it loses three
points. This may not seem very dramatic but the 'old' Lagavulin 16 was the touchstone for my quality and value ratings. Verdict:
And thus the report of the first night ends on a sad, sad note. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 36 - May 24, 2000 Wow,
what a surprise. I'm helping out my liquorist with some Internet stuff, and yesterday he kindly offered to bring along a few bottles that had been used in a blind test. For free! The bottles were unlabeled, but I didn't mind! All
bottles were at least 3/4 full - what a bud bonanza! This is what he dropped off: - Glenkinchie 21yo 1978/1999 (60,8%, Signatory Vintage) I didn't have a very good nose day, so tonight's impressions are rather vague.
1 - Glenfarclas 105 (old) vs Glenfarclas 105 (new) Oh boy. This proved one of my suspicions. 2 - Glenlivet 12yo vs Glenlivet 21yo The Glenlivet 12yo
(40%, OB) has always given me a funny feeling. It is a good malt - there's an undeniable quality there. Nevertheless, it has never really 'done it for me', which explains the 'just short of average' rating of 71 and 73 points for two small bottles (35 and 50cl) I tried in the early 1990's. The fresh big bottle I bought a while ago offers an interesting opportunity to see if an older version works for me.
The Glenlivet 21yo
(43%, OB) has a lot more nose than the 12, with much more overwhelming sherry. Very full and complex. Compared to the 21, the 12 seemed almost sharp at first, becoming very nutty after a few minutes, and oily later on. The nose of the 21 had a lot more staying power, too. After about ten minutes, the 12 had stopped breathing, but the 21 kept developing. It had gotten some toffee tones. The taste of the 21 starts off very woody, but mellows out after a few seconds. Very deep, sweet sherry. The taste of the 12 seemed very poor in comparison. Tonight's rating of the 12 would be no higher than 76, the 21 scores 82-83 provisional points. Very, very nice!
3 - Glenkinchie 21yo 1978/1999 Cask Strength Hmm.... Hard
to find a good match in my collection for this one. So I didn't, and sampled this cask strength malt all by its lonesome self. The nose of the Glenkinchie 21yo 1978/1999
(60,8%, Signatory Vintage) is pretty sharp, but doesn't really advertise the cask strength. Couldn't find a lot there. Sweet start, with a bit of artificial orange like in 'Fanta' lemonade at the end of every whiff. Some smoke after a few minutes. Seems very sweet and surprisingly drinkable for a cask strength at first, until it reaches your throat. Wow - What a burn. Time to add some water. More citrus and sweetness in the nose; taste still full of sweet power. A bit more malty. With an extra big splash of water (to about 30 Alc %) a lot more smoke in the nose, but very little sweetness left. The taste seems very soft at first, but explodes within seconds into a sweet burn. Very peppery finish. Woehah! Somewhere around 82 points, I suspect - Very nice.
Because of my relative bad nose day, I decided to postpone the H2H of Glen Mhor '77 against Inchgower '77 to the last evening of the marathon. 01:35 - Bedtime. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 37 - May 25, 2000 I just came up with an interesting new concept; the 'Hopalong Head-To-Head Session'. - Ardbeg 10yo - Ardbeg 17yo 1 - Ardbeg 10yo vs Ardbeg 17yo I was very curious about the new 'official' Ardbeg 10yo
(46%, OB) that reached our shores some two months ago. I decided to put a glass of the official Ardbeg 17yo
(40%, OB) next to it for the first bout of the evening. Oohah! The Ardbeg 17 is still one of the greatest malts around right now. A lot sweeter and more balance in the nose than the 10. More complex, too, with a whole range of aroma's. The 10 seems a lot like Laphroaig 10 at first, with a lot of salt. Ammonia - but not as much nose as I've come to expect from Ardbegs - and less peat, too.. After a few minutes, it starts to develop quite nicely, though. The taste becomes sweeter and suddenly there's the 'delay', followed by an explosion of warmth.
Conclusion: Both Ardbegs show the amazing nasal development that I love, but the New Ardbeg 10 definitely needs a few minutes to reach it's full potential. The nose disappears after 15 minutes or so, where the 17
keeps developing. 2 - Ardbeg 10yo vs Ardbeg 8yo 1991/1999 The new Ardbeg 10yo
(46%, OB) was more like the Laphroaig 10 in character than the older Ardbegs I've tasted. The same goes for the Ardbeg 8yo 1991/1999
(43%, Signatory Vintage) to some extent, but the first impressions were 'oily' and 'veggie'. Hmm; the official 10 certainly has more complexity in the nose, and shows some sweet elements that didn't show up against the 17. Both are salty, but in a different way. They are a lot more diverse than I would have expected. The official 10 has the longest lasting nose. The 1991 SigVint only reveals it's Ardbegness on the tongue after a few seconds.
Conclusion: The official 10 beats the 1991 Sigvint, in part because it's closer to the familiar Ardbeg style I love. It lasts longer too. 3 - Ardbeg 8yo 1991/1999 vs Laphroaig 10yo The Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, litre bottling) beats the Ardbeg 8yo 1991/1999
(43%, Signatory Vintage), no question about it. It's definitely more Islay, and there are just so much more different elements in nose and taste. Salt and iodine. Next to the aromatic Laphroaig, the Ardbeg 1991 hardly seems like an Islay malt.
Conclusion - On a personal level, I prefer the Laphroaig 10 over the Ardbeg 1991. On the other hand, the extremity of the Laphroaig makes it not the most accessible malt, especially for beginners. 4 - Laphroaig 10yo vs Laphroaig 15yo The Laphroaig 15yo (43%, OB) had more peat and less iodine in the nose than the Laphroaig 10yo
(43%, OB, litre). More balance, too. Ammonia? Salt and sweet. One of the longest lasting noses I know - still great well after an hour. Taste: Salt and sweet with some liquorice. A lot rounder and sweeter than the 10 with a pronounced sherry finish. The 10 was as always extreme; Salt and iodine, and some smoke and peat.
Conclusion: Great stuff. Islay malts seem to need at least 15 years to reach the optimum balance between Islay power and mature sweetness and complexity. Think about the Lagavulin 16, the Ardbeg 17 etc. Nevertheless,
the Laphroaig 10 earns extra points for its uncompromising youthful power. 5 - Laphroaig 15yo vs Ardbeg 17yo The tasting of the Laphroaig 15yo (43%, OB) against the Ardbeg 17yo
(40%, OB) confirms it: There's a new top 10 malt in town! First nasal impressions: the Laphroaig 15 seems very 'farmy'; the Ardbeg 17 almost 'flowery'. Both have plenty of Islay power in the nose, as well as a lot of development over time. Their noses are an even match; very different, but equally complex and intruiging. It's the wonderful palate of the Ardbeg 17 that makes it the overall winner - the taste of the Laphroaig 15 is also very nice, but just a few points less nice.
Conclusion: Both malts have reached my top 10 - talk about your great nosing and tasting! Overall conclusion: These H2H's are just great to pinpoint the finer nuances in relatively similar malts. Have to do this more often. Davin proves to have an excellent eye for quality , since he has supplied two of the malts in my top 10 - The Lagavulin 1979 DE and now the Laphroaig 15yo. The Verdict: Ardbeg 10yo 84 points (provisional score) Time to get some sleep - Big day tomorrow. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 38 - May 26, 2000 Before my guests for the evening arrived, I figured out a fiendish head-to-head scheme that would hopefully delight and surprise my guests and at the same time help to empty some of
my current stock. The first six items on tonight's menu: Macallan 18yo 1976 - House of Lords 12yo (blend)
Well - as soon as my first guests arrived, this schedule went out of the window. 1 - Glen Mhor 20yo 1977/1998 vs Inchgower 19yo 1977/1997 There's an interesting match! The two unlabeled bottles I missed out on two nights ago. Both are northern Speyside malts from 1977 I (and my guests) had never tasted before. The first glasses of a tasting session are always difficult, but this matching proved to be especially confusing. Both the Glen Mhor 20yo 1977/1998 (43%, Signatory Vintage) and the Inchgower 19yo 1977/1997 (43%, Signatory Vintage) appeared very strange and not at all what I've come to expect of a Speyside malt in his early twenties. Both seemed a bit medicinal in nose, with very little sherry sweetness. Not very impressive, and the taste was no picnic either. Neither I nor my guests were particularly impressed. If these impressions are right, neither will score much above 70 points, which is below par for a Speyside malt this old. 2 - Saint Magdalene 1965 vs Bladnoch 16yo 1980/1997 What a treat! The Saint Magdalene 1965 (40%, Connoisseurs Choice) is a very rare bottle that I've never seen before. I picked the
Bladnoch 16yo 1980/1997
(43%, Ultimate, distilled on 30/6/80, bottled 1/97, cask #98/591/40, bottle no. 219 of 440) against the St. Magdalene because it's currently the oldest Lowland malt I have on stock myself. Wow! What a nose on that St. Magdalene! Overwhelming! Very rich, with flowery and perfumy notes. Very complex, but harmonious, with just the right amount of sherry. Especially at first, it completely knocks the Bladnoch off the table. Based on the wonderful nose, it would rate somewhere around 86-88 points. But then there was a complication. After 15 minutes or so, the nose of the 'Magda' started to deteriorate quickly, but the Bladnoch kept developing. The palate of the St. Magdalene was quite a disappointment after the amazing nose. But then again, the Bladnoch doesn't do too well in that department either. This leaves the Bladnoch at it's original rating of 82, and the St. Magdalene at a provisional rating of 83 points overall. I can certainly understand why Adwy is in love with this bottle; I'll have to make sure to get one of my own soon - if I can find an affordable bottle, that is...
By now the other guests Frans and Jennifer had arrived, bringing with them a few more nice cigars - including my current favourite Romeo & Julietta 'Romeo #1'. And this is where things start to get vague. I'm not
quite sure about the order of the malts we drank after that. Tonight's session was more about social alcoholism than technical analysis of the malts on offer anyway - hence the smoking. The rest of the notes are in shorthand: 3 - Caol Ila 21yo 1975/1997 vs Cragganmore 1976/1993 Two cask strength whiskies go head-to-head. The Cragganmore 1976/1993 (53.8%, Gordon & MacPhail, distilled 21/7/1976, casks #3588, 3589, 3590, 3591, bottled October 1993) Reinier brought had a wonderful nose. A lot of marzipan and a little nutty. Almonds? My Coal Ila 21yo 1975/1997 (61.3%, UDRM) was wonderful as always, but remained a bit of a mystery. The Cragganmore was surprisingly drinkable at more than 50%%, but worked also well with some water. The Coal Ila was just too powerful neat (over 60%), but can stand a pretty hefty dilution too. Jennifer and Reinier liked both malts a lot - and so did I. I will keep my eyes open for my own bottle of the Cragganmore. 4 - Lagavulin 1979 Distiller's Edition vs Lagavulin 16yo Everybody present seemed in agreement that the new 16yo bottling still beats the 1979 Distiller's Edition. These drams were the last from
my bottle of DE - and at that price I won't buy another bottle myself soon. All present did like both malts a lot, and Adwy got inspired to share some vague stories about the Gaelic origins of his name (meaning 'void' or 'gap') and
the 'Nomen est Omen' adage. Around 22:30 we abandoned the H2H's in favour of plain tastings.
That's it - tired now. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 39 - June 30, 2000 It's starting to get summery
here in Holland. Before it gets really hot I decided to enjoy a few last winter warmers and spring surprises - as well as some of the relatively new bottles in my collection. I've put some music by the McCalmans in my CD player to get in the mood. Anyway; tonight's line-up looks like this: - Ardbeg 10yo Anyway - I have tasted quite a lot of the new official
Ardbeg 10yo (46%, OB) over the last month. High time for a 'final' rating, methinks. It is remarkably light in colour for an Islay, but that doesn't bother me. What does
bother me is the fact that it has hardly any nose at all for the first few minutes. (Well - for an Ardbeg, that is...) Fortunately, it starts to open up after a while, becoming smoky and peaty. And what about the taste? Hmmmm... What a sweet burn... Some salt too. Very well balanced - a relief after the slightly disappointing nose. After the relatively sweet start it becomes more 'Islay' in a few minutes. Nice and sweet at first, with the long Ardbeg explosion in the middle and an impressive finish. Final rating:
85 points. It's different from the Laphroaig 10 (which used to get the same grade), but it's just as good! But then again, the price of 99 guilders is pretty steep. At a very slight premium you can get yourself the superior
Ardbeg 17yo. Maybe some extra breathing will help; I usually wait a lot longer before I give a 'final' rating. The Strathisla 12yo
(43%, OB) had a beautiful, saturated honey colour - once it had escaped from the dark, intimidating bottle. The fact that I even noticed it says something... It was a
good thing the colour was so interesting, because the nose wasn't. At least not at first... Soft and dry - a bit nutty and oily. Later there were some faint hints of sherry, but little more. Disappointing - I had expected
more from a Speyside malt. Water didn't help very much - just added some chloride notes. The taste wasn't particularly pleasant to my tongue at first, but there's a whole lot of development there. An explosion at first, and a very
long finish with a multitude of changes along the way. Gooseberry, chocolate, coffee, toffee and vanilla were amongst the impressions. Not all stages in the development were pleasant, though. To me, this is more of an interesting
malt than a nice malt. Too bad for the Strathisla my rating system is based on my personal preferences. Just to be sure, I poured a few drops of the Glen Elgin (NAS.) in another glass to be able to declare my final
rating. The Glen Elgin is another Speyside malt that comes from a distillery not far away. It seemed a bit reserved and almost 'painty' next to the Strathisla at first. It picked up later on, though. Still - the Strathisla was
clearly better overall. Final rating: 74 points. Well - this rating may not be as final as it sounds. This bottle definitely needed a little while to 'break in'. I imagined I noticed a notable improvement after a few months
of breathing. I'll give it a few more months and re-taste it then - just to see if things look up. Back to tonight's tasting. After a disappointing start, the nose of the Glen Mhor 20yo 1977/1998
(43%, Signatory Vintage) comes alive quite nicely with all kinds of 'farmy' aroma's. Some chemical lemon tones at the end of every whiff. Sherry too. Sweeter and smokier later on. Taste: Very strange. Slick bummer. A lot of sherry, but no sweetness at all. Unbalanced. Disappointing. Final rating:
68 points; embarrassing for a malt this age. Although I often pick up the 'no age statement' version of Glen Grant as a volume whisky, I've never been able to nose and taste it properly. But last weekend, when I
visited our family's house in the woods, I made a stop at the little local liquorist in a small town nearby. The 'ageless' version of Glen Grant is usually the only single malt they have, so imagine my surprise when I saw a bottle
of Glen Grant 10yo
(40%, OB) on the shelf for the price of the younger version - 34 guilders! Surely a mistake by one of the staff, but my good upbringing prevented me from confronting them with their error when I bought myself a bottle. After all, I wouldn't want to embarrass them...
Nose: The 10 seemed a lot like the 'ageless' version at first; fresh and a bit sharp. The Cockburn 6yo
(40%, bastard malt) was a strange puppy... Originally intended for the Italian market, this ugly little bottle had somehow managed to find it's way to Holland. The
Italians like their whiskies young and spirity (as well as their women, I'm told...) The label claims it's a single malt whisky, but I have my doubts. Nose: Spirity & Sharp; little more. Maybe a bit of a flowery kind of
sweetness. It had a 'dusty' quality, but vanished without a trace within minutes. Taste: Is this a single malt? A grainy burn on the tongue, with a rather long aftertaste. Not a good thing, a very unpleasant artificial sweetness
dominates. Warm, clean and much too astringent. Definitely not up to single malt standards. Final rating: 35 points.
And as long as I'm drinking and rating crap whiskies, I might as well get my final tasting of Loch Dhu 10yo
(40%, OB) over with. The Loch Dhu is a malt that makes the Drumguish 3yo look like a very pleasant drink. I can see why this is the whisky that has inspired the most public warnings - and why it may be taken off the market soon. This malt is produced by the Mannochmore distillery as a marketing exercise to 'invent' a single malt whisky for young, successful people. Well - they have failed miserably. I'm relatively young and like to think of myself as successful - but this whisky (and I use the term as loosely as possible) is not for me. In fact I've cancelled my order of two bottles of the 'ordinary' Mannochmore single malt whisky (12 and 22yo) I had ordered just before I found out they were responsible for this freak of a drink.
Nose: I usually like smoke in a malt - but this is waaaay too much. Liquorice and burnt caramel. Medicinal, but not in a good way. A sickening sweetness behind the smoke. It really has the smell of ashes! But the
unpleasant nose is not so bad compared to the really awful taste. Someone on the 'Public Warnings' page described it as 'it's like licking an ashtray' and that's pretty much accurate. Ashes and Swiss cough bonbons. It is really
filthy stuff that makes a lot of cheap blends look good. And the worst thing is that it just won't go away. It has a filthy aftertaste that stays around for the rest of the evening. Even though I had poured myself a very small
dram, I poured half of it down the sink. It's physically sickening! I'd much rather drink a Johnnie Walker Red! (Score 19 points) Final rating: 8 points, making it officially and by far Bugger.... And to think I had to pay almost 70 guilders for this crap!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <<< Previous 10 entries - Next 10 entries >>>
(Or check out the overview of all log entries)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
