Malt Maniacs #6

E-pistle #06/01 - Scotch On The Rock
by Davin de Kergommeaux, Canada

It's bitterly cold here on this little island in the North Atlantic, by choice more Scottish than Canadian. 
Celtic bands sing homegrown sea shanties every night, in every bar on George Street and environs, well, the whole damn rock as far as one can tell.  "The Rock"  that's what we Canadians, locals and those from away alike, call Newfoundland.

The drink here is rum.  The liquor store has more sorts of it than I've seen anywhere, and there's a special variety called "Screech."  Newfie Screech is what all the tourists want, and to be screeched in and become an honorary Newfie is de rigeur.   It's a charmingly humiliating ceremony, held always in a bar, where following three shots of screech and many oaths it culminates with the inductee kissing the "arse" of either a puffin or a cod fish.  I must admit, some years back I did let Captain John screech me in and I can still remember the feathers tickling my nose as I did the final deed.

It's whisky though tickles my fancy tonight.  Four little crocks of single malt from Rutherford's.  I haven't really heard of these guys before, so know not what to expect, but the crocks are so pretty.  There are four in a set, an Islay, a Lowland, a Highland and a Campbeltown and each is decorated with a picture of Scottish game birds.  Pottery birds are sort of a theme in our home, so if worse comes to worst, they'll make cute little knicknacks.  And, if the packaging means anything, well, worse just might come to worst, for the Islay label is on the crock with the Campbeltown woodcocks and the Cambeltown is in the crock with the Islay pheasant.  Anyway I'll drink one a night while I'm here on The Rock and give them the benefit of the doubt until tasted.  It's a cold Monday night in January and I'll start tonight with the Lowland.  A 14yo in a beige crock with an emerald green top, and decorated with a lovely full-coloured picture of Hungarian Partridges.

Rutherford's 14yo Lowland single malt (40%, Rutherford's Game Birds - Hungarian Partridge)
Colour:  Rich apple juice.
Nose:  Dusty, like the dustiness I remember from Johnnie Walker Red of the 1960's.  JWR doesn't have that dust any more, but I've found it again here in this whisky.  Apple cider.  Fresh and mildly malty with some really strong pipe tobacco.  A wooly sweater.  Dried fruit.  No sign of a puffin's arse here - there's no nose tickle, not even a tingle.
Palate:  Slightly sweet, then spicy.  Becomes slightly woody.  The spice lasts a bit and is fairly hot, especially in the back of the mouth, but most everything else fades away very quickly.  After a couple of minutes it gives your mouth the same feeling you got as a school kid chewing too long on a plastic ballpoint pen barrel.  In a large mouthful, the spice is hot and dominating and has a black peppery flavour, but it's not as nice as, say, the Talisker pepper as it lacks any offsetting contrasts.  It seems to get hotter with each sip.  After three or four an undeveloped pine pitch hints its way across your tongue, then disappears.  The feel of pine pitch does several reprises though and becomes more and less bitter, in waves.
Finish:  Most of it fades within a minute, but there's a not unpleasant woody, plastic glow that remains for several more.
For long afterwards your teeth feel shiny.
Empty Glass:  Sour mash with some fresh clean barn smell.  Grain or chicken feed and a hint of ash.
Score:  72 points.

Tuesday night and it's still frigid outside.  This should be an Islay evening, but I'm saving that for last, so will crack open the Campbeltown crock tonight.  Newfoundland's climate, thank goodness, is moderated by the sea.  Thank goodness yes, because otherwise it would be uninhabitable.  They're amateurs when it comes to snow removal though.  Driving back to the hotel I pass dozens of driveways with the snow piled so high, I can't imagine how they threw it up there, but the lanes are left so narrow, the door handles must scrape on both sides of the car as people pull up to their houses.  The sidewalks are treacherous and I wonder if they've ever been properly cleared.  Anyway, I'm safe and warm now, and off for a tour of Campbeltown.

Rutherford's 10yo Campbeltown single malt (40%, Rutherford's Game Birds - Woodcock)
Colour:  Again, it looks like rich apple juice.
Nose:  Grassy, malty with a real overtone of pink cotton candy.  Strawberries.  Mild esters.
Palate:  Sweet, kind of watery and a bit bitter.  A bit of spice; warm but not that hot.  There's some wood in there as well.  A real chemical taste and a dry bitterness.  Nice smooth mouth feel despite the dry-like flavour.  An unusual stale grassiness.
Finish:  Medium to short.  Malty.
Empty Glass:  A mild hint of malt and dried spit, but nothing much really.
Score:  74 points.

When in St. John's, I make a point of climbing Signal Hill.  It's the site of the first transatlantic wireless transmission (sorry Massachusetts, you and Marconi came years later), set high above the entrance to St. John's harbour.  The view to sea is spectacular, as is looking back across the city.  Usually I walk it, but in this bitter winter, I won't venture even a drive.  On a summer's day, however, it's good exercise and I remember one splendid Sunday, over the hill and out of sight of the city, eating blueberries right off the bush until I could hold no more, then walking a cliff-side path to view a massive iceberg decaying on a stony beach.  The icebergs here are legendary for their spectacular size and beauty.  One local entrepreneur has even taken to bottling their water, laid down as snow long before the first burning of fossil fuels, and still as pristine as we imagine those long-ago times.  I'd like to try it with whisky, but these 40% abv Rutherford's need no dilution.

Rutherford's 12yo Highland single malt (40%, Rutherford's Game Birds - Blackcock)
Colour:  So far they are all about the same - apple juice.
Nose:  Nice grassy malt with a hint of honey.  Just the mildest nose tickle. 
Breathing deep some spirit and esters.  Fresh cut grass. 
Palate:  Slightly sweet but a bit chemically.  Some spice on the second sip.  From a sherry cask I'd guess. 
Again, the heat and feel of chewed plastic.  A little dried fruit.
Finish:  Spicy and plasticy
Empty Glass:  A really pleasant, strong, musty, Glemorangie 10-ish, buckwheat honey.
Score:  75 points.

I'm still thinking about the icebergs, and the frigid winds outside.  These Newfies are a rugged lot.  More rugged than the first groups of European settlers who landed here over a thousand years ago to establish a settlement.  Yes, more than 500 years before Christopher Columbus was born, Vikings arrived and began to build homes here in Newfoundland.  The bountiful fishery sustained them and they made an honest try of it, but eventually gave up.   They found Iceland more hospitable. It's Thursday and I'm heading home too, but not without a celebratory dram, this time Rutherford's Islay.  I wonder how the Vikings toasted their own departure.

Rutherford's 10yo Islay single malt (40%, Rutherford's Game Birds - Pheasant)
Colour:  Just a hair more amber than the other three.  Apple juice still, but this is Allen's apple juice in the blue can.
Nose:  Strong peat, brine and oily animal smells.  A sweetness accompanied by a small bit of nose tickle. 
There is a sweet, fruity dustiness, rotting fruit really.  Some hint of spirit.
Palate:  Earthy, muddy, spicy, peat.  An odd metallicness develops in the middle. 
Not the best casks me thinks, but this is definitely the best of the four Rutherford's. 
A sherry casked Islay but not as complex as many I've tasted before.
Finish:  Longish, but disappointingly short for an Islay.  Nice and peaty, but it lacks the licorice I was expecting.
Could kiss my wife goodnight tonight and she wouldn't even know I'd been drinking.
Empty Glass: Very, very antiseptic.  Like a freshly cleaned hospital room.  In the background some wet earth.
Score:  77 points.

Davin
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/02 - Laphroaig & MaltMadness - An Epiphany
by Mark Adams, USA

My Clear Recollection of a Blurry Introduction to Single Malt.

While I was stumbling around some sticky whisky websites late one night, I happened upon something interesting at maltmadness.com. Johannes had dropped the bait (meta tags), and I was lured in. Indeed, I was trapped. I could move a bit this way and that, through his malt mileage, into the black book, even into various reports. But, *leave* ... I could not. Johannes and his truly diabolical diatribe on drinking daily double drams did its duty, dealing me the deuce of death, malt madness. Finally I broke free, but then I made nightly visits. You've probably done the same. You don't even feel it pulling you in, it just happens.

But, Johannes can't be faulted entirely. Single malt whisky sings its own siren song, the song it sang to me one night in the California coastal town of Soquel, in the summer of 2000. A friend I was visiting offered me a drink ... asked me if I like scotch ... I thought I knew what that meant, so I said yes ... he asked if I liked 'eye-luh' ... w-what? ... Never mind, he said, try this ... It was a dark green bottle with a white label, and bore a name that I stumbled over ... it was Laphroaig 10yo. Now it was getting interesting!
A name I hadn't seen before, and ... wow! ... that smell! My friend 'Bill' (he'll get no protection from me -- his real name is Bill) had pulled the cork and was contemplating what must have been the last few drops before pouring us a couple drams. He gave me the entire remains of the bottle, and I began to sense a curtain of guilt closing around me. Bill disappeared into his pantry, and returned with a full bottle of Laphroaig. I had never seen a bottle of single malt in someone's home before, yet alone a replacement bottle! 'Why the surprise?' he asked.  'I buy this stuff by the case.' And, he does. His grin was large, and he knew that I was a goner. I had two long swallows of the 'Phroaig before he returned, and I was about to take the last of it, now that I knew there was more. Bill and I contemplated many things during my introduction to Laphroaig, Islay, peat, and single malts in general, that night. Someday I'll visit Bill and introduce him to some other beauties; but, for now, Bill is a Laphroaig man, and either a good friend, or an absolute maniac for doing this to me!

Aside my love of single malts, I am an operatic tenor, freelance singer and conductor, cantor, and a concerts promoter (classical music). I was always around music while growing up, but it was while living in Alaska (my high school years) that I decided to get serious about singing. I have worked some at logging, during which time I was living on a float-camp anchored to an unnamed island two miles away from the nearest settlement, a Native American Indian village called Hydaburg (pop. 200), which was a 'dry town' -- no alcoholic beverages were to be sold or consumed. I really should be grateful that I experienced my first 'dry town' before I knew anything at all about single malts.

Thankfully, the San Francisco Bay Area has some decent shops which cater to single malt consumption. Mostly I window shop, though, eyeing a bottle for some weeks before deciding to go in for it. Occasionally someone will beat me to the punch, and get the damned thing before I can. Thanks to the folks at PLOWED (http://www.single-malt.com/cgi-bin/guestbook.cgi), I know that action to be called 'FoaFing'. The full, sad FoaF story can be read at Dr. Entropy's whisky website (http://www.smwhisky.com).
So, at least I am finding other maniacs with whom to share this burden that we all bear.
Johannes, and Bill -- gentlemen, you're on my list!

Mark Adams, MaltManiac, barely awake this chilly morning, 07 February 2003
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-Epistle #06/03 - An Evening With John Hansel
by Louis Perlman, USA 

On January 27th, John Hansel, publisher of The Malt Advocate, hosted a tasting session at d.b.a, located in the East Village in New York City. Since the day before was Super Bowl Sunday as well as my birthday, the timing was excellent, and the price was reasonable at $25. D.b.a. specializes in interesting beers, and also has a extensive single malt list. Whether you're visiting New York City or if you live in the Tri-State area and would like to try a place meant for people like us, look them up at www.drinkgoodstufff.com. Best of all, it's just a block and a half away from a subway station where I can get a train right from my office and my train home as well.

The purpose of the event was to sample 'rare cask malts' from John's 'private collection'. A little bit of clarification, though. As publisher of the Malt Advocate, John Hansel has accumulated over 1000 bottles. He realized that they were going to outlive him no matter how much whisky he could ever drink, so he decided to start bringing some along each time he hosted tasting events such as this one. It was made clear though, that rare meant not easily located, as opposed to very expensive.

The first dram poured was the Murray McDavid Lochside 18yo 1981. While waiting for the stragglers to show up, there was a discussion about casks. The Lochside for example, is from a refill sherry cask. However, the whisky is quite pale, so the cask is really not providing much here. Unless specified as first or second fill, the cask probably isn't going to be a major factor in the whisky's overall profile. While this seems kind of obvious, this kind of information is not always mentioned in the press, perhaps because it is indeed obvious.

Once everybody showed up, we began the tasting itself. It was very interesting go around the table with different people chiming in about various elements that they detected, as well as other bottlings of these distilleries that they had tasted. Bottled water was provided for dilution and palate clearing purposes, and since dram sizes were small, perhaps an ounce, I didn't get drunk like I did at Whiskyfest. So without any further ado, here is the lineup of malts that we sampled, and whatever I was able to make out from my notes:

Lochside 18yo 1981 (46%, Murray McDavid)
Distillery built in 1957, demolished in 1992, and produced mostly grain whisky.
Nice fruity nose, continuing on the palate. Definitely a coastal dram, with a touch of salt.
Also some dried peaches, or maybe apricots. A good daytime dram.

Alt A'Bhaine 18yo 1974/1993 (57.1%, Signatory Vintage)
Formerly owned by Seagrams, now Pernod Ricard. Intended for Chivas blends, currently mothballed.
Floral nose, even more so with water. Suggestions of shortbread on the palate, and very dry.
A middle of the road dram, and probably an aperitif.

Dufftown 11yo 1982 (60%, Glenhaven)
Similar to the Alt A'Bhaine, nothing terribly exciting.

Benriness 18yo (55.3%, Cadenhead, bottled in the late 80's)
Distillery owned by UDV, used in Johnnie Walker blends. One the earliest Cadenheads, with a brown bottle and screw cap. But a much different dram from the previous two. Nice and dark, with an obviously sherried nose. But on the palate, it turned out to be a very dry sherry. Also some Aberlour-like spiciness. A real winner here.

Ardmore 18yo 1979/1995 (60.2%, Glenhaven)
Owned by Allied Distillers, used in the Teachers blend. This distillery is always mentioned by Jim Murray as a great, undiscovered Speyside, We found a perfumy nose, and a wisp of smoke on the finish, With water, there was a dry, creamy maltiness on palate, along with some dry honey. Much lighter than expected, as JM refers to Ardmore as a heavy dram.

Craigellachie 15yo 1982 (62.7%, Scott's Selection)
Talk about luck. Out of the gazillion whiskies ever bottled in Scotland, John has more than 1000, and he brings one that I actually have at home! Need plenty of water with this one. The general profile is fruity, with a good dose of oak. I've never liked it much (and neither does Michael Jackson), but it gets better when watered down to standard strength. At least I got this much out if it, as I had never bothered to go down that low at home.

Balmenach 18yo 1979/1997 (60.2%, Scott's Selection) - Onwed by UDV.
Heather nose. Like a lighter Highland Park on the palate, and some maltiness. Some people thought they detected some sherry, but I doubt it as Scott's Selections are mostly not, and they always mention it when they are. Definitely needed a lot of water.

Conclusion: While these were not of the great drams, the session was very informative for me.
The best by overall consensus were the Benriness and Lochside. The next group consisted of the Ardmore and Balmenach, then the Alt A'Bhaine and Dufftown, with the Craigellachie bringing up the rear. I had previously tried the Lochside, but it was in Las Vegas two years ago, and I had just had a bunch of Ardbeg's and Brora's before the Lochside. This time, it made a much better impression leading off. I also can now cross off Alt A'Bhaine, Dufftown, and Balmenach from my list of distilleries that I haven't sampled yet.

Finally, some other notes on recent samplings;

Talisker 21yo 1979/2001 (48.8%, Caledonian Selection) vs Talisker 20yo 1982/2002 'Tactical' (50%, Old Malt Cask).
My bottle of the standard Talisker 10yo has been languishing in the back up my cabinet for some time now, mostly due lack of independent bottlings to drink along with. In late 2001, I found the Caledonian, and snapped it up, even at a bit over $100. Back in Las Vegas in 1/2001, I sampled an Old Malt Cask Tactical 19yo, which is really a Talisker. The Douglas Laing folks are blenders, which gives them access to a wide variety of casks, but United Distillers doesn't like to see independent bottlings of their distilleries. To stay in UDV's good graces, the Old Malt Cask Taliskers are dubbed Tacticals, even with 'Skye' mentioned on the bottle. Let's see now, which are the other distilleries on Skye? Much to my disappointment, no Tactical was brought over to the US until recently, but a local dealer bought half a cask, so I picked on up. Best of all, the price was only $65, although it was a sherry cask version, rather than the bourbon cask that I had previously tried.

Since Klaus has declared February to be Talisker month, I decided to open the Tactical, and compare it with the previously opened but not reported on Caledonian, and the standard 10. Intense malts like Talisker mellow with age. The previous Tactical wasn't quite Scottish rocket fuel, but it had medium intesnsity peaty explosion of warmth, in a very pleasant way. The Caledonian Selection was close, but my somewhat distant recollection is that it was a bit mellower than the old Tactical. My new Tactical was another story altogether. Quite simply, it was a Talisker sherry monster, with any sort of intensity struggling to get noticed underneath the sherry. My wife, who thinks that peat is a four letter word, liked it very much, and that pretty much tells the story. If things change with break-in, I'll let you know, but beware of sherry cask Tacticals. But now for the best news of all. The 10 year old gives up nothing to the much more expensive older bottlings. At 45.8% ABV, it is minimally filtered, and the intensity is what Talisker is all about. My recomendation is to see if you can get hold of the 12 or 20 year old OB cask strength bottlings sold in Europe, but your money is better spent on something else instead of older Talisker independents. If you've got $200 for the new 25, then go for it, but we're in totally different territory with the 25.

Campbeltown Loch 25yo (43%, OB)
Yes, another blend, but this has nothing to do with my previous survey.
You'll understand, because: 'The Blend is composed of roughly 70% malt, and 30% grain whiskies.
The Grain Whiskies include: Invergordon 1977 (the youngest of the group), the legendary Dumbarton 1962, and Lochside 1962. The Malts include: Springbank 1969, Glenfarclas 1970, Balvenie 1968, Tamdhu 1971, Ardbeg 1969, and Glenlivet 1972.'

Not too shabby. And now for the best part. I showed this to my wife, and asked here how much she thought it should cost. $150 was her answer. Drop the '1', was my reply. That's right, a mere $50 for all of these great whiskies. You could pay that much for a miniature of some of them. The color is medium amber, and the nose is perfumy (but not FWP). Body is nice and firm for 40%. The taste is middle of the road, no peat in evidence, but not sherried either. I detect something like glazed citrus fruit. At times, I think I can detect the Springbank, and perhaps Balvenie and Tamdhu contributions.
A great dram, and NOTHING comes close for this kind on money - I bought 3 bottles.

Louis
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/04 - Hot & Heavy In The Cold of Winter ...
by Serge Valentin, France  

February 6th… It's very cold outside… -10°C or so… the roofs are white…
The storks on the old belfry opposite my house dig their heads deep into their black and white feathers…
It's 7 p.m., and Turckheim's little paved streets are empty. Everybody's snug and warm at home, maybe sipping some traditional Alsacian eau de vie, or perhaps some mulled wine… But friend Olivier and I decided to go for another kind of warming method: tasting a bunch of very special cask strength whiskies. Cask strength? Well, not exactly, as we tasted a few Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask as well. I had composed the menu before, and after careful thinking, here're the malts I decided to line up:

Flight #1: Four 'old young' Cadenhead's bottlings.
Don't rush out to try to put your hands on some of these; they aren't available anymore since… well, quite a lot of time! But this was a great occasion to check whether the good old times were that good… The candidates were:
- Glenglassaugh 13yo 1977/1991 (59.8%, Cad)
- Pittyvaich-Glenlivet 13yo 1977/1991 (58.4%, Cad)
- Bowmore 11yo 1979/1990 (58.4%, Cad)
- Caol Ila 12yo 1978/1990 (65.5%, Cad)

Flight #2: Five brand new OMC malts.
I never, ever had a bad OMC malt, but we'll see if we can put Douglas Laing on the wrong track this time:
- Dallas Dhu 21yo 1981/2002  (50%, OMC)
- Linlithgow 26yo 1975/2001 (50%, OMC)
- Millburn 34yo 1967/2002 (50%, OMC)
- Port Ellen 19yo 1982/2002 Sherry Finish (50%, OMC)
- Caol Ila 26yo 1974/2001 (50%, OMC)

Flight #3: Three new James MacArthur's Old Master's Cask Strength Selection (all from Speyside).
As with the Cadenhead's, all these malts' alcohol levels impressed us. Almost 60% for a malt that's 25 years old (Glenlivet JmcA), or even 65.5% for a 12 years old Caol Ila (Cadenhead's)… These must have been put into the cask at 70% vol. or more! Anyway, the three MacArthur's were:
- Longmorn 25yo 1976/2001(54.7%, JmcA)
- Glenlivet 25 yo 1976/2001 (59.9%, JmcA)
- Glen Grant 31yo 1969/2001 (57.1%, JmcA)

Time to proceed now with the 'old young' Cadenhead's. We decided to go for the Glenglassaugh first, as it was much lighter in colour than the Pittyvaich. The Islayers were to be sipped at the end of each flight, as we always observed that it's impossible to taste seriously any other malt after a peat monster, except. another peat monster, of course. That just makes me think of a Brora that sent an Ardbeg back too 'the school of peat' during one my latest tasting sessions… And oh, just about Brora, I'll tell you later about a very special head to head tasting session of two old Broras I had at Olivier's place a while ago…But let's go back to the…

Glenglassaugh 13yo 1977/1991 (59.8%, Cad). Johannes just sent me a sample of the 1973 'Family Silver' (great, no need to open the bottle that's on my shelves), and I'll compare it with the Cadenhead's in the near future. Anyway, Glenglassaugh has been mothballed in 1986, and it's not easy to get one to make it onto the tasting table. Colour: pale straw.
First nosing: warming, but not overpowering. Elegant aromas, lemon and fresh fruit, but all these vanish after only a minute…
Second nosing: very malty, lots of wood. What we call 'wood plank', very typical in many 'industrial' red wines.
Mouth: wood, wood and wood. Even the alcohol's masked by the wood.
Finish: medium and… wood.
In short, that one is of very limited interest - 70 points. I wouldn't say it's undrinkable, but what was the use of bottling it as a single cask whisky? There's no distillery character here, but did Glenglassaugh show some? Maybe the 1973 Family Silver will tell us later… Oh, by the way, I won't draw a complete 'Chinese portrait' of each malt, but let's say that if that one were to be a song, it would have been Woody Wood Pecker's Theme, of course. Time to go for the other 'old new' Speysider now…

Pittyvaich-Glenlivet 13yo 1977/1991 (58.4%, Cad). Pittyvaich's life has been very short: only twenty years, from 1975 to 1995. It was an annex of the Dufftown distillery, and said to be an 'experimental' distillery. Many said that Pittyvaich's mothballing, and then dismantling weren't a pity. Oh yeah? Not that sure… Colour: amber.
First nosing: powerful, lots of sherry
Second nosing: oh, very nice! Very elegant sherry – no third class winey notes here.
Wood, maple sugar, barley sugar (obviously), coffee.
Mouth: powerful and sweet, with some nice bitterness.
Sherry, typical old nut aromas, wood, black toffee. Very, very good, bold and rich.
Finish: long and developing
One of the best heavily sherried malts I had, a genuine masterpiece. Majestic and powerful, I think this is a great example of an outstanding first-fill cask (no doubt) having been carefully selected among an ocean of average-quality casks. This is exactly what we're expecting from an independent bottler. But what song would it be? Oh yes, 'Golden Years' by David Bowie! 90 points.
Okay, let's shift to the two Islayers, and let's start with the Bowmore…

Bowmore 11yo 1979/1990 (58.4%, Cad). As always when we taste a Bowmore that's not an OB, we don't really know what we should wait for. You could get anything from a peaty puncher to a gentle Speyside-like malt. Let's check that one… Colour: straw.
First nosing: tingling – and yes, there's some peat…
Second nosing: this one shows two dimensions. First, quite a lot of peat but very elegant, not the kind of 'one-dimensional' peat, see what I mean. Camphor, resin, wet natural wool (from Islay sheep, of course). Secondly, quite a wide array of flowery (lilac, geranium) and fruity (white melon, cooked apple) notes. Very nice!
Mouth: Same range of flavours, but the peat is predominant this time. Complex, refined and rich.
Finish: long, showing fruity and peaty notes alternatively.
In short, a very nice, refined and elegant Bowmore, although not an outstanding one.
Its song could be 'My Old Man' by Joni Mitchell. 83 points. Time to check whether the Caol Ila's in the same vein now…

Caol Ila 12yo 1978/1990 (65.5%, Cad). Yep, 65.5% for a 12yo! I couldn't help doing a little maths.
The average angel's share being 2% alcohol a year, that one must have been put into its cask at… 83.4% vol. I know, it's impossible… Anyway, it must have been stored in a very hot or, at least, dry place. Or maybe, just under a central Scotland's warehouse's roof, on the tenth row…Okay, enough second-class physics, let's taste it… Colour: pale straw.
First nosing: ouch, overpowering! There sure is a lot of alcohol in there!
Second nosing: a lot of smoke, iodine, smoked tea, freshly cut hay, fern. Very clean and straightforward.
Mouth: Really powerful. Lots of peat and smoke, and over-ripe apple.
Much in the style of a good Port Ellen, just no burnt tyre flavours.
Finish: long and peaty, as anybody would have expected.
Guess what, we could even taste it straight, although it developed better with a few drops of water. A whisky for peat-heads, no doubt, and if it were a song, well, let's say it would be 'Smoke on the water' by Deep Purple (I hate that song, but I couldn't find a better one to symbolise that high-grade Caol Ila experience). 89 points.

Now, we're finished with this first flight. All I can say is that Cadenhead's did a pretty good job. They were almost the only IBs who did bottle at cask strength at that time (and who did not filter the whiskies), if I remember correctly, and even if the Glenglassaugh was somewhat uninteresting, the three other malts were absolutely great. Now, one of my dreams is to put my hands on some Talisker and Ardbeg they did bottle under the name of 'Duthie's' at that time. Some say they were state of the art… But why didn't I buy a bunch of these when they were still available? Yeah, as we say here: "You always regret what you didn't do, never what you did!" All right, that was the minute of cheap philosophy. Why not have a few OMCs now?

I never happened to taste a really bad Douglas Laing's Old Malt Cask (same with Murray McDavid or Adelphi), and they even bottled a bunch of absolute blue chips like the Rosebank I tasted during my latest Lowland session. Never to sell more than 10 to 20 malts at the same time may prove to be the best strategy for an independent bottler, quality-wise. Anyway, while we all know the very 'hype' Ardbegs OMC, some other more obscure bottlings are said to be quite stellar as well. Time to check whether that's true or not now… And why not start with the…

Dallas Dhu 21yo 1981/2002  (50%, OMC).
I never happened to taste an excellent Dallas Dhu, and while Craig seems to have sipped quite a lot of the old G&M 'official' bottlings, I had only one, and I haven't been thrilled in any way. I've got two or three UDRMs in my reserve stock, but they remain unopened. I don't know why, but every time I choose a new bottle to open, my hands shift towards my Brora, Ardbeg, Laphroaig or Port Ellen shelves. Must be a disease…Okay, I'm digressing now. Let's comment on that Dallas Dhu! By the way, no, it wasn't produced in Dallas, Texas, as one my neighbours' wife asked me once (she's charming, still). Colour: pale straw.
First nosing: powerful, spirity
Second nosing: alcohol, wood and beer (mash), nothing more. No serious flaw, sure, but it's not very interesting, to say the least… A few drops of water just make it even more bland.
Mouth: cereals, wood (relatively fine wood, says winemaker Olivier), spirit, wax-polish, dry and bitter, quite simple. Pale ale.
Finish: medium-long, showing no further development.
Well, I won't tell you it's bad malt, but it's just uninteresting. If Dallas Dhu wasn't a closed distillery, I guess that one would have never been bottled as a single cask malt. A song? Let's say 'Bitter Green', by Gordon Lightfoot. 76 points . Let's have the Linlithgow now…

Linlithgow 26yo 1975/2001 (50%, OMC). Or St. Magdalene, if you prefer. A St. Magdalene that will match Johannes' beloved UDRM 19yo is still to be found. Maybe this one? What's sure is that St. Magdalene did produce the most complex Lowlanders I've ever tasted, and that they seem to age particularly well. Colour: straw.
First nosing: warming, and already very complex.
Second nosing: yes, beautifully complex. Lots of cereals, barley, mashed potatoes and some very fine vegetal notes.
Fresh liquorice, celery, radish, French beans, and fresh coriander. Very interesting.
Mouth: almost the same array of flavours as the ones the UDRM 19yo shows, but the OMC just sings a little smaller.
Burnt cake, orange zest, celery, hints of smoke… Quite sweet and complex.
Finish: rather long.
In short, that's a very good St. Magdalene. It shows some various ranges of aromas and flavours, which makes it difficult to set up a style. Again, it's difficult to admit that Littlemill just continued to produce its bland malt for years after the beautiful St Magdalene got closed down. Oh yes, a song… Let's say '10,000 Angels' by Edie Brickell. Beautiful song.
And 86 points for the malt. Now, before we go for the two OMC Islayers, let's have the evening's senior whisky…

Millburn 34yo 1967/2002 (50%, OMC). As always, tasting a malt that's more than 30 years old can be a beautiful experience, but a frustrating one as well. Many old whiskies get too much woody notes, the latter overwhelming the malt's characteristics… Let's find out about this one! Colour: dark amber.
First nosing: warming and, guess what… lots of wood!
Second nosing: winey, sherry, neo-oxidisation, wood, wax-polish. "Cold old strong tea", says Olivier. Yes, the wood took more than its share here. Not that bad, but as for the mouth, we fear the worst is to happen…
Mouth: Oh, too bad! Very bitter and drying. Pencil-sharpener juice, as we say sometimes. Mainly wood and cocoa…
Thin and unbalanced… What we feared did happen.
Finish: short, only tannins and bitterness remain after a minute.
All right, that one is very typical of a malt's that's completely dominated by the wood. Alas, it's not even intellectually interesting. We wondered why DL did bottle that cask. "Because it's a 34yo single malt", said Olivier. He must be right… And if that Millburn were a song, I'd say it would be any tune from 'Charlie Parker with strings', where Parker's extraordinary sax playing is overwhelmed by dozens of violins. At least, you can still listen to Charlie, whereas that Millburn… well, you know what I mean… 71 points.
Now, are you ready for something completely different? Okay, let's taste the…

Port Ellen 19yo 1982/2002 Sherry Finish (50%, OMC).
That's the kind of bottling that I always hold in suspicion. Common, what's the use of finishing a Port Ellen in a sherry cask for 6 months? Was the malt that bland? Was it defective? It must have been, as I really can't find any other reason.
Anyway, even if sherry may mask a malt's flaws, I'm sure we'll find out when tasting it. Let's go… Colour: pure gold.
First nosing: powerful and very oily.
Second nosing: oh yeah! That's the Port Ellen we like. Peat, diesel oil, burnt tyre, smoke, smoked trout filet…
But no sherry at all. Just a very good and straightforward Port Ellen.
Mouth: Oily and heavy. Burnt cake, burnt tyre, smoke, salt, and a little chlorine. Very bold, rich and robust.
And, again, no sherry influence whatsoever. Great!
Finish: loooooooooooong!
All right, that 'sherry finished' statement on the label must have been a joke.
Or maybe a misprint, or they switched the labels with another bottling, or it was a 4th refill cask… Anyway, we have been more frightened than hurt. That one is a very good Port Ellen, not that far from the excellent UDRM 22yo 1978, just a little easier to drink. And if it were a song, it would be 'What's the Matter Here" by 10,000 Maniacs, of course! 90 points.
Okay, another OMC Islayer now…

Caol Ila 26yo 1974/2001 (50%, OMC). Again, a Caol Ila!
And again, a distillery that never disappoints us, except, perhaps, the odd 'Private Collection' G&M launched a while ago (again, some rather quick finishings: Cognac, calvados, port etc.) Frankly, we both feel this one's going to be just great… Colour: straw
First nosing: powerful, peaty, very nice
Second nosing: very complex. Peat, iodine, smoked tea (lapsang souchong), fresh mushrooms, vegetal humus, anise, liquorice, wild carrot (yeah), fennel, grass. In short, just great.
Mouth: powerful! Peat of course, burnt tyre, smoke, smoked tea, celery. Refined, rich and balanced, what more can I say?
Caol Ila's perhaps not as typical as Ardbeg, Laphroaig or Port Ellen, and this just prevents it from crossing the 90 pts Rubicon. So, let's rate it 89 points. And as for the song it could be… hey, why not 'Jump Jim Crow!' by Michelle Shocked?

Now, we're finished with the five OMCs. Some very, very good stuff, sure, but one uninteresting malt (the Dallas Dhu) and a 'mistake' (the Millburn), which are quite intriguing. I guess you just can't always bottle some great whiskies! And after all, both are pieces of history. It's already quite late here, and Olivier has to wake up at 5 a.m. tomorrow, to supervise a bottling operation of some of his 2002 wines. So, let's accelerate a little, and taste our three old Speysiders from James MacArthur's…

I don't know this bottler very well, I'm afraid. I bought a bunch of his bottlings on Islay, but they were in my suitcase that has been stolen by some f*****g Heathrow employees last year. Anyway, here we have three new ones, and I know Craig and Johannes tasted quite a few MacArthur's bottlings in the past, showing various results (ranging from 61 pts for a Glen Spey to 91 pts for a Caol Ila – that made it across the 90 pts border that time, apparently). The three JmcAs we've got this evening are Pernod/Chivas' three brothers, Longmorn, Glenlivet and Glen Grant. Could it have been more focused? And what about a little Longmorn to begin with?

Longmorn 25yo 1976/2001 (54.7%, JmcA). We were waiting for a heavily sherried whisky, but as soon as we opened the bottle and poured the first drops into our glasses, we found out that it wasn't! Colour: very pale straw.
First nosing: powerful, flowery
Second nosing: cereals and flowers, and not a single winey/sherried note. Cake and yeast, rose, lavender, violet and lily. Quite refined and elegant, but more surprising than really interesting.
Mouth: It just doesn't match the nose. Extremely powerful, which is astonishing considering its age. Spirity, banana, pear drops and wood. Again, no sherry notes at all. A few drops of water just kill the malt, making it completely bland. Too bad!
A second nosing confirms the very nice flowery notes that will prevent us from rating it too severely. Let's decide on 82 points. Alright, nothing special here, just a lot of power, and a song that could be 'Pain for Pleasure' by Sum 41 (Is that music? My son says so!). Let's not loose too much time, and taste its brother the Glenlivet.

Glenlivet 25 yo 1976/2001 (59.9%, JmcA). Again, an old malt with almost 60% vol. alcohol.
We're expecting a 'grand classique' with, again, lots of sherry… Let's find out: Colour: here it is! Deep amber…
First nosing: warming, dried fruit.
Second nosing: great! Sherry, of course, and a whole bunch of dried fruit: dried banana, dried currant, date, dried fig.
Swiss apricot brandy, quetsche eau de vie, fruit-stone, honey…
Mouth: powerful, the same aromas as the nose's shop up. How nice!
Finish: long and superb.
Yes, that one is really a classic. Glenlivet can be a great malt, and it's just extremely enjoyable. No need to tell you more than a song's name that will match the malt, I think: 'A Taste of Honey' by The Beatles. And a rating: 90 points.
And now, it's time to call it a day with the last MacArthur's malt: the Glen Grant.

Glen Grant 31yo 1969/2001 (57.1%, JmcA). Uh-oh… Another one that's older than 30!
Are we going to close the session with a looser? Maybe not, as Glen Grant's famous for its excellent old malts (and its awful young ones as well, I'm afraid). Anyway, time to find out… Colour: mahogany (yeah!).
First nosing: very warming, sherried.
Second nosing: sultanas, yeast (the sherry's one) and old nut (very typical with sherry).
Slightly sweet-sour but very refined, clove, cinnamon, caramel, white pepper. Just a great typically sherried nose (again, not the distasteful an cheap winey notes to be found in many quickly finished malts).
Mouth: hum, the wood's starting to take a bigger share, but the mouth is still beautiful. "You can almost feel the wood and the spirit fighting together in your mouth", said Olivier. Sure, the wood would have won if the whisky had been left in the cask for one or two more years. The guy who decided to bottle it at that time did just a great job!
Finish: long, but getting dryer and dryer, because of the tannins. Too bad, otherwise, it would have deserved 90 pts or more. Finally, maybe it stayed a little too long in the wood, and here again, "more is less". With a splash of water, we get some very nice honeyed aromas, exactly the same as the ones you smell when you enter an apiary. Okay, time to choose a rating for the Glen Grant, and it'll be 88 points. Oh yes, a song… Wait, Glen Grant is an underestimated and overlooked distillery, isn't it? Then, it'll be 'The More you Ignore me (the Closer I get)' by The Smith. Nice song from the 80's!

Now, I won't write a long and lyrical conclusion that would be boring, to say the least. All I can say is that when dealing with malt there's no dead cert. No bottler will bring out only good malts and no distillery will produce only bad malts (nor good malts, by the way). Hey, would have been too easy!

Oops, I almost forgot to tell you about that little H-t-H Brora tasting session we had earlier at Olivier's place. Well, in fact, we had tasted quite a few red wines just before with our wine club (Le Suf Club), but we couldn't help having two or three wee drams before closing the session, and we chose two Broras. I was very happy, because Olivier proposed to taste the new Brora 30yo (52.4%, OB) that's selling for almost 300 Euros at some places, 'against' the Brora 29yo 1972/2001 (59.5%, Douglas Laing Platinum Series 2nd release) of Maltmaniac fame, that sells for approx. half the price (well, a little more).

I won't describe the DLPS, as Johannes already wrote some nice lines about it in his Log entry # 123. What's more, its official MM rating is 94 pts (see the Matrix)! So, no need to say I was expecting approx. the same rating from the OB, as it's almost twice the price. Plus, I always wondered whether I should buy some, despite the more-than-heavy price.
But enough babble, here're my notes:

Brora 30yo 1972/2002 (52.4%, OB limited, 3,000 bottles)
Nose: it's exactly like if you'd vatted 50% Lagavulin 16yo and 50% Laphroaig 10yo.
Slightly sour, a lot of yeast, and a lot of peat, of course. Wonderful balance.
Mouth: again, very Islayish. Quite close to Laphroaig 30yo, but more pungent.
Burnt cake, pecan pie, candy sugar and pepper. It could as well have been a Port Ellen!
Finish: quite long of course. After a while, it becomes more Laphroaig-like.
It's extremely well crafted, and the balance is perfect. Maybe too perfect, because when we tasted the Platinum, we entered a different world. The latter is much purer, sharper, and more austere, while the OB is more easy, more commercial.
In short, you need no photograph. The OB is kind of a draught-horse, whereas the DLPS is a racehorse.
My rating for the OB: 88 points; for the DLPS: 93 points.

Now, to wrap all this up, I'd emphasize on that equine metaphor.
Vatted single malts are like draught-horses: kind, reliable, enjoyable and seldom to be caught out. Whereas single cask whiskies are like racehorses: often elegant and beautiful, but also unreliable and whimsical. Hum, take that for what it's worth…

Anyway, 14 malts tasted today. Not bad, isn't it?
And guess what: it's getting warmer…

Santé,

Serge
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/05 - Sherry Monster Report
by Michael Wade, USA  

February 20, 2003

The bitter cold winds lashed down on this frigid New England night. 
As I drove on, down the highway, lashed by winds and sub-zero temperatures; my mind kept dwelling on my destination; the Sherry Monsters Tasting.  Surely I would find solace in the golden nectar; a fine potion to take away my weariness and give me some warmth….  My anticipation was matched only by my sheer dread and abject horror when my mind dwelled on the parcel sitting on the seat next to me.  As I eyed it, a shiver crept up my spine and I turned the heater up.

As I pulled in, I noted the sheen of ice on the driveway; the mist rising as the snow melted and the fog rolled down the hill; it reminded me of the spring; standing above the burn at Lagavulin distillery; watching the cold water meet the steaming rocks, hot from the early season sun; throwing a mist. I managed to safely park my truck; and even more carefully secreted my secret package in my jacket pocket; with all the care of a man handling nitro-glycerin; for the liquid held in this neoprene bottle was equally as foul, and when opened and poured causes far more chaos and destruction.

I was met by a warm house, smiling faces, and a dram.  And what a dram to start.
Glen Grant 36yo 1964/2000 "Millennium Bottling" (52.6%, Cadenheads). Color: Squid ink, soy sauce
Nose: Heavy. Extremely complex; coffee, chocolate, ginger, vanilla, syrup.
Palate: Applewood, full on zest of sherry, burnt dark chocolates, caramel.
A hint of peat in the midpalate ending in a crescendo of candied fruits.
Finish: Slightly astringent, but long lasting
Comments:  What a way to start.  Definitely not for the "Sherry Shy".
One of the most heavily sherried malts I have ever tasted; definitely fits the theme.
Score: 89 points.

Now that I had started, and with such a bang, I could not stop.  Old friends surrounded me, as well as delicious food; but I could focus on nothing but the task at hand.  I knew once the package was unleashed, there would be no turning back.  In my jacket, from the grim parcel I felt a rumbling, a churning, and a primeval longing to escape.  I didn't have long.  I set about my task with a fervor.

Caperdonich 19yo 1977/1996 (57.7%, Cadenhead's). Color: Copper
Nose: Pears, ozone, raisins, dried apricot left in the sun.
Palate: Dark fruits, raisin is confirmed; slightly fiery on the midpalate and the sherry bites in finally in the end.
Finish:  Short but very sweet
Comments:  Not a monster, definitely sherried. 
My first Caperdonich, very fruity and pleasant, but not worth seeking out in this now long gone bottling.
Score: 72 points .

Macallan NAS 'Cask Strength' (58/6%, OB, USA Bottling). Color: Reddish gold
Nose: Cinnamon and nutmeg spices, sugared candies, chocolate pudding, figs and minty essential oils.
Palate:  Slightly smoky, the zest of sherry mingles well with the oak, grape skins and a pleasant mild surge of oak in the end.
Finish: Long and hot
Comments:  Yum Yum Yum.  This is quite excellent, and the price of ~$50 US cannot be beat. 
A suitable replacement for the 15yo.  I'll be sure to stock up on this one.
Score: 88 points.

Time and the haze of alcohol were getting to me.   Although only on my third dram, I was wavering.  Time was running out.  I needed food in my system to soak up some of this glorious amber dew.  I visited the tables; and found hand smoked salmon at the ready; accompanied by an olive medley.  I supplemented this with hearty servings of crackers and 4 types of cheese.  I silently wolfed down the food; looking into each guests eyes with pity as I resolved my fate.  Before the night ended it would all be done, there would be no stopping me.  My plan was nearly complete.

With a full belly, and grim determination, I quickly subdued three more drams.

Macallan Cask Strength 1980/2001 "To Pour Further" "Smoother and Stronger" Cask #4663 (59.3%, OB)
Color: Reddish purple gold
Nose: Date, raisin, orange, bitter cooking cocoa, slightly rubbery.  Aftera few minutes, intensely fruity.
Palate: Almond, spices, slightly smoky and the rubber is confirmed.  Easter basket fruits.
Finish: Long, sweet but with an off note
Comments: I had never heard of this bottling before, but was told it was quite dear in price and availability. 
Still, the rubbery note disagreed with me.  Others were not able to detect it, even relished in it, but ultimately it was the worst dram of the night, no matter how rare and expensive.
Score: 70 points.

Dallas Dhu 19yo 1981/2001 (43.0%, McGibbons Provenance)
Color: Classic, honey gold
Nose: Lemongrass, honeydew, citrus, burnt sugar and chocolate
Palate: Sangria, cloves, nutmeg, the sherry does not dominate here.  Very fruity and wonderful.
Finish:  Lingering, warm
Comments:  A very fine dram.  I have not had a bad Dallas Dhu. The sherry was integrated very well, a good example of a sherried whisky from a sadly closed distillery with a very, very silly museum and visitor shop on the premises.
Score: 83 points.

Macallan 18yo 1979 "Gran Reserva" (40.0%, OB). Color: Amber gold
Nose: Typical Macallan- nuts; mint, a puff of smoke, angel food cake, herbal.
Palate: Sherry.  Sherry.  Sherry. Very herbal and somewhat oaky, but it all blends together in the end.
Finish: Long and tounge-coating.
Comments:  I had previously scored this malt at 90 points.  It's a fair rating.
I think I will let it stand.  It works quite well, but in my taste, this one is a bit over the top. 
The beauty of the malt tries to come through but is stunted by the sherry.
Score: 90 points.

The time was upon me.  Heavy with food, merriment and spirit, I mustered the courage. 
I removed the package, and I had practiced so many times in the mirror.  I held it up to the light, one last time, the rays of the bulb casting ominous shadows in the orange, undulating liquid within. There was no turning back...

The moment I opened the container, a smell wafted into the room. Thoughts of factories, of solvents, of industrial revolution; thoughts of a society where medicine and chemicals have advanced so far that we can keep a human alive far longer than we should…..  I poured several glasses of the vile stuff; and resigned to the same fate I sentenced everyone else to, I went to work.  What night celebrating "Sherry Monsters" would be complete without the king of them all- The Orange Goblin.

Talisker 18yo 1979/1997 (60.8%, Cadenhead's, distilled July 1979, bottled September 1997)
Color: Orange.  Pumpkin Orange
Nose: Nail polish remover.  Acetone.  Mimeograph fluid.
Palate: Sulphur, chemical cleaner.  Rubbing alcohol.
Finish:  Like licking rotten eggs soaked in alcohol
Comments:  I cannot believe I rated this malt at 55 points.
One of the worst liquids I have ever been forced to consume.
Score: 55 points.

The deed was done.
Faces were turned blue, smiles were turned to frowns, and good will was a thing of the past.
The Orange Goblin had prevailed.  All night, we danced with pixies, dwarves, gnomes and brownies.
They held our hands, warmed our hearts and filled our souls with content.
But at the end of the night, the Orange Goblin Talisker ruled the hearts of men; a true monster in every respect of the word.

Michael Wade
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/06 - The Signatory Signature 
by Serge Valentin, France 

Hi, malt lovers,

Straight to the facts: after having tasted several cask strength IBs in February with Olivier, I had the opportunity to get a bunch of Signatory Vintage core range samples (43%), and I asked Olivier for help again on this first Wednesday of March. Yes, I wanted to go on with my little (well, not that little) Independent Bottlers survey, and I thought it would be very useful to taste all these bottlings, just because:

- They are quite cheap (from 25 Euros on)
- They are the most widely available IBs
- They include several rare or no longer active distilleries
- You can taste these quite quickly, as you don't need to add any water...

Sure, tasting twenty different malts within one single evening is a little too much, but a contrario, it allows you to get an overview of the whole range. Moreover, several questions arise from time to time among the maniacs, like "Are some IBs bottling just any cask they get?" or "Is it true that they aren't really allowed to select the casks they buy at a distillery (except their own distillery)?" or, more simply, "Is it always useful to bottle a malt that's not so common, just because it isn't, precisely?"

Sure, I won't be able - and I'm not qualified, of course - to answer all these questions.
But still, tasting many malts from one single IB should help us to come up with some ideas about those topics. Anyway, I should get another bunch of samples shortly, from Murray McDavid's this time. So, watch for another overview of one single IB, and then a few conclusions about our thorny questions, with a little help from some of my friends, the Malt Maniacs.

Okay, just two more points before we start our Signatory session:
- All the bottlings were chosen randomly, meaning nobody did choose precisely the best ones, nor the worst ones.
- I'll tell you whether I feel a malt was worth bottling or not. Of course, this is just a personal feeling, and the people at Signatory's know their job one thousand times better than I do. So, again, take that as is: just a personal feeling. Signatory is a respected bottler, and they justly deserve their big reputation.

Okay, now perhaps you already understood that this session won't be just an exquisite catalogue of delicious tasting moments. And you're right... We'll go for the Lowlands first, then the Speysiders, then the 'Coastal' malts. And there will be a little surprise tasting at the very end of the session. And there's no need to comment on each malt's colour. They all showed white wine to pale straw colours, even the sherry-matured ones (refills, obviously).
Are you ready? Let's go...

Littlemill 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #1518)
Nose: warming. Smells almost like a genuine pear eau de vie.  Very esthery, pear, citrus, pineapple, passion fruit. All these aromas vanish very quickly, as esthers are very volatile. Then liquorice stick, wood, really in the Bladnoch style. Much, much better than the Littlemill 8yo OB. A very fine nose.
Mouth: light. Almost no fruity elements anymore. Apple, wood, vanilla. Quite simple, and a short finish.
A nice Littlemill, definitely much better than the OB. Was it worth bottling? Yes, just because of that. 76 points.

Bladnoch 11yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #42003)
Nose: Mellow. Nutty, hazel nuts. Then fruity, citrus, zest, sloe, slightly sour.
Then cereals, bread, white beer (Hoogarden or Wieckse Witte). Very quick aromas' evolution.
Mouth: powerful, much oilier than the Littlemill. Apricot, cooked apple, citrus, wood, vanilla, hazel nuts.
Very characteristic, a nice Bladnoch. A typical pre-dinner dram, or one to sip near the swimming pool, in summer. Was it worth bottling? Yes, it's nice malt. But again, I always liked Bladnoch. 78 points.

Rosebank 11yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #787)
Nose: much more flowery, and less fruity than the Bladnoch. Perfume, heather, lavender, lilly, rose, honeysuckle. Very nice.
Mouth: Hot brioche, malt, banana, cinnamon apple. Very clean. The finish is medium. Nice stuff, a very good Lowlander. Was it worth bottling? Yes, obviously, but again, I always liked Bladnoch and Rosebank. 81 points.

Alright, we just had three very nice Lowlanders. Signatory did a very good job here, and I can't say anything but "If you like clean, fresh and rather cheap whisky, go for these!"  Time to taste a bunch of obscure Speysiders now. We all know these were made for blending purpose, hence the fact that you almost never see most of these bottled as single malts... Let's check whether Signatory managed to select some outstanding casks.

Glenallachie 9yo 1991/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1346)
Nose: mellow. At first nosing, seems to be very lowlandish. Pear and citrus, quite sharp. But again, the fruity notes vanish quickly, and the malt becomes more sweet and flowery. Sugar, trefoil flower, alfalfa, the kind of plant the cattle likes, just because it's very sweet. A malt for cows? Hum... A little gingerbread... If that's really a sherry cask, it must be an X-fill one ;-)
Mouth: very sweet. Hints of almond, fresh nut, slightly woody. Simple and indefinite. A little boring. Medium finish.
It's almost like a blend, or like Glenkinchie (my own opinion).
In short: bland. Was it worth bottling? No. 70 points.

Allt-A-Bhainne 19yo 1980/1999 (43%, SigV, cask #19000)
Nose: mellow. A little malty, pear drop, liquorice stick. Boring.
Mouth: indefinite and simple. Not interesting at all. To be honest, we never tasted such an old malt that was that uninteresting. Olivier says no wonder they closed the distillery last year. That makes me just remember the email I sent to Pernod-Ricard's headquarters last year, when they mothballed Allt-A-Bhainne, Benriach, Breaval and another one I can't remember. I asked them why they did close these distilleries, and they answered: "Are you sure these distilleries belong to us?" Yes, true.
Anyway, was that Allt-A-Bhainne worth bottling? No. 65 points.

Strathmill 11yo 1985/1997 (43%, SigV, cask #2342)
Nose: a little malty, slightly more rounded and powerful than the Allt-A-Bhainne.
Mouth: neutral. No pleasure here.
Again, industrial malt, made for blending cheap whisky, obviously. Was it worth bottling? No. 68 points.

Banff 18yo 1978/1997 (43%, SigV, cask #4617)
Nose: grassy. Fern, root, mustard. Quite woody.
Not very seductive, but much more original than the three other Speysiders we just had.
Mouth: smooth and tingling alternatively. Horseradish, liquorice stick. Quite a lot of wood. Clean.
That one isn't a winner, of course, and it's of limited interest. But well, it's not bland, at least, and the mustard notes are quite funny. That's why we feel it deserves some extra-points. Was it worth bottling? Yes. 78 points.

Okay, these Speysiders are boring, still. We feel tired...
Let's go further North, and taste a Highlander:

Scapa 10yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #1903)
Nose: very close to Bladnoch. Funny, when considering Bladnoch is the most southern malt, and Scapa the most northern one (together with Highland Park). Fruity, citrus, a little wood, a little grassy as well. Quite austere. French beans' pod, almond.
Mouth: at first, nicely rounded but not sweetish. A lot of honey (Scapa's main marker, I think), sugar. Quite a lot of wood and tannins after a while. Not very rounded, after all, but that's not a problem. It's enjoyable malt, perhaps a little better than the 12yo OB. The finish is quite long. Was it worth bottling? Yes. 82 points.

Okay, after that nice Highlander we feel we've recovered enough energy to go back to Speyside...

Coleburn 14yo 1983/1997 (43%, SigV, cask #796)
Nose: warming, slightly malty, rather vulgar. Dry and bitter wood.
Mouth: again, a lot of dry wood. The malt hasn't got enough character to overcome the wood. Again, boring. In other words, just whisky. Was it worth bottling? No. 69 points.

Alright, we feel going on with some other odd Speysiders would be really painful, and being Malt Maniac doesn't mean being masochistic. So let's go back to the Highlands.

Highland Park 22yo 1977/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #96/7009)
The colour is almost white, which is really astonishing when considering this malt's age.
Nose: fruity, pear drops, a little grassy, celery, liquorice stick, hints of peat. No signs of maturity whatsoever.
The cask must have been worn-out... Or it was a stainless steel one! It's not bad malt, but it's disappointing.
Mouth: smooth. Woody, dry, grassy, a little heather but you can't compare it with the OBs. Nothing thrilling here.
Don't even consider tasting it H-to-H with the 1977 OB (you're right, the latter costs perhaps 5 times more money).
Was it worth bottling? No. 74 points.

Glen Scotia 9yo 1991/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #211)
Nose: mellow. Broiled cereals, hot milk, a little earthy, like a diluted Japanese sake, says Olivier. Pine seed. Indefinite, few aromas.
Mouth: Just flat and bland. No interest whatsoever. Yes, simple and indefinite. Was it worth bottling? No. 70 points.

Now it's time to compare two Ben Nevis that were distilled on the same day (14.12.1990).
Both were matured in some refill sherry butts, but one was bottled in 2000, the other one in 2001.

Ben Nevis 9yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1383)
Nose: Hot milk, crŠme br–l‚e, brown sugar (not Mick's one). Then Rhubarb pie. Interesting.
Mouth: balanced, sweet and sour. Apple pie, and some peat (smoke). A little woody.
That one isn't bad at all, although it's a little indefinite. Was it worth bottling? Yes. 79 points.

Ben Nevis 10yo 1990/2001 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1387)
Nose: Complex. Over-ripe apple and pear, cake, broiled cereals, hot milk, toasted bread, muscade.
Some peat (burnt tyre). This nose is better than the 9yo's.
Mouth: balanced, slightly drying. CrŠme br–l‚e, cooked apple, tannins. Then peat, burnt tyre, smoke.
Okay, maybe they kept this butt a little longer because they knew it was better than the first one.
Olivier says that's exactly the kind of whisky he likes to pour into his hipflask when skiing.
A very good, authentic whisky, even if I think the 10yo OB is even better.
Was it worth bottling? Sure. 85 points.

Now, we feel we're ready to go to Speyside again. Yeah, duty, heavy duty...
But this time, no more odd malts, we'll taste two top notch distilleries' outputs.

Linkwood 12yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #2790)
Nose: Perfumy. Rose (yes, Linkwood's main marker), a little violet. Lots of wood, drying.
Mouth: rose jam, wood, anise, liquorice. Quite clean.
Not bad at all, but still not very convincing. Lacks power and richness.
I've had many better Linkwoods. Was it worth bottling? Yes and no. 76 points.

Mortlach 11yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #2649)
Nose: Mellow. Hot brioche, coffee, cappuccino, torrefaction. Again, not bad, but not very interesting.
Mouth: sweet, slightly woody, not really interesting. Medium finish.
Just another middle-of-the road whisky. Again, I've had some much better Mortlachs.
Was it worth bottling? Yes and no. 76 points.

Oh, I forgot another odd Speysider... Okay, let's taste it, but this one will be the evening's last Speyside.
Enough is enough, and we deserve some greater whisky. I hope the "coastal" malts will do the job later...

Braes of Glenlivet 18yo 1979/1998 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #9292)
Nose: again, almost no sherry whatsoever. They shouldn't be allowed to call a X-fill sherry cask a sherry cask! Makes us think of a young Cognac 'de propri‚taire'. Just a little fresh nut (that may come from the sherry, after all). At this point, we feel all these odd Speysiders really need a heavy fresh sherry treatment to get interesting. But of course, that's quite expensive...
Mouth: sweet, and boring, although not bad.
Again, a whisky that's just uninteresting. Was it worth bottling? Yes and no. 76 points.

Dear reader, I'm afraid my litany is getting boring as well now. What? It was boring since a long time?
Hey, I did the job, and you just had to read my prose. That's much less painful, I can tell you.
Okay, why not try to reward ourselves with a bunch of 'coastal' Signatory Vintage bottlings?
And oh, I'll throw a special guest in at the end, just to make sure we'll have at least a great malt during this evening.
Okay, let's go...

Bunnahabhain 22yo 1978/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #1890)
Nose: much peatier than the 12yo OB. Quite close to the Ben Nevis 10yo SigV, but  less 'toasted'.
Pine smoke. Very nice nose, very elegant.
Mouth: very nice wood, clean and elegant. Peaty, smoky. Very good. Long finish.
Wow, this Bunny is like a Port Ellen, but calmed down and appeased, with a little less tar and burnt tyre notes.
To be honest, I never had a Bunnahabhain that was that peaty. A great surprise, thanks to Signatory.
Was it worth bottling? Sure. 86 points.

Caol Ila 11yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #705)
Nose: fresh apple and cooked apple. Peat, bonfire, very fine and elegant smoke.
Frankly, I've never been disappointed by Caol Ila, and it won't happen this time...
Mouth: cooked apple, peat, medicinal, iodine, smoke. Still rounded, bold. Long finish.
Yes, that's just a great classical Caol Ila. Was it worth bottling? Sure. 88 points.

Clynelish 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #3219)
You may argue that we shouldn't have tasted the Clynelish after the Caol Ila.
You're right, but we had a Brora to taste at the end, and we felt it was useful to compare it to the Clynelish.
Nose: spirity, pear drops, and lots of wood. No coastal notes that we can smell. A little sour.
Mouth: wood, wood and wood. Extremely drying.
The wood just masks everything else, and we think this is a defective whisky.
Was it worth bottling? No. 65 points.

Brora 18yo 1981/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1081)
Olivier and I like Brora a lot. We feared that the fact that this one is a sherry-matured one would be a problem, although the recent Chieftains or Silver Seal heavily sherried Broras are great malts. But again, this one's very pale, and we're sure it was an almost worn-out refill sherry cask. Which is great news, after all, when dealing with a great malt like Brora.
Nose: mellow. Peaty, much peatier than what we'd expected from a 1981 Brora. Very clean.
Very interesting, even more elegant than the Caol Ila.
Mouth: medicinal but not overwhelmingly medicinal. Smoke, diesel oil. Old books (nice dust and nice cardboard).
Craig would have liked this one. Just great. Balanced and clean, and a long finish.
Yes, a great Brora, and a great bang-for-your-buck malt. And this proves that although Brora is said to have produced much less peaty spirit from 1978 to 1983 than before, they still made some great peated batches. Was it worth bottling? Sure. 89 points .

Hey, now we're finished with this Signatory Vintage core range tasting! Yes, we made it! But that last Brora was that good, that we need a last malt 'for the road' (as far as you can need some more malt after having tasted almost 20 different ones...). And what could be even better than a 1981 Bora? A 1972 Brora! And a rare one! That's why I decided to wrap all this session up with a...

Brora 21yo 1972/1993 (40%, CCh, old map label) - Colour: pure gold.
Nose: warming. Surprisingly powerful considering it's a 40% malt. Beautiful peat. Fabulous elegance. Perfect balance, nothing to do with the slightly loathsome hard peat that appears to be so fashionable nowadays (sorry, no names). Wow! Hints of peanut butter.
Mouth: extremely harmonious. Again, beautiful peat, and lots of dried fruit (apricot). Perfect balance.
This one is just the best 40% malt we ever had, except some very old cask strength whiskies. Nobody will tell you it's only a 40% malt when tasting it blind. We feel it's a 'racing' whisky. Remembering the stupendous Douglas Laing Platinum 1972s, that are so much better than the 1970, we wonder what happened at the Brora Distillery in 1972. Did they use extremely well selected barley? It can't be just the vintage, as if it were wine... Anyway, we're happy to see the notion of 'mill‚sime' being pregnant at least once. Was it worth bottling? No, they should just have sent the casks to my home. 93 points.

Okay, let's sum up the Signatory's results now:

A-List - Good or interesting malts, that really deserved to be bottled as single casks:

89   Brora 18yo 1981/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1081)
88   Caol Ila 11yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #705)
86   Bunnahabhain 22yo 1978/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #1890)
85   Ben Nevis 10yo 1990/2001 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1387)
82   Scapa 10yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #1903)
81   Rosebank 11yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #787)
79   Ben Nevis 9yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1383)
78   Bladnoch 11yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #42003)
78   Banff 18yo 1978/1997 (43%, SigV, cask #4617)
76   Littlemill 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #1518)

B-List - Mixed feelings:

76   Linkwood 12yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #2790)
76   Mortlach 11yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #2649)
76   Braes 18yo 1979/1998 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #9292)

C-List - Not so good or uninteresting malts, that didn't deserve to be bottled as single casks:
(Again, only a personal opinion, related to my personal tastes only)

74   Highland Park 22yo 1977/2000 (43%, SigV, cask #96/7009)
70   Glen Scotia 9yo 1991/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #211)
70   Glenallachie 9yo 1991/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask #1346)
69   Coleburn 14yo 1983/1997 (43%, SigV, cask #796)
68   Strathmill 11yo 1985/1997 (43%, SigV, cask #2342)
65   Allt-A-Bhainne 19yo 1980/1999 (43%, SigV, cask #19000)
65   Clynelish 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask #3219)

Good. Signatory obviously did a great job with some of the malts, but did also bottle some malts that just didn't deserve to be bottled as single malts. Again and again, that's the opinion of a single individual... Before we open the discussion on the different topics I mentioned before, we'll have a third - and last - tasting session of a bunch of IBs (Murray McDavid).

That's it for now,

A votre santé‚

Serge
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/07 - Three Little Ones from Islay
by Klaus Everding, Germany

Two or three weeks ago I received a parcel from Johannes. It contained three 125 ml samples with malts from Islay and six samples for the next Pandora-JOLT. While the Pandora-malts still wait for the event the Islays were finished.

Sample 1: Ardbeg 8yo 1992/2000 (43%, Signatory Vintage, distilled 19/3/92, bottled 28/3/00, oak casks #414/415)

Aah, - very interesting. This seems to be the sucessor of the 8yo Signatory Ardbeg distilled in 1991. The '91 Signatory Ardbeg was one of my first amazing discoveries when I started drinking single malts. Fool that I was in these days, - I didn't stock up with at least 12 bottles. I think the chance to get such a good malt for less than 25 Euros the bottle will be gone forever.
Gluck, gluck, gluck - I pour in the first dram. The colour: Pipi after the sixth beer. I really like those pale and uncoloured coastal malts because they promise a mean peat punch. Let's take a sniff. Yes, it is there. Peat, smoke, tar, driftwood, medicine, iodine. This is the impression which is ruling, but there is also something sweet. Strange it is not the fresh and grassy sweetness which is sometimes found in Caol Ilas nor is it a molasse sweetness. Chewing gum comes to my mind, the cheap bubble gum balls drawn from automats which were popular some twenty or thirty years ago.
When I have the malt in my mouth I notice that it is very smooth - no burn at all. Very pleasant and round sweetness. Then Islay takes over the command with all the attributes mentioned before. In the finish maybe a hint of wood, but that could also be imaginative. Conclusion: This is young Islay which I like (btw. I love most of them). Compared to its predecessor, '91 Ardbeg SigVin, it seems to be tamer. I often compare the young Islays with rude boys gangs. Well, in this case some of the guys wear roses on their leather jackets and I can even spot one with a "mummy" tattoo on his arm. 88 points the score.

Sample 2: Lagavulin 12yo Special Release (58%, OB)
The bottle and the package look almost like the well known classic malt Lagavulin 16yo 43%.
But there is one big exception: The price tag is twice as high.
Short excursion: It was predictable but now it has really happened. The 16yo Lagavulin is no longer available at my preferred malt shop. They have delivery problems and they say the situation will not get better in the next months. Damned! How could the guys at Lagavulin let such a thing happen? A shortage of one of the most favoured single malts.
Back to the c/s Lagavulin. The liquid has the colour of pale gold. Putting the nose over the glass. Be careful that your sensors are not numbed by the alcohol. But anyway peat and smoke will always be present. Not so much medicine, it is smoked salmon or ham instead. With a splash of water sweet tones come to life: Lavender? Apricots? Tasting the malt: The feeling in the mouth is rather dry,- sawdust. Peat and medicine dominate. With some water added a herbal sweetness rises out of the stormy Islay sea.
Conclusion: Compared with the 16yo OB at 43% it seems that the Lagavulin guys have changed the instrumentation: No longer the complex and dark web cello figures, violas play now instead. The whole piece is biased to lighter and sharper tones.
A really nice malt with a rating of 88 points but the price tag excludes it from my first choice malts.

Sample 3: Lochindaal 10yo (43%, OB, Bruichladdich)
The whole whisky world is buzzing about Bruichladdich. They are full of praise. I never liked this distillery very much. But I must admit that I only sampled very few Laddies. Let's see if this one marketed under the Label "Lochindaal" finds grace in my eyes.
The nose is very strange and difficult to describe. Woody and earthy, musty with chemical reminscences, itchy. After some time minty notes appear. This is not the aroma I like to smell in single malts. The taste is a little bit better. Sweetness, ginger, really bitter in the finish. Memories of citrus refeshment sticks in bitter chocolate appear. Conclusion: I don't need this malt. The nose doesn't please me and the bitter taste which remains after drinking it is disgusting. Maybe I am too generous with 70 points awarded to it.

Klaus
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/08 - Murray McDavid, My Mission
by Serge Valentin, France 

Okay, after having tasted some Douglas Laing, James McArthur, Old Cadenhead's C/S and Signatory Vintage's core range, it's time to end this little trip around IB-land with a Murray McDavid session. I always liked Murmac's bottlings a lot. Some Ardbeg, Springbank and Lochside were absolutely great, and only one bottling didn't really convince me (a Rosebank). Mark Reynier just told me they're going to launch a brand new series, even more prestigious than the Mission. I can't wait! As usually, I tried to call Olivier for some help. He had the only acceptable excuse for not coming by: he's in Scotland right now. So, while he's plundering Robertson's of Pitlochry, I'll taste these seven youngsters all by myself, just before we open a little debate on a few existential questions about IBs.

I just got seven Murmac samples, all from the core range (no Mission), and all very young.
I'll have a Lowlander first, then three classical Speysiders, then three famous Islayers.
So, let's start with an Auchentoshan.

Auchentoshan 1992/2003 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
Last time we had an Auchentoshan 10yo OB, its rating was 77 points, and we said it was a little too 'technical', meaning a little too 'commercial'. Let's see whether Murray McDavid managed to propose us something a little more 'authentic' with this brand new bottling of one of the very few remaining Lowland distilleries. Colour: pale straw.
Nose: mellow, very clean, very fresh. Very fruity, pineapple, pink grapefruit, bubble-gum. Nice woody notes.
Mouth: Cake, cooked apple, pear, exotic fruit. Not much citrus. A little woody, and some surprisingly sharp peppery notes. Bold and robust, which is quite astonishing. Its mouth is less clean than its nose. The finish is rather long.
Okay, that one is better than the 10yo OB, no question about that. Not very far from the greatest Rosebank or Bladnoch, although the main aromas are rather in the pineapple direction than in the citrus one. It's really a malt for Lowland freaks, which I am.
Was it worth bottling? Yep. (82 points)

Okay, what about a few mainstream young Speysiders now?

Linkwood 1989/2001 (46%, MMcD, fresh sherry)
Like Mortlach, Linkwood seems to be one of the independent bottlers' favorites. Signatory didn't such a good job with the 12yo 1988/2000 I tasted last time (76 points), but one of their heavily sherried 13yo 1988/2001 I tasted previously was much better (82 points). Anyway, I'm looking for some rose notes now… Colour: straw.
Nose: mellow and clean. Very fine wood, dry sherry, butter, mushrooms and humus. Then some heavy lilly notes, but no rose. Just a little sour, in a good way. Very interesting, although not 'mainstream-Speysidish' at all.
Mouth: powerful. Nice wood, nice dry sherry, quite a lot of tannins.
Hints of old cardboard, slightly sweet. Bold and clean, a little austere. Medium finish.
I like it. There're lots of fine wood and dry sherry notes, but these don't overwhelm the malt.
Maybe just a little too young. Was it worth bottling? Yes. (84 points)

Mortlach 1989/2001 (46%, MMcD, fresh sherry)
Did you ever have a really bad Mortlach? I didn't. So, I'm expecting something quite good here.
Why wait any longer?… Colour: gold
Nose: mellow. Very woody, but again, some very fine wood. Dry sherry, burnt cake, coffee, black toffee.
More toasted than the Linkwood, and a little less clean.
Mouth: Lots of fine wood. A little drying (due to the wood's tannins). Dry sherry.
Hot brioche, orange zest, cocoa. Bold and rich, but still quite clean. Medium finish.
A great malt, very enjoyable. A little 'male', whereas the Linkwood was a little feminine.
And just because I'm a boy, I'll give it two more points. Was it worth bottling? Of course. (86 points)

Time to taste THE Speysider now. I've had quite a bunch of IB's Macallans, and to be honest, I never happened to
taste a young one that was really great. So, I'm a little cautious now… Does the Macallan distillery let some great
casks being bottled by another bottler from time to time? Let's find out…

Macallan 1990/1999 (46%, MMcD, fresh sherry)
Colour: dark amber – quite dark for such a young malt
Nose: very sherried, and this is great sherry. Raisins, dried fruit, beeswax, tan oil, a little eucalyptus.
What a beautiful nose, quite similar to a great 18yo OB's, but more powerful.
Mouth: powerful. Great sherry above everything. Coffee, burnt cake, toasted bread, quince jelly, crystallized orange.
Great mouth, even if the nose is more spectacular, I think. Again, maybe a little young.
It's magnificent malt, considering its age (9yo). The best young Macallan IB I ever had.
Was it worth bottling? What a stupid question (89 points)

Okay, no need to say I'm rather impressed. Murray McDavid did a very good job with the three Speysiders, no doubt, while we all know there are many so-so IB Speysiders that gather dust on our favorite liquorist's shelves. Now, selecting some young Islayers might be another story. I mean, there are many good heavily peated bottlings everywhere… Peat + alcohol is a winning formula, obviously, but it's always a thrill to sip a peated malt that offers a little complexity and a little finesse as well. In other words, a malt that has something more to tell you. So, let's let three Murray McDavid Islayers talk now…

Bowmore 1989/2000 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
Bowmore is the best example of a malt that's not consensual at all. Some love it, whatever the bottling, some don't. I must admit that I really don't like some of Bowmore's OBs (Cask Strength, Darkest), but I've had many great Bowmores as well (17yo, 21yo…). In fact, I think Bowmore's really a malt that allows the IBs to show their skills at selecting great casks, just because Bowmore's so multi-faceted. Okay, let's see how Murray McDavid performed now… Colour: straw.
Nose: mellow. Wow, it smells like a genuine gentian eau-de-vie. That's something I always cherished.
Then iodine, sea spray, fresh mushrooms, then cider, then some fine woody notes. A great, great nose, extremely clean.
Mouth: balanced, slightly bitter. Very nice wood, liquorice stick, rubber, gentian root, slightly dusty. Rich and very clean.
This mouth just fits the nose. Long and beautiful finish.
What can I say, I sort of love this malt. I really wonder what Johannes will say – just sent him a sample.
Was it worth bottling? Absolutely (88 points)

Time to taste an Ardbeg now. We know Mark and his gang had their eyes on Ardbeg before Glenmorangie bought the distillery, so their expression can't be anything but a very special one…

Ardbeg 1991/2000 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
Colour: white wine.
Nose: rather light at first nosing, but then it grows warming.
Fine balance of peaty notes (iodine) and mash, broiled cereals, hot milk and bread crumb. The genuine smell of heavily peated malted barley. Closer to what you can smell while touring the distillery than the 10yo OB. And, again, extremely clean.
Mouth: medicinal, iodine, lots of smoke, then broiled cereals and cooked apple. Quite sour (in a good way).
Again, a hyper-clean Ardbeg.
Okay, I really like it a lot. That sample was just opened, and I think the only problem with this malt, is that it looses its beautiful characteristics quite quickly, as soon as the bottle is opened. I've got an opened bottle on my shelves since six months or so, and the whisky has lost its sharpness and cleanliness. The same happened at a friend's place. Anyway, it's great malt, but one should empty his bottle within 3 months max, or pour the malt into smaller bottles as soon as it's opened.
Was it worth bottling? Of course (89 points)

Okay, one to go. The last Murray McDavid will be a Laphroaig (not Leapfrog), so I'm expecting a lot now, as Laphroaig's one of my favorite malts (I know, not very original…)

Laphroaig 1988/2001 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
Colour: pale straw
Nose: rather light at first, then it gets warmer.  Peat and rubber, beer, yeasty, bread crumb.
Sourer than the Ardbeg, and much less smoky. But again, a very clean whisky.
Mouth: powerful, and a little drying. Peat, medicinal, rubber, camphor. Then liquorice stick, liquorice, hay.
Somewhat austere, and, again, very clean. Medium to long finish.
This Laphroaig isn't very, very complex, but it's less sweet than the 10yo OB, and sharper.
A very good Laphroaig altogether. Was it worth bottling? Yeah (88 points)

Now we're finished! These Murmacs were all very good, and seeing such young malts flirt with the 90 points border is absolutely great. My overall impression is that they're all very clean, which makes me think there's really a Murray McDavid style. Perhaps is that due to the fact that their range is very narrow. They only sell approx 8 different malts at the same time, much less than Signatory, or even Douglas Laing, not to mention Gordon & MacPhail. Anyway, it seems obvious that they do select the casks they bottle, which is what we're all expecting from an IB's. Oh, Mark and gang, if you read this, thank you for not trying to sell us some wine-finished malt. I know I may be a little excessive on that very matter, but… Hey, wait, I've just got a little idea now. Olivier presented me with two samples that are really interesting three weeks ago…

Yes, both malts were distilled in 1990, on the very same day, at Laphroaig distillery.
But while the first one has been bottled just plain and pure, the second one has been finished in a Portwood cask for three more months. Why not compare these two youngsters right now, and see exactly what such a treatment's influence is?

Laphroaig 1990/2002 'Regular' (46%, SigV, unchillfiltered collection)
Laphroaig 1990/2003 'Portwood Finish' (46%, SigV, unchillfiltered collection)

Colour:

Regular: almost white
Portwood : pink (blush wine) – somewhat ridiculous

Nose:

Regular: quite mellow, very clean and sharp.
Fresh fruity notes, granny smith apple, pear, tangerine.
Then diesel oil and smoke, quite peppery. Again, a clean Laphroaig,
showing some unusual fruity notes, but not very deep.
Portwood: mellow, very winey at first (Beaujolais).
Then the same notes as the untreated Laph's. More unbalanced, less clean.
You have to wait quite a long time to get Laphroaig's markers.

Mouth:

Regular : smooth and balanced at first, but it becomes more and more pungent.
Sweet-sour, then very bitter. Medicinal, burnt tyre, smoke, and extremely peppery and unbalanced. Not very enjoyable.
Portwood : sweet wine at first, then medicinal, burnt tyre and smoke.
Again, extremely peppery. The winey notes play their part upfront, but they can't resist the huge pepper load. Really odd.

Okay, they may have tried to mask, or to sweeten the malt, but it just didn't work. An UFO-malt.
Oh yes, ratings… Regular: 75 points, Portwood: 69 points.

I think I made my point, didn't I?
Okay now, just before we open our little debate, perhaps it's time to sum up all the ratings we've accumulated so far.

90   Glenlivet 25 yo 1976/2001 (59.9%, JmcA).
90   Pittyvaich-Glenlivet 13yo 1977/1991 (58.4%, Cad)
90   Port Ellen 19yo 1982/2002 Sherry Finish (50%, OMC)
89   Ardbeg 1991/2000 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
89   Brora 18yo 1981/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#1081)
89   Caol Ila 12yo 1978/1990 (65.5%, Cad)
89   Caol Ila 26yo 1974/2001 (50%, OMC).
89   Macallan 1990/1999 (46%, MMcD, fresh sherry)
88   Bowmore 1989/2000 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
88   Caol Ila 11yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask#705)
88   Glen Grant 31yo 1969/2001 (57.1%, JmcA). 
88   Laphroaig 1988/2001 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
86   Bunnahabhain 22yo 1978/2000 (43%, SigV, cask#1890)
86   Linlithgow 26yo 1975/2001 (50%, OMC).
86   Mortlach 1989/2001 (46%, MMcD, fresh sherry)
85   Ben Nevis 10yo 1990/2001 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#1387)
84   Linkwood 1989/2001 (46%, MMcD, fresh sherry)
83   Bowmore 11yo 1979/1990 (58.4%, Cad).
82   Auchentoshan 1992/2003 (46%, MMcD, bourbon)
82   Longmorn 25yo 1976/2001(54.7%, JmcA).
82   Scapa 10yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask#1903)
81   Rosebank 11yo 1989/2000 (43%, SigV, cask#787)
79   Ben Nevis 9yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#1383)
78   Bladnoch 11yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask#42003)
78   Banff 18yo 1978/1997 (43%, SigV, cask#4617)
76   Dallas Dhu 21yo 1981/2002  (50%, OMC).
76   Littlemill 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask#1518)
76   Linkwood 12yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#2790)
76   Mortlach 11yo 1988/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#2649)
76   Braes 18yo 1979/1998 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#9292)
75   Laphroaig 1990/2002 (46%, SigV, unchillfiltered coll)
74   Highland Park 22yo 1977/2000 (43%, SigV, cask#96/7009)
71   Millburn 34yo 1967/2002 (50%, OMC).
70   Glenglassaugh 13yo 1977/1991 (59.8%, Cad).
70   Glen Scotia 9yo 1991/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask#211)
70   Glenallachie 9yo 1991/2000 (43%, SigV, full sherry, cask#1346)
69   Coleburn 14yo 1983/1997 (43%, SigV, cask#796)
69   Laphroaig 1990/2003 (46%, SigV, unchillfiltered coll. Portwood finish)
68   Strathmill 11yo 1985/1997 (43%, SigV, cask#2342)
65   Allt-A-Bhainne 19yo 1980/1999 (43%, SigV, cask#19000)
65   Clynelish 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, SigV, full bourbon, cask#3219)

41 malts, not bad, uh? Now, you may ask for some conclusions.
What can I say? Some IBs seem to bottle anything, some don't, obviously.
But maybe I'm not too wrong when telling you this:

- Beware the obscure distilleries bottlings, most may have been bottled because they are obscure, precisely.
- Beware the very old malts, especially when cheap, some are overwhelmed by wood.
- Beware the wine-finished malts, they may be just a way of masking a so-so malt.
- Don't hesitate to put 10 or 20 more euros or dollars on the table, they'll make the difference.

Okay, fellow maniacs, what are your thoughts? Do you agree with me?

Serge
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #06/09 - Independents Day I
by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland 

Interesting observations, Serge...
I'm still busy with my 'Big Crunch' at this end of the line - see log entry #130 for details.
Most of the tasting sessions I write about in my Liquid Log focus on whiskies from a particular region or distillery, but for tonight I will try to mix 'business' with pleasure and polish off some 'independent' bottles and samples. While doing so, I'll try to formulate some thoughts on the topic and work them into this tasting report.

Although Serge was the first to do such a thorough study of IB's, Louis Perlman and Craig Daniels have already dedicated a few words to this topic in MM#3. In E-pistle #3/06 Louis points out one of the main reasons for the growing success of independent bottlers: many distilleries simply don't offer an 'official' bottling of their product. I'm not the only maniac who feels compelled to track down obscure bottlings from even more obscure distilleries just to find out what they are up to at Craigellachie or Glenglassaugh. Often you find out there's a good reason most of those single malts are used almost exclusively for blending, but that's not always the case. In