E-pistle #10/01 - Whisky 'Alive & Kicking' in London
Submitted on 01/05/2004 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

Ooaaah.... I love the smell of empty glasses in the morning. Smells like... victory!
Well, in this case it's just one glass - and the victory feels a bit like a Pyrrhic victory...
It's 04:01 in the morning and I'm sitting in my room at the Grange Rochester Hotel in London.
I'm clutching my empty snifter and I'm trying to make sense of it all. What was that last single malt again?
Now I know how Bill Murray's character in 'Lost In The Translation' must have felt after a whisky-soaked weekend in Japan...

It all started about a month ago when globe-trotting jet-setters Serge and Olivier casually invited me to join them in London for the 2004 edition of 'Whisky Live'. That was a temptation I couldn't resist, especially because I had already missed out on meeting Olivier in real life during the Alsace 2003 festivities. I had just earned a 500 Euro bonus on a freelance assignment, so for the first time in quite a while I had a little money to spend on the good cause of soothing my malt madness. Booking a flight to London Gatwick and two return flights (just to be on the safe side) through Easyjet cost me less than 50 Euro's, so that was an easy hurdle to cross for a Dutch penny pincher like myself - and the flight time of under an hour wouldn't kill me either.
London, here I come!

Well, as it turned out getting there was one thing - staying in London is another matter altogether.
It's nearly impossible to find a decent hotel in London that charges less than 125 pounds for a single room.
That's quite a princely sum and the hospitality I enjoyed for two nights consumed most of my budget for the trip.
I saw some nice parks in London during my walks, so maybe I'll just bring my old army tent next time ;-)

Anyway, as I was rummaging through my fresh pile of pounds in the airplane to London Gatwick
I quickly realised that I would be very lucky if I would be able to buy one decent bottle (if any)
during this trip. Not to worry, though; I'm an expert at fooling myself. I figured that if I managed
to consume 500 Euro's worth of whisky during this weekend, my internal 'voice of reason' would
stop bugging me about all the other (more 'sensible') things I could have done with that money.
(Actually, that voice of reason usually stops bugging me after only three or four drams ;-)

Gatwick was drizzly when I arrived around 9AM, but during the train ride to Victoria Station the
sky cleared up nicely. Instead of taking one of the famous London taxi's I boldly decided to walk
from the station to this trip's maniacal meeting point; Berry Brothers & Rudd on St. James St.
It was an exhilarating walk; past Buckingham Palace and the Queen Victoria Memorial, through
Green Park to the beautiful headquarters and store of Berry Brothers at St. James Street #3.
Their store is the first Liquid Landmark on this trip; a place of pilgrimage for every malt maniac
that happens to visit London. The 1730's facade of Berry Bros (depicted at the right) is a sweet
sight for sore eyes and things get even better as soon as you enter the old Berry Brothers store.

The beautifully preserved antique interior instantly takes you back in time by a century or three.
One particularly interesting conversation piece are the scales they used in the old days to determine the weight of customers. Apparently, the physicians of the time used to charge patients for that service, so in a stroke of marketing genius avant la lettre Berry Bros offered to weigh their customers for free, conveniently giving them the opportunity to spend their money on some wine instead. Speaking of which... Berry Bros may be growing into one of the more prolific whisky companies these days, but wine started things off in 1698 and it's still the main focus of the company. In fact, on their website (www.bbr.com) their comments on the Cutty Sark blend (their main brand) say 'Ready, but will keep'. That sort of proves they are 'wine people' at heart, don't you think? Anyway, that's why French maniac Olivier Humbrecht (a rather famous wine maker) had already wandered off to the wine cellars somewhere when I arrived fashionably late. Fortunately, he emerged again right after our other French maniac Serge showed up as well, so the maniacal delegation to this edition of Whisky Live was complete. Time for some 'liquid breakfast'.

At least, that's what Douglas McIvor (second from the right in the picture) called it.
Our host for this session soon turned out to be an advocate for a more 'singular' sound
in the halls of Berry Bros. So far, 'blends' and 'brands' have always been more important
than single malts in their approach of the whisky world - even after acquiring (part of)
their own distillery; Glenrothes. Over the past decade they have done an excellent job
at establishing the brand and I have to admit that I haven't tried a bad Glenrothes yet.
But then again I have to admit I've always felt that the official bottlings I tried didn't
quite live up to their potential either - they are good malts, but to me the 1989/2002
didn't seem all that different to the older (and far more expensive) 1979/2002 bottling.
I just have the feeling that their long 'blending' tradition prevents them from making
full advantage of some of the excellent single casks they have in their warehouses.

Anyway, maybe there's a fresh breeze blowing through the respectable old company now.
The Dailuaine 1975/2003 (46%, Berry Bros, Cask #5539) Douglas offered us turned out to be an excellent breakfast dram. The nose was remarkably soft and light. Flowery with a hint of apple at first, then sweeter & spicier. It shows growing complexity over time and there even was something softly medicinal in the background. The taste was remarkably soft as well and grew sweeter over time. My score was 82 points - I wouldn't run out to get myself a bottle but it's a great choice if you 'have' to drink in the morning. Olivier agreed with my score of 82 points but Serge liked it considerably better with 87 points. Douglas followed this gentle 'prelude' with a big and bold 'ouverture'; the Springbank 35yo 1968/2003 (46%, Berry Brothers, 3 Casks). The nose was simply stunning. My first impression was toffee. It's extremely rich with loads of sherry and organics. I often get a 'horse stable' impression from Islay malts, but this time I got a 'cow stable' flashback - I can't explain the difference. This Springer was quite impressive on the palate as well; very sweet and fruity, but heavy enough to carry it. I stand by my score of 91 points , even though Serge and Olivier was slightly less impressed with scores of 88 points each.

Douglas turned things up a notch with the Clynelish 1972/2002 'Dundeil' (46%, Berry Bros, C#14307).
I have to admit my recollections about his background story on this bottling are a bit vague, but if I remember correctly he was responsible for this bottling some time before he started working for Berry Bros. Anyway, it was a nice surprise and the very best Clynelish I ever tried. The nose started off dusty and a little grainy, growing fruitier. After a while it grew sweeter and more organics emerged - the 'horse stable' aroma's (straw, leather, ammoniac - i.e. 'horse pee') I usually find in Islay malts. The taste was surprisingly smooth at first, but grew bolder and heavier with time. I say: 89 points.
Serge and Olivier liked it even better with a whopping 91 points each.

Our last dram at Berry Brothers was the Caol Ila 19yo 1983/2003 (46%, Berry Bros).
The nose was typically Caol Ila: Transparent and lightly peated, growing stronger. Heavier organics and coastal notes emerge with time. Leather & Liquorice. It starts out hot and clean on the palate, growing deeper. My score was 88 points - not the best Caol Ila I ever had but it's somewhere in the top echelon. Serge and Olivier thought it was highly recommendable as well with 86 points each. Overall, these four Berry Bros bottlings have convinced me that they are a bottler to watch in the future. Are they playing in the same league as the top private bottlers like Douglas Laing and Murray McDavid? Hmmm. Considering all the bottlings we tried this morning were rather old I wouldn't go quite as far just yet. Right now I'll rank them among the 'close runner ups' like Wilson & Morgan.

I managed to pick up the last copy of Jim Murray's new 'Whisky Bible' in the store before we said our good-byes to Douglas. Serge suggested a 'solid' lunch after the 'liquid' breakfast Douglas served us and we ended up in a deserted Chinese restaurant nearby for some very nice Peking duck. It seems it's true that you can always find the best Chinese food in cities that have a large Chinese population - which sort of makes sense. We discussed the topic at length while playing with our food and came to the conclusion that this is true for many other 'cuisines' as well. But unlike the cooking from countries like Japan, Italy and Indonesia, British cuisine doesn't seem to travel very well. Anyway, I managed to eat a fair amount of the duck with chopsticks, which was quite an accomplishment since I've just enjoyed 4 more drams this morning than I'm used to at this time of the day.

With our bellies suitably filled we felt ready for the main event; Whisky Live 2004.
Serge and I dropped off our bags at the 'Grange Rochester' hotel (nothing special,
but it's located just a few hundred meters from the venue) before we joined Olivier
at the entrance of WL London 2004. Now, if only we had some tickets to get in...
Serge had taken it upon himself to secure our tickets for the event, but found out
they were completely sold out quickly afterwards. However, he had told Olivier and
me that all would be OK. He disappeared for a moment, only to return triumphantly
with some 'wild cards' in his hand. It seems that with some flexing of his PR muscles
(and maybe the help of a bottle of Olivier's wine ;-) Serge managed to 'persuade'
a source (who will remain anonymous) to put aside a few tickets for the maniacs.

Once inside, we were astounded by the number of whisky celebrities walking around 'in the wild'.
There are plenty of whisky event where one or two of the 'big names' are present, but where can you meet Michael Jackson, Jim McEwan, Dave Broom, Alan Parker, Andrew Symington, Lex Kraaijeveld and John Glaser - and share a dram and a chat with them all on the same day? Not on any of the other festivals I've been to, that's for sure. We were to late to book a spot on any of the many 'masterclasses', but that was just as well because that gave us the opportunity to take our time talking to the many knowledge people behind the stands and in the 'crowd'. Well, it wasn't much of a crowd, actually - the venue was quite roomy and thanks to a smoking ban inside it was very pleasant. A decent tulip glass was provided as well, so nosing conditions were almost perfect.

The number of single malts available for tasting was simply overwhelming.
We quickly realised it would be impossible to sample everything on offer, even in two days.
So, we decided to 'strategically' circle the room, looking for malts that could help us fill the matrix.
For some unknown reason (probably alphabetical) we started our dramming with the Aberfeldy 25yo (40%, OB) and we were all equally underwhelmed. The nose was rough and flat, altogether middle-of-the-road. It was gritty and bitter on the palate, and not nearly sweet enough for my tastes. My score of 76 points puts it just a notch above average in my book; two points below the 12yo OB and clearly below par for a malt this old. Three of the four bottlings I've tried so far did very well, but this one doesn't. Serge and Olivier agreed with scores of 77 points each. Amazing, it's like these guys have twin noses...

Our plan of investigating a selection of malts together was thrown out of the window as soon as I spotted the 'red stripe' version of the Laphroaig 10yo Cask Strength (57%, OB) at a stand nearby. Excellent! The 'green stripe' version has recently taken over the warm spot in my heart that used to belong to Lagavulin 16yo, but every bottle I tried came from the same batch of litre bottlings. I was very curious to find out if other batches would be just as magnificent. Well, I'm glad to report that the 70cl 'red stripe' expression they poured at the festival is still going strong - I was simply mesmerised and forgot to make any notes. The score of 93 points is a tad on the cautious side and may rise in the future if I manage to find myself a bottle. A young peat monster par excellence!

It probably wasn't too smart to tackle a cask strength peat monster as my second dram, but curiosity got the better of me. I took a quick break before I joined Serge and Olivier again at the Isle of Jura stand. They poured me the Isle of Jura 16yo (40%, OB). To my surprise, I didn't find very much of the oil that I f ound so disturbing in the 10yo OB I tried in the 1990's. And to my surprise, it seemed peatier than the 'Superstition' I tried recently. Unfortunately, it started off fairly weak and I quickly found a hint of oil. A little bit rough and gritty on the tongue later on. Score: 75 points . Not a bad whisky, but not a good malt either. But that's just my opinion; Serge and Olivier (who have a greater appreciation for more subtle malts) both thought it was worth 84 points.

Next, we strolled over to the Berry Brothers stand to see if there was anything interesting Douglas hadn't poured us that morning. Well, as it turned out there was. Plenty! My eye soon fell on the Glenlivet 1971/2003 (55%, Berry Brothers, Cask #6447). During the 1990's I've never given Glenlivet a lot of attention because the 12yo and 18yo OB didn't really excite me, but recent experiences have given me a new respect for Glenlivet. I still don't care too much for the OB's, but some older sherry casked IB's have blown me away on more than one occasion. A textbook example of a distillery that focuses on maintaining a mainstream 'brand' in their operations, even when they have some exceptional casks for malt freaks in their warehouses as well. Fortunately (and unlike Glenfiddich), Glenlivet has made some of these casks available to independent bottlers. And it seems cask #6447 was an exceptional one. It's a real sherry monster in the nose, with organics and even some rubber. Sherry dominates the palate as well, with pleasant overtones of coffee and organics. My score: 93 points . Olivier went with 93 points as well and Serge's 92 points is nothing to be sniffed at either. If Glenlivet could release an OB along these lines they'd have a Macallan-killer on their hands.
And the best news is: The bottle costs only 65 pounds! Excellent!

Maybe the new bottling of Glenturret 10yo (40%, OB) suffered from the 'death seat' position right after the overproof Glenlivet, but then again its 12yo predecessor from the mid 1990's didn't seem to have a lot of character to be overwhelmed anyway. That was certainly the case this time. All that my notes say about the nose is: light & mellow. The taste wasn't overly impressive either; dry with a suggestion of early fruits. I can't go any higher than 72 points myself and Olivier didn't like it a lot better with 74 points. Obviously, Serge felt quite different from us because he gave it no less than 80 points.

That's five drams down in little over an hour - time for a little break.
I strolled around the room for a bit, bumped into Lex Kraaijeveld and made sure to pay
my respects to the American visitor in the extravagant costume depicted at the right.
On my way out to satisfy my nicotine addiction I bumped into Andrew Symington who
had just seen the low scores for some Edradours on the matrix and insisted we would
drop by his stand a little later to try some new bottlings. He assured me some of these
new Edradours would be much more to our liking - more 'maniacal' malts, as he put it.
Well, I like to keep an open mind so I promised the maniacs would drop by later on.

I strolled back inside and met the French maniacs again at Gordon & MacPhail's stand.
They served us a very nice Speyburn 1974/2001 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice).
Excellent! I've only tried one other expression of Speyburn so far; a 1990's 10yo OB.
I found lots of flowers and a hint of oil in the nose. More spices and organics with time.
The taste was beautifully balanced, although it had some beer-like notes in the finish.
My score was 83 points. Serge (85 points) and Olivier (86 points) liked it even better.
Hey, this is pretty interesting. The Speyburn 10yo OB that was available in the 1990's
was fairly underwhelming (according to the matrix most maniacs agree), so I just never
took the time to investigate Speyburn any further. But now I'm starting to realise that
maybe I should have. I'll be keeping my eyes open for other expressions in the future.

I managed to drag Olivier and Serge in the general direction of the Edradour/Signatory stand.
However, before we arrived there we spotted the latest batch of the A'bunadh at the Aberlour stand along the way. Obviously, this was an opportunity we couldn't pass up. I'm pleased to report that the Aberlour A'bunadh Batch #11 (59.8%, OB) is one of the best batches I've encountered so far. The nose isn't quite as extremely sherried as some predecessors, which allows some other elements (in this case mainly subtle organics) to blend into the picture as well. It appeared very hot in my mouth before the sherry, fruits and wood came forward. It's a tad 'sharper' than earlier bottlings, but I'm still going with 89 points - and so did Serge and Olivier.

Now we were ready for Andrew Symington's 'maniacal malts'; Signatory Vintage and Edradour.
He started off by pouring us a Port Ellen 24yo 1979/2004 Burgundy Finish (58.8%, Signatory Vintage Straight from the Cask). That's a bold choice, because both Serge and Olivier have a problem with 'special' finishes. Well, I have to say that I just loved the unique nose; a wonderfully balanced composition of smoke, tobacco and sherry. Unfortunately, it shows very little depth in the taste, which keeps my score at 86 points . Serge (79 points) and Olivier (80 points) chose puritanism over chauvinism this time, it seems. The cards fell differently for the Mannochmore 11yo 1991/2003 (60.2%, Signatory Vintage, Cask #16587, 596 Bottles) Andrew suggested as our second dram. The nose was absolutely unique; very peculiar. It's light but it shows some organics as well. Spicy cookies - speculaas? The taste was hot, spicy and sweetish. In this case I went with 81 points while Serge (87 points) and Olivier (88 points) were far more impresses. For all of it us it was by far the best Mannochmore we ever tried. Andrew finished his Signatory showcase with the Laphroaig 11yo Port Wood Finish (60%, Signatory Vintage Straight from The Cask). I forgot to make notes on the distillation and bottling dates, but I think it was bottled in 2004. One could argue about whether or not a port finished malt can really be considered 'straight from the cask', but was a fabulous piece of work just the same. The nose was very medicinal without the port influence disturbing the peaty power. My notes on the palate say: 'Islay, period.'. I couldn't find a notable port influence, or it must have been the light fruity note that reminded me of Ardbeg rather than Laphroaig. I went with 90 points, Serge with 91 points and Olivier with 92 points. And like I said before, they tend to frown upon 'special' finishes.

Suitably impressed to hang around Andrew's stand for a little longer, we asked him for some Edradours.
He was only too happy too oblige and started with the Edradour 30yo 1973/2003 (53.4%, OB, Butt #97). The nose was very well balanced with plumes and organics. Hints of 'Maggi'. The taste was very satisfying as well; pretty much everything there. A very pleasant surprise and without a doubt the best Edradour I've tried so far; 88 points from me and 90 points from Serge and Olivier. My second dram was a 'work in progress'; a port finished 1983 OB at 55% that may be bottled later this year. The nose was very interesting and the palate wasn't bad either; dry (growing even drier) with mild fruity tones. I gave this 'WIP' 81 points in its present condition. I can imagine how a few more months in port pipes will have a significant influence on the whisky. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the Edradour 1993 Sauternes Finish (58%, OB) was a 'work in progress' to be bottled later as well. It had lots of character in the nose (unique; unlike anything I ever tried before) and was surprisingly smooth on the palate. I went with 75 points for this one.

By this time I had enjoyed my 12th dram of the afternoon. Needless to say, the tasting notes in my little black book are getting more and more erratic from this point onwards. I guess I needed another break, but by this time 'closing hour' was approaching and I was eager to sample just a few more drams. I got to try one of the latest batches of the Glen Elgin 12yo (43%, OB, Bottled + 2003) and decided to increase my score from 61 to 65 points - better than my first sample on Texel.
And then it was time to finish the afternoon on an Islay note just before closing hour.

I found Serge again at the Bruichladdich stand, chatting with Jim McEwan.
Jim poured us a Bruichladdich 18yo 1984/2002 (46%, OB) and I would have
made notes on it as well if Jim hadn't distracted us with a continuous stream
of very funny stories. Well, not to worry; I should be able to try Bruichladdich
again some day soon, but it's not every day that you can meet Jim McEwan in
full storytelling mode. I did manage to decide on a score though: 84 points.
Before they started ushering us out of the building I managed to sample two
more malts. The Caol Ila 12yo 1991/2004 (50%, DL OMC, Cask #879, 860
Bottles) was finished in a sherry cask for 6 months but started off very light
in the nose, growing stronger and peatier. Sweet & peaty on the tongue.
Score: 88 points . The very last dram of day 1 of Whisky Live 2004 was the
Laphroaig 16yo 1987/2004 (50%, DL OMC, 312 bottles), scoring 90 points.

A little before 18:00 sharp we were kicked out of the building by some very strict officials, and if truth be told I could use another break from dramming. I had tried about two dozen different (and mostly excellent) whiskies during the first day of WL and I felt my judgment and motoric functions were dangerously close to becoming impaired. Not Serge and Olivier, though - they were still as fresh as frogs because they had been spitting out most of the malts they tried afterwards. I've been an avid protester against this barbaric custom, but I'm slowly starting to see the wisdom of their ways. Judging from the horrified looks on some Scottish faces it will be  while before this sort of behavior will be tolerated in Scotland, though...

Anyway; after a quick stop at the hotel to freshen up we took
Olivier's advice and ended up at the swanky 'Salt Bar' on Seymour
Street for a few more drams before joining Olivier's family for supper.
It's another Liquid Landmark - a very 'hip & happening' nightspot
with an impressive collection of single malt whiskies. We started
with the Laphroaig 1976 (43%, OB) - ghastly expensive but one
of the best drams of the day. The nose was mightily complex but
not quite as powerful as I expected. Lemon, sake and rice crackers.
The palate was slick and surprisingly subtle. My score: 90 points.
Serge and Olivier both enthusiastically recommended my next dram,
the Longrow 1987/2001 (45%, Samaroli, Cask #123). Apparently
Samaroli bought almost all available casks from this vintage before
selling the 'not so perfect' casks on to other independent bottlers.
Well, I have to admit this was the very best Longrow I ever tried.
It simply has everything in the nose (it actually reminded me a little
bit of the Saint Magdalene 19yo 1979) and this would have scored
even higher that its 92 points if the palate had been just as rich
and complex as the fantastic nose. The 'perspective' in the nose
is endless and this comes dangerously close to 'the perfect malt'.
It has style, it has class - it has everything...

OK - I'm afraid by now my tasting notes are getting increasingly sketchy.
I remember some silly experiments with a Caol Ila sherbet and the picture above shows our bartender doing a Tom Cruise impression while he was trying to produce one of my most infamous 'cocktails', the 'Niagara'. It's 3 parts Malibu, 2 parts Cointreau and 3 parts pepper wodka. That's right: not fruit juicy - that's for girls. The 'gimmick' about this drink is that it's completely transparent, but it turns white as soon as you drop an ice cube in it. Unfortunately, our Mr. Cruise look alike behind the bar didn't have any pepper vodka and as it turns out real vodka just isn't a suitable substitute because you need the peppery bite to counteract the sweetness of the liqueurs. Anyway, our increasingly erratic behavior (ordering cocktails on a malt mission?) and our watches told us it was time to meet Olivier's family for a perfect conclusion of the evening; sashimi in a Japanese restaurant. I'm not really used to eating late at night, so this light combination of supper and entertainment is pretty much the perfect finish of a hard day of dramming. Well - it was almost perfect. When Olivier happened to spot my brand new Samsung A800 mobile phone he became very excited and showed it enthusiastically to his wife and daughter. For a moment I thought they were appreciating my sense of style and sophistication, but then Serge explained to me that Olivier thought it would be the perfect phone for his young daughter.
Great - I bought a little girl's phone...

Well, be that as it may, that little girl's phone woke me up just fine the next morning at 5:00 AM - an alarm clock is just one of the many masculine features... The hectic schedule for day 1 of this little trip hadn't allowed me to do any sightseeing, so I had planned a little 'sunrise stroll' through London while most of the city was still asleep. The sky over London was overcast, but the deserted streets around Vincent Square looked beautiful in the golden glow of the streetlights reflecting from the clouds overhead. It was like walking in a giant glass bubble. And then, just as I passed Westminster Abbey, the lightest drizzle started to fall - more like a heavy case of fog than proper rain. Suddenly my big bubble became much smaller - the noise of the traffic a few streets away disappeared completely and even the sounds around me became somehow muffled. All you could hear was the tap, tap, tap of the raindrops dripping from the trees overhead. It really felt like a scene from a Charles Dickens tale. What a great way to start the day...

I could have walked about for hours on end, but as the sun slowly rose above the horizon the bleak light of reality managed to break through the blanket of clouds. The streets of London were still deserted and for a moment the fairy tale 'Charles Dickens' atmosphere turned into a scene from 'Day of the Triffids'. But then the first members of London's vigilant cleaning corps emerged, quickly followed by the first working stiffs aiming for an early start. Well, that was the reality check I needed to realise that I had wandered all the way to the borders of the Thames and it was time I returned to the hotel to meet up with Serge for a 'continental' breakfast.

Olivier couldn't join us for the second day of Whisky Live and the programme wouldn't start until noonish, so Serge and I decided to use the morning for some maniacal research, checking out some of the famous whisky shops in the area. Our very first stop was another Liquid Landmark - Vintage House in Soho. They do a lot of on-line sales (www.sohowhisky.com) but their shop on 0ld Compton Street #42 is a first class joint as well. When we entered Vintage House they were already entertaining quite a few other guests (some of them fellow Dutchmen) and before we could have a closer look at their impressive collection we were already offered our first dram; a Bowmore 20yo 1983 (51.4%, DL for The Vintage House, 258 Bottles). The nose didn't have any of the perfumy off-notes I've found in some OB's. It was much lighter than your typical Bowmore and it showed some peculiar (but pleasant) organics. The taste was more along the lines of what you'd expect in a Bowmore. It appeared primarily smoky with subtle hints of sweetness and bitterness fighting it out in the background. Serge and I both gave it 82 points - a recommendable dram but nothing to get TOO excited about. Our hosts quickly noticed we were hard customers to please, so they decided to pull out one of 'the big guns' while we perused the hundreds of bottles on their shelves. The Macallan 27yo 1976/2004 (48.5%, Douglas Laing Platinum, 235 Bottles) came from a bourbon cask and appeared milder and fruitier than some of the sherried OB's I've tried. I did found the raisins I find in many of the old expressions, but this one had a very entertaining spicy side as well. The taste was fruity as well - and surprisingly soft considering it was bottled at almost 50%. Much more transparent than the OB's and quite unique. This is the first bourbon matured Macallan I really love and I stand by my score of 88 points - even though Serge only gave it 87 points.

Our last dram at VH was a special one; the Ladyburn 27yo 1973/2000 (50.4%, OB by William Grant).
The distillery was closed in the 1970's and so far Peter Silver was the only maniac who had ever tried a Ladyburn. As luck would have it, this was the very same bottling that Peter sampled, so even though he only gave it only 72 points both Serge and I pointed straight to the bottle when the VH people asked if there was anything else we'd like to try. This would enable us to add Ladyburn to the list of distilleries on the matrix. I found the nose very peculiar - but not unpleasant at all. A strange combination of peanuts and cinnamon. It was pretty peculiar on the palate too. I tasted sardines! Then lots of wood and fruit. Good mouth feel; quite 'chewy'. It may be quite different from mainstream malts, but I could recommend this to anybody, hence my score of 82 points. Serge went with 80 points.

We had been welcomed so enthusiastically to Vintage House that we ended up staying much longer (and dramming much more) than we had anticipated. This left us with little time and liver capacity to properly investigate the other two London whisky stores on our little list; Milroy's and Royal Mile Whiskies . We dropped by both stores, but didn't spend a lot of time in either one of them. That wasn't really neccessary either, because based on my first impressions VH had both a bigger selection and smaller prices. If you have time to visit only one whisky shop in London, make it Vintage House, I'd say.

OK - after lunch it was time for day II at Whisky Live London.
The Glenlivet 28yo 1975/2003 (54.1%, Signatory, Cask #5719)
seemed like a great way to start because Serge and I had been
discussing the surprising performance of some relatively 'mundane'
malts like Glen Grant and Glenlivet when they were given a chance
to mature in a good sherry cask for let's say at least two decades.
This was no exception; sherried and spicy in the nose with plenty
of organics. Fruity complexity with a hint of sulphur. The palate was
sort of what I expected; sherry, wood and fruits. A 'classic' malt.
My score of 90 points is just a tad higher than Serge's 89 points
while Olivier (who managed to try it a day earlier) thought it was
worth 88 points. That still makes it our second favourite Glenlivet
on the matrix, just after Cask #6447 from Berry Brothers we tried
yesterday. The only other two bottlings on the matrix that even
come close are the Glenlivet 22yo 1973 (56%) and Glenlivet 26yo
1976/2002 (59.7%, C#4309) - both Signatory Vintage bottlings
as well. It seems Andrew Symington picked up some great casks
of Glenlivet from the early 1970's - let's hope he has some more.

Before I joined Serge at the Duncan Taylor stand I made a quick detour.
I noticed that they offered two of their 'replica's' at the Macallan stand; the '1841' and the '1876'.
There are two more expressions on the MMMonitor on Whiskyfun (an '1861' and an '1874') but the scores on there so far haven't convinced me to spend any actual cash on these bottlings. I was a big Macallan fan during the 1990's, but I've been far less enthusiastic about some of their more recent bottlings - the 'Travellers Editions' in particular. My time on Whisky Live was limited and when you look at the MMMonitor you'll understand why I hesitated before giving the replica's a go. Opinions about the '1841' were divided - Craig and Olivier scored it in the upper 80's but Serge gave it 78 points and Peter even went with 74 points - but the '1861' caused an even bigger division amongst the ranks. Craig and Michael both put it in the upper 80's but Peter thought 72 was enough. Well, in this case I could try the Macallan '1841' Replica (41.7%, OB) for myself. The nose was disappointingly restrained and it appeared relatively flat and grainy on the palate as well. It wasn't a bad whisky, but it it's a mediocre malt and suddenly not up to the standards of the 1990's and before. I'll have to side with Peter on this one: 74 points. What a scam...

However, they also had the Macallan '1876' Replica (40.6%, OB) available for sampling.
Serge was the only maniac who actually tried this version (he gave it 79 points), but Craig and Peter both sampled an earlier '1874' bottling. Once again they felt very differently about things; 91 points from Craig, 70 points from Peter. Well, if the '74 was anything like the '76 I tried, I'll have to take Peter's side once again. I didn't find a lot of sherry in the nose and it appeared a little perfumy. The taste was fairly flat. Hardly any sherry. Well, when I order a Macallan I expect sherry - and lots of it. This works reasonably well as a whisky (I gave it 77 points this time), but when I'm in the mood for an unsherried Speysider I can do much better than this. Macallan had some other bottles on the counter, but by now I was in a pretty foul mood and it would be hard for me to enjoy ANY Macallan at this point. Where are the days that a solid sherry fix (in the form of a litre of Macallan 12yo) was only 35 Euro's away?

Despite the tears of nostalgia blurring my vision I managed to find Serge again at the Duncan Taylor stand. They have a large portfolio of brands and series - famous names are 'Whisky Galore' and the 'Peerless' collection, but they also market the 'Lindores Abbey' (bastard) single malt and the 'Glendorrach' vatted malts and blends. 'Glen Alba' is another one of their blends. But fortunately, blends were not on the menu today. Export Manager Kirsty McLeod poured us our first dram while telling us a little more about the lastest activities of Duncan Taylor. We started with a Glen Garioch 15yo 1988/2003 'Cognac Cask' (46%, Whisky Galore). That's right, this was matured (not finished) in a cognac cask. It seems they were already experimenting with groovy casks in the 1980's. And quite succesfully, it seems - the nose was very pleasant; rich with a hint of smoke. It wasn't half bad in my mouth either. Solid and fruity with a fabulous mouth feel. If it had been a tad more complex, it would have scored much higher than the 84 points I gave it. Serge was suitably impressed as well with a score of 86 points. We decided we needed to hang around this stand a little longer.

Kirsty found out I was not really into the subtle stuff after pouring us the Glen Elgin 12yo 1991/2003 (46%, Whisky Galore). The nose was certainly big enough with lots of spices and the taste wasn't bad either (a little salty and slightly bitter), but after opening the afternoon with a malt scoring in the 90's I couldn't bring myself to going higher than 79 points for this one. That's still the highest scoring Glen Elgin I ever tried, mind you. I should also mention that it put a big smile on Serge's face, who gave it 85 points.

As far as I'm concerned the next three malts Kirsty selected were all recommendable.
The nose of the Rosebank 13yo 1990/2003 (46%, Whisky Galore, Sherry Cask) was spicy and surprisingly 'organic'. With time it grew more flowery, turning into something more of a 'typical' Lowlander. It was mildly 'chewy' in the mouth - very pleasant. I went with 83 points for this Lowlander (SV=82). The very best 'teenage' Rosebank I ever tried, but most versions I tried were younger and/or matured in a bourbon cask. The Highland Park 13yo 1990/2003 (46%, Whisky Galore, Bourbon Cask) was a little bit a-typical as well; most HP's I tried had at least some sherry influence. I found clear 'speculaas' notes in the nose of this one. That's a traditional Dutch cookie that uses lots of cinnamon, a pinch of ginger, some clove, a little nutmeg and just a tiny bit of aniseed in the recipe. Sometimes they also use mace (from nutmeg, not the defensive spray), pepper, cardamom and coriander. I'm not sure if I smelled one of the ingredients or the unique combination of some or all of them. Anyway, the nose was very interesting. It seems a bit 'sweaty' with lost of other organics but it's quite light and accessible at the same time. It was light and fresh on the palate - fruity and mellow. I even found some peat. Once again: 83 points (SV=87, OH=82). Hmmm. It seems bourbon casked HP's can do pretty well after all. The Glenlivet 34yo 1968/2002 (45.9%, Peerless, Refill sherry cask #1579, 218 Bottles) was another example of the importance of wood. The light nose with fruity (apple) elements and a hint of organics was very different from the heavy sherry and late fruits from a Glenlivet from a first fill sherry cask - like the Berry Bros and Signatory bottlings we tried earlier. I have to say it was fairly flat on the tongue as well. But it's certainly not a bad malt, hence my score of 83 points (SV=85) once again.

Kirsty felt it was time for more drastic measures and poured us a Bowmore 16yo 1987/2004 (46%, Whisky Galore, Bourbon Cask). Well, that was a nice surprise - this time I found loads of real peat in the nose - instead of the smoke that can be a tad overbearing in some Bowmores. No perfume either - but organics, seaweed and brine. Excllent, a 'typical' Islay malt - more 'Caol Ila' than 'Bowmore'. I was almost ready to go for a score in the lower 90's before I tasted it. There's nothing really wrong with the taste, but I did pick up some hints of lavender and violets that reminded me of the perfumy disaster that's the Bowmore Darkest (well, the batch I tried). So, I went with a score of 88 points , just like Serge. Proof that there still must be some good casks lying around at Bowmore.

The Bunnahabhain 36yo 1966/2003 (40.7%, Peerless, White Port Cask #4874) was another nice surprise.
After the Glen Garioch matured in a cognac cask this one must have been some kind of experiment as well. And quite a succesful one I might add. The nose was round and full. Balanced with something peaty in the background. Coconut as well. The taste was smooth and just as well balanced as the nose. And again I found a hint of coconut. A fine dram with a score of 88 points (SV=89). Please note that Serge was less impressed by an earlier 36yo 1966/2002 Peerless bottling at 40.1%; he gave that one 80 points.

By now we were getting into a jolly mood and we started pestering Kirsty about the fact that, 'unlike some other independent bottlers we could mention', we still hadn't tried a malt worthy of a score in the 90's from Duncan Taylor. This provoked her enough to dig into the really special stuff behind the counter. She rummaged around for a bit before she rose again with a triumphant smile on her face and something really spectacular in her hands; the Invergordon 36yo 1965/2002 (51.8%, Peerless, First Fill Bourbon Cask #15539). This was one of only 252 Bottles and if you're lucky enough to find one of the other 251 bottles in a store somewhere, don't hesitate for a moment and buy it. This is without a shadow of doubt the best grain whisky I've tried so far, even eclipsing the great Garnheath. The nose was sweet and round. I found some of the 'traditional' citrus notes you're supposed to find in Lowlanders, but over time the 'grain warehouse' and 'rum' impressions grew stronger, followed by pretty much everything in the specrum of fragrances. The taste is soft and smooth and the mouth feel is just fabulous. Once again I stand firmly corrected when it comes to my original disdain for grain whiskies. This is nothing like the standard Invergordon slosh - it's art in a bottle. My (and Serge's) score: 91 points.

On that perfect high note we said goodbye to Kirsty and made our way to Bruichladdich once more.
It's no secret that I favour the 'powerhouse' Islay malts like Ardbeg and Laphroaig over the subtler Bruichladdichs, but Serge and Olivier are relentless in their efforts to make me see the error of my ways. Serge whispered to Jim McEwan for a moment and returned with a dram of Bruichladdich 14yo 1989 'Cairdean Family' (46%, OB, Refill Sherry, 2000 Bottles). Good choice! I was pleasantly surprised by the spicy nose. Complex and sherried with chocolate and fruits. A bit like a rich christmas cake with rum. Excellent. The taste started off very interesting as well: tea leaves. Then a woody burn takes over, pulling the overall score out of the 90's to a still impressive 87 points . That makes it my all time favoutite Bruichladdich, but I know Serge (87 points too) has other preferences - like the 1970 OB. We felt differently about the Bruichladdich 1988 'Sinnsear Forefathers' (50%, OB, 100% Bourbon, 1000 Bottles) too. To me the nose appeared slightly grainy; dusty with a whiff of something sour. Something vaguely spicy as well. I found it hot and fairly rough in my mouth. A long, dry finish. I can't go any higher than 78 points (SV=84) I'm afraid.

I wasn't overly impressed with the Bruichladdich 14yo 'Links' (46%, OB) either. The nose was nice enough with the occasional hint of organics, but in the end it was far too 'middle-of-the-road' to appeal to an hard-core peathead like myself. It appeared fairly sweetish on the tongue, reminding me a bit of a bourbon. My score: 75 points (SV=87). Just not really my cup of tea. It can't have been the fact that it aged in a bourbon cask, because I liked the Bruichladdich 14yo 1989/2003 (46%, Murray McDavid, MM1689) just fine. The nose had a strong 'organical' base with something faintly fruity (water melon?) drifting in and out of focus. The taste was dry and not really distinctive, but I still went with 81 points (SV=88).

By now the ever so mildly peated Bruichladdichs had inflamed a craving for some REAL peat deep within my soul. And with the Douglas Laing stand nearby offering the Ardbeg 10yo 1993/2004 (50%, Douglas Laing OMC, 338 Bottles), I was finally able to pull Serge away from the Laddie stand. Olivier had already tried this one the day before and it was one of his warmest recommendations. Rightly so, as it turned out. The nose starts out with an avalanche of organics and peat. Over time, more spices and medicinal elements break the surface. A real peat monster. It was a knockout on the palate as well, scoring 91 points (SV=89, OH=91). And then we bumped into Alan Parker, who insisted we give the Laphroaig 16yo 1987/2004 (50%, DL OMC, 312 bottles) a try. Well, we actually finished our first day at WL with it, but since it scored 90 points we were quite happy to try it again. Aaah, just lovely...

It was a real shame we hadn't met Alan Parker earlier on, because he turned out to be a fountain of facts and fiction about whisky. He kept us thoroughly entertained with his stories until closing hour. Unfortunately, that means that I actually have precious little notes on our last dram at Whisky Live: the Port Ellen 21yo 1982/2003 (50%, DL OMC, 348 Bottles). All my notes say is that the nose was quite soft while the taste appeared mellow with a hint of peat. My score: 83 points. Serge gave it 85 points and Olivier even put down 90 points for this one yesterday, so maybe you should take their scores for this one more seriously.

That Port Ellen was the last dram of Whisky Live 2004, but the fun wasn't over yet.
We bumped into Lex Kraaijeveld (of Celtic Spirit fame) and his girlfriend on a few occasions and we had agreed to join eachother for dinner after Whisky Live. We were joined by two crazy visitors from Belgium as well; Marc Segers who runs a whisky business (www.whiskycorner.be) and Paul DeJong; a doctor who told us ethusiastically that he uses his 2 year old son for 'second opinions' by dipping his finger in his glass and letting his son taste a drop. If the stories are true the little tyke is already a sure-fire thermomether for quality. For the geographically challenged readers: Belgium is the wasteland between Holland and France. Most of its inhabitants speak both Dutch (well, Flemish) and French, so our lively conversation was an eclectic mix of English, French and Dutch. After a simple but enjoyable meal in the cellar of an Indian restaurant (well; we enjoyed it - our waiter not so much) Lex and his girlfriend had to return home, but the Belgians had some more time for dramming. They heartily invited us to accompany them to their hotel for a few samples they had brought to London especially for sharing with other maltheads like Serge and myself.

I have to admit I was running on empty after almost 50 drams and only 5 hours of sleep last night, but the others had surprisingly little trouble convincing me that I'd have plenty of time to catch up on sleep later. Despite our high-spirited condition we managed to figure out how use London's complex subway system to our advantage to reach the hotel. We settled down for the last drams of our little vacation malts, starting with the Imperial 1990/2003 (+ 60%, G&M Special reserve for Whisky World, Holland). The nose started off powerful and sweet with more grain and organics over time. A litle bit later it appeared fruitier with a hint of pepper. It was hot, sweet and chewy in the mouth. This was only my third Imperial, but the best one yet. I went with 82 points, Serge with 83. The peatiness was turned up a notch with the Bunnahabhain 25yo 1969/1995 (53.3%, Signatory Vintage). The nose was extremely sherried with a very distinct clove aroma. Organics and something medicinal. Lemon - like Cointreau. What a fabulous nose. The taste was very, very woody. Lots of smoke as well. It's very extreme - maybe even a tad too much so for me. Still, I think this is a malt everybody should try at least once if given the chance. I conservatively gave it 85 points , Serge boldly went with 89 points.

By now my system was close to going into emergency shut-down mode.
After many years of dramming I've grown disturbingly familiar with the effects various amounts of alcohol have on my body and brain. Although I still had the good sense to try and refuse the last dram of the evening, I didn't have the stamina to keep up my resistance for very long. So, I finally accepted (and enjoyed) the Glen Garioch 29yo 1968/1997 (55.9%, OB, Cask 629) against my better judgement. I didn't make any proper notes, but it was a real Highland peat monster and I gave it 90 points (92 points from Serge). Another indication that there's much more to Glen Garioch than the younger OB's (NAS, 12yo, 15yo) would lead you to believe.

And that is where my notes end - bringing us back to the point where I started this E-pistle.
It's 4:01, I've just been waken up by my 'girlie' phone and I'll have to be in front of the hotel in half an hour to catch a taxi. Ah, the humanity of it all. I always forget there's a 'price' to be paid for the low Easyjet airfares; you're often flying at insane hours. Worst of all, I seem to have a headache. I really should have refused that last Glen Garioch (fabulous as it was), because I think that's the culprit responsible for my first hangover in at least a year. But then again, I suppose it was worth it.
After all, looking back on my notes I have plenty of reasons to feel 'victorious' this morning.
Quite a few 'personal records' were broken at Whisky Live London 2004;

- First bottling of Ladyburn I ever tried: Ladyburn 27yo 1973/2000 (50.4%, OB by William Grant)
- First cognac matured whisky I ever tried: Glen Garioch 15yo 1988/2003 'Cognac' (46%, Whisky Galore)
- Best grain whisky I ever tried: Invergordon 36yo 1965/2002 (51.8%, Peerless, Cask #15539)
- Best Bruichladdich I ever tried: Bruichladdich 14yo 1989 'Cairdean Family' (46%, OB, 2000 Bottles)
- Best Clynelish I ever tried: Clynelish 1972/2002 (46%, Dundeil, Cask #14307)
- Best Edradour I ever tried: Edradour 30yo 1973/2003 (53.4%, OB, Butt #97)
- Best Glenlivet I ever tried: Glenlivet 1971/2003 (55%, Berry Brothers, Cask #6447)
- Best Longrow I ever tried: Longrow 1987/2001 (45%, Samaroli, Cask #123)
- Best Springbank I ever tried: Springbank 35yo 1968/2003 (46%, Berry Brothers, 3 Casks)
- Best glassware provided at a whisky festival so far: 'Tulip' glasses with a very short, thick stem.

And that's just a small selection. Other highlights were meeting some great people for the first time (Olivier Humbrecht and Alan Parker, to name just a few) and re-acquainting myself with many others. A great experience - and I'll definitely try to b there again next year.

Well, I guess that pretty much sums it up.
Check out Liquid Log Entry #154 for an alphabetical 'dram diary' with all the malts enjoyed on this trip.
So, now you know everything there is to know about Whisky Live 2004...

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

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

E-pistle #10/02 - Oh, Happy Night
Submitted on 12/05/2004 by Ho-cheng Yao, Taiwan

Some time ago a great new tradition was born in Taiwan. Every other month I invite some friends to my house for some private tasting. We'll take our best bottles out to share them with other whisky lovers. The major reason is not so noble as it sounds: besides sharing some good drams we help each other to consume quicker!

Ordinarily it's quite a small event, around 5 'whisky' people at the most, but last night was a little bit different.
I invited some of my wine tasting group members for some single malt experience.  Normally I'll have some short introduction and discuss the tasting sequence together.  As it was quite a mass, that around 20 people together, I decided only to arrange the bottles by region and let everybody taste by themselves. Surprisingly, everybody was quite happy about the atmosphere, and enjoyed the malts a lot!  Because most people already had some experience with wine, they had enough self-control not to be too greedy and try every single malt.  It seemed quite a successful event.

I'll start my own report with the two Lowlanders.
I am not quite a Lowland person, it may really source back to the bad experience on Auchentoshan triple wood.
However, Rosebank may really be an exceptional one. Rosebank 11yo 1989/2001 (43%, Signatory, Cask# 708+09, 35cl) was malty, fruity, quite fresh and has different layer on the taste. Score: 80 points, seems a good start.  It also reminds me of an earlier experience with a  Rosebank 12yo (43%, Blackadder) though not in written note, I think that one scores around 85 points. Rosebank may really be my Lowland love.  Next, I moved to Linlithgow 26yo 1975/2002 (59.3%, Blackadder, Cask# 30012, 328b. Hogshead)  This is the first time I came across St.Magdalend/Linlithgow in Taiwan.  I know my friend Richard, who works for the Blackadder Taiwan Agent, always tries to find interesting malts for us, but I've never imagined this one to come to the table.  Like most in the Blackadder Raw Cask series, a powerful feeling comes first, quite strange for a Lowland malt.  Though I don't like Lowland malts, my limited experience actually shows clear malt smell.  This one has the same. Beautiful malt smell with a hint of peat and fruit attract me at the very start.  However the taste is quite simple and finish is only OK.  Not quite like a 26 yo malt to me.  Especially after an above average Rose Bank experience, I am a little bit lost at that moment. Score: 76 points.

Next I decided to refresh my memory about the Glenmorangie 18yo (43%, OB). As I am now trying to convert my previous tasting notes into the MM scoring system, I think this is a good timing to go back to some basic ones.  Well, as I remember, this is quite an average malt to me, just a little bit better. Matches my memory. Score: 78 points . The two Strathisla bottles were provided by myself.  As there were too many bottles I just skipped them last night.  But I quite like my Strathisla experience, it's quite noble, solitude, not so easy to come across but quite a treasure to me.  I skip the Mortlach too as I have tasted it twice and I had far better Mortlachs before. I also skip the two bottles of Highland Park as I have tasted them in a previous Highland Park tasting event.  The Celtic Heartland is quite interesting.  It seems to be matured in a fresh bourbon cask. Tastes quite different from any OB. A very refreshing malt to enjoy in the hot summer time.

At this point in the session, quite some friends had already tried the Ardbegs.
They pressed me to move to Ardbeg myself so we could discuss it.  However, I preferred to keep the best at the very end to make a big ending.  I decided to go with Coal Ila 9yo 1991/2001 (43%, Signatory, Cask# 10784+85, 35cl) first.  Again, the 35cl tasting pack must be selected by a Signatory expert.  This young Caol Ila has quite clear distillery characters and beyond.  Peat, sweet and quite good tropical fruit smell.  Variable layers on taste. Finish well.  Score: 80 points. 
Then, the Isle of Jura 21yo (40%, OB). I've only tried two Jura before, not too astonishing to me. 
As Jura seems quite a good malt to most people, I thought the higher vintages must be really good.  However, this one let me down again. It's not bad, but I can't really taste the characters it wants to give. Score: 75 points.

The Lagavulin 16yo (43%, OB, White Horse) was quite a surprise to me.  Late March this year, I had the honor to chat with Mr. Andrew Grey at Hyatt Taipei.  This malt is what I had that time, or so I thought. To tell the truth, it was quite a pleasant talk, but I was totally disappointed about the malt I ordered.  I had a very moving moment with the very first dram of this malt.  That was in the winter of 1998.  That dram lead me to the world of Islay.  For the past several years, I put my eyes on other Islay bottles and not really paid attention to this "standard" version. I immediately e-mailed my friend Stephen, discussing the experience, I wondered whether it was because I am getting picky, or the recent bottling has changed. Stephen has a bottle, which had been opened for a couple of months.  We decided to compare his one with the one I bought in 1998, when I was so moved to buy half dozen. Though I have finished some, I am quite sure I still have 1 or 2 in the closet.

I didn't realize the old ones were actually better than current version until last week, when I checked some Maniacs' personal profile and got some impression about Lagavulin "White Horse".  I read about this version but always thought to be an "antique" bottle back from a long long time ago. Last week I decided to check about this bottle to understand other Maniacs' favorites and was surprised to find out about the "White Horse" version and "Port Ellen" version.  For the past several years, I kept consuming the bottles I bought at that time and I didn't discover that the label has changed a little bit.  I checked the two bottle left in my closet and confirmed the bottle I kept is the "White Horse" version.  Well, in that case, it seems comparing is not necessary, anymore.  It was another surprise that a friend bought this "White Horse" version bottle at a very small store recently.  He took the bottle to the tasting just by chance. I was so happy I could try it again to confirm my feeling.  Though, the cork is a little bit damaged but yes, this is the one I love.  Later, another friend tried it and confirmed again this is quite different from the one he bought recently.  He always wondered why I wrote an earlier article describing my Lagavulin moving moment.
Now he finally understands. A happy score of 91 points, again.

The Laphroaigs were brought by my friend Stephen to discuss his feeling of sadness whenever he has the 15yo OB.
We use the Laphroaig 10yo cask strength (57.3%, OB, Red stripe) to compare simply this is almost our favorite Islay malt to drink in hot summer!  The score of 90 points is quite firm to me.  Stephen's Laphroaig 15yo (43%, OB) has been opened for more than one year because of the sad feeling.  He just can't finish it.  For this reason, he even wrote a very touching article. He believes every growing man need some time to feel sad and being alone.  This is the right malt for a lonely man.
I can't really explain the feeling, but when I thought back, Laphroaig is something you want to share with no one, not really sad but just want to be alone.  Quite lonely indeed.  Probably the bottle has been opened for over 1 year, I actually smell very clear sulfur.  It's so clear that it smells like decomposed mellow! I can't explain the smell and opened my 15 yo OB to compare.  Surprisingly, the decomposed smell was gone, you can feel sulfur but not in that way, maybe it's the smell that makes Stephen sad. For this sad reason, I decide to adjust my score to 85 points. A little bit lower than my previous note.

Finally, it is about time to try tonight's big show: Ardbeg. 
Several friends knew that I recently managed to get the legendary 1975 Douglas Laing OMC bottle.
They also brought other bottles to compare it with.  Since the recent 17yo OB experience was not like the one I experienced earlier.  I decided to taste the Ardbeg 10yo Non-chillfiltered (46%, OB) again and confirms I can use the score of 90 points for the other two OMC bottles. The Ardbeg 26yo 1974/2000 (50%, DL, 252 Bottles) has quite good typical Ardbeg smell.  Besides peat, I also easily taste some fruit, and chocolate. Amazingly, the mouth feels quite dry.  It's probably the first time that I describe a finish as "long but very dry".  Very good and astonishing, but that's it. Score: 91 points.
My previously taste of the Ardbeg 25yo 1975/2000 (50%, DL, 702 Bottles) was quite good. 
But I was a little conservative to give it 95 points.  However, as I check with my 10 yo OB standard again and also compared with the Lagavulin 16yo, I told myself I got to give it a score of 97 points . The best thing about this malt is: you can enjoy the smell for such a long time but never feel you've had enough.  After you finally move to take a sip, you immediately feel the softness sliding down to your throat and immediately feel it turns back again and stay in your mouth for a long long time.  For me, my favorite malts always are the ones with strong characters.  I have an interesting theory: The best malts are like models, no need to be very beautiful but a need to be very "stylish".  It seems this bottle is not willing to be just an Ardbeg, he want to be a unique one.  It just bears the Ardbeg name, but develops it unique character.  I think this kind of 'moving' is the reason why single malt attracts me and keeps me being maniacal till now.

It was supposed to be the end of the night but everybody was quite high. 
As the host, I have no choice but to take my house malt, the Port Ellen 23yo 1978/2001 (62.2%, Provenance by John Milroy), to treat them. This malt is the most powerful, attractive one I've ever come across. I only give it Score: 93 points because it destroys your taste and you can taste nothing if you immediately have another malt after this one. I have tried it several times; the magic of this malt not only attracts experienced drinkers but also the new comers. Quite amazing.

As my friends enjoyed this powerful malt, for no reason, I just want try something new!  I immediately thought of an interesting bottle I bought several months ago, the Port Ellen 24yo 1878/2002 Port Wood Finish Edition I (58%, Signatory, Cask#02/159/1, 504B.) I am not quite sure whether it's the Edition I or II wins the Whisky Magazine Gold because the alc. vol. doesn't match.  I was about to keep this one to compare with other port finishing stuff.  But at that moment, to make myself happy is the most important. Signatory seems find the perfect timing for the port finishing on Port Ellen.  Maybe it was oil enough that the combination actually give you a very "round" but long feeling.  The strong peat accompanies the beautiful port sweet make it the happy ending of the night.   I immediately gave it a score of 93 points .  Some of the friends have tried the powerful John Milroy version and can't taste anything on this port wood one.  Stephen rested a while and took the chance to finish his cake. When he came back for the second dram.  He totally agreed with what I said, it probably the best port wood finishing we had so far.

What a night! Happy!

Ho-cheng Yao
 

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

E-pistle #10/03 - Whisko Americano 101
Submitted on 20/05/2004 by Alexander van der Veer, Holland

How does one start one's first e-pistle?

Well, I just did, so let's move on... In my recent past I worked as a systems manager for one of Holland's largest Power & Gas firms. I still work there, but I manage people now instead. The system I managed was written by a few programmers, which at some point were around a lot. One of them came in one day and told us about a whisky a friend of him let him try in some bar. No, not just ANY whisky, no, it was a Laphroaig, a single malt, and he never tasted anything like it.
Without exaggeration, he never tasted ANYTHING like it.
The iodine therein, wow ! That was extreme stuff.

He told the story so enthusiastically that I immediately ran out to the store to buy me some... but I didn't.
I freaked and panicked and ran out of the store to never come back…but I did (eventually). I never bought any pricey booze, so dishing out some 33 euro's for a bottle of single malt scotch I only heard about was just a bit much. Fortunately Laphroaig issued a nice little 0.2 litre bottle. Great ! That's just for people like me ! After 3 visits to the shop I finally scraped together enough guts to buy me the little Laphroaig. Just like any other future Malt Maniac, I first put the bottle a few weeks on my desk and looked at it from many different angles, and many different sources of light, with probably a very funny look on my face. I must have looked like an idiot. Reading this back makes me feel like an idiot too.

After a while I gathered even more guts and opened it, bud didn't dare to taste it.
I smelled it, sniffed it, filled my lungs with it up to a point I believed there would be no smell left.
How wrong I was! I tried it and it was fantastic! Couldn't wait to tell the programmers what has happened to me.
I believe they never really forgave me for not wanting to talk about anything else than single malt scotch anymore.

How does one continue one's first e-pistle?

Well, I just will, won't I? Because this was not the beginning - not even single malt-wise. A year or so before this "incident" the boyfriend of my girlfriend's (now my wife) best friend, had two bottles of Whiskey (American Bourbon). Empty (fortunately), but the bottles looked interesting enough to pursue an interest in something else than beer. Once at home I bought one of the two: Jim Beam (the white one). I still don't have a clue as to the reason why, but I drank the bottle over a period of some months without a glass, straight from the bottle. 'I tauwt I saw a pussycat', I mean, I thought I liked Bourbon, so I bought me a Jack Daniels (the black one) too. A few billion people on this planet did that before me, they couldn't be wrong, could they?
What do you mean they could? Really?
To cut a dirty story short, before it gets out of hand; after all these years I still have not finished Mr. Daniels' bottle. It's still half full. How the hell did it become half empty ? In the mean time I got to know some 125 single malts, and still have the Jack D. Now I ask myself, where did I put it ? It must be somewhere around the house.

Is this e-pistle now finished? I don't think so.

After the Whisko Americano 101, I bought myself some Blends (Teachers, Black Bottle, William L. and Glen G.). No Johnny W. Just recently another best friend of my wife's gave us a shot of the red edition of Johnny W. I tried it neat (which was a mistake). I probably had a funny look on my face again, because she told me they didn't like it either. It was their first bottle of Whisky (probably a gift from a client of theirs) but they didn't need years of experience to know the worth of the Johnny W. red. But they had a way of improving the quality of the Whisky. They drowned the stuff with Lift (a type of lemonade made by the world biggest soft drink company, which will remain without a name on these pages). They were right, it was better this way. The blends were no success. I hated the William L. The Glen G was acceptable (my wife likes it). The Teachers was probably the best of the bunch. The first Black Bottle was great, but the second bottle I opened didn't seem that great (anymore). That may be my own fault because now I started to miss some character in my drink.

So the search went on. I was looking for something, but what was it?
I tried Whiskey, I tried some Scottish Blends, I even bought a Jamesons, but I still haven't found what I'm looking for. A friend of mine heard that I liked the Jim Beam at first, so he went out and bought me my first bottle of a single malt scotch: Aberlour 10yo (40%, OB). He still doesn't know Whiskey isn't Whisky. The Aberlour was a gift pack with a little water jar. Now I ask myself, where did I put the water jar ? It must be somewhere around the house. Still, Laphroaig was the first single malt I tried. When I eventually finished the little Laphroaig, I opened the Aberlour and thought it was really something completely different, it was the other end of the spectrum. Wow, this should be it. I knew 2 different single malts and I both liked them.

Now the quest began. Where could I get some info?
After some horrible pages on the world wide web I found Johannes' site.
I was hungry for some info, and Johannes had a lot of food to offer!  I read it all, I even printed it all. I love working for a big company with big fat super fast laser printers ! I read it all again and again. I liked the humour and the storytelling.

But what should I buy next and where to buy it?
I found out Johannes did a lot of his shopping at Ton Overmars.
So I got in my car and drove off to Amsterdam. I was quite nervous. Ton Overmars' shop turned out to be a liquor store dominated by some barrels with wine and a lot of bottles of wine. To the left of the shop a lot of shelves with Whisk(e)y and the more special bottles were behind the counter. A feast for my eyes. I took a list of names I wrote down reading Johannes' pages. I remember I wanted to buy 2 bottles. The Laphroaig 10 yo Cask Strength and the other one I can't remember anymore, but was probably the Glenfarclas 105, which was sold out. I got the Glendronach 15yo (100% Sherry) instead. Both were litre bottles.

I still cherish those bottles as my first "achats" and therefore still haven't opened them.
Don't worry, those 2 weren't my last I bought since then, and a lot were de-corked and tasted…

Is this now the end of this e-pistle?
Yes it is. Tune in next time for a new episode of: PIGS IN SPACE!

Alexander
 

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

E-pistle #10/04 - 'Anzac' Combatant Malts
Submitted on 21/05/2004 by Craig Daniels, Australia

Another good roll out and a very cool little line-up for this year's EoZ Anzac Day Tribute, even if I say so myself. I guess that is a very personal view as I didn't score any of the malts very highly (even the Macallan) but I had a great time, simply because the line-up was so "international'. I know there are people in the malt world that think good whisky starts and finishes within the geographical confines of Scotland, but I don't think that is either legitimate or sustainable in the face of some pretty good whiskies coming out of other countries. OK, I agree that none of the first three are going to knock a seriously decent malt from Scotland off its perch, but there are a few particularly pedestrian whiskies from the font that shouldn't rest on their (somewhat déshabillé) laurels. The emperor might have nice clothes, but they might have to work a bit harder to keep winning the fashion parades.
Now there's a big call from the antipodes!

Ankara NAS Single Malt (43%, OB, Tekel) - I really didn't know what to expect.
I found spirit, fruit and sweet bourbon oak with lots of bourbon type high notes, perfume (violets, lavender), varnish/acetone, maple syrup, treacle, icing sugar, pastille candies, but clean and sweetly lifted. Palate is soft with some burnt fruit, some malt and some wood. Palate is a bit thin and hollow. Finish is warming and fairly long and becomes dry and a little metallic right at the end, not a million miles from Tormore. Overall package has reminiscences of Scapa and Glenmorangie and some of the top notes of Cardhu. Interestingly I revisited this whisky using a Glencairn style tasting glass where the nose was more lifted with acetone and bubble gum, yet the palate was pretty much as I recalled from the brandy balloon. Very pleasant surprise. Score: 72 points.

Milford 10yo (40%, OB) - I vaguely remember this from the Convention, but I couldn't even swear it was the same batch. All I remember from the Convention was that it was light and pretty clean with vanilla and a dash of piney wood. This was a case where the malt suffered when subjected to an in-depth analysis within the Club environs and format. It starts quite nicely, but the longer you leave it, the more insistent the wood gets, especially in the finish, where it pretty much swamps anything else. Initially the nose and fore palate score quite highly, but the increasingly insistent resin in the finish drags it down. I wonder if any of the American White Oak was 'new' wood. I think Johannes of Malt Madness canned the 12, I think this a bit better.. Score: 72 points.

Bakery Hill Double Wood NAS (46%, OB) - Have had precursors of this malt during the Convention, but this is definitely an improvement. This release is interesting because it has spent time in American white oak refill bourbon barrels sourced from New Zealand and then in French oak that had previously held Port. The Double Wood has lots of fruity notes and growing honeysuckle and malty toffee. For the first twenty minutes it is a very pleasant whisky, however the wood gradually becomes a little insistent and prickly. The spirit is very clean and solid, but the wood gets a little ratty. Still a better whisky than anything else I've tried from Australia. I revisited this using a XL5 wine taster and it was much nicer and held together well. Score: 75 points.

Macallan 18yo 1985 (43%, OB) - No blind, but more an incentive and reward for the brave souls who managed to get through the unknown list before them. Many thanks to Clive Coleman from Maxxium for donating this malt. Solid whisky and has lots to commend it, yet it really shows an overly heavy hand with the oloroso sherry. I don't know but they seem to be getting more and more unsubtle. The best 18's have less sherry or if they are sherry monsters, they don't have any harshness in the palate and finish. This one didn't excite and is the lowest I've scored a Macallan 18 since the 1981. Score: 82 points.

And what about next month's EoZ session?
The theme is "Stars from the Trophy Round" - the whiskies that scored highly in the Malt Whisky Society of Australia's Malt Judging Competition. The stars were the whiskies (of course) but the judges had some pretty impressive qualifications amongst them. The first tasting group (below) contained a Master Brewer, a Master of Wine, a Director of the Australian Wine Research Institute and a Senior Lecturer of Oenology along with two other PhDs and five winners of the National Malt Tasting Competition. The judges were divided into two separate tasting groups and each group nosed and tasted a total of 25 malts. Some of the malts were tasted by both groups to make sure that the group's scoring was within acceptable parameters. Our genuine thanks go out to the judges, we knew we needed some external expertise and Adelaide has beer and wine experts in spades. It was a tough job, but someone had to do it!

At the Trophy Round in Canberra on 3 October 2003 there was a judging panel of 8, with 4 from the original Panel, along with 3 fresh faces (Dan Anders, from Melbourne, Brian Coward and Philip Morrice from Sydney) and Paul Rasmussen, who co-ordinated but didn't participate in the scoring for the original selection Round. Overall best whisky was judged as the Glenfarclas 30, which was the clear winner on 8.7375 with Lagavulin 16yo and Macallan 18yo 1984 locked together on 8.5265.  The judging panel split exactly down the middle on which out of the Lagavulin and the Macallan was considered the best whisky, so we had to appoint two joint runner-ups. Glenlivet 18yo came further down, but it's a very nice malt and worth trying as it didn't score badly and is pretty good value for an 18 year old. Consensus isn't perfect but to paraphrase a wise man, it's the best system we've got.  In the grand scheme of things you have to trust a bunch of tasters with a declared independence and three tasters chosen not at random, but deliberately to avoid any 'brand allegiance'.

In the trophy Round, the Lagavulin 16 started off less impressive than the Laphroaig 10, but the longer you left them in the glass the better the Lagavulin nosed.  The Laphroaig started as around 86 and ended up around 84 and the Lagavulin started around 82 and ended up around 87. While the Glenfarclas 30 was the overall winner it wasn't my highest scoring malt.  My highest were the Macallan 1984 18 (90), Ardbeg 10 (88), Lagavulin 16 (87), Glenfarclas 30 (87), Laphroaig 10 (84), Glenlivet 18 (83), Dalwhinnie 15 (82), Macallan 25 (80). It wasn't just me who thought the Macallan 25 was pretty ordinary - it was the lowest average of all of the Trophy Round Malts (81.75).  It was definitely a different bottling than the whisky we tried in the selection trial when it was the second highest scoring (after Glenfarclas 30).  Bit of a shock, when we found out it was the Mac 25.  I'll be very, very careful about investing in any Macallan 25's distilled after 1975.  They seemed to peak around then and later releases are not as good. I also think the Macallan 18yo 1985 is pretty ordinary compared to the 1984.  I still think the 1977, 1974 and 1967 are the best Mac 18's I've tasted, although the 1984 is in the same league.

Anyway, it was a lot of fun and I think the exercise was comforting and confirming of the methodology we pursued and the results reaffirm that the tasting/judging format used in Adelaide Malt Clubs does deliver fair assessments of malt whiskies, especially when we tackle them "masked". If you look at our Club scores for Macallan 18 and Lagavulin 16, you can see that they are held in (deservingly) high regard. Of the original panel, we had 4 out of 12 who were not familiar with the club methodology and in the Trophy Round we had 3 out of 8. It was interesting that the tasters unfamiliar with the format had no troubles working out what we were on about and deliver a consistent result. It was also interesting that the rankings from the Trophy Round were pretty much reflected in the original results. The bottles sampled in the Trophy Round were unopened before the Convention and hence were not the same bottles used in the original selection trial. Only Macallan 25 performed noticeably different in the Trophy Round, almost certainly due to batch variation.

Cheers,

Craig Daniels - Treasurer Earls of Zetland Malt Tasting Club
 

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

E-pistle #10/05 - Spring 2004: Great Finds & Honours List
Submitted on 27/05/2004 by Serge Valentin, France

Lengthening day times and shortening skirts are the most
noticeable signs of the hot and sunny Alsatian summer being
around the corner. But there are other signs: the great whisky
events that are organised around Europe all along springtime.
Whiskylive London in March, the Whiskyfair Limburg in April,
the Islay Festival in May… It's just like climbing the stairs:
it's the best part of the year malt-wise. Meeting some old
and new friends surely is what's most important, but there
were also all this wonderful whiskies I could add to my malt
mileage like if I was threading beads…
There have been many surprises, some confirmed gems,
and a few disappointments as well, but overall it's been great.
Some very old bottles were extremely good, which means
that malt shouldn't deteriorate in glass.

On the other hand, all the twenty+ years bottles had some common characteristics, like for instance some tropical fruit notes, and none had any heavy peat left. That suggests that contrarily to popular belief, and just like any other beverage, whisky does change in its bottle, often for the better. But the phenolic aromas tend to vanish… Another interesting trend is the arrival on the market of some young and unusually peated malts. Loch Lomond's Croftengea (not very interesting, alas), Bunnahabhain (the 'Moine' is great and more is to be bottled), Isle of Jura (after their successful heavily peated casks for Japan)… not to mention Port Charlotte (Cask #1 just turned 3yo, hence it's legal whisky now) or Edradour's 'farmy' Ballechin. And I'm sure many others will follow this trend…

Finally, a short word about vintages. It's true that talking about 'millésimes' shouldn't make any sense regarding whisky, but just between us, I never, ever had a bad, or even semi-good 1968 Bowmore, 1972 Brora or 1974 Ardbeg. Whether that's pure luck or not, I don't know. Did they make something special in these distilleries in those years? A special barley selection? Slower distilling? Excellent empty casks selection? Planet alignment?… That's a mystery, but we'll find out!

Anyway, it's time to list the best malts I had during Spring, i.e. from March to the beginning of June.
Please note that the malts are sorted alphabetically within each category.

The absolute winners – 95 or 94 points:

95 - Ardbeg 11yo 1991/2002 (62.1%, Cadenhead, 306 bottles)
The young brother of the 1975 Old Malt Cask '702 b.' Magnificent.
Besides, I could taste this samples from Johannes' while on Islay… Even better!
95 - Highland Park 30yo 1956/1986 (55.6%, G&M for Intertrade, 216 bottles)
Finally a Highland Park IB that beats the OBs. Fantabulous elegance and complexity.
Hmmm, if only I could put my hands on a full bottle…
94 - Ardbeg 22yo 1974/1996 (40%, G&M for Italy, white label)
The subtler Ardbeg I ever had. Brilliant! Smoked oysters... And again 1974 (the Provenance's year).
94 - Laphroaig 17yo 1987/2004 (55.2%, OB for Feis Isle 2004, 250 bottles)
At £150, perhaps the most expensive 'new' 17yo I ever saw. But what a beast!
I couldn't resist buying some bottles…

Comment on the category: Interesting to see a delicate old Highland Park hustling the rather 'smack in your face' Islayers… I hope there will be many more non-sherry-or-peat-monsters in this category in the future… Having said that, the Brora 22yo 1972/1995 (58.7%, Rare Malts) still is my #1 of all times, with 97 points. This one will be hard to dethrone, it's still looking down on all the Ardbegs ;-).

The great, great ones – 93 points:

93 - Bowmore 34yo 1968 (41.7%, Peerless, cask #1426)
Extremely delicate – one of the great 1968 Bowmores. Ah, 1968 at Bowmore, 1972 at Brora, 1974 at Ardbeg…
93 - Clynelish 12yo (56.9%, OB, Ainslie & Heilbron for Edward & Edward Italy, pre-Brora, bottled 60's)
Extraordinary old Clynelish (pre-Brora), superb freshness.
93 - Laphroaig Vintage 1976 (43%, OB)
A splendid blend of some typical Laphroaig peat with all sorts of fruit, including tropical ones. Highly drinkable!
93 - Springbank 25yo (46%, OB, dumpy, parchment label)
Ultra-complex and awfully drinkable.
93 - Springbank 1966/1998 "Local Barley" (54.4%, OB)
A myth and it deserves it. Richness and complexity…
93 - Tomintoul 37yo 1966/2003 (52.8%, DL Platinum, 201 bottles, Rum Finish)
A Tomintoul that tastes like an Ardbeg – yes, that's right.
Both Olivier and I ordered 3 bottles each after having tasted it. Need more evidence?

Comment on the category: Only one genuine peat monster in this category… But only one real surprise: the Tomintoul. The Clynelish is just outstanding. Imagine the Italians who could buy it for only a few Liras in the sixties… bastardi fortunati! ;-) Some Peerless bottlings really are bargains. Imagine Duncan Taylor provides many OBs with some old casks… And then the 'officials' sell them for… 3 times the price Duncan Taylor would ask for a bottle (Laphroaig 40yo, anyone?)

The great ones – 92 points:

92 - Ardbeg Uigeadail new bottling (OB, bottled 2004)
Absolute winner, a real challenger to the Laphroaig 10yo Cask Strength.
92 - Ardbeg 25yo 'Lord of the Isles' (46%, OB, 2001)
I never tasted this one before! Hardly a surprise, though…
92 - Ardbeg 28yo 1972/2001 (50%, DL Old Malt Cask, sherry finish, 432 bottles)
Great interplay peat-sherry. I know, I don't like finishes… Err…
92 - Ardbeg 30yo 1967/1997 sherry (52%, Signatory, cask 578, 540 b.)
Perfect blend of peat, sherry and elegance. An anti-monster Ardbeg.
92 - Banff 24yo 1978 (50%, DL Old Malt Cask)
Smoky and peaty, bottled at his peak, for once.
One of the greatest surprises, the Laings deserve a big kiss on both cheeks for this one. Well…
92 - Glen Garioch 29yo 1968/1997 (55.9%, OB, cask 629) Again a great old Glen Geerie.
This time it's an extremely sherried one. I simply adored it.
92 - Glenlivet 1971/2003 (55%, Berry Bros, cask #6447)
Beautiful fruit, beautiful wood, beautiful sherry, great complexity. Yes, just a beautiful and complex Glenlivet.
92 - Laphroaig Vintage 1977 (43%, OB)
Tropical fruits and heavy peat in a great interplay.
92 - Lochside 20yo 1965 (40%, G&M CC old brown label)
Yes, subtle peat does exist. Superb old Lochside,
'The Springbank from the East' claims the Murray McDavid gang. I think they're right.
92 - Springbank 21yo (46%, OB, dumpy, parchment label)
Magnificent peated and spicy Springbank. Again, the good old days…

Comment on the category: This category is Ardbeg's kingdom. Two of my favourite distilleries are also well here (Lochside and Glen Garioch). And one great surprise: a Banff – but the Silent Stills version is very good as well, so this is only half a surprise. The new 2004 Uigeadail is superb: you can't miss it, as the bottling year is mentioned on the label.

The excellent ones – 91 points:

91 - Bowmore 32yo 1968/2000 (46%, Signatory, oak cask #1422, 236 b).
Again a 1968 Bowmore. Great balance and no sign of over-aging.
91 - Clynelish 30yo 1972/2002 (46%, Dundeil, cask #14307)
This is a beautiful bottling Doug McIvor did just before he joined Berry bros.
It's devilishly good, as Doug wrote on the label. Bought 2 bottles.
91 - Glen Elgin 16yo 1985/2001 (56.7%, The Bottlers, Refill Spanish Oak Butt #1212)
A great example of this series. All 'The Bottlers' are quite sherried and come from great casks. You'll never be disappointed.
91 - Glenfarclas 32yo 1970/2003 'Old Stock Reserve' (50.1%, OB, 295 b.)
Another great Glenfarclas from Germany, which is the distillery's largest market.
91 - Glen Garioch 21yo (43%, OB, Taiwan reimport)
Wonderful peated version.
91 - Glengoyne 31yo 1972 (56%, OB, single cask #2970, 510 bottles)
Another perfect old Glengoyne, loaded with refined sherry and all the fruits on earth.
91 - Glen Grant 31yo 1970/2001 (55.4%, High Spirits Collection, 485 b.)
Another very dark old Glen Grant for sherryheads. Beautiful and extremely creamy.
91 - Invergordon 36yo 1965/2002 (51.8%, Peerless, cask #15539, first fill bourbon, 252 b.)
A great surprise, and the best single grain I ever had.
91 - Laphroaig 11yo 1992 Portwood Finish (60%, Signatory Straight from The Cask)
A shock, because I usually hate Portwood finishes ;-).
91 - Port Ellen 23yo 1979/2003 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, cask #6778) Great, even if cask #6769 was even better. One of Wilson & Morgan's tours de force.
91 - Port Ellen 24yo 1978/2002 2nd Annual Release (54.3%, OB)
Classic smoke, rubber and burnt tire.
91 - Springbank 15yo (46%, Black Label, mid 80's)
Extremely complex. The good old days…

Comment on the category: Again a few good surprises: Glen Elgin, Glengoyne, and even a grain: Invergordon. The Clynelish Dundeil is dangerously drinkable. I think both Berry Bros and The Vintage House still have a few bottles, unless Olivier made a razzia last time he was in London… And oh, I'd never had thought I'd rate a portwood finish 91 points!

The very good ones – 90 points:

90 - Ben Nevis 35yo 1967/2003 (52.5%, OB, c. #2218, 165 b.)
A beautiful version, much more balanced and less of a 'sherry monster' than most other old OBs.
90 - Bowmore 12yo (43%, Dumpy Golden Label, 1970's)
If only the current 12yo would match this beauty…
90 - Braes of Glenlivet 15yo 1979/1995 (60.0%, Signatory, sherry butt #16040)
Another sherry monster and a great example of the very good casks of Braes bottled by Signatory Vintage in the mid-nineties.
90 - Brora 26yo 1974/2001 (50%, DL OMC, 258 bottles)
Very interesting, because it's well between the classical peated Broras from 197O/1972 and the fruitier ones from the 80's.
90 - Bunnhabhain 'Moine' (59.6%, OB, bottled 20/5/2004 for the festival, cask #3180)
From a heavily peated 1997 run. Interesting and trendy variant…
90 - Caperdonich 29yo 1972/2002 (46.9%, Peerless, c. #6698)
Lots of pinewood, eucalyptus and toasted bread. A good example of Duncan Taylor's outstanding old casks collection.
90 - Dalmore 30yo 1966/1996 (52.3%, The Bottlers, cask #6871)
Lots of mint, pepper and bitter orange. Another great sherry beast by The Bottlers.
90 - Edradour 30yo 1973/2003 (53.4%, OB, sherry butt #97, 539 bottles)
Simply the best Edradour I ever had. Stunning… And it's worth the £220 they ask for it.
90 - Glen Garioch 36yo 1967 (55.5%, DL Platinum)
Again a great Glen Garioch, balance at its best.
90 - Glengoyne 31yo 1972 (57.9%, OB, single cask #2968, 540 bottles)
Great sherry and superb elegance. An alternative to the greatest old Macallans.
90 - Isle of Jura 5yo 1997 (59.9%, cask #21, not bottled yet, peated)
Watch this one when it comes out!
90 - Laphroaig 7yo 1991/1999 (59.3%, SMWS 29.10)
Eternal finish, incredible considering its age.
90 - Oban 19yo (59.8%, OB, The Manager's Dram, b. Dec 1995)
Like a great Clynelish. Diageo, I want to become a distillery manager. Wait, I'm joking!
90 - Port Ellen 20yo 1982/2003 (61.2%, Scotch Single Malt Circle, sherry)
A nice sherry version, and an unusual 'coffeeish' Port Ellen.
90 - Strathisla 1948-1961/1981 'Royal Wedding' (40%, Gordon & MacPhail)
Elegance at its best. Issued in 1981 to celebrate the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana.
It's a vatting of both birth years, 1948 and 1961. Mellow and fragrant, with some beautiful wood.
90 - Talisker 8yo (80 proof, OB UK, 'Pure malt', bottled late 50's)
Like an old Yquem. 1967 anyone?

Comment on the category: Many excellent and interesting malts in this category. I've been especially impressed by the Edradour… Please note that many other very good whiskies have been rated 88 or 89 points, and would have deserved to be mentioned here. Check whiskyfun.com if you want to read about them.

Okay, I hope this year's second part will be as 'rich' as Spring 2004. There will be Whiskylive Paris and Whsikyship Zurich, so I'm sure many great discoveries will follow… I'm particularly eager to try the new Bruichladdich 40yo to be released in Summer. I could taste one of the three 1964 casks at the distillery, and all I can say is 'wowie!' So, stay tuned...

... and Santé!
 

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

E-pistle #10/06 - Enjoying Whisky (Without Going Broke Or Insane)
Submitted on 03/06/2004 by Louis Perlman, USA

Angst. The dictionary defines angst as a feeling of dread or anxiety.
Hobbies bring on angst. At the beginning, you are just having a good time. But then you start learning about all sorts of things that are not known to the general public. And each of them requires attention. And more important, everything costs money. Pretty soon it looks like every time you spend money on something, it just tells you about something else that you have to buy. And after a while, the moments of joy are few and far between, while you are dealing with angst on a regular basis. Should I do this, what if had done that, etc. To best illustrate how this works in our world of single malt scotch whisky, I am going to present a fictional whisky lover named Harry. While Harry doesn't actually exist, there is a little bit of perhaps all of us in Harry's character.

Like most of us, Harry started out with the standards, mostly 10 and 12 year old distillery bottlings that we are all familiar with. Harry has always liked the Glen Something 12yo (43%, OB). It is the only expression bottled by the distillery, but there are plenty of independent bottling to be found. So Harry sets out on a quest to find a better Glen Something. But a 20 year old is too dry, a 16 year old too sherried, and a 14 year old at cask strength to spirity, and it tastes rather ordinary with water. Finally Harry strikes pay dirt with a 25 year old. The only problem is that it cost $150, and now he has the other three bottles sitting around gathering dust. Multiply this by any number of other distilleries, and you can see how things have easily gotten out of hand.

Or try this little episode. Once Harry discovered independent bottlings, he got in the habit of picking the few that were of most interest to him with each release. But this time he outdoes himself by buying up the entire series (think Murray McDavid Mission). Harry tries them all and has his favorite, and then invites a some friends over for a tasting session. His friends agree with Harry's assessment, and they all but polish off the bottle. Now Harry has to replace that bottle, and is stuck with the others that he is somewhat less enamored with. And so on and so forth. Angst is clearly setting in, and Harry wonders exactly how much enjoyment he got for his four figure investment.

Meanwhile, whenever Harry goes anywhere he parks a couple of blocks away so nobody can see what he is driving. Sure he can afford a new car, if only he would stop spending the monthly payments on more bottles. Not that Harry goes out much anyway, since he spends every free moment corresponding with friends and perusing the online whisky dealers for his next acquisitions. HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLP.

OK, I have a solution.
Cold turkey isn't going to work, if it did, there would be no more smokers left in the world, and we'd all be nice and skinny. So I am hereby introducing the 12 bottle, $1000 plan. It's almost as simple as it sounds, you can buy 12 bottles in one year, and spend up to $1000. And you can start your own fiscal year right now, no need to wait until the current calendar year is over. While these number actually fit in nicely with what we are trying to accomplish here, there is actually some sound reasoning behind them as well. Some informal research reveals that the average person isn't going to finish more than one bottle's worth of whisky in a month, so there's no need to acquire any more than that while trying to cut back. Then look around and find as many open bottles as you can that can be finished off one way or another, invite friends over as often as you need to, and the situation will eventually come under control.

Information from other hobbies indicates that for someone who is gainfully employed, spending one to two per cent of gross income is not out of line. Of course you may point out that someone who earns $100,000/year can spend double the prescribed amount by this reasoning, but again, the whole idea is to cut back a bit. Like all of those fancy diets, there are a few restrictions. The 12 bottles will be divided as follows: Four bottles under forty dollars (for general dramming), four from forty to eighty dollars, three up to one hundred, and the rest on one 'luxury' bottle. So lets do the arithmetic.

(4 x 40) + (4 x 80) + (3 x 100) = 160 + 320 + 300 = $780, with a $220 luxury bottle.

That's not too bad. Hey, just like the Atkins diet, where you can have a nice juicy steak, just no potato.
But lets do it a little differently. Instead on maxing out in each category, we'll reduce the average purchase price by just a little bit. So then, (4 x 36) + (4 x 65) + (3 x 90) = 144 +  260 + 270 = 674. And let's limit the luxury bottle to $125, so we only end up spending $799. You can pocket the difference, or use it when you really do need a bottle or two for special occasions. When you think about it, there are plenty of good bottles in each price range. And if you wait for sales, you can really do well. While you cannot buy high end bottles exclusively, you'll appreciate them even more when you get around to drinking them. And you will enjoy them more, since you will be more discriminating in the first place, not being able to wave money at anything that at least one person said something good about. And a little cheating on the low end is OK, let's say to include a $45 bottle of Talisker in the $40 bracket.

And then there is the mental part of the plan. You aren't going to be able to buy a bottle of every distillery you are interested in at every age, proof, cask type, and bottler. But the truth is, that for most of these, you probably really only want to try a dram, not buy the entire bottle. And it's important to recognize that different is not always better, just different. So while it would be interesting to see how, say, a Murray McDavid bottling of something or the other might compare to the Signatory Unchill Filtered version, your life really won't be that any better with both bottles in your cabinet.

And finally, don't blame the whisky if it turns out not to be exactly what you were hoping for.
Most bottles are decent to some extent, so appreciate each one for what it is. And try a little bit of creative home vatting if necessary. In Harry's case, he can blend a little bit of the 16 year old Glen Something with the 20 year old, and perhaps add some of the 14 year old cask strength for a little bit more kick. So make the best of the tasting events that you attend, whether they be public or private, to keep your malt mileage up, and get on with life. Just remember Harry, and enjoy whatever you've got on hand.

This was the first part of a two part series dealing with day-to-day acquisitions.
In part two, we'll deal with Harry's attempt at maintaining his collection.
I'll leave you for now with some recent tasting notes and ratings;

92    Ardbeg 1977 (46%, OB) - The 1977 is the last vintage Ardbeg from before the distillery was closed.
It is somewhat closer to the current 10 year old in profile than to the mighty 1975 vintages, but it's still an excellent dram.

90    Compass Box Monster (54.9%, OB bottled for Park Ave. Liquors) - John Glaser created this one for Park Avenue Liquors in Manhattan (NYC). It is a vatting of an older Ardmore and a younger Caol Ila, averaging about 12 years of age. The result is spectacular, with plenty of smoke, and a nice dose of bacon grease. We had some bitter cold weather back in January, and the Monster lived up to it's name, bettered only by my Cadenhead Laphroaig in that department.

90    Springbank 12yo '175' (46%, OB 175th Anniversary 1878-2003)
90    Springbank 12yo 1990 Sherrywood (54.2%, OB Sherry casks)
A couple of new Springbanks is always some thing to get excited about. The 175th Anniversary is similar to the current 15. Interestingly enough, in a direct comparison, there wasn't much difference, but in a HTH with the 21, the 175 proved to be a little bit more robust. The Sherrywood is closer to the previous 12, which is one of my all time favorite drams, even if others think it was over the top. The SW is a bit light in body for cask strength, but the higher proof makes up for it.

84    Highland Park 13yo (40%, Prime Malt) - I picked this one up on a tip, and it is very good for an independent HP, coming very close to the distillery profile. At 40%, it nearly pulls it off, but comes up with a slightly thin body.

80    Glenfiddich 12yo Special Reserve (40%, OB) - Now here is a surprise. There isn't anything I need to say about the old NAS, but the 12 is vastly improved. Much firmer body, with a just bit of welcome sherry in the mix. The biggest problem will maintaining your purist snob reputation with this in your cabinet.

80    Glenlivet 12yo (43%, OB, American Oak) - Same rating as the Glenfiddich, but less enthusiasm.
While a definite improvement over the standard GL 12, I think that the French Oak is the way to go.
The American Oak is, well, a bit oaky. This firms up the body, but works less on the palate.

79    Vintage 'Islay' 5yo (43%, Bastard malt, Lagavulin?) - Forget about class or sophistication.
This young Lagavulin is brash and unrestrained, There is a full frontal attack on peat, enough to make you forget what some more years would have accomplished. And a steal at $20.

82    Tomintoul 14yo (43%, OB)
A moderately sherried Speyside. Perfumy nose, about what you'd expect on the palate.

That's it, folks.

Louis
 

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

E-pistle #10/07 - Fun For Four Eyes #1: Raw Spirit by Iain Banks
Submitted on 05/06/2004 by Davin de Kergommeaux, Canada

Sometime in the sixties, the woman who was to be my mother in law said, in a half accusatory tone,
"I know what marijuana smells like, I heard it described on the radio."  In learning about whisky there
is no substitute for tasting whisky, but out of natural curiosity we also want to know what others think.
We chat on the internet, but after a while get tired of people asking how much some ancient bottle of
el crapo whisky is worth, or telling how wonderful their website is or extolling the virtues of Ardbeg 10yo.
So we read.

Beginning with this edition of Malt Maniacs we are adding a book review feature.  First off the mark is
Iain Banks' recently released Raw Spirit, a chronicle of one man's search, distillery to distillery, for the
perfect dram.  Next up will be Jackson Five, the fifth edition of Michael Jackson's Malt Whisky Companion.
You'll have to wait for the review, but if you buy only one book on whisky, let it be this one.  Maclean's
Whisky Miscellany, by our own Charlie MacLean, Pip Hills' Appreciating Whisky and Jim Murray's Whisky
Bible (sans Apocrypha) are in the pipeline as is The Malt Whisky Guide: Making Whisky Fun by David Stirk.

Stirk, I think, comes from the same school as I do on tasting notes.  Rather than telling us he tastes some obscure fruit found only in Borneo (and thus bragging that he's been to Borneo), Stirk chooses to use simple common descriptors.  Read this book, and you'll be able to say, "I know what Rosebank tastes like, I saw it described in a book."

Raw Spirit:  In Search of the Perfect Dram by Iain Banks
(368 pp., Century, London, 2003)

Cutting up your passport to protest government policy is like cutting up your welfare cheque to protest poverty.  Except, getting a replacement passport is a whole lot easier.  But that's how Banks begins his quest for the perfect dram. He and wife, Ann, mail their destroyed passports to Downing Street, protesting the war on Iraq, but thus confining themselves to the country whose policies they so abhor.  It's a thread that clumsily weaves its way through the first half of the book, then disappears until suddenly recalled when it comes time to sum up.

Banks' brilliance for evocative images shines through vividly as he recounts a train ride through Faslane and along Loch Long in the three paragraphs beginning middle of page 350.  Would that such examples were more common, but there's a lot of hard slogging up to that point.  Too bad, because that is where this book could have excelled – as a travelogue of Scotland.  The central theme is the search for the perfect dram – and malt lovers, before they invest a lot of time reading, will want to know the search ends early on at Glenfiddich distillery- but that theme is really just a pretext for Banks to indulge his love of cars and his life as a successful writer.  So much of the book is about cars, in fact, that a clever editor, with minor cut and paste could probably re-release a renamed Raw Spirit to car aficionados undetected by malt heads who read the original.  Except some waggish car buff would probably suggest this could almost be a book about whisky.

Raw Spirit began as a publisher's idea.  Get a well-known author to travel all over Scotland tasting malt whisky (it's much in vogue these days) and writing about his adventures.  Banks accepted readily, much to the envy of his friends.  To avoid post-tasting mishaps, a driver was to be employed, but Banks soon dispensed with that idea.  He likes it too much behind the wheel himself.  North to Orkney, west to Islay and Jura, through Speyside and many points in between, Banks visits most operating distilleries and samples wares from all.  His tasting notes are rarely extensive, but echo the popular books about whisky.  He loves the much-promoted notes that members of Malts-L would scoff at.

Banks is known for his ability to make complicated literary constructions work elegantly, but he appears to have taken a break from that discipline in this, his first published work of non-fiction.  Though he amply demonstrates his skills at stringing words together, without a plot and not having characters to develop, the book has a tendency to lurch from thought to thought.  Many of those thoughts do not involve whisky.  For instance, he takes almost a page to debunk the idea that his first novel, The Wasp Factory, was autobiographical, calling on such noted authority as his mother to testify he did not have an abused or troubled childhood.  We learn later, though, that he did, and still does enjoy blowing things up.  To Banks, and he is the real topic of Raw Spirit, life is an adventure, but a sophomoric one.

Perhaps Banks' knowledge of whisky is not enough to fill 368 pages so must be supplemented with whatever he can find, or perhaps he is trying to construct a book that deliberately reflects the free flowing, rollicking good times he has drinking with his buddies.  Core Banks fans and readers who've been known to say "Glenfiddich, now there's a whisky" may enjoy this aspect of Raw Spirit, but the malt connoisseur may wish to heed a signal that appears on page five when Banks sublimates the tastes of single malt to its being "a legal, exclusive, relatively expensive but very pleasant way of getting out of your head." 

In short, Raw Spirit is a chronicle of Banks' adolescent idea of fun (jumping from balcony to balcony on tall buildings while drunk, rolling Porches, etc.)  The book could be about whisky but it could just as easily be about cars or what it's like to be a successful writer who gets to do pretty much as he pleases whenever he pleases, but is a little short on ideas.  The Scotland travelogue which dominates is quite good.  Overall it's a workmanlike effort, but self-indulgent with no great inspiration.  His interjections about the war on Iraq are tedious and very much dated already.  If you must have it, wait for the paperback.
 

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

E-pistle #10/08 - Scottish Life: In the Parish of Peats
Submitted on 07/06/2004 by Charles MacLean, Scotland

I arrived on Islay the day before my life changed forever...

I had been invited by Anthony Wills to give a talk on the origins of distilling in Scotland on the site of his proposed farm distillery at Kilchoman, west of Bruichladdich. This looks like a most interesting project. Anthony has raised enough cash to run the show for seven years, but if any of you want to invest, I am sure you won't be turned away. (www.kilchomandistillery.com.)

Later in the day I went up to Caol Ila to meet Dr. Nick Morgan (Diageo's Marketing Director, Malts) and chew the fat with Billy Stitchell, the distillery manager. A few drams of C-I led us to a couple of pints in Bridgend Hotel, where Nick was staying, and it was here that he asked me whether I knew anything about the Maltmaniacs. 'No', says I.
'I monitor them closely', says Nick. 'They are a small group of very knowledgeable malt whisky enthusiasts, scattered across the world. We take their comments and tasting notes seriously. There are three of them on the island at the moment - Serge, Olivier and Davin - watch out for them: they're good guys - dangerous; your types. You will recognise them by Serge, who has a Frank Zappa beard.'

Next morning I went early to Laphroaig and did a tour. Claiming my dram at the end was difficult, since the bar was blocked by three tall men buying very expensive bottles and requesting samples. I caught the profile of one - more Charles I than Frank Zappa, I thought. It must be them... Before I could speak, Davin turned and asked whether I was the real Charles MacLean.

As soon as introductions had been made, I dragged them outside for a cigarette, then we had some coffee (with excellent free sandwiches!) and I suggested lunch at Ardbeg, where I knew my friend Dave Broom would be. He turned out to be sitting with Robert Hicks (Master Blender, Ballantines and Teachers) and Mark Hunt (Marketing Director, Allied Distillers), so we spent an interesting couple of hours asking these gentlemen tricky questions...  They left us around 3pm and I suggested we go and visit Donald Renwick, manager of Lagavulin, a distillery which is a second home for Dave and I - we go there every other month as part of a malts training programme. Donald was out, but Pinkie was persuaded to look after us.

Pinkie - Ian McArthur, to give him his proper name (he has a brother called Treacle, but History does not relate why) - is one of the characters of Islay. A small man, he runs a successful farm and various other enterprises, so far as I can ascertain, but also works at Lagavulin, where he in charge of the filling store. He has a quick wit, and specialises in teasing people and pricking pomposity. No better guide, but before we started he insisted we have a couple of 'Islay measures' of 16YO and the same of Distillers' Edition.  In the still-house we were joined by Donald Renwick who invited us back to blind taste some unusual single cask samples... By the time we left Lagavulin Distillery we were well primed for the day's major event: a drinks party on board a large private yacht at Port Ellen pier, hosted by Glengoyne Distillery.

A quick word with the owner, Hugh McCaig (with whom I went on a very wet camping trip to Brittany in 1969 - another story), secured a warm welcome for my new found friends and Mr. Broom. Large Glengoynes were thrust into our hands, but before we got started Stuart Hendry, from the distillery, asked us to give our opinion of four sherry-cask samples he was thinking of bottling. As I recall, we all agreed which sample we liked best, although they were all very good. But by this time recall is a problem. I remember only snatches of conversations and have no idea when my new-found friends left the ship.
Perhaps they stayed as stow-aways...

And now I am a member of that very same distinguished circle. Life will never be the same...
Within a matter of days I was sucked into a 'maniacal' on-line discussion about 'borderline personalities.
That reminded me of an article I wrote for the US magazine 'Scottish Life' not to long ago.
I've included part of it in my first E-pistle because it deals with the very same topic;

Over the past twenty years it has become common to approach malt whiskies in terms of their regional differences, on the principal that the malts made on Islay are different to those made in Speyside for mysterious reasons of terroir. It was a brilliant marketing idea, which effectively communicated the fact that all malts are different in a way which was familiar to wine drinkers, used to the idea of differences within regions such as Bordeaux. The concept also made malts more accessible, encouraged consumers to explore whiskies from different parts of Scotland. What's more, it was justified by history in the ancient division between 'Highland' and 'Lowland' styles (first noted in the 18th century), and the later identification of 'Islay', 'Campbeltown' and 'Speyside' (originally called 'Glenlivet') styles by the end of the 19th century.

The first, faltering, step in the direction of marketing a selection of whiskies which displayed regional differences  was made by the old Distillers Company Limited when it launched – or, rather, slipped discreetly onto the market - 'The Ascot Malt Cellar' in 1982. This was a collection of six whiskies: Rosebank (a Lowland malt), Linkwood (from Speyside), Talisker (from the Isle of Skye), Lagavulin (from Islay), Strathconnan (a vatted malt) and Glenleven (a vatted malt).

The idea was extended by the DCL's successor, United Distillers, in 1988 when the 'Classic Malts' range was launched, specifically to demonstrate the differences between malts made in one region and another. The selected malts were Lagavulin and Talisker (both of which had been part of the 'Ascot Malt Cellar', to represent the heavily peated style of Islay, and the slightly less smoky style of the Isles); Oban (maritime in character, representing the West Highlands), Dalwhinnie (a typical Highland malt), Cragganmore (a complex Speyside) and Glenkinchie (standing for the dryish Lowland style). All come from small, traditional, picturesque distilleries: the company had in mind the fact that consumers would want to visit the places where the malts were made, and soon developed visitor facilities at each.

It was an intelligent and appropriate move, and was hugely successful. Everyone began to talk about malts in terms of their region – 'a cheeky little Lowland', 'rather a good example of the North Highland style', 'classic Perthshire whisky, of the sherried kind' . Writers divided and sub-divided the country into smaller and smaller 'regions'. Actually, in my own experience this was driven by publishers, for whom a 'regional' or even 'sub-regional' breakdown of malt whiskies was more accessible and made for a more attractive book.
Other whisky companies began to imitate the concept, but not having United Distillers' huge inventory of distilleries, their attempts were half-hearted. Seagram's, for example tried to sell their 'Heritage Selection', featuring Longmorn, Glen Keith, Strathisla and Benriach – all good malts, but all from Speyside, and having a broadly similar flavour profile. The project did not last.

But, although useful, the concept of regional differences is by no means infallible. If Islay malts are famously smoky – 'the most pungent whiskies made' – why are Bruichladdich and Bunnahabhain so mild, with not a trace of smoke? If Lowlands are typically dry and short in the finish, yet Auchentoshan can be sweetly fruity and medium length? Speyside, where two-thirds of today's malt whisky distilleries are located, embraces a wide range of styles.

The truth is that it is not location - 'terroir' - which dictates the style of a whisky, it is tradition.  For a hundred and fifty years, the main customers for malt whisky have been the blending houses, and the last thing they want when they buy malt x from Islay or malt y from Speyside is for those malts to have changed in style – if they have done, it messes up the formula for the blend.
The style, character and flavour of any malt whisky come from two principal sources: the way it is made and the way it is matured.
The way it is made embraces the peating levels in the malt, the way the malt is processed, how long the wash is fermented, the size of the stills and how they are operated, the style of the condenser (traditional worm tub or 'shell and tube') – above all the craft of whisky making: how each individual distillery makes its whisky, and has been making it for decades.
The way it is matured encompasses the length of time the whisky has lain to the wood and the nature of the casks used – American or European oak? First fill or re-fill? In some cases up to 80% of the flavour of the mature whisky comes from the cask. Macallan is an example, and many very old malts. The style of the warehouse in which the whisky is matured (traditional or modern) and the location of the warehouse also play a part – but it's a small part, in relation to all the other factors.

If they chose to, the owner of distillery x (on Islay) could make a 'Highland' style malt, while distillery y (on Speyside) could produce a smoky 'Islay' style – although neither could produce a replica of the make of another distillery, even if that distillery was next door. But if the main customers for these distilleries are blenders – and remember that 95% of the malt whisky made goes for blending – Mr x and Mr y run the risk of losing their key customers. So they tend to stick to the way they have always done it, and to the extent that this way will be the way it has always been done in Islay or Speyside, or wherever, a local style emerges, a 'regional difference'.

Charles MacLean

Part of this article was published in the US magazine 'Scottish Life'
 

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

E-pistle #10/09 - Gold Medal Malts - A very classy trio
Submitted on 19/06/2004 by Craig Daniels, Australia

I suppose it is relatively self evident but there are some absolute bargains out there in malt land.
It's kind of reassuring that we went through the National Malt Judging Competition and we found five out of the eight Gold Medal Whiskies were readily available and for less than $85 (Dalwhinnie 15, Ardbeg 10, Laphroaig 10, Lagavulin 16 and Glenlivet 18). On this occasion the Lagavulin was very narrowly favourite of Club members on the night over another solid and regularly well-rated malt in the Macallan 18.

It was interesting to compare the Club scores with the Malt Judging Competition results.
In the big malt judging, Lagavulin 16 and Macallan 18 1984 were locked together on 8.5265. The Glenlivet 18 with 8.2875 brought up the rear in that trio. The Club (who are always extremely hard taskmasters) rated the offerings Lagavulin 16 8.38, Macallan 18 1984 8.30 and The Glenlivet 18 8.03. I scored the other two higher, but I have a sneaky regard for the Glenlivet 18, as I kind of like the seamlessness and exquisite balance of this seriously classy whisky. Maybe it is a little too conservative and boring: smooth and bland, but if I was advising people on a "corporate'" whisky cabinet, I'd be putting this whisky in the mix as it's not possible or desirable for all malt whisky to be a peat or sherry monster. Here's the EoZ Report Card from 26 May 2004, including three "Gold Medal Malts".

Glenlivet 18yo (43%, OB). The nose is fruity with hints of cream, fennel, oranges and a nice touch of sherry. The palate has an edge of burnt fruit, but is well balanced and smooth. The finish is long and warming, with a hint of smoke, some spice, bitter herbs and some charred wood. This is one hell of a good whisky and is really a strong candidate for the perfect 'boardroom' malt as it's the kind of whisky that would grace a corporate boardroom/entertainment suite with aplomb. Score 84

Macallan 18yo 1984 (43%, OB) - Nose has the typical big sherry with rum and raisins and brandied fruitcake. The nose is pretty clean with no sulphur or burnt notes. Palate has a little sour sherry, toffee, honey, cherries and lots of sherry. The sherry and cherries follow through in the finish. This one has more honey and malt toffee than the over sherried 1985 (and consequently scores higher for me). I think it is pretty classy whisky and it was my top scorer in the Malt Judging Trophy Round. Score 88

Lagavulin 16yo (43%, OB) this was getting back to the 'old' Lagavulin. All the usual sherry and peat as previously described on many occasions. This time the dominant characteristics were smoky bacon crisps, sherry, nice open fireplace, with charred oak and a nice leafy and charred nuts palate. The finish is long and with a reprise of burning leaves. Overall package is very impressive, smooth,mellow yet powerful and robust. Has to be one of the best value malts around. Score 88

Strathisla 12yo (40%, OB) - Nose is a bit hot and underneath the spirit is lots of cream, spice like pimento, nutmeg, some liquorice and some herbs with a floral top note - most probably a Speyside. The palate has some toffee and sherry. The finish is slightly syrupy with a little bit of liquorice. After a while in the glass the nose gets a bit of cardboard and baby powder. Not a great whisky but not too bad. Brought by Bronte Milde and a lot of us got the neighborhood right but only a few nailed the exact address. I thought it was too hot to be only 40% so ended up going for Longmorn as it is bottled at 45%. Score 80

In June we're going back to a traditional format with a distillery vertical, but from a distillery that goes about its business in a relatively low-key way. Sometimes I think the big corporate second-string distilleries are allowed to go along their more or less merry way without the glare of publicity that falls upon their flagship malts - like Lagavulin. So, our upcoming EoZ session on 23 June 2004 will be "Caol Ila Vertical - a Salute to a Solid Distillery". I suppose that there are people who think that great Islay whisky begins and ends on the South coast with the Kildalton trio of Lagavulin, Ardbeg and Laphroaig. I think this is far too narrow a view of Islay's charms and will result in malt lovers missing some great whiskies from the other four distilleries, most especially from Caol Ila and especially if you are the kind of malt connoisseur who drinks the contents and not the label.

I suppose everyone has favourite distilleries and Caol Ila is one of mine. I think the thing that attracts me most to Caol Ila is the number of bottles that I've purchased over the years, mainly from independents like Gordon & MacPhail and James MacArthur that have just blitzed the 'value for money' scale. I think if I analysed all my whisky scores against the price of the bottle, then Caol Ila would come out way in front. Of my early favourite whiskies there was a Gordon & MacPhail (D 1972, B 1992 19yo) Caol Ila at 40% that was my earliest favourite whisky (along with Talisker 10) and cost around $70 in 1992 and another very early favourite was a James MacArthur 17 yo at 43% that was just superb and also cost around $75 in 1995.

I always thought that United Distillers (Diageo) didn't bottle the best that they produced (and I don't know why) but the Flora & Fauna 15 was a pretty ordinary dram up against my pantheon of favourites. They only got close to releasing a really decent whisky when the Rare Malts 1975 21 came out at cask strength - ahh! there was a tremendous malt and they have actually pulled their corporate fingers out and released a couple of superb malts in the new official bottlings of the 12 and 18. I really think the OB 12 is a great malt and the 18 is one of those sneaky good whiskies that might not hit you between the eyes as great at first bite but upon reflection (and maybe a second visit) reveal their manifold charms. The line-up has been designed to have a Gordon & MacPhail Connoisseurs Choice Distilled 1988 and bottled 2002 to split the OBs. It is included to provide another unknown benchmarking material and hopefully a fair test for the official bottling duo.

Cheers,

Craig Daniels - Treasurer Earls of Zetland Malt Tasting Club
 

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

E-pistle #10/10 - More on Borderline Personalities
Submitted on 10/07/2004 by Davin de Kergommeaux, Canada

A discussion of regional classifications of malts

Precision.  That's what we need, more precision. 
In years gone by, dating back long before 1494 when Friar John Cor became the first documented malt whisky distiller, the objective of whisky makers was to put to good use surplus barley (or bere).  For centuries whisky was sold right off the still as new make and taken away in whatever containers were handy.  Without a doubt, flavours varied from batch to batch.  Stills were much more numerous than they are now, in fact there were so many stills many people made whisky just for their own use and individual outputs were limited by the small size of the stills and the locally available volumes of surplus barley.  It is believed that most of this early whisky was pretty dreadful to taste and often herbs and spices and sometimes honey were added to make it more palatable.  Having tasted new make spirit a number of times, I can say it does have a certain appeal and varies quite considerably in flavour among even geographically close distilleries.  They are all sweet with alcohol, but some, such as that from Aberlour is grassy while the output of Glenfarclas can be quite fruity.  A head-to-head tasting at Bruichladdich of organic versus non-organic new make spirit was quite astounding, the organic tasting almost like eau de vie.

The first attempts to organize distilling came from politicians who felt they should have a share of the proceeds. 
And so, the first 'geographical' organization likely divided distilleries into districts based on the residence of the gauger, or taxman, and the routes he must follow to collect the duties.  At the same time, crafty distillers learned to avoid taxes by hiding their stills and moving them if discovered.  Undoubtedly new stills would be moved back into prime locations once the heat was off.  Again, another spin on regional definitions:  Do different stills in the same location make a regional style while the same still moved does not?

Well at this time in history, local barley would have been the only barley, as would local water and yeast, so the influence of raw materials would, without doubt, have been regional or even sub-regional, but certainly external influences on the flavour, such as size and location of still would have dominated so it's doubtful any regional styles existed.  For that to occur there needed to be some stability in raw materials, yes, but also in the size, shape and location of stills.  Charlie tells us, "I have heard it said that one of the reason's for 'Glenlivet's' excellence was that they did not have to remove their stills, and could distil slowly, in peace, owing to the remoteness of the glen and the fact that gaugers could be easily spotted miles away!"   Eventually though, the taxman won out and distilling became regulated and controlled, forcing the payment of taxes, but also allowing larger, permanent facilities to be safely established.  Here lay the origins of real regional styles: the same raw materials, being processed in the same manner, using the same equipment, in the same location, decade after decade. 

Stabilizing whisky production not only made way for consistency in flavour, but also made it practical to produce whisky on larger and larger scales.  Over time, the average customer was not a farmer with a jug, but a merchant, first with a barrel and later with many, many barrels and now with stainless steel tanker trucks.  New make whisky (and legally it's not even whisky - more precision) rarely finds its way into the hands of any but the most dedicated malthead.  By law, it must spend three years in oak cask on Scottish soil before it can be sold as whisky.  In reality, though, this is just the start.  Usually it spends many more than 3 years maturing in cask, and usually, it is then sold to a middle man for blending with grain whisky before being sold to consumers as well-advertised brands with very well-defined flavour profiles.

A discussion of regional styles deals solely with styles of single malts, so the discussion often misses the point that malts are made to be sold, and the biggest source of sales is the blender.  Charlie points out in his Parish of Peats E-pistle that for a hundred and fifty years the main customers for malt whisky have been the blending houses and the last thing they want when they buy a malt is for its style to have changed thus upsetting their blending recipes.  This explains why individual distilleries have their own 'house style' as Michael Jackson calls it, (drawing from the wine world), but it does not provide insight into the theory that distilleries in a common geographic region also have a common regional style.  But Charlie continues, "A key element here is custom and craft. Distillers in one place might do things slightly differently from distillers in another; their innate, even superstitious, conservatism would continue the traditions; and the extreme secrecy which surrounded the practices of each distillery until very recently (say 1990) – remember managers within the DCL were not even allowed to speak to their colleagues in other distilleries! – would tend to isolate the practices in one district or another."

Charlie goes on to say "The style, character and flavour of any malt whisky come from two principal sources: the way it is made and the way it is matured."  He lists a number of variables in production and equipment each of which does tend to vary even among distilleries in close proximity.  Moreover, he further states that maturation can account for up to 80% of the flavour.  If this be true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then given that distilleries only rarely use local barley, and never local yeast these days, the concept of regional styles becomes somewhat artificial, particularly given new developments such as an unpeated (so-called Highland) Caol Ila and a heavily peated Jura that just lights a bonfire on the palate. 

I don't support the idea of regional styles.  I think it's a hold-over from when wine weenies began to make money writing about whisky and transferred their vocabularies over to the whisky world holus bolus.  Johannes likes regional classifications, in part because it helps him plan comparative tasting sessions.  We all know what a typical Islay taste means:  masses of peat smoke and sweet and sour, a powerful nose and a finish that lasts until morning.  We know this but just as certainly know that Bruichladdich and Bunnahabhain, though wonderful whiskies, don't have even a hint of typical Islay.  Some folks even like them better.

If you've read Johannes' Borderline Personalities article on Malt Madness you know that a few months ago Serge and Johannes began discussing the matter of distilleries that different sources put in different areas. "Until now I've faithfully followed Michael Jackson's classifications, but I felt it was time I tried to make up my own mind." said Johannes.  "I did a dedicated tasting session a few days ago and the results were that it might be time to change the regional classifications of these distilleries on MM:
Brackla - from Speyside (Findhorn Valley) to Highlands (North)
Dalwhinnie - from Speyside (Central) to Highlands (West)
Glen Albyn - from Speyside (Inverness) to Highlands (North)
Glen Mhor - from Speyside (Inverness) to Highlands (North)
Millburn - from Speyside (Inverness) to Highlands (North)
Tomatin - from Speyside (Findhorn Valley) to Highlands (North)"

Johannes supported his research with a table Serge had put together in which he took different writers' opinions and did a sort of average to come up with where each distillery should be classified.  Now to me, identifying locations is all about maps and coordinates, and tasting a whisky to determine which region it is from involves a bit of circular logic.  It goes something like this:  We taste a bunch of whiskies from a defined geographical area, let's say Speyside and they have some common 'malt markers' as Craig calls them, so we say Speyside whiskies have these markers.  Then we taste a whisky that doesn't have these markers and despite its having been distilled in Speyside we say it isn't a Speyside whisky because it doesn't have typical Speyside markers.  See what I mean?  All dogs are black; that dog is not black; therefore it is not a dog.  But here is Serge's table:

(Editor's note: Brackla and Dallas Dhu are actually located west of Speyside!)

Johannes sent it around to the Maniacs and asked if it was time to change the 'designations' of these distilleries.
I responded with stese two questions:

1.  Why do we classify distilleries by region at all?  This seems to me to be a hold over from when wine writers started writing about whisky and felt more comfortable with regional classifications like they have in wine.  But if you want a great Speyside whisky - try Bunnahabhain from Islay.  I say drop the geographical classification altogether it conveys no useful information unless someone wants to plan a tour.  How about classified by flavours - Loch Fyne Whiskies classifies their stock according to 5 flavour profiles.
2.  If we want to use geographical classifications can we just go to a map?  Averaging out geography based on varying opinions seems a bit prone to error.

To this, Craig quickly chimed in saying "Davin makes a good point.  Because I used to be big into 'blind' identification of whiskies through the National Malt Tasting Competition, I actually went out of my way to look at flavour profiles (a la Wishart) and ignored any putative regional characteristics.  In this way I could group whiskies like Scapa, Deanston and Bruichladdich (in their normal commercial guise) and Highland Park, Bunnahabhain and Glenfarclas (again in the normal standard guises) into subgroups based on 'malt markers' that have little or nothing to do with regions.  Anyway, both Brora and Longrow make a mockery of Islay being the source of all heavily peated whiskies. And then you've got left field distilleries like Imperial that almost always seems like a Lowland to me and Glen Scotia and Oban that almost always seem like island whiskies.  I don't think the regions are much use other than for itinerary planning."   I have to say I tend to agree with Craig, and Johannes also could see the logic. 

"However," he wrote, "if you follow that path to its conclusion, you arrive at the core of the whole 'single malt' idea. With more and more IBs becoming available it's obvious that the 'traditional' profile of some OBs is only achieved by careful vatting of many casks - just like they do with blends. The only way to make really sure how much a distillery actually contributes to the profile of the end product is to compare many samples of new make spirit."  But having tasted new make from Ardbeg, Lagavulin and Laphroaig, I can say the differences in new make greatly exceed the differences in finished product.  Clearly Charlie is right; maturation is a major contributor. Johannes went on to say "Actually, I think developing a number of 'flavour profiles' like Davin mentioned could be a very challenging Malt Maniacs project. We could use these next to the regional classifications - I think chucking them overboard completely is a bit drastic - and like Davin and Craig pointed out they are still useful for travel planning and figuring out a 'theme' for your tasting sessions."

Klaus, on the other hand, thought classifying malts by flavour profiles was good in theory, but he saw two major obstacles: 
1.) He thought it would be impossible to assign flavours exactly to a malt. "There will be variations, depending on the individual sensory equipment. I fear, if we use a flavour-based grouping, we will have even more borderline malts than with the geographical categories." 2. "Which malt is used to categorize a distillery? There can be huge variations even if we take only OBs into account (see Talisker 20yo 1981/2002 (62%, OB, Sherry, 9000 bottles)."  

Well, true Klaus, but remember, sherry-matured Taliskers are few and far between and this gets back to Charlie's point that much of the character of a whisky is imparted post-distillation.  As Olivier and Klaus both point out, this is especially true when we consider whiskies that are 'finished.'  But as long as we are talking about Talisker, here is a whisky whose flavour profile has changed radically over the past four or five years.  The 10yo used to be my number one whisky and I have dozens of minis I bought about five years ago.  Tasting these head to head with the new 10yo it hardly seems like the same malt.  The newer bottlings are much sweeter and laced with vanilla, a result, Nick Morgan says, of current batches actually being in the 12 to 13 year range.  But again, would the older vattings and the newer both be considered as coming from the same region?  I doubt it.

But he's a trickster, that Klaus, and after questioning the possibility of putting together flavour profiles he went on to propose some alternate approaches to bringing more precision to the classification of whiskies.  To wit:
- Alphabetical order
- Number of letters in the distillery name
- Average rating of the distilleries malts on the matrix (results in a floating position)
- Output of the distillery (needs careful research and changes from year to year)
- Average price of a typical malt from the distillery
- Age of the distillery (almost to dig out, sometimes)
- Grouping by the the mother company under which the distillery is operating.

Well that got Johannes thinking and he came back with this response:  "My own conclusions are just like Klaus' and Davin's: Regions are not nearly as important as we're led to believe. I thought that the peatiness of Islay malts was a regional trait until I tried peated mainlanders like Brora and Croftengea. And is the Auchentoshan Three Wood a 'typical' Lowlander? Hardly...  That being said, I wouldn't want to chuck out regional classifications altogether."

Meanwhile, back in Alsace, Olivier was being drawn into the discussion as well.  Olivier, as a wine maker, uses traditional methods to produce instantly recognizable wines.  In his hands, terroir is truly manifest, and can be as geographically specific as a single vineyard.  Olivier has lots of ideas for introducing terroir into whisky making, but this would mean getting back to traditions of using local raw materials.  Oliver jumped into our discussion of borderline distilleries thusly: "This goes back to my constant irritation in whisky tasting: identical barley supply, peating process, yeasts, temperatures, distillation profile (re-using all the tails and heads) lead to identical final products. Only the shape of the still, origin & quality of the cask and ppm phenols make a difference in the end, and this is not related to the geography! Water is an interesting subject. This is geography related, and we heard that Isle of Jura and Bunnahabhain (and certainly other distilleries) are reducing their new make to 63.5% ABV using unfiltered local spring water....  This must influence the taste of the final whisky with no doubt. The day people like Bruichladdich or Kilchoman will start more close to earth process, they will no doubt develop a much stronger geographical identity. The difference between the organic and conventional new makes that we tried at Bruichladdich was very interesting." 

I just couldn't agree more Olivier, but, and there's always a 'but', getting back to organic production means getting back to very small outputs.  Since malt is made to be sold; and the major customer is the blender; and the blender demands large volumes and consistent flavour profiles, how will organic production be a viable way to keep a distillery open?  Connoisseurs will buy some – look at the passion generated by Springbank's 'Local Barley'- but overall, commercial production methods will have to reign supreme if a distillery is to remain solvent, so the few batches of real local organic whisky will most certainly have a regional style, in fact they would define it, (and wouldn't we be surprised if it wasn't what we were expecting!) but overall, the house style of distilleries is going to remain the dictate of the blenders, and so, for commercial production, I still say regional style is a misnomer.

But while Olivier was musing over ways to get real regional styles, Johannes was still thinking about the idea of developing flavour profiles to classify whiskies.  "Well," he said, "I have to say I like the idea of developing some kind of standard MM flavour profiles.  It would be difficult, but I think it's doable - if not today maybe in the foreseeable future. How? Through the power of numbers, my friends! Don't forget that as a collective, we have already tried over 2,500 different malts. Although one particular bottling may be very different from the 'normal' output of a distillery, we should be able to say something about certain 'markers' or characteristics when we've tried 40 or 50 different bottlings. Even though it may be hard to define these specifically, the fact that some of us get a fair number of 'hits' in a 100% blind test proves that at least our subconscious is learning..."   And here Johannes I think you have hit on something.  First of all, why do we want to classify whiskies at all?  Well, I think it's to make it easier to understand them.  I know when I am planning a tasting I pay most attention to the flavour profiles not the regions.  A heavy Brora near the start of a session will just kill a Rosebank that follows.  No, I carefully arrange the whiskies from least powerful to most powerful from unpeated to more peated in an effort to allow the palate to enjoy all of them.  So yes, describing them by flavour profile would be much more useful to me.

And I agree with Johannes on the power of numbers.  During a conversation with some industry types on Islay, comments were made and supported that whisky scores have very little value; they convey very little information.  When I countered with our system of averaging up to 12 separate scores per malt, their arguments were significantly attenuated.  On Islay, I also met a writer who claimed to be from the second most influential whisky publication in the world.  Darn, I forget the name, Scottish Field, perhaps?  Anyway, he told me they use a panel of about 6 or more retailers and barmen who taste whiskies blind for their ratings, and they claim this gives more credibility to their scores.  I've had a lot of fun with various blind tastings Johannes has arranged for me and I think blind tastings would be a very reliable way to develop flavour profiles.  I think for the most part, the scores for the Malt Maniacs Awards, for example, were based on blind tastings.

Craig has put quite a bit of thinking into establishing benchmark malts and this fits in beautifully with the flavour profile concept.  Tasted blind, some malts are instantly recognizable by flavour more than by region.  Macallans for example and the recent Bowmores often exhibit quite distinctive and unique flavours and noses.  I like the idea of developing flavour profiles, in fact I have a whole slew of Glengoynes at hand and I think I will begin with them as an example of wholly unpeated malts.  It will take time though.  Craig mentioned David Wishart's flavour profiles, and I think he's made a good start.  Eventually I'll review his book for my Fun For Four Eyes series, but at first glance, I think he has a certain rigidity that doesn't quite capture the profiles as I see them.  More research is needed and I guess we're the ones to do it.  I'll avoid the obvious joke.

But there is another thing that contributes to the taste of the whisky, which might lead to the introduction of a new malt marker regardless of region of origin.  As Olivier and Serge have been saying for so long the amount of time a whisky has spent in the bottle has a noticeable affect on the flavour.  He makes great wines, yes, but Olivier along with Serge also makes eau de vie.  This is a double-distilled white spirit that is bottled directly off the still then aged in loosely corked bottles over a period of years.  Eau de vie most definitely does mature in glass, and so, despite all the assertions to the contrary, should whisky.  The idea of bottle aging was confirmed when we had lunch with Robert Hicks, the master blender from Ballantynes (he also made Ardbeg Oldest, one of my favourite whiskies, though a travesty in some people's opinion, but that's another story).  He told us that if a bottle is not sold after four years they decant it and mix it in at about 1% with newly blended whisky.  The reason?  After four years the flavour profile has changed enough you can taste it.  Olivier and Serge attributed this to bottle aging and Robert as good as confirmed this.  He said he could taste glass in the whisky, but he was very interested when one of us said that he felt whisky improves after years in the bottle.  I wonder if 'glass' could be a malt marker and if so if this has some implications for our scores for old bottlings versus new.

Another interesting tid-bit we got from a woman we met at Glengoyne was that when she was working for Famous Grouse she learned that the blend is different in different markets.  She said if you compared a bottle from Asia with one from Europe they would be different as the blend is 'tweaked' to suit local tastes.  You have to wonder then about single malts bottled for specific markets although she said they would be the same all over.  Still, this could add yet another dimension to the concept of regional characteristics.  These comments couldn't help but catch Krishna's interest. 

In dramming sessions in Scotland last summer, Krishna remarked several times how different the malts tasted in Scotland than they did back home in India, and writing from India he had this to add to our regional differences discussion: "That is what I have been saying all along. For me whisky tastes different in Europe than in India.  Yesterday I was tasting a Teachers and it tasted totally different. Same is the case with all famous blends like Famous Grouse, Black Dog, Finlagger, etc. that are now being bottled in India.  Mind you, all these brands used to be imported directly from UK until a couple of years ago and they used to taste very different. I mean they were all original blends. Now they are bottled in India (with local waters) at around 42.5% abv and are very light.  Is it possible that malts could also be bottled to suit local palates?"

Johannes rose to the bait and leapt in enthusiastically:  "Oh, yes definitely. I've heard this from several sources as well when we're talking about blends," said Johannes, "Alexander will be interviewing 'Wally the Collector' soon - he is convinced that (at least until very recently) some distilleries (like Springbank) sent all their best casks and vattings to the USA."  Hmmm.  Well I wonder what 'regional differences' we might find between Springbanks exported to America and those sold at home.  For sure no one likes Springbank more than the Americans.  Although I'm sure their core ranges are the same in every market, Macallan makes a specific 7yo bottling for Italy and Aberlour makes many 'expressions' solely for the French market.  A bottling Jura did for Japan recently was so Islay-like as to be unrecognizable as a Jura.  Would an Italian or a Japanese malt drinker disagree with our regional profiles if they were most familiar with these market-specific bottlings? 

But Charlie reminds us the locale where it's consumed can affect how a malt tastes as well.  "The fact that whiskies taste different in different places does not necessarily mean they are different vattings (although in the case of India, Lord knows…!)" says Charlie. "Some years ago I organized a tasting of six single casks of Glengoyne, sending samples to the U.S., New Zealand, Germany and London. My German nose collected his samples, and we tasted them here in Scotland. Then he took them to Germany and tasted them again there – he remarked on how different they tasted!  It's the old retsina test: tastes great on a beach in Greece, but foul when you bring it home!"

But getting back to the influence on flavour profiles of aging in bottles.  This is just blasphemous to almost all of maltdom and certainly puts a big kink in the whole concept of age statements.  How old is an 8yo Glenfiddich that has sat 30 years in a bottle?  Officially it's 8 years old, but when Serge, Olivier and Johannes tried one they found a very different malt than what Glenfiddich is producing now and one that was much superior to the current 12yo version.  I have a little bottle of Glenfiddich 8yo tucked away from the 1960's and will have to crack it open soon to see just what the story is, but Serge has already given me a dram of a 12yo Oban from the 1970's and yes, it was a rich and robust little Oban that would stand up well against the current 14yo.  In fact, to me it rates about 7 points higher than the 14yo of 2004.  But what does this have to do with regional differences you ask?  Well this:  I have only tasted a few malts that have sat long in the bottle, but Serge and Olivier have tasted many and they say it improves them noticeably.  "I support them in this," says Charlie, "but believe it is due to plant changes during the 1960s and 70s (direct firing, own floor maltings, use of worm tubs, lauter tuns, possibly barley varieties)."   However, if Robert Hicks, a professional taster, can taste the contribution of time spent in glass after only 4 years in the bottle, then we have yet another variable that must be controlled before we can attribute flavour to 'regional style'. 

Klaus is a physical scientist and knows his chemistry and physics inside out.  He too has a belief, based primarily on theory, that aging must occur in the bottle.  In his own words, "Do you speak of bottle ageing in a closed bottle?  I think so.  Although almost the whole whisky community says that whisky does not change in the closed  bottle, I never really wanted to believe this.  The bottle is not really air-tight. Light (photons) can interact with the contents of the bottle and chemical reactions with a small probability but nevertheless driven into a certain direction will happen, especially if the liquid rests for several years. On the other hand, the statement 'I can taste glass' is pure nonsense!  Silicon will not be dissolved by alcohol. There must be something else happening to which is attributed the 'glassy' flavour. Too bad that nobody really tries to find out which substance is responsible for the "glassy" flavour (my guess: aldehydes)."  Well, I don't think Robert actually said he could taste 'glass' but Olivier added that he knows lead does dissolve into alcohol and it is very dangerous to use old crystal decanters made with lead to store spirits.

Whatever the contribution, it's clear there are many more influences on the flavour of a malt than the region where it was distilled.  There are the raw materials, which now may come from all over the world.  There is the water used for diluting the whisky at bottling, which most often does not come from a source near the distillery.  There are the casks used and where they are stored, which also is often quite distant from the distillery.  There are the specific casks of mature whisky selected to vat the single malt.  There are the dictates of the blenders and the market for which the malt is intended.  There are editors who think regional classifications make a more saleable book, and there are also the marketing men who may think one region is more saleable than another.  Glengoyne, for example is sold as a Highland malt, but as Charlie said: "Note: Glengoyne was traditionally a Lowland malt."  And there you have it.

I seemed to recall Glengoyne being called a Lowlander in the past and Charlie confirmed this by sending me his blenders list from 1974, where Glengoyne is listed under Lowland. But a look at the Glengoyne website gives an even more telling story.  It seems the dividing line between the Highlands and the Lowlands runs right through the distillery.  Glengoyne could rightly call itself either.  Michael Jackson would like to have them throw their lot in with the Lowlanders and help bring their number up to critical mass, but clearly Glengoyne has chosen to go with the big sellers and claim their rights in the Highlands.  Precision: precisely where would you classify Glengoyne for a tasting?  Highland, Lowland, or maybe over on Islay with Bunnahabhain?

Sounds like the knockout blow for regional styles, doesn't it?  But Serge, who started this whole discussion with his table and has been sitting back wryly watching the discussion unfold, has jumped back into the fray with a viewpoint that almost argues whisky regions are like appellations (ironic since the best moonshine in America is said to come from the homonymous (in English) … Appalachians), Klaus is busily trying to work out the chemistry of in-bottle changes, Olivier hints that Signatory, Glemorangie (because of its finishes), and I presume, Gordon and MacPhail have their own styles and so could be 'regions' and Johannes has more he wants to add as well.  So the battle rages.  Watch this space for the next update.

Davin
 

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

E-pistle #10/11 - I Finally Fell In Love With Bowmore
Submitted on 15/08/2004 by Ho-cheng Yao, Taiwan

Ho-Cheng's E-pistle about a big vertical Bowmore session is published on a seperate page.
Click HERE to read it...
 

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

E-pistle #10/12 - Dial 'F' For Fake
Submitted on 16/08/2004 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

My E-pistle about a fake Arran 1982 discovered in Taiwan by Ho-cheng is published on a seperate page.
Click HERE to read it...
 

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

E-pistle #10/13 - Surprise In The Park
Submitted on 16/08/2004 by Peter Silver, USA

This weekend Peter Silver had a rather surreal experience in the park and he shares it with us.
Click HERE to read the E-pistle... (and the rest of MM#10)
 

 
- - - - - - - -

Archive
 
<--  Previous Issue       Next Issue   -->      

Page 2 of MM #10
 

Malt Maniacs #10