Some maniacs have argued that fakes are a problem
for 'collectors' only, but I'm afraid I have to disagree here.
There are enough forces at work threatening the 'traditional'
and 'authentic' image of Scotch whisky as it is - the harsh
economic realities of today, for example. We have already
discovered the first fake malts in 'normal' outlets and if this
problem keeps growing the reputation of single malts is on
the line. Over half of all bottles of Johnnie Walker Red Label
sold in India are fake, but that's because people just want
to get drunk cheap. I like to believe maltheads are different.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...
That seems to be the motto of some traders when it comes
to the ever growing phenomenon of fake bottles. With such a
nonchalant attitude concerning the actual autehenticity of the
bottles they sell to their clients, consumers have no guarantee
that they are actually getting what they pay for. So, I'd say its
time for a consumer initiative: the new
MM FAKE ALERT page.
It contains an overview of all confirmed and suspected fakes
we have encountered - seven fakes so far and counting...
Check it out
and please inform us about suspect bottles.
Anyway, we now have a fairly complete 'global'
coverage (well, except Africa & South America)
and with two dozen maniacs on active duty we
should be able to provide our very esteemed
readership with a steady stream of opinions,
debates, ratings, news, facts and trivia.
Hurray, that means the team is now 'complete';
two dozen malt maniacs reporting for duty!
Why limit the team to only 24 malt maniacs,
you ask? Well, to tell you the truth I was afraid
things would become unmanageable if we grew
any further. We have an 'internal' mailinglist and
it's getting hard to keep track of all the mania
that spreads through our mailboxes like wildfire.
But does that mean these are the only 24 'voices' you'll
hear on Malt Maniacs from now on? Not if I have my way!
This seems like the perfect opportunity to introduce a new
series of E-pistles under the name 'Vox Populi'. We receive
more and more rants and raves from readers who are not
official 'malt maniacs' by name, but certainly by nature!
In MM#11
we already published 'public' E-pistles from:
Martin Diekmann - about the Bremen 2004 Whisky Festival
Robert Karlsson - about single malt Swedish whisky
and in this issue we have two public contributions as well;
Flemming Gerhardt-Pederson - about Thorne & Sons fakes
Ralf Mitchell - on the Inaugural Glasgow Whisky Festival.
Anyway, that's it for now - caveat emptor!
Johannes
That's why I decided not to wait too long to pass a message
along that I received from Flemming Gerhardt-Pedersen of the
Dansk Maltwhisky Akademi (www.dmwa.dk) about a source of
other potentially fake bottlings. I've asked the seller mentioned
in the article (Mr. Andreas Jacobs, Whiskymania Klub Germany)
for a response and have published his reply in my Liquid Blog.
Read Flemmings 'open letter' about Thorne & Sons fakes first
and then surf along to my Liquid Blog (entries 208 & 209) to
read Mr. Jacobs' response to Flemming's letter - and some of
my own observations regarding the growing problem of fakes.
Next, read the 'Ask an Anorak' E-pistle about Fake signs.
Finally, curl up in a corner and cry for a bit...
Meanwhile, we already have lots of brain candy in MM12.
You can find the contents of MM#12 in the green column.
Most of MM#12 is a comfortable - if slightly envying - read.
However, when I read Luc's 2004 Review
those feelings of
comfort and envy quickly turned into horror and disbelief.
It seems that Allied still hadn't taken any concrete action
against Mr. David Brooks who was involved in the Laphroaig
Fraud on eBay. He has simply changed his eBay alias from
'Kanchenchunga' to 'muchtyboulder' shortly after articles
from Luc
and Lawrence
were published on Malt Maniacs.
Incredibly enough, Luc hasn't received a satisfactory reply
from Allied in more than four months! And in fact, everybody
seems to shut like a clam when the topic of fakes comes up.
A very happy new year to maltheads everywhere!
The year started off happy enough for the malt maniacs.
Six fresh members decided to join our little tasting team;
Dave Broom from the UK, Ulf Buxrud from Sweden / the USA,
You'ichi Rozeboom from Japan, Thomas Lipka from Germany,
Lawrence Graham
from Canada and Luca Chichizola
from Italy.
If I'm not mistaken, that brings the number of malt maniacs in
our team to 24, located world wide in 13 different countries.
E-pistle #12/01 - Ask an Anorak: Re-use of 'Finishing' Casks
Compiled on 01/01/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
So, we decided to start a new series of E-pistles; 'Ask an Anorak' (AaA).
To kick off 2005 in a grandiose fashion, we decided to introduce a new feature.
As the MM site grew over the years, more and more questions on malty matters
dropped into our mailboxes. Not all of them would be of particular interest to our
readers, but the more interesting ones tend to spark very interesting discussions
amongst the maniacs - sometimes even exploding into hot and fiery debates.
And the first question in this new series didn't come from one of our readers.
It came from yours truly and it deals with the number of times a cask can be
re-used for 'finishing' a malt.
Johannes - Hiya, maniacs, I'm just wondering about something.
Are there any guidelines as to how often a cask can be used to 'finish' a whisky?
Actually, isn't it so that, given the fact that sherry casks can't leave Spain anymore,
every sherry cask used to finish a whisky was probably used for aging whisky before?
And if so, wouldn't that whisky pass on some features to the next whisky in the cask?
So, if that cask contained an Islay malt before, Balvenie could release an 'Islay Cask Sherry Finished Limited Edition Speyside Malt
Whisky' in the future. If a cask is used for finishing more than once, that could lead to even more confusing situations - surely, at
some point the past whiskies would have more effect than the rum, sherry or port that was originally in the cask, right?
Any insights in this?
Lex - I don't think there are any hard rules for this. And if you talk about the situation where a cask which has contained whisky from distillery A and is now used to mature or finish whisky from distillery B, you wake up the spectre of whether the resulting B whisky is still a single malt or not ..... But I'm not so sure we want to go into the Balvenie-Islay debate again!
Ho-cheng
- Why no discuss the Balvenie Islay Cask, Lex? Personally, I like it!
But at the other hand, I still can't find a good reason for the "Bourbon Finish".
What is Bourbon finish all about? It's really non-sense.
Johannes - Ha! Good point, Ho-cheng!
I've heard that the new 'Blackwood distillery'
offers its investors several 'bourbon finished' whiskies.
Bowmore offers a 1964 'Bourbon Finish' as well - at the princely sum of 1,400 Euro's. The name 'bourbon finish' implies that the whisky
was originally matured in another cask. The most obvious type of cask would be a sherry cask, but then again I guess it could have
been a bourbon cask as well - I'm pretty sure the SWA wouldn't have any guidelines prohibiting its members from re-casking a whisky
in the same type of cask. Of course, it's debatable if that can still be considered a 'finish'. Which sort of brings us back to the original question - is there a limit to how often a cask can be used to 'finish' a malt?
Charlie - Oh, this is a nice point! 1) Casks are either 'active' or not.
Mind you, like the decadent Roman dish 'Roti sans Pareil' - which starts with a stoned olive, put into a boned Ortolan Bunting, then
into a finch, then a thrush... finishing with a turkey, and a Great Bustard - it is an interesting marketing idea to have a history of
refills/finishes: "GLENKINCHIE, matured for 10 years in refill American oak, then re-racked, first, into a refill Longrow puncheon, and
then into into a fresh Ardbeg ASB for six months, before being transferred to an ex-1814-solera butt for 10 days, then finished in a hogshead which once contained the last remaining drops of Parkmore..." Do you think it might catch on?
The simple answer is 'no', but let me offer the following thoughts...
'Activity' (i.e. the impact the cask has on the spirit - in terms both of both wood chemistry (lactones, hemi-cellulose, tannins, etc) and the first incumbent (bourbon, sherry, wine) declines each time the cask is filed with new make.
2) The first time they are filled with whisky, they are termed 'first-fill casks'.
Some companies refer to 'second' or even 'third' fill casks; most just call them 'refill casks'.
3) After they have been filled three or four times they lose their 'activity'. They no longer mature whisky.
In other words, they become a mere 'container' - and are deemed 'spent' or 'exhausted'.
4) Exhausted casks can be 'revived' or 'rejuvenated' by de-charring and re-charring.
Tthis activates the next layer or oak beneath the char, and restores the char - both v. important for maturation.
A rejuvenated cask does not mature its contents in exactly the same way as a first or efill cask, but pretty close.
5) Now, back to 'finishing'. Generally finishing casks are very active - either first fill or first fill rejuvenated.
They make a big impact in a short time (typically six months), so a short 'finish' will do the trick.
Otherwise, the wood character overtakes the original/distillery character. Such casks are watched closely.
There are no guidelines for this, just the judgement of the brand owner/blender.
6) If a fresh, former Lagavulin/Laphroaig/Ardbeg cask was used to finish a Speyside, you would expect to detect traces of the first
incumbent. e.g. Grants 'Islay Finished' blended whisky. But, given what I say above, the next time it is filled, the influence of the first incumbent (the Islay) will be negligible.
Serge
- I remember a worker at Jura who told us that Jura isn't peated.
However, sometimes the malt tastes peat because they use casks formerly used by Islay distilleries.
Interesting, eh?
Olivier - In winemaking, barrels are often changed every three wines (i.e every 3 to 5 years) because after their impact on the flavour is almost negligeable. This is why, like Charles points out, some barrels are dismantled and a thin layer of wood is scratched off and then they are burnt again. Slightly more expensive: the two ends, which is the cheap part to make in a barrel, are changed, bringing 25% new oak again. Cheap solution: using wood chips and artificial tannins. I wonder if the SMW industry ever thought about that ! It would be cheaper for transport to transform barrels into chips and than add them as a finish !
Charlie
- Interesting, and I didn't know this happened to wine barrels.
Can you answer a question which has long troubled me?
As for 'sacrificial' wood chips, etc., this has been tried experimentally but has not worked.
But it makes sense: it is the heat treatment (charring for American oak and toasting for European oak) that converts certain
compounds in the wood (cellulose to hemi-cellulose, for example) and activates others, allowing the cask to do its job. If you fill into an untoasted/uncharred cask, it won't mature its contents.
Where do the sulphury notes come from in European oak? Do you still fumigate ex-wine casks with sulphur candles? If you do, might
this explain it? Or is it down to the toast, rather than char - since charcoal is a mighty remover of sulphur notes? But this implies that the spirit itself is sulphury, which is not true in every case. Any ideas?
A key part of maturation is the interaction with the air through the walls of the cask. It may also be that the leeching of desirable
additives (sherry, vanillin, tannin, etc) owes something to the surrounding air. So far as the 'extractive' function of the cask - the
removal of undesirable notes, like sulphur - maybe this could be done by adding charred lumps of wood to the cask. After all, in Tennessee they put the whiskey through a ten foot deep bed of charcoal, don't they - the 'Lincoln County Method'.
Olivier
- Humm ! Sulfurs in barrels? In short: yes.
I'll explain: Sulfur paper, candles or pure sulfur pills are put on a metal plate and burn directly in the cask, which is closed. In small
barrels, without a door to go in, we attach the sulfur on a stainless steel wire and hang it from the bond (top of the barrel) so it can
burn without touching the wood. The big problem is that sulfur drops as it burns and fall on the bottom of the cask. It is possible to
prevent this if you use little 'plates' that you can hang at the bottom of the wire. One must be very carefull doing this, because the
opening of the barrel on the top is small. I can imagine that this operation is often badly done, especially if the barrels are sold to
another company. The burnt sulfur accumulating on the bottom of the barrel becomes rock hard and without a chizel, it is impossible
to get out. During fermentations, it has ruined many wines, by giving this rotten egg (H2S) smell. It would be interresting to look inside
a few sherry casks to search those deposits. There is also, of course, the possibility that there is some sulfur inside the wood, coming from the wines stored in it before.
Lastly, I am sure that some sulfur components can pass the distillation process (H2S for example), despite all the cupper that should
prevent it. I never thought about it before, but I will analyse the next whisky with strong sulfur nose and see if there is any into it.
The only barrels you can keep without adding sulfur for a while are the ones that contained alcool (Bourbon for ex) and high alcool vin
mutés, like sherry, port.... But even then, I would burn sulfur in order to keep them fungus free after a few months. The rule for wine
barrels is to burn the equivallent of 2g of sulfur per 100liter content once every 2 months. Burning sulfur is better than injecting SO2 in
gas, because it also takes away the oxygen. I am absolutely convinced that the sulfur character in some sherry matured whiskies
(and wine barrels finishes) comes from either casks that were not properly rinced before being used (Serge and I have seen this in the
past, unrinced casks (full of SO2) filled up whith good whisky!!!) or remaining sulfur flakes in the casks that are virtually impossible to take out in a small barrel.
Davin
- To say it a different way, as I understand it, it's the melted lignins (plastic-like) from the cell walls of the oak cells that
contain the bulk of the soluble flavourants that are dissolved from the oak into the whisky. Like you said Charlie, raw oak has no
effect. There used to be an illustration on the Easy Times website which showed how the heat of charring melted the lignins
(cellulose & hemicellulose) and then other cell components were dissolved in the lignins while they were melted. When the oak staves
cool back down this plastic like layer (called the red layer) is very close to the surface, under the charcoal and it is the interaction
with this that gives much of the flavour to the whisky. I would guess, that until the whisky starts to dissolve the fused lignins, the
staves are probably pretty much air-tight (but not the joints). It would be instructive to see a charred stave in cross-section. Charcoal should not add much flavour, if any.
I also find that the effect of oak on wine (say an over-oaked California chardonnay) is different from the effect of oak on whisky. In
wine I find oak much more bitterly tannic and much more like primary vanilla than the many tertiary / torrefactory notes found in
whisky. To my palate it takes about 8 years for tannins to become noticable in whisky and about 20 for them to start to intrude. In the wrong hands it takes mere months in wine.
Charcoal, as you suggest, Charlie, is very effective at REMOVING flavours from liquids.
It is used universally to remove off-notes from liquid food-stuffs. I have some lightly toasted oak chips and some deeply roasted oak
chips which I bought from a make your own wine shop (NO, I don't do that; I buy my wine). To me the toasting/roasting is quite
insufficient to have created a red layer or to have melted much of the lignin. I will add these to a bottle of vodka and bring it to Islay for testing next summer.
Johannes
- Erm, yes... The discussion seems to have veered a bit beyond the answer to my question. But what about my original question about the numer of times a cask can be used to 'finish' a malt? The situation is slightly different for independent bottlers.
However, I guess that is to be expected if you throw a 'hot potato' like this into a group of maniacal anoraks.
What's more, we've learned all sorts of interesting new details about the use of sulphur and the 'rejuvenation' of casks.
Well, so far the consensus seems to be that there really are no guidelines as to how often a cask can be used.
I would say that's even more reason to look upon a 'finished' malt with some degree of suspicion. 'Official' finishes like the Bowmore
Dawn or Glenmorangie Madeira Wood Finish are often mass produced in large numbers and can therefor show considerable batch
variation over time. Each release will be a vatting of many different casks and I'm afraid the master blenders have only a limited
degree of influence on the end result - simple econimics dictates they pretty much use every cask they have. Of course, single cask
bottlings are an exception to the rule, but you don't see that many 'official' single cask finishes that are affordable.
They are much more suited to 'tweaking' individual casks with the proper finishing job.
But do they always succeed? Well, that's a topic for another time...
Sweet drams,
Johannes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/02 - An Interview with Mike Nicolson
Submitted on 01/01/2005 by
Serge Valentin, France
Q: Mike, you were the Manager at Blair Athol, Lagavulin and finally Lochnagar Are you sitting comfortably? Q: Wow, there's almost only Mannochmore missing!
Well, the weather for a start. Snow & big floods, to a place so windy that on most days everyone has the same hairstyle, to more
snow and Big hills and, the folks of course, always different, thank God. For the technophobes: - distillation régimes and levels of
technology. For the sociable: - the amount of interaction with the customers. Blair Athol spirit character is such that it requires to be
distilled rather quickly, Lagavulin on the other hand, has the longest and slowest spirit run that I have ever seen. At Lochnagar the
object was to maintain a spirit character that would not normally be delivered by the design of the plant there. Tricky eh?
Blair Athol, when I spent time there, was technologically very sophisticated and energy efficient but the layout seemed to have been
designed by a blind man having a bad day. The change from traditional mash house plant, at Lagavulin, to something a bit more up to
date, happened during my tenure and, that is always a good time to find out how paranoid you actually are. The Lochnagar equipment is without a great deal of sophistication but as I suggested before, you have to sort of keep your eye on it.
One of the biggest changes in the business during my time, was the development of distilleries as educational and marketing tools
which means, that Managers get to meet the customers face to face and learn stuff. Blair Athol being sighted in a big tourist town,
conducts it's visitor facilities as you might expect, for large numbers, in support of it's malt and as a key ingredient of it's well known
associated blend, whose name escapes me for the moment. To run an enterprise of this nature requires a different Manager's skill set
to be developed, for which he/she might find violent rages, formal executions, cross dressing and low standards of personal hygiene, to be fairly unhelpful.
Lagavulin, being sited where it is, means that not many people go there. It also means that a high proportion of those that do find
their way there come by way of a pilgrimage, therefore paying the ultimate homage to the magic liquid. So, there you have it, lovely
people, albeit pleasantly obsessed, bit of time to talk to them, occasional requests for the Manager's autograph or small fragments of his clothing, well, tough job huh?
Lochnagar, as home of the Malt Advocate Course, takes this personal interaction thing to another level. The Manager at that
particular establishment, persuaded/ pushed/ordered/blackmailed by a Marketing department who, daily, have to be talked out of
invading Poland, gets to tell people the truth about the mysteries of the production of some of the best Malt Whiskies around.
Fortunately, he is assisted in this endeavour by an outstanding collection of "experts", some of whom have moustaches, large livers, wonderfully bad attitudes and are patrons of the Oxford Bar.
The job specification is an interesting read, involving sleep deprivation, a precise knowledge of the location of pharmacies and their
opening hours, the ability to cope with anxiety levels similar to a crew member of Apollo Five and, being good at herding cats. The
successful applicant will be rewarded by meeting lots of wonderful people from all over the World including, fellow employees, a large
proportion of whom appear to be fundamentally disturbed and, additional reward is provided by being supported by the remarkable Distillery staff and, of course, Lucy. Q: I must say Lagavulin really has a cult status. Yes, although that's a pretty fundamental exception, it's magic.
And the other good thing is, that they all have long memories so, you can hear the stories like," The mash house ghost" or, how Big
Angus spent the Chairman's visit locked in a cupboard. Killer stuff. The place seems to have a propensity to attract eccentrics or
perhaps it just provides the opportunity for them to flourish, like Sir Peter Mackie, a hugely successful entrepreneur but a nutter none the less. So, like I said, I dunno, s'magic.
Q: Oh yes, the people! I remember last time I visited the distillery with a few other maniacs…
Pinky is a star. Vertically challenged he may be but... he's big in Japan. Q: It's not that I want to insist too much on Lagavulin, but the Distiller's Editions are excellent drams. With one or two exceptions, I think it's very silly.
Q: Well, at least that's a clear answer!
The way my former employer encouraged managers to treat the folks that make the liquids.
Q: I see. And what's the piece of 'tradition' you regret has disappeared since you started working? Flogging the employees and the Manager's right to the local virgins.
Q: Oh, so what I heard wasn't just a rumour! ;-)
Christ Serge, an interview was ok but if you want a book, I might need a little lie down first.
As far as change, improvement and innovation are concerned, those have been intrinsic parts of the business since it became one,
this is not something new that just snuck up on us. Look at the grain still for instance, without which we wouldn't be having this nice
chat because the business would have gone to the wall round about 1890. The key is of course, is not change but, responsible
change. I can't speak for other Corporations but, the one I used to work for seemed to understand what most of the good bits are,
like what whiskies do you make? Why do they taste the way they do? How do you consistently keep them like that? And, where do
they fit in the business? If you know this stuff then there are some areas, product quality for instance, where your attitude to change
is going to be and, I know this is a relative word, conservative. I would like to tell you that I enjoyed all the change that came my
way, and yes every organization has a percentage of wild eyed, master of the universe types that would "sort out" the business by
making all Scotland's malt whisky at one giant distillery just outside Paisley but, if you know what the good bits are, then there is usually someone around to make sure that these people are properly medicated.
I know that when they showed up tomorrow, the film crew that is, that they would be thrilled if they found everyone wearing wooden
shoes, working by paraffin lamps with hacking coughs, missing digits and Franz and List but, maybe it's not a bad thing that we left
that behind. At this point I should declare a vested interest. The whisky business has fed three generations of my family, some of whom were/are, Romantics, so, this change stuff has actually been pretty good for the Nicolsons.
(Author's note :-) Nicolson, small and historically insignificant bunch, more of a gang than a clan, quite content to be continually
bossed about by the MacLeods, apparently, you know, fetching their slippers, that sort of thing. After two thousand years of hanging
about, they finally do show up to fight. Where? Culloden. (Nice going boys.) Anyway Serge, at the next Maniac's convention, gimmie a
call when you all go down to the beach with your forks, I could make some serious money from that kind of photo opportunity.
Q: It's true that there is clearly a debate between the maltheads who like a little mystique and the ones who think we should stick to the proven facts. What are your ideas? Well, what's to argue about? They're both right.
Now, the facts. The first thing to remember is, that often in spite of appearances to the contrary, whiskypersons don't know
everything. Compared to our forefathers, we know tons but, happily, the product is so complicated that we will all be a long time
dead, for example, before the last mysteries of maturation have been unravelled. A lot of the reason for this conflict is the producers'
fault. In days gone by, before we knew what we know now, marketers would tell the customers what they thought the customers
wanted to hear. The surprise, that there may be other reasons for individual spirit character, other than the magic Scottish water or
that the stillman is left handed and wears a kilt, is therefore, kinda understandable. The fact is, that not only do the producers now know more but, so do their customers. Bit of catching up to do I think? Q: Yes, but some people within the industry clearly get puzzled by these anoraks (us!) who want to know a little more than what's written in the ads. What do you think?
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you; the industry is full of people who are easily puzzled. Personally, I like anoraks, inquisitive, challenging, good for the grey matter.
Q: He he he, I really understand. It happens often that when visiting a distillery with some other maltheads, I feel I should
say to the guide 'Look, I'm not with them, I promise!' Now, what puzzles me even more is seeing some guys visiting, say Lagavulin with an Ardbeg sweater, a Bruichladdich baseball cap and a pair of Laphroaig socks… Now, can you tell us how
was life on Islay and why did you move to Canada? Any similarities? Life on Islay was engaging. Special place. Lovely people, big sense of "togetherness" as opposed to that over used and much
devalued word, "community". The invisible support network, that visitors would never see, was wonderful. Someone always knew the person who could help you with whatever the problem was, often, before you knew that you had a problem.
Why move to Canada? Well, public service really, so that my friend would have somewhere nice to come for his holidays.
I would need to refer you to the huge but underestimated talent that Q: Great, I just listened to a few MP3's he put on the CD section of his site. Listen, I'm retired, I have trouble with yesterday. Q: Ah… and what's your favourite dram?
When did you stop beating your wife? Q: Okay, okay, the one you dislike most, then? The guy that plays cement mixer on Metallica's second last album.
Q: Ha ha, I can see that even if some are now retired, they didn't loose too many of their 'corporate' reflexes, did they? Anyway, thanks a bunch, Mike, it's been a huge pleasure. I hope you'll come again and play the blues during the Islay
Festival in the coming years! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Trying to explain to you how I came to having a chat with one of the most malicious,
most professional and remoter (to Scotland, no need to say) retired distillery managers
and blues guitarist would be way too long and complicated, as were notably involved
some 10-packs of French cigarettes, an ex-racoon, Ron Sexmith – the singer, the
Oban life boat and Dr Nick Morgan, of Diageo fame. Yes, no less… But if you want to
learn which colours you should never wear when visiting a distillery, why Lagavulin
is magic or whether whisky is better today or not, please read on… And oh, by the
way, please warn your family and your neighbours, you might well burst into laughter
from time to time!
just before you retired. Were there other distilleries you've been working at?
Firstly, Caol Ila is missing from your list, which I had the privilege of Managing
during my time on Islay and if you wanted to get me in trouble with Billy, Flora
and the "Black Hand Gang", missing it out would be a good way of doing it.
You don't want to get me in trouble, do you?
Prior to the places already mentioned, I was managing Glenkinchie, but that was a long
time ago and it will be safe to drink now as all the stuff I made will have been consumed already.
In a junior management capacity,- Linlithgow (St. Magdalene), Hillside (Glenesk), Linkwood and Muir of Ord.
There is another list of briefer working visits, dating back to the time when men walked in front of automobiles with red flags – Glen
Albyn, Glen Mhor, Rosebank, Aultmore, Cardhu, The original Caol Ila, Dallas Dhu, Dalwhinnie, Benromach, Millburn, Teaninnich and Glentauchers.
I'd have loved to ask you a few questions about Loch Dhu…
Anyway, what was the biggest change moving from Blair Athol to Lagavulin/Caol Ila and then to Lochnagar?
Are there specific reasons for that, except the fact that it's a great dram from Islay?
I dunno completely how it works, that people will name their children after the place but, it has drama.
Having spent four years watching winter storms, some of them in July, from that house on the point, it's something that you don't
forget in a hurry. History was normally something we read about when we wore short trousers but, it's not usually something you go
to work in everyday. Not that I ever was an avid history student but after just a little time there, you know that you are part of a
community which has been there for a very, very long time indeed when you can walk over to the castle and see the remains of the
sea gate, where the long ships were pulled up. After that, your into that continuum thing where you are reminded that life is short and
that you are following on from those that went before, who made an exceptional spirit in that place, for generations. Then of course
there are the people that work there. They are similarly exceptional. Gentle, proud, funny, creative and too supportive of "White Settlers" like me, just passing through.
Pinky was our guide, and he really made my day. Little man, huge personality!
I guess you worked with him…
Actually, the recent 1987 'Distiller's Edition' just won a 'Warped Whisky Award' at the 2004 MM Awards.
How do you feel about the wider spreading of the practice of 'finishes'?
So, apart of these 'finishings', what's the biggest improvement in production since you started working?
When I started in the business as a young man, things got done because the boss said so, period.
Thinking, most forms of creativity, and involvement out with your own discipline just didn't happen much. By the time I left the
business the boys and girls "on the floor" were performing formerly management functions, bringing all of their individual skills to the
benefit of the workplace, demanding involvement and decision making powers. A transformation and, from my point of view, as a Manager, a delight.
Yeah, it was bad when that went...
But 'technically' speaking? I mean, direct-fired stills, European casks, open-air worm condensers…
You know, the anoraks like us will always suspect the industry is trashing tradition to make more profit.
Maybe it's a myth, and whisky's actually better nowadays than it used to be…
Personally, I believe that it's pretty plain that whisky today is better than it used to be. If you started a business, today, that
involved hundreds of geographically scattered entrepreneur types doing their own thing with limited education, low levels of
technology, poor communication and no minimum quality standards and where everywhere was a long walk to the pub, I would be
surprised if your expectation of success would be great. If you look back to the first time it became generally commercially "visible", it
was drunk, often, as a "cordial" i.e. it was so bad, that you had to put stuff in it to get it down your neck. And what happened? Well,
progress. Science happened. People got smarter, experience and communication developed, folks got organized, sometimes even into
these contemptible things called "companies". Someone wrote down some rules. Blenders happened. Customers (markets) happened. Everybody sobered up.
With a history stretching over many hundreds of years making a product that remains an intrinsic part of Scottish culture and
therefore, with thousands of stories to tell, it would be a bit dumb not to take advantage of our good fortune and use some of them.
By dint of our inheritance though, making them up would render one as uncool as it was possible to be. Nor do I think that to
convincingly use the romance that surrounds our product, one has to act like some backward Scottish hayseed, dressed like an
advertisement for shortbread. Remember the Gospel according to Dr. Morgan, Chapter fourteen, Verse nine, "Customers want to buy a real product, made in real places, by real people". Yea, verily.
Me? I'm in the romantic truth camp.
After all they were puzzled by gravity, the internal combustion engine, non-refillable fitments, how m&m's don't melt in your hand, that
that really is Dave Broom's own hair, the tooth fairy and, like the rest of us, the fact that Keef is still with us.
Mind you, I might have to re-evaluate my position if my daughter brought one home. No, on reflection, that would probably be better
than the procession of Neanderthals she seems to be specialising in at the moment. After all, anoraks have mastered the art of
walking, communicate above the level of a grunt and most of them don't drool. If I have one teeny weeny criticism, it's that in their
relentless and all consuming thirst for anorak knowledge, sometimes, they can take their eye off the ball. Like caramel for instance.
(Don't mail me Germany, I'm not in.) Oh and the other thing is, and this is a bit delicate, couldn't we get them to dress a bit better? I
mean, come on folks, it's actually ok to wear socks and even Martha Stewart thinks that yellow and orange don't go together.
Similarities? Since I live on Vancouver Island, you have to get a ferry to get here. That is the only thing that is similar.
What are more noticeable are the differences, here's a list:
- There are roads here, not just a lot of corners joined together.
- Nobody called "W" lives here.
- The ferry crew was not trained at the Slobodan Milosevic School of customer care.
- We got traffic lights.
- The band goes on before midnight.
- We got trees, lots of them. I mean more trees than you could shake a stick at, if you know what I mean.
That's trees as far as the eye can f----ing see. We got trees in places other countries don't have trees.
We're treed. Big time.
- There is no Co-op.
- The electricity stays on all the time.
- If you get into a fight with a policeman, he will not come round the next day just to check that you are OK.
Q: Nick Morgan told me you're a blues guitarist extraordinaire, and it's true
that some aficionados fondly remember your gigs on Islay, with your band.
Do you know some other musicians who, like us, are whisky aficionados?
is Mr. Adrian Byron Burns. Giant voice, astonishing guitar technique, cross
genre repertoire, a Gentleman and, I feel sure, available for bookings in your area.
See www.adrianburns.com and tell him Uncle Mike is looking for his ten percent.
Adrian's label is Private Edition and never, never miss a live show.
He's really excellent, thanks for the tip! Two last, short questions now…
Do you remember your first dram?
Wasn't that three questions?
E-pistle #12/03 - Musings about the 'Original Question' - Part I
Submitted on 02/01/2005 by Lex Kraaijeveld, England
Besides enjoying a good dram or two (or three, or four), I am also very interested in whisky's rich and varied history.
What I want to do in a series of E-pistles is muse a bit about the 'original question' in whisky history.
First of all, what would the earliest whisky have looked (and tasted) like?
OK, we're looking for the first time that a spirit was distilled from grain and don't worry about additives or lack of maturation. How does
that fit in the history of alcohol distillation in general? According to historians of distillation (people such as Forbes, Needham, Harper
and Arntz), the earliest European records of distilled alcohol used wine as a base material and date from the first half of the 12th
century. Two specific places are mentioned: Salerno in Italy and Toledo in Spain, both established centres of learning in those days.
What appears to be the earliest solid European reference to 'aqua ardens' ('water that burns'), distilled from wine, is the 12th century version of the "Mappae clavicula". Was this a new discovery? The answer to that lies in Arab lands.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? That was a bit of a digression, but I feel a necessary one.
And the biggest question is of course: "When, where and by whom was whisky first distilled?" What is the ultimate origin of our
collective malt maniacality? If you read through the many whisky books on the market, you'll come across quite a range of stories which mostly have one thing in common: they're not based on evidence in any form or shape...
From the comfort of my sofa, I will travel to various regions, look at the different theories, try to separate fact from fiction, speculate
a wee bit (nothing wrong with speculating, as long as you make clear that's what you're doing), and see whether some sort of answer
emerges. But before we embark on this journey back in time, it's important to get a clearer picture of what we're looking for and of the scene in which we're looking. That's the subject of this first E-pistle in the series.
Obviously we shouldn't be looking for medieval references to a bottle of 18yo 'Lindores' finished in a claret cask.
Systematic maturation of whisky basically didn't happen before the 19th century. So the earliest form of whisky wouldn't have been
matured in any way. But, clearly, it would have been distilled from ale or beer. In other words, from some sort of grain. And it could
have had honey, herbs and spices added to mask the bad taste of the raw distillate, even though today we wouldn't classify that as
whisky. The further back in time you go, the more the distinctions between the different kinds of spirits become blurred. Seen from a
biologist's viewpoint, modern whisky, gin, jenever, whisky liqueurs and even grain-based vodka all 'evolved' from the same 'ancestor'.
I've scanned the relevant sentence.
Despite its crucial importance to the history of distilled alcohol
I don't think it has ever been published in any whisky source!
It's in Latin and deliberately cryptic in places, but what it says is:
'On mixing a pure and very strong wine with three parts of salt and heating
it in the vessels destined for that purpose there is obtained an inflammable
water which burns without consuming the material which it is placed upon.'
Now before I go on, it is very important to keep two things apart: distillation as a general technique to separate chemical substances
and the specific use of this technique to distil an alcoholic spirit. Arab scientists definitely had knowledge of distillation, but did they
distil an alcoholic spirit? Several writers claim that, although there is mention in Arab chemical and medical texts from the late
8th/early 9th century onwards of putting wine in stills, there is no indication anywhere that they did anything with the vapour or
realised that there was something special about it. It is often claimed that the reason Arab scientists failed to discover distilled alcohol was because their stills weren't cooled properly for this and the alcoholic vapour simply escaped. 
But things appear to be a wee bit more complicated ....
Have a look at this quote, from "Kitab ikhraj ma fi al-quwwa ila al-fi'l"
by Jabir ibn Hayyan, who lived and worked at the end of the 8th and
the beginning of the 9th century in what is now Iran and Iraq.
I can't read Arabic myself, but the translation is given as:
'And fire which burns on the mouths of bottles due to boiled wine and salt,
and similar things with nice characteristics which are thought to be of little use, these are of great significance in these sciences.'
European alchemists in the 12th century definitely had access to Arab texts, so it looks as if distilled alcohol was first described by
Arab scientists in the 8th/9th century after which 12th century European alchemists refined the Arab discovery by condensing the alcoholic vapours back into a 'water'.
I hope you're still with me because I think we're ready to go. From now on, to avoid my musings becoming a bit too dry for some, I'll savour a dram from the region we're travelling to every time. First stop on our journey:
Lex
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/04 - The Belgian Whisky; Meeting Mr. Bouillon
Submitted on 03/01/2005 by
Luc Timmermans, Belgium
Shame on me!! A fellow Maltmaniac and Dutchman, Lex Kraaijeveld, had to point
me to this new Belgian whisky initiative. Yes, shame on me. Being from Belgium
and not knowing that this initiative was started only a few months ago.
Thanks Lex for sending me the information and pointing me to their site:
www.belgianwhisky.com
After carefully examining the website I decided to send an email to Mr. Bouillon I was very surprised to taste this, really.
It was only on October 29, 2004 that the first cask (Hogshead) was filled with Belgian spirit (232 liters at 62,62%) and the "PUR.E
Distillery" (the official but very confusing name of the distillery) has a potential for filling about 200 casks a year with the current
equipment installed in Grâce-Hollogne. For this year Mr. Bouillon has only planned to fill 2 Hogshead casks. Just a few days ago, on
December 11, Mr. Bouillon started the pre-sales of the first Belgian Whisky, which will be launched end of October 2007. A unique
opportunity to obtain a bottle from the first Belgian Whisky. In order to provide you with as much information as possible on The Belgian Whisky I decided to interview Mr. Bouillon and presented him the following questions.
Q: Can you present yourself?
Q: Can you elaborate on the production details, the ingredients you use, the water, the malt, the yeast, etc.?
"The water is local tap water from the region. Most likely this water comes from the Belgian Ardennes. The most important is that we
use local water, since we are producing a Belgian Whisky; we target to use Belgian ingredients. We only use Belgian Malt, coming
from a village near-by, from a farmer called Pierre Roberty. Our liquid yeast comes from the University of Louvain-La-Neuve. We use
very straight forward simple liquid yeast, which is organoleptically without any aromas in order to avoid influencing the final product.
The malting is done at the malting premises of "La Malterie de Beloeil", also called the "Malterie du Château" (rue de
Q: Can you give me some details on the mashing and the fermentation? "For the mashing and fermentation I'm getting assistance from people from the beer industry in Belgium. The mashing and
fermentation for whisky is very similar to this of the beer making. What the fermentation is concerned we have opted for the natural
process, meaning our mash-tuns are neither heated nor chilled during fermentation but we use natural fermentation. Depending on
the temperature of our fermentation room the fermentation takes approximately 4 days before we start the distillation process." Q: Can you give me more information on the pot stills and the details of your distillation process? Do you re-use the foreshots and feints?
"Yes, I re-use the feints and foreshots of the on-going distillation process in the next distillation run, not during the same distillation process. The foreshots and the feints are separated and stored for re-use."
Q: Can you elaborate on the kind of casks you are using, its origin, size, etc….? Q: The first Belgian whisky will be released in 3 years? "Yes, in October 2007 we will be able to present our first Belgian whisky to the public. Q: Where are your warehouses? "Currently we are using a warehouse of a company called TTS in Bierzet. Q: How do you see the future? What vintages will you release in the future?
"A fifth of our capacity will remain casked for longer maturation. Of course depending on the demand and depending of our financial
resources. But we have plans to release a 5yo, 10yo, 15yo and a 20yo old. And we will closely monitor this maturation to see how our product will evolve over time."
Q: I see in your store currently already bottles labeled "The Belgian PURE Malt".
"Yes, we have two different products. The one with the white capsule and white label is a distillate from Belgian Beers. I have lots of
friends in the Belgian beer industry and the idea to try to distill from Belgian beer gave a surprising nice distillate so we decided to
launch this already. Our Belgian beers are reputated throughout the world so why not try to make a beer distillate. The one with a
blue capsule and white label is the new spirit before maturation and diluted to 40%. This allows already to taste and evaluate our
new spirit but at a drinking strength of 40%. We only added a slight amount of caramel to make it more attractive to our customers."
Q: Will you keep these 2 products in your product range, or are they only meant to realize sales during the first 3 years?
"The Belgian PURE Malt in its two versions will remain in our product range, allowing us to present in the future 3 products to our
customers. The Belgian Single Malt Whisky, The Belgian PURE Malt distillated from Belgian beers and the other distillated from Malt, our new spirit."
Thank you for your hospitality, Mr. Bouillon and the best of luck with your initiative! This concludes my interview. Mr. Bouillon and myself enjoyed our penne bolognaise prepared by the restaurant next door together with
a good red wine and some more discussions on our mutual passion, the "water of life". New make:
First a typical 'washy nose and flavor, but then full-sweet fruits underneath (pears? strawberries??) Pur.e malt:
As the new make, but (obviously) diluted. Bit more sweetness (is this the caramel?). Beer distillate:
Voluptuous nose followed by a sweet velvety palate with notes of marzipan and rosewater. Luc Timmermans - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to try to arrange a meeting. And we decided to set the meeting on December 1
since Mr. Bouillon informed me that he would be producing spirit then.
And indeed, when I arrived the spirit was running fluently since the production
started that morning very early and was practically finished. Mr. Bouillon was
about to cut the distillation and was practically at the very end of the "heart
of the run". But this allowed us to sample the spirit before the feints would be
diverted. And so I was able to test for the first time this newly made Belgian
spirit (at +/- 70,8%).
Nose: very sugarish, sweet, notes of cherries and apples.
Perfumed with white flowers.
Taste: again very sugarish and extremely sweet more eau-de-vie in style.
Finish: very delicate, warming, not strong at all.
The new spirit, although at 70,8% strength, didn't give me any strong alcohol nose nor taste.
I must admit, this stuff has potential. Although very sweet and almost more eau-de-vie I'm curious to see how this will mature.
Who is Mr. Bouillon and what is your background and why have you launched this initiative?
"My name is Etienne Bouillon. I preliminary ended my studies as a
veterinarian to join my family's business, a 4th generation "liquor shop".
During my work at my family's business I followed evening courses "distilling"
and came in contact with other distillers, like Mr. Roland Witsels , who is
conservator at the Jenever museum in Hasselt. He practically created this
museum from A to Z. I also met Mr. Gaby, a distiller from Beaujolais, from
who I bought the two pot stills with which I work today.
And last but not least, Mr. François Moutard, distiller of Marc de Champagne,
and winner of lots of medals at the "Concours Agricolle de Paris". These 3
people have taught me the distillation process. All 3 still help me today.
If I have a question I just pick up the phone and ask them for advice.
Why whisky? Well, I must admit that I find whisky a very passionate drink.
Being able to taste and evaluate whiskies is very passionate, although I must
admit I'm by far a specialist like you Maltmaniacs. I'm more an amateur, but
an amateur that likes quality. And it has already been a while that I was
playing with the idea to launch this quality Belgian Whisky. I did not want to wait
for another 80 years to have the necessary funds to start this initiative and after having met some people from the region who were
willing to back me financially; I decided to start the production. In the first year of production I get financial support from the region
and from then on I have to make sure that this project is financially viable. And of course proof to my customers that the product we
produce is of the best quality. And I'm confident the Belgian consumers will support this initiative, a single malt from Belgium, made from malt and produced in our distillery, PUR.E Distillery in Grâce-Hollogne."
Mons, 94, 7970 BELOEIL). This malt is also being used for some traditional Belgian beers."
"The pot stills we are using are old French pot stills formerly used in
the Beaujolais region and have a capacity of 700 & 500 liters. These
are approximately 120 years old and are very old-fashioned, but as long
as they work……. and since they have been used formerly for high quality
distillations, I'm sure they are more then adequate for our Belgian whisky.
The first pot still (our wash still) is used for producing our low-wines.
Out of 2000 liters of mash I'll be able to distill 500 liters of low-wines and
to distill 150 liters of spirit. What is important for me is not the quantity
but the quality. I personally decide by testing the spirit (smelling and
tasting) which is the heart of the run of my second distillation. I only
believe one can measure the quality of its spirit by tasting and nosing it.
Every distillation process is different and that is the reason why I nose
and taste constantly during the distillation process. Our pot stills are
direct gas-fired as you can see on this picture.
What is in fact your cask policy?
"I have asked Jim Murray for more information and he advised me to contact
Douglas Laing to buy casks from them. Currently I'm re-using Douglas Laing casks
that contained whisky before. I have bought 10 casks from them, who will be used
to mature our spirit for 3 years. I will be using in the future also Bourbon casks, which
I will acquire directly from the USA. I will use these Bourbon casks for longer maturation.
I will most likely also experiment with finishes, like Port finish, etc…"
And starting from mid December 2004 we will launch the pre-sales via our website.
Customers will be able to pre-order bottles from the first Belgian whisky that will be
released in October 2007. The bottles will all come from the first distillation lot"
This warehouse is being controlled by Customs & Excise. We will be using this warehouse
certainly during the first year to store our casks for maturation. In the future we will most likely change this and perhaps, if things
work out, we will built are own warehouses"
Will we ever see a 20yo old Belgian Whisky?
There's one bottle with a white cap and another with a blue cap. Can you give some more information on this?
After my visit I decided to send fellow maniac
One sample from the new make and the 2 current products in the range of the PUR.E distillery.
Here are his comments:
Good old-fashioned heavy new-make, no off-notes whatsoever.
Finish gets drier and I seem to pick up some woody notes, although that clearly can't be from maturation.
The whole reminds me of Eddu (the buckwheat whisky from Distilleries des Menhirs).
This is how I would imagine a distillate of a strong Belgian beer (such as Duvel or Leffe Triple) to taste like.
Tastewise, it's quite far removed from being 'whisky' in the traditional sense.
However, this is a enjoyable spirit as it is: a beer schnapps essentially.
E-pistle #12/05 - Malt Mania 2004
Submitted on 05/01/2005 by Davin de Kergommeaux, Canadia
In 2004, the whisky industry continued to lament that youth are generally not drawn to whisky.
Matthew Gloag, I believe, is credited with saying you can't enjoy whisky until you are comfortable drinking alone. It is a contemplative
drink; one to savour without distraction. Does this explain why youth are attracted to the cheaper white spirits, flavoured with their
favourite fruit juice or soda? True, without a carefully-developed palate, most of the gentle nuances of the great single malts will
simply slip over the tongue unnoticed. But when getting a buzz is the goal, when drinking to reduce inhibitions, when drink is really
just part of the mating ritual, expensive, harsh-tasting and distracting spirits have no role. The biggest benefit of vodka is that you can't taste it.
For me malt mania is not about drinking or getting a buzz, it's about tasting, and always searching for a Holy Grail that can only be recognized when you have it in your glass. I found it once on
In 2004 I touched the Holy Grail again; this time on Islay. Again, a Signatory bottling, but this one a 31yo Ben Wyvis. Serge had
intended to share this bottle with some others, but hearing of my maniacal quest to taste every distillery decided instead to bring it
with him to Feis Ile 2004. My own contribution to that tasting had been two 50yo Glenlivets I'd picked up along the way. Although
they all scored in the mid-eighties, the Ben Wyvis was my clear favourite. The whisky was good, yes, but with the effort Serge made to ensure I got a taste, it had to score 100.
I've had similar tasting experiences, with Johannes and a Linlithgow, with Dave Russo and Marty Brunet in Boston, at Tom Borschel's
Whisky Hill Dram Jam, and in friends' homes, but it was reading Serge's notes on the trip he took to Italy with Luc, Olivier and
Johannes that crystallized it for me. Tasting a Highland Park 8yo he assigned 85 points, but then gave it an emotional rating of 100.
There it was: good malt, made great by the company tasting it. Suddenly all seemed clear. This maniacal pursuit of drams from
every distillery, this weekending across the ocean to pick up boxes of samples; sleeping in Johannes' kitchen, collecting obscure
bottles to share with others just so they can get onto the Matrix, this malt mania, is not justified by the whisky alone. No it's more
than the tasting; it's the memories; and its people, not whisky who make those memories so special. That's a lesson re-learned in 2004.
The year began slowly with a resolution to taste drams from the 18 distilleries I still had not sampled. Peter promptly offered to supply
a sample of each if I visited him in New York. Ahh, so close and yet so far. The year has ended without that visit and also with a few
of my untasted malts remaining untasted. Peter and I will try for a 2005 session in the Vaults of Dram Central. Meantime, here is how my quest for the few remaining distilleries worked out:
1. Aultmore – 4 versions sampled, scores range from 73 to 79, all are now on the Matrix. This means only five distilleries remain to be tasted for the first time in 2005: Caperdonich, Glen Flagler, Killyloch, Kinclaith, and
Ladyburn. Yes, I know Killyloch and Glen Flagler came from the same distillery, but I count them separately as I'm told they are different malts. Anyway, wish me luck!
The year picked up considerably in May when Serge, Olivier and I made the trek to the Inner Hebrides and all that means to the cult
of whisky. Islay lives for whisky and survives on whisky. Each day was filled with unexpected whisky wonders. On Islay, it seems
wherever you are you're in the right place at the right time. Here we drammed and toured with Charlie MacLean and Dave Broom.
Here, in Martine's kitchen, we sipped Jean Donnay's latest Celtic whisky. Here we drammed Springbanks and Port Ellens with
Ho-Cheng. Here we feasted on Islay lobster at Mark Reynier's table. Here we saw the Paps from Caol Ila's still room and the brown
goo they call water flowing into Lagavulin. Each day something happened to make it even better, and here, I finally discovered the
best of Glengoyne in a surrealistic adventure described in my report on Islay. Serious damage was done to my list of untasted
distilleries. We'll be back for Feis Ile in 2005, along with a whole group of guys from PLOWED. Why don't you join us as well?
One of the highlights of 2004 was receiving my Golden Taster Award from Serge. This was supposed to thank me for participating in
the 2003 Malt Maniacs Awards. Hmmm… shouldn't I be thanking Serge? He organized the whole event which ended up with the
Maniacs tasting some of the best releases of the year. That award now hangs in my office next to my deed to a square foot of
Laphroaig, signed by Iain Henderson. In any case, when the 2004 Awards rolled around I was there like a bullet. Getting samples into
Canada is no mean feat, and in the end I decided it was best to go and pick them up again this year. After checking travel itineraries,
and with little more than a week-end to make the trip, I headed off to Amsterdam where Johannes would have Serge's
carefully-packed samples waiting. Johannes has posted a report on our drams that weekend. Let me just say it was a spectacular
calibration session and we added some real gems to our portfolios. Getting the malts home though was not as simple as it had been in 2003. Flights from Canada to Europe are generally quite expensive. The
As malt mania grows, so does the malt library. Any anorak must have his (that's a non-gendered his, used because his/her, besides
being awkward, takes up too much precious space on the site and too many strokes on the keyboard) reference material. If you know
of Islay's Freeport distillery it's because you've read about it. No one actually knows where it was or what its output tasted like; only
that some papers show it went bankrupt in 1847. Another of my plans for 2004 was to go methodically through my whisky books and
come up with some book reviews for Malt Maniacs. Well the best laid plans of mice and men aft DO go astray, and 2004 ends with
only one review, and that of a book I would only steer you away from. 2005 will be better and I'll end this year-end review with a short overview of some of the books to be reviewed for Malt Maniacs this year.
There are dozens of worthwhile malt whisky books in print now and among these are three most highly recommended: Malt Whisky
Companion by Michael Jackson – a must have first whisky book; Appreciating Whisky by Philip Hills – lots of detail on how whisky
tastes and why that is so; and, Charles MacLean's Scotch Whisky, A Liquid History – a rollicking good romp through the first 500 years
of Scotch whisky's recorded history. Let's start off 2005 with an overview of what's out there then follow it up with some more detailed reviews as the year progresses. Malt Whisky Companion Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History The Making of Scotch Whisky Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible
Peat Smoke and Spirit The Malt Whisky Guide, Making Whisky Fun And so ends 2004, but not without a few new malty resolutions...
1) First, I will try to taste and rate malts from those five remaining distilleries.
2) Second I will try to taste and rate as many yet untasted commercial malts as I can. 3) Third, I will try to fill out my column on the Matrix with at least three representative malts from each commonly available distillery.
To get them on the Matrix means I'll have to share them with at least two other Maniacs. Fun! 4) And fourth, this year I will re-read my library and get crackin' on my whisky book reports. Have a great 2005 everyone! Davin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A huge market barely cracked is just painful for the head-office types. "They buy our vodka in boatloads" the puzzled pencil pushers
bemoan, "why not our single malts?" Of course some youth do love whisky. In Spain, for example, they buy so much Cardhu to mix
with the fizzy stuff that there's barely any left for other markets. So in a cynical, "Who gives a hoot" attitude the brains at head
office decided to adulterate the single by turning it into a vatted malt, ensuring inexhaustible and more cheaply-made supplies for the
dumb Spanish kiddies who wouldn't know the difference anyway. Vatting per se. is not bad, but clearly this was a case where the
vatting was not done to make a dram more tasty than its components, but simply to milk more money from a label that sells. Only sustained outrage from the malt cognoscenti forced Cardhu back to the single it is.
2. Ben Wyvis – 1 sampled, score 83, on the Matrix.
3. Caperdonich – Missed on this one, will try harder in 2005.
4. Coleburn – Tasted two, scored both in low 70's, both are now on the Matrix.
5. Glencraig – Serge provided a Cadenhead's version which scores 86 on the Matrix.
6. Glenesk – Tasted a Signatory single cask version which scored 82. Drammed alone.
7. Glen Flagler – Another elusive one to seek out in 2005.
8. Glen Spey – Managed to taste a Signatory version which scored 70. Drammed alone.
9. Glenugie – Tasted 2 Glenugies, one alone and one for the Matrix. Scores 68 and 83.
10. Glenury Royal – 3 versions, a great 50yo & 2 mediocre others, both on the Matrix.
11. Killyloch – I only heard about this Glen Flagler variant; again, try harder in 2005.
12. Kinclaith – Still waiting, but I have sources for 2005.
13. Ladyburn – Again, part of my quest for 2005.
14. Loch Lomond – Got one, but even better, tasted & Matrixed the very rare Croftengea.
15. Miltonduff – Tasted 2 versions, scores 81 & 86, both on the Matrix now.
16. Mosstowie – Tasted 2 with Johannes, sent samples to Serge & Olivier for the Matrix.
17. Pittyvaich – Tasted 3 and got one on the Matrix. Love this malt. Luc got a sample.
18. Tullibardine - Tasted a 10yo which scores 69 on the Matrix (that took dedication!)
Regular travellers know they can save a lot of money if they leave from the US instead of Canada.
In
First up, the 2004 release of Michael Jackson' Malt Whisky Companion.
If you are less than an anorak and can afford only one book, make it this one.
It's not the very best whisky book available, but it ably covers a little bit of everything while providing tasting notes and scores for
representative malts from every available Scottish distillery. It's a real whisky bible for the newbie and reference for even the most
experienced. The Malt Whisky Companion comprises mainly an alphabetical listing by distillery with a short overview, bullet-form
tasting notes and lots of pictures of labels. It's billed as a fully revised edition, and it has been lengthened to include many more
malts. Distillery descriptions have also been updated, though sometimes just by re-phrasing a few sentences. The biggest change is
the re-vamping of the alphabet to include a blank space as the letter before A. Yup, in the fourth edition, Glen Grant fell squarely
between Glengoyne and Glen Keith. In Jackson Five, Glen Garioch and Glen Keith form the book-ends. A picture of Malt Maniac,
Martine Nouet brightens page 22; no wonder this is reputed to be the best-selling whisky book on the market, and Jackson, without
question, the most talked about whisky writer. It was this book which popularized tasting notes and set the standard for scoring whiskies.
Speaking of Malt Maniacs, Charlie MacLean takes top honours for very readable whisky history. His Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History
traces the first 500 years of the recorded history of Scotch whisky through 12 broad periods. If you thought history was all about
wars, politics and dates, you're in for a surprise for this book is just alive with the people who make whisky. Yes, the laws, dates and
run-ins are there, but so are their often unintended effects. It seems that making whisky is all about avoiding taxes, and so are many
of its most hallowed traditions. Though he begins with the inevitable eight bolls of malt to Friar John Cor, MacLean is probably the
first author to give this any but historical meaning, when he explains in a footnote what a "boll" actually is. (It's a measure of volume,
like a cup of sugar or a bushel of wheat.) Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History reads like a novel, and this, perhaps, is its greatest appeal.
History can be fun, and MacLean shows us how in a book that is just loaded with interesting tid-bits and anecdotes. Nicely bound,
colourfully illustrated and printed on high quality paper, this book will find home on as many coffee tables as is does in libraries,
destined, though it is, to become dog-eared over time. Late in 2004, MacLean followed up A Liquid History with MacLean's Whisky Miscellany. An earlier work, Malt Whisky, is a standard.
Since its release in 1981 The Making of Scotch Whisky by John R. Hume and Michael S. Moss has been considered the bible of the
Scotch whisky industry and is certainly a welcome addition to any serious whisky library. Written by academics, it can be quite dense
in places; however it is well worth the price for the 110 pages of lists and tables alone. If you are looking for facts, and lots of them
(for example that the precise location of Camnacumline, Aberdeenshire distillery (1828-30) is unknown) then this book is for you.
Without doubt Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible 2004 was the most anticipated new whisky book of the year and so may have been doomed
to disappoint. Though generally panned by the in-crowd as 1. self-indulgent (he takes barely disguised swipes at former colleagues
and employers), 2. implausible (he tasted over 2000 whiskies while writing it, and plans to do so again, every year the book remains in
print), 3. misleading (he scores many average blends higher than some great malts or 4. bizarre (Bailie Nicol Jarvie at 93 points,
(better than most Ardbeg scores) is described as "as fruity and mouthwatering as a riesling, but infinitely better" (but then again, he
describes himself as a colossus, a word my mother used to use in the adjectival form when describing someone who reminded her of
the back end of a horse), it might be better to think of this as Jim Murray's mid-life crisis and hope for better in future editions.
Certainly Murray's departure from Whisky Magazine was much lamented by that same in-crowd, and the hole he left has yet to be adequately filled. This guy knows whisky and he can write. The 2005 edition is now available.
Andrew Jefford's portrait of Islay and its whiskies, Peat Smoke and Spirit is a more than welcome and engaging venture by writer on
the cusp of becoming an author. Wonderfully succinct distillery profiles that are just bursting with information follow eminently
readable descriptions of the seven Islay distilleries. The introductory chapter, a technical description of how whisky is made, draws
you in quickly and foreshadows the lyrical writing that follows, for Jefford is a writer first and a maltophile second. If Iain Banks
dropped the medicine ball on The Queen's foot with Raw Spirit, Andrew Jefford picked it up and kicked a field goal with Peat Smoke and Spirit.
Not too long ago David Stirk was posting newbie questions on whisky chat boards.
A job at Whisky Magazine soon followed, then a stint at Cadenhead's. The Malt Whisky Guide, Making Whisky Fun is David Stirk's first
venture into whisky books. Initially released in loose leaf, it is now available in soft cover as well. Young David has dropped out of
sight lately, presumably working away at his next publication, a history of distilling in Campbeltown.
These are Caperdonich, Glenflagler, Killyloch, Kinclaith and Ladyburn.
With friends like the Maniacs and the PLOWED an unworthy number of the best malts cross my palate, but does the average reader of
Malt Maniacs really relate to these? Many do, but many more don't I suspect.
I know I'm going to...
E-pistle #12/06 - Five Highlights of 2004
Submitted on 08/01/2005 by Ho-cheng Yao, Taiwan
2004 really means something for me. First of all, I became one of the So, let's look at the top ten malts on my record: #1 97 Ardbeg 25yo 1975/2000
(50%, OMC, 702 bottles) - I found this bottle this year in a local liquor store. #2 94 Bruichladdich 1970 (44.2%, OB) - This is said to be the best bottling after the re-opening of the distillery.
#3 94 Linkwood 30yo Mission II
(46%, MMCD, 600b.) - Many people believe the Laguvulin in the same series is much better than this one. But personally, I think this is the best Linkwood I've every tasted. This one brings Linkwood to 5-star distillery on my list.
#4 93 Bowmore 32yo 1968 Morrisson Bowmore '50yo Anniversary' (45.5%, 1860b.) #5 93 Bunnahabhain 34yo 1968/2002 Auld Acquaintance (43.8%, OB, 2002b.) - I tasted this malt in Islay. #6 93 Caol Ila 21yo 1974/1996
(58%, Cadenhead) - I sampled this malt with the MARA tasting package I got.
#7 93 Laphroaig 30yo (43%, OB) - It's probably the best 30yo bottling of all time. #8 93 Port Ellen 23yo 1978/2001 (62.2%, Provenance summer/summer, Select by John Milroy) #9 93 Springbank 25yo Parchment Label, short bottle (46%, OB, bottle around '95) #10 92 Port Ellen 21yo 1982/2004
(62.7%, Blackadder, Cask#2734, 563b. Misprint to 1983)
And I think it's also interesting to see some of the value choice on the 90s level. (Price under USD 100.-) 91 Lagavulin 16yo (43%, OB, <1999, white horse) 91 Port Charlotte 3yo 2001/2004
(67.3%, private bottling, Cask#286, 336b.) 90 Aberlour 21yo (43%, OB, Cask#27) 90 Ardbeg 10yo non-chill-filtered (46%, OB) 90 Bowmore 12yo 1991/2003 (60.3%, Blackadder, Cask#10597) 90 Laphroaig 10yo cask strength (57.3%, OB, red strip) 90 Macallan 15yo 'Fine Oak' (43%, OB, 2004) 90 Springbank 12yo 1991 (61.2%, Blackadder Raw Cask, Cask#328) And how about the plans for this year: First, as I am very focus at collecting Balvenie, it's a shame I didn't taste too much "OLD" Balvenie. Thus, I'd like to open some of the
old bottles, especially the vintage series. Second, my wife has agreed to have our family vacation in Scotland. How lucky I am! We
are now planning for the trip, It's probably not very good for the children. But I think they'll enjoy the beautiful landscape of
highland. Third, our tasting club is running well. We hope will expand to 50 official members with different tasting topic every month. That's for now.
Second, I finally made it to Islay. And more than just visiting, I spend one week in the Bruichladdich Academy!
That really opened my eyes.
Third, our
tasting club finally officially started. It is named "Taiwan Single Malt Scotch Tasting Association".
We now have 25 official members. I am proud to be the founder of the club.
Fourth, I am one of the tasters in Malt Maniac Award 2004.
The best thing about being the taster in the Award is to taste 86 un-known samples.
You have to be very careful about it, and the result is just fun.
Fifth, my malt mileage increased from 100 to 400
within one year. Thanks to all my friends.
They helped me a lot by exchanging or donating samples to me.
This malt, with the nick name "Jim Murray No. 1" were priced at around USD 130.-, according to the boss, just no one like it. Without
any question, I bought them all. Though some of them already sold to my friends after they learned the story from me. I still manage
to keep about 10 bottles for myself. Nothing need to add for the malt, you got to try for yourself.
Jim McEwan believed this one will be the next Black Bowmore within 10 years, let's wait and see.
Personally, this malt is the reason I make up my mind to go to Bruichladdich, not Jim.
This is probably not the most famous Bowmore, but probably the most value old one.
This malt really changes my mind about Bowmore. To be honest, Bowmore is my least favorite Islay malt.
Just by the Bowmore harbor. After tasting this malt, you'll find you probably already have the best ending of visiting Islay.
Though this malt probably not the best Caol Ila you can get, I found it very unique and complex.
It's a pity my friend, Stephen, just hate it.
This is my house malt. Straight, simple, but strong Islay!
I am not sure if this is the best Springbank I have, but indeed, I was so moved when I tasted this one.
Especially when tasted with the three other maniacs.
Though one point less than the Milroy Port Ellen, I think this one is actually better in many ways.
Very complex and with very strong body and long finish.
Though not available through normal channel, many of my friends manage to find this bottle in small liquor store at the country with very reasonable price. (around USD65~70)
Not through normal channel, but if you can get it, you'll understand why Port Charlotte will be the king of Islay within ten years.
The 21yo OB was actually an US only version. Though dilute to 43%, it was actually single-cask bottling. My friend told me there were 50 casks, try yourself.
Do I need to say anything?
Very Laguvulinish Bowmore!
Hurry up, the new bottling of cask strength has only 55.6%Acl.
The best fine oak bottling in the series.
Much better than OB young bottling.
And wish every body has a wonderful year!
Ho-cheng
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/07 - What a 'Whiskyfull' Year
Submitted on 09/01/2005 by Luc Timmermans
, Belgium
I must admit that 2004 turned out to be a very "whiskyfull" year. Let me share with you some of the highlights of my Whisky-2004-Year.
The SMWS Representation for Belgium: The foundation of our Lindores Whisky Society (www.lindores.be):
The Glenfarclas for friends edition n°1: The Maltmaniacs: The 2004 Malt Maniacs Awards:
And what is the whisky that attracted me the most ? To be honest, the Port Ellen was a real treat, what a fantastic experience. Just let me share with you my "raw" notes that I wrote down when I was evaluating sample n°57 :
"Lovely Glenfarclas nose, deep intense sherry notes, burnt sugar from a crème brulée, super complex nose, super super super. Whauh, what a super whisky, must
be old too, although the tannins are gone, so I guess early 60's or late 50's. But on second tasting, the smoke, mmm, interesting,
where does this smoke come from ? Must be Islay, a Port Ellen ? Cool, a Port Ellen finished in a Farclie cask."
The Laphroaig fraud on Ebay:
Fortunately I had a lot of spare time to spend in to my hobby, or should I better call it my passion.
And of course I'm very grateful that my wife allowed me to spend so much time on my hobby. I was lucky to be able to go to
Scotland twice, to visit the whiskyfair in Limburg, to go to Italy with the Maltmaniacs, to organize and to co-host some exciting tastings, etc…..
I must admit that 2004 was a very exciting and a very "whisky-full" year.
It all started with my official appointment as representative for the Scotch Malt Whisky Society (www.smws.be).
Since 10 years the SMWS branch in Holland (www.smws.nl) is responsible for Holland, Germany, Luxemburg and Belgium and it was
only in 2003 that I became a member of the SMWS via the SMWS branch in Holland, located in Roosendaal. My first SMWS whisky I
tasted was at the 2003 tasting from Michiel Wigman in Holland where Wally presented us the Glenrothes 29yo 1969/1999 (49,8%,
SMWS 30.26), a beautiful Glenrothes, truly complex and refined. And I must admit that I fell almost instantly and immediately in love
with the SMWS Single cask bottlings, especially with the Scapa 37yo 1965/2003 (45,6%, SMWS 17.24) that was released at the time
I became member. What a whisky!! And so I decided to explore more SMWS whiskies in 2003 and visited Roosendaal frequently. And
so, while sharing lovely drams with Leon Van Dorst (the co-owner of the SMWS NL Branch), we started discussing about the
opportunities for Belgium and only a few weeks later Leon asked me if I would be interested to represent the Belgian members. And I
accepted this of course with great honors. And I must admit that 2004 was indeed an exciting SMWS year. Per capita we enrolled
the most new members in Belgium during 2004, so I guess my continuous efforts of promoting the SMWS and organizing tastings is
rewarding after all. One of our members, Christian Monos, puts it like this: "Even a bad SMWS whisky tastes good"
It was already for quite some time that we thought about the idea of creating our whisky club.
And what is a better place to decide it formally then in Alness, Scotland at The Dalmore Distillery.
It was May 31 2004, during our trip in Scotland, and after an exciting guided tour at The Dalmore distillery that we decided to create
our own Whisky club. We celebrated this event with a good bottle of Dalmore 30yo 1973 Gonzales Byass sherry finish (42%, OB,
2004) which we bought at the distillery centre that had just been inaugurated by Richard Patterson a week before. And when
returning to Belgium we decided to baptize our club "The Lindores Whisky Society", named after the Lindores Abbey in Fife. This is
the earliest ever record of whisky production in Scotland, and is to be found in the exchequer roll of 1494. The King was James IV and
it was whilst staying at Falkland palace, his hunting lodge that he commissioned Friar John Cor of the Tironensian order of nearby
Lindores Abbey to make aquavitae (meaning water of life). Eight bols of malt amounts to 1,120 lbs (580kgs) and this quantity of malt
would make over 400 bottles of today's whisky, it also confirms that distilling was already firmly established at Lindores. It was with proud that I accepted the presidency of our newly created whisky society.
2004 was also the year of the launch of our "Glenfarclas for Friends" whisky.
This idea all started at the whiskyfair in Limburg where my friend and fellow Glenfarclas-collector Sjoerd Agema and I attended the
masterclass of George Grant. And George had brought a cask sample during this masterclass. A cask sample from cask 688, from
1968, and I must admit lightning struck us; this was an exquisite cask, so full, so rich, so complex, whauh. So we decided to ask
George whether we could buy this cask, especially since Sjoerd would be celebrating his 60th birthday on September 15, 2004, so this
would be a unique opportunity to bottle this cask for his 60th Anniversary. And it took quite some convincing and negotiations to make
it happen but thanks to George Grant we were able to put this initiative on the road. We decided to invite Hans-Georg Würsching
from Germany, also a big Glenfarclas fan and collector, to join in our initiative and it was in October 2004 that we went to Scotland to
collect our 126 bottles from our first selected cask (Cask 688 from 1968) baptized : "Glenfarclas for Friends Edition n° 1". In 2006 and 2008 we will present the second and third (final) edition.
And yes, it was in 2004 that I joined the Maltmaniacs.
I guess it was only in 2002 that I discovered the Malmadness website and it was only in May 2004 that I sent my first email to Serge
(through the visit of his website www.whiskyfun.com), asking him for some advice on Brora. And from one email came the other, this
resulting in a first visit to Turckheim in August 2004. After returning from an exciting holiday with my family in Tuscany we decided to
stay one night in Turckheim. Serge had invited us at his place for what turned out to be an exciting evening of fine food prepared by
his lovely wife Frédérique, exquisite wines (like the Ai-Danil Pinot Gris 1940 from Massandra) and my first ever Brora 22yo 1972/1995
(61,1%, Rare Malts), a super whisky indeed. Especially when you are enjoying this at 3 am in Serge's swimming pool.
It was with honor that I accepted Serge's invitation to join in the
I must admit, I'm already looking forward to the next edition of the Malt Maniacs awards.
But 2004 was also the year of the Laphroaig fraud on Ebay. I must admit that this affected seriously the way I perceive the industry.
I was very surprised to find out that the whisky industry is not putting more efforts in trying to avoid this kind of fraud, especially if
you notice that the number of fraud cases seems to increase. And what is the status now of my discovery? I haven't heard much from Allied Domecq since
"Dear Mr Timmermanns, We are still dealing with the process.
As soon as we are in a position to do so we will carry out our procedures. Pete Harvey"
But please be aware that this particular seller is still active on Ebay! The trip to Italy; "Forza Italia": The Super Glenfarclas tasting:
89 - Glenfarclas 1994/2004 (57,6%, OB, Whiskyfestival Berlin, Cask 932, 318 b.) And finally we presented the Cask 689, a so-called twin cask from the Cask 688 (the Glenfarclas for Friends edition n°1). This cask
will be bottled as the Edition N°3 in 2008. And this one scored very well too, a mere 91 points, although very different in character and much fruitier then the Cask 688.
So I guess this concludes my highlights for 2004, what turned out to be a "whisky full" year. 29 & 30 Jan : Whiskyfest Oostende Belgium (www.whiskyfest.be) And for 2005 my personal quest is to reach the 1000-malts barrier, thus making it to Malt Master. Luc Timmermans
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
He has changed his Ebay alias on November 2, 2004 to muchtyboulder.
Too bad that even Ebay don't react to this case of apparent fraud.
I guess they don't care less and are at the end only interested in their commission.
Back to some more positive events in 2004. I think the most exciting whisky-event of 2004 was our visit to Italy, our "Maltmaniacs
Forza Italia". I was looking forward to this for months and I must admit, our visit was very exciting, very intense and I think we had
the opportunity to taste some very fine and super exclusive whiskies. The visit to Giuseppe Begnoni's whiskyparadise, the visit at
Valentino Zagatti's place, the visit at Giovanni Giuliani, the company of Johannes, Olivier and Serge, the food, the wines and the
whiskies were simply super. This event will go down in my book of life of "not-to-forget" experiences. I had 69 whiskies during our
whole trip in Italy and at Whiskyship - Zurich and most of them were fantastic, 17 of them scoring more than 90 points. Our trip even
resulted in a new number one whisky for me, the Springbank 12yo (57,1%, OB, late 70's, Samaroli import, yellow back label), indeed
my best ever whisky, scoring 98 points ! And 2 scoring a mere 97 points, the Bowmore 7yo (43%, OB, 1960's, Sherriff/Cogis Milano) and the Macallan 1947 (46%, OB, bottled circa 1962/1963).
And the first "Super Glenfarclas tasting at Cask Strength" organized on November 20 and co-hosted with Ian McWilliam turned out to
be a very exciting evening too. Besides from the lovely Glenfarclas drams we had that evening, which even charmed the hardcore
Ardbeg fans in Belgium that attended the tasting, I think congratulations are in order for Ian McWilliam for sharing with us all the
details of the production of Glenfarclas. Like my friend Bert Bruyneel told me afterwards : "This is by far the best presentation I ever
had on whisky, the most technical and by far the most illustrative explanation!" And of course we had some very fine and exquisite Glenfarclas expressions:
86 - Glenfarclas 1985/2003 (48,5%, OB, Refill sherry Cask 2823, 308 b.)
84 - Glenfarclas 1980/2003 (55%, OB, Christmas Edition, Cask 11051, 607 b.)
92 - Glenfarclas 1971/2000 (53,1%, OB, Christmas Ed., Cask 5959 & 5960, 543 b.)
90 - Glenfarclas 1971/1999 (57,1%, OB, 253 b., Cask 3515)
87 - Glenfarclas 1968/2003 (54,1%, OB, Old Stock Reserve, Cask 686 & 687, 384 b.)
91 - Glenfarclas 1968/2004 (50.1%, OB, For Friends N°1, Cask 688, 126 b.)
I can only hope 2005 will bring me as much whisky enjoyment and malt mania as 2004.
I must admit that my whisky diary of the first semester already looks very promising:
12 Feb : Glenfarclas SUPER tasting of the "Friends of Malt" in Germany
19 & 20 Mar : Belgian whiskyfestival Verviers (www.whiskies.be)
16 & 17 Apr : Whiskymesse Austria (http://www.whiskymesse.at)
23 & 24 Apr : The Whisky Fair Limburg (www.whiskyfair.com)
29 May - 06 Jun : Islay Whiskyfestival
E-pistle #12/08 - The Best of 2004
Submitted on 10/01/2005 by Luca Chichizola, Italy
Hi everybody, This is my first E-pistle for the Malt Maniacs (thanks Johannes for letting me join you!) so forgive me if it won't be the
most interesting and innovative you can find on this wonderful site! As you can read in my (soon to be published) personal profile, I
am quite young and new to single malts: so you won't find particularly rare or exotic bottlings in my E-pistles (well, at least for now)
but I hope the point of view of a semi-newbie on quite ordinary bottlings can prove interesting anyway. After all, what would be the
purpose of trying expensive and rare bottles if one hasn't sampled at least a wide range of "the common stuff" to gain some knowledge of what to expect from a distillery?
Speaking with Johannes, we thought that a good idea to introduce myself was to write a personal "best of 2004" in addition to my
profile in Malt Maniacs (which defines who I am and my preferences). This is not a "best new releases of 2004", just a "best of what I
have sampled in 2004": having begun my quest in 2003, 2004 was the year in which I started digging deeper. The year in which I read
lots of tasting notes and I began some "serious" sampling, with tasting notes and critical research of particular bottlings from
interesting distilleries. If you are a semi-beginner yourself, take it as useful advice on what to try next if you have already tried all the
most common expressions available (such as the six Classic Malts, and the usual array of supermarket bottles). These bottlings can be
considered a "next step", and in a couple of cases they are rarer (and more expensive) bottlings I stumbled upon almost by chance
and which turned out to be terrific. Of course, don't limit yourself to my advice: my tastes are geared towards a particular orientation, so bottles I skipped or that I sampled but didn't much care for might be excellent for you. Macallan 18yo 1984 (43%, OB) - Ok, this malt is a controversial one: many complain about the decline in quality in recent years, and
especially about the vatting of older vintages in it… so it's quite incorrect to call it "1984" (while it's correct to say it's a 18yo as the
younger whisky in it has such an age). As I have never tasted older expressions, I can't confirm the decline; about the inclusion of older vintage, I used to be puzzled but… who cares, if it tastes good? And it certainly does… Rosebank 22yo 1981/2004
(61.1%, UD Rare Malts) - A pleasant surprise... especially since I usually prefer strongly peated malts! This is not a whisky I would enjoy every day, but it has given me great moments of pleasure. Lagavulin 12yo Limited Edition (57.8%, OB, Bottled 2002) - The big bad beast!
Caol Ila 13yo 1990/2003 (46%, Signatory Un-chillfiltered, 27.10.1990-12.12.2003, Refill Butt #13952) Ardbeg NAS Uigeadail ((54.2%, OB, Bottled 2003) Ardbeg 6yo 1997 'Very Young' (58.9%, OB, Committee) Ardbeg 27yo 1975/2002 (50%, Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask, Sherry cask, 342 bottles) Aberlour A'bunadh 'no batch number'
(59.6%, OB) - This malt probably gets the crown of best sherried malt tasted in 2004… not as elegant, rich and refined as the Macallan 18, but probably more satisfying for those in search of extreme experiences. The vatting
of younger and older vintages to mix powerful youth and the richness of age works like a charm. Convalmore 24yo 1978/2003
(59.4%, Rare Malts, distilled 1978, bottled April 2003) - This should get the "surprise award" of 2004. I bought a bottle on eBay without being too convinced, as I had read no reviews expect for Michael Jackson's one (low in score but
positive in words)… I was just curious to sample this unknown distillery before there was nothing left: my curiosity was awarded by a very unusual and delicious malt.
Laphroaig 10 Cask Strength 'Red Stripe' (55.7%, OB) - Since I already knew the ordinary 10 and the 15 expressions, this had to be
tried, especially since the last bottles of the ordinary 10 were blander than I remembered. The Cask Strength 10 actually fixes the
situation: forget the ordinary 10, get the CS and dilute as you please: even diluted at 40% it is tastier, richer and more intense than the "watered down" traditional version.
So, here we go…
Nose: Winey, sherried, slightly sour, dried fruit.
Palate: Good balance of sweetness and dryness. Very marsala-like, intense and fruity. Nutty. A bit viscous.
Finish: Long and a bit smoky/caramelised.
Score: 88 points
- Say what you want, but this is a superb whisky. One could say that the sherry dominates the whisky and that you
can taste little else… but it's such a rich, delicious dram! I am usually not a fan of big sherry, as it can become dry, metallic… but this
one is voluptuous! Truly one of the best sherried whiskies I have ever tried, more fruity, intense and smooth than the 12yo. No woodiness, no sulphur, no unpleasant traits.
Nose: Pungently alcoholic when neat; honey, camomille when an equal percentage of water is added.
Palate: Drinking this neat will kill most flavours: it's pungent, alcoholic. With an equal amount of water, it becomes sweet, slightly oily,
honeyish. I can't find too many flowery flavors as some say: it's more of a "honey" taste.
Sweet and delicate. Not without body, though.
Finish: Sweet, with some slight hints of smoke.
Score: 85 points
- Sweet, aromatic, fascinating.
I recommend it with room temperature water (50/50 with the malt) as a delicate drink to be sipped while on the couch.
The idea of Lagavulin was to release a punchier and grittier brother of the 16yo, and they succeeded!
Nose: Alcoholic, with lots of smoke (not only peat… a true "chimney smoke" effect!). Peanuts.
Palate: At first sip you may wonder where the typical Lagavulin note is... then, after a second, an explosion of smoke happens on your
palate and you are in bliss! Only then you realise that this truly is a younger version of the 16yo bottling. Great smoke, much more
intense than in 16. Not as sweet and winey-rich as the 16: probably due to the choice of casks (only bourbon?) than to the 4 years
less of aging. Sharp, but not off-puttingly aggressive. Licoricey, almost medicinal in a Laphroaig sort of way. Peanuts. Somewhat reminding of an Ardbeg Ten, too.
Finish: Long, with the smoke lingering for quite a while like your tongue was coated in coal.
Score: 88 points - Enormously drinkable, with no big detriment to the flavor, even at cask strength! My ideal Lagavulin would be a
vatting of this (so smoky, pungently vivid, almost brutal though not unrefined) and the 16yo (mellow, less austere, sweet, comforting, seductively perfumy, smooth, at times a bit flat): maybe one day I'll try it myself!
My first Caol Ila… and still one of the best I have tried. Probably not as balanced as the official bottlings, but an explosion of taste.
The very light color of this malt (much clearer than Ardbeg Ten!) had not prepared me for such a rich and bold taste!
Nose: Dry and peaty. Deep.
Palate: Very intense, a dry peatiness with slight banana hints. Then sweetness emerges, but the incredible thing is how this tastes of rum: I have always found rum taste in Caol Ila, but this expression is the most extreme in emphasizing this.
Finish: Very long, peaty and warming.
Score: 88 points - So, if you want an educated Caol Ila with layers of complexity, great richness and smoothness… get the official
18yo. If you want more finesse or grassy notes, get some Rare Malt expression. If you want a powerful, rich and "rummy" expression, find this one!
I was already a fan of Ardbeg after having tasted the Ten expression in 2003… but this one blew me away.
Less powerful in peat-attack (but not much), and with less of that delicious diesel fuel note… but richer in everything else. One of my
favorite malts so far. Such a quality product comes at a relatively cheap price and is widely available… what could one ask for more?
Nose: Peaty and sherried (but not overly so). Similar to Ten, but not as dry.
Palate: Similar to TEN (peaty and toffeeish), but much sweeter due to the old sherry casks. Also a bit rounder. The sweetness masks
the peat a bit. Very intense in taste, almost unbearably so (just kidding), but not too strong and spirity: it can be drunk without
adding water (though a bit of it helps). The taste is continually jumping from sweetness, to smokiness, to sweet sherry winey notes. Beautiful.
Finish: Long, extremely warming and satisfying. Licorice, peat and wood. Pleasantly bitter notes appear.
Score: 93 points
After joining the Ardbeg Committee, the VYA came out… so I ordered my two bottles.
At first sip I was very disappointed, but after a couple of days I loved it and ordered more. Now that it's available for retail in most
liquor stores, you should treat yourself to one of the brasher, more powerful experiences ever! Fasten your seatbelts!
Nose: Very spirity, with some evident banana overtones. With some water, peat comes to the fore.
Palate: Banana!!!! Initially very dry, a real punch of intensity, then sweeter. Apparently not very complex (apparently!). Again,
banana. Right after opening the bottle, it's disappointingly less peaty and complexthan other expressions. Some days after opening the bottle, oxidation has helped this whisky a lot: more peat, less banana, more sweetness.
Finish: The burn stays very long, the taste a bit less. Sometimes I feel it's too bitter, especially compared to the sweet start: but it depends on the mood and on how much water is added.
Score: 88 points
- This is as intense as it gets: probably someone might not like such an "arrogant" young whisky, but it is very
fascinating just because of this hot temper: I tend to prefer younger Islays, with their aggressive vibrancy and their peatiness left
untouched by age. In spite of the aggressive character and strength, it does not lack subtle fruity notes and complexity, though.
I have never found other reviews of this expression… so when I won a bottle on eBay I was quite puzzled.
Will it be good? Will I regret my money? This is the most expensive bottle I have ever bought… but ultimately it was worth it.
Nose: Mint, resin, wood, dry sherry.
Palate: Initially, strong mint. Then wood. Dry, winey, a bit thin and astringent but not weak. Elegant, sherried but with very little
sweetness. Almost refreshing. Some peat, not as strong as in younger expressions. Ater some airing (in the bottle or in the glass), it actually becomes great: lots of mint and licorice! Some black coffee (without sugar) too.
Finish: Medium long, fruity-licoricey, always dry.
Score: 89 points - A quite unusual expression, very different from the sweet and malty old OB versions and the extra-peaty young
ones… and also from the sherried Uigeadail. A bit too woody and "aged" at first, resulting in a dryness that reminds of a red wine never
meant to age that much and which has started to go downhill. It improves enormously after a few days, becoming rich, alternately
sweet, bitter and dry, and very deep. From an initial disappointment (the first two drams, without giving it time, were downright
disgusting… it was like chewing wood!), it has turned out a very pleasant surprise. Fascinating and voluptuous. Still it might be a bit too woody for someone…
Nose: Pungently alcoholic and woody. Acetone. Adding water (not only a few drops, but a couple of teaspoons per dram) the sherry
character is revealed more clearly.
Palate: Black cherry syrup. Tamarynd. Slightly burnt caramel. Brandy, sherry. Fruitiness. Great dark sweetness. Some water is recommended otherwise the overall taste is too potent and alcohol-dominated.
Finish: Long, with caramel and sherry.
Score: 91 points - Whoa, this whisky packs a punch! It is more powerful in taste than some Islays: I almost can't drink it without a
sensible dilution with water, which enhances taste and takes away the burn (though it is GOOD at full strength too!). Even a high
amount of water, while taming the alcohol, doesn't kill taste and doesn't make it too watery! A very rich, syrupy and satisfying whisky.
It is almost THICK in consistency! My only complaint is that it's not very malty, as the sherry character dominates: for me, true
Scotch has another taste. One more thing: take a look at the price! A cask strength priced like some watered down whiskies! I
appreciate Aberlour's marketing strategy: such a great dram for so little money is a bargain, though I must admit that this bottle that I found is an old one (no batch number) and newer ones might cost a bit more.
Nose: Orange, tangerine and wood. Lots of alcohol.
Palate: Syrupy, delicious, malty. Honey, fruit, candied orange. Initially dry, then sweet but moderately so.
Finish: Warming, woody, dry again.
Score: 87 points
- What I'd like to stress is that this whisky tastes of candied oranges even to the inexperienced palate… It's
incredible how they could give it such a taste: it's not like Grand Marnier, mind you, and of course there are no flavourings! Just the
magic of casks… A great way to enjoy it to the maximum (for me, at least) consisted in pre-warming the glass with hot water, and
then pouring 70% Convalmore and 30% of natural room temperature water. This enhanced the incredible flavors and killed a bit of the
alcohol, without removing intensity and taste. It's great taken neat, too, but with water it's better. Now I have to find other bottles
for future enjoyment… It was nice to see that Serge, some weeks later, found it equally excellent and rated it 90! Since he is certainly
more experienced than me, I was very satisfied of having discovered such a good "underrated" malt a few days before him… ending up
with a personal rating which agreed with his sophisticate palate! I would have rated it even more than 87 if it weren't for the fact that it's not a whisky I would drink every day… I have to be in the mood.
Nose: Very peaty and tarry.
Palate: Peaty, intense, vegetal and medicinal, but also surprisingly sweet. Notes of disinfectan