E-pistle #12/11 - An Upside Down Whisky Convention
Submitted on 14/01/2005 by
Serge Valentin, France
Q: Craig, so you decided to organise a whisky convention in Australia for the second time.
A: Serge, thanks for the question. Success often depends on who's perspective you're looking at it from. Organising the Inaugural Convention meant that we learned a lot and one of the things we learned was to get out into the marketplace and let people know about the
Convention. Last time we attracted 60% of our delegates from personal contacts and word of mouth and the rest from within the industry, both local producers and distributors. When we set out, we thought that we'd attract at least 70-75%
from the malt whisky community (club and society members) but when we looked at the demographics after the Convention, our enthusiast delegate and our professional/industry delegate numbers were roughly equal, which was a bit of a surprise,
but it meant we were reaching a sector we weren't counting on. It was also quite evident early on that the support from industry for the concept was very strong and I think a lot of them thought it was an idea whose time had come. Most
positive feedback came for the Gala Dinner, both for the whiskies and for the presentation from Bill Lumsden and Jim Murray and for the Masterclasses, especially the one run by Ronnie Cox of Cutty Sark and Glenrothes. The other strong feedback
we've got from lots of quarters was that it was amazing how quickly people got to know each other, feel comfortable with each other and how all the special guests and headliners were available and approachable. A couple of local industry
people said it was one of those times when you knew you were a part of something special and everyone felt pretty much the same way. We were extremely lucky with the venue as the staff at Rydges Capital Hill, especially the liaison and the
chef/waiting staff, did a great job and were very understanding and flexible when our programme didn't run to schedule. Delegates were also very tolerant of some of our scheduling difficulties and letting us off the hook on the Sunday morning.
Of course, if we'd stuffed it up and not delivered value to our sponsors and our delegates we'd not be trying to prepare and deliver a second convention, so I guess I can say that overall and considered from all angles, it was a success.
Q: It's true that Oceanian whiskies (Milford, Lammerlaw and several others) sort of invade our shelves more and more here in Europe. Would you say whisky is booming Down Under these days? A: It's interesting that New Zealand whiskies
are much better known in Europe than Australian whisky, but it's not altogether an accident. Basically, New Zealand whisky is declining as Australian whisky is ramping up. Wilson's Lammerlaw distillery, which was owned by Seagrams and
then by Fosters, was closed down in 1996 and demolished in 2002, so the only commercial distillery in NZ is defunct. The Milford brand is rebadged Lammerlaw, came from the same stills and is the remnants of stocks sold sometime between
1996 and 1998. You will still be able to buy Milford for a while yet, but there's no new stock being laid down. This side of the Tasman Sea, in Australia, malt distilling is experiencing a major resurgence and renaissance. David Baker kicked off Bakery Hill in 1997 and went public at our 2003
Convention and has received lots of accolades from whisky luminaries like Jim Murray. There is also Booie Range in Queensland, but I haven't had the pleasure and a couple of other projects in the pipeline; most advanced would be Great
Southern in Western Australia. I might have missed some but its' a burgeoning field downunder. Q: There are two kinds of whisky events in Europe these days: some are somewhat commercial - yet very interesting, like the Whiskylive
events, while some others are more for hardcore maltheads like Limburg in Germany, or even Whiskyship Zurich. On which side would you stand?
A: Serge, this is a great question. I think we can claim to have a foot in either camp. The Saturday, which is the Convention Programme event for the hardcore enthusiast, involves the plenaries being
presented by Charlie MacLean (fellow malt maniac) and David Baker and Mark Littler, the latter pair being Australian distillers who've only been distilling in Australia (Melbourne, Victoria and Burnie, Tasmania respectively) since 1997,
along with Masterclasses being presented by Gordon & MacPhail, Glenfarclas and Duncan Taylor & Co. On Saturday night we'll reprise tthe Gala Dinner with a presentation of three whiskies from one producer, on this occasion Cutty
Sark & Glenrothes. Sunday, is really our sponsor's day with the Great Whisky Exposition, which is the format which most closely resembles the "Whisky Live" and "Whiskies of the World" format, albeit much more closely
targetted to malt whisky producers and distributors with the odd spinkling of Irish and Scottish blends. We haven't broadened it out to other whisky styles, let alone other spirits and don't see the need. We want to stay on message
from a marketing perspective and the whole Convention is about Whisky; Scotch and Australian whisky in particular. Q: Do you already know what the highlights will be?
A: If the food is as good in Sydney as it was in Canberra, the Gala Dinner will be a standout. My experience is that malt whisky people are a group with a generosity of spirit matched by few other enthusiast networks and this was
demonstrated in spades in Canberra. If my most fervent wish could be answered, I think the overall ambience of open camaraderie that imbued the Inaugural Convention is the feeling I'm most keen to recreate, as the networks and
friendships you make at these Conventions last long beyond the last echoes of the malts have faded, and there are always new malts to discover and they are always more fun, when you start on that journey in likeminded company and can share
your joy with others at the moment of revelation. Q: Wow! I guess that will be appealing to any whisky aficionado from Australia, but also Asia, or even Europeans or Americans... So where and when will your event take place precisely? Is
it easy to get there? A: Our Convention is in Sydney from 19-21 August 2005. We picked Sydney this time, because it is Australia's most cosmpolitan and international city and the easiest for international travellers to get to.
We've picked another 5 star boutique hotel in the Avillion as the venue and we believe it will meet and exceed the standard set by Rydges Capital Hill in Canberra.
Q: Thanks, Craig. I guess the Convention will also be a perfect 'excuse' for visiting Australia, especially for those who never went there before. Hmmm... I have to think about it! A: Australians are friendly and open people and
Australian malt people are more so, especially when you walk into a room and ask the question; "what do you think of the new Macallan Fine Oak Series?" You'll find twenty willing interlocutors and the conversation will go from
there. "What's your favourite Islay?" is another sure fire opening gambit! We are looking to attract as many malt fans from overseas as we can. Australians are quietly proud of their country and eager to show it off. You
can be guaranteed a great time in Sydney, which is our most cosmopolitan and international city, but with the unmistakable stamp of Australian hosiptality thrown in. First time around, we only attracted one enthusiast delegate from
outside of Australia and he came from Singapore, but he became one of our greatest prosleytes and reckons he'll get another 10 of his friends out to the next Convention. We've already got people from New Zealand itching to book. I'd
love to see malt enthusiasts from all over the world including malt friends and acquaintances from Asia, Japan, Taiwan, Europe. UK and USA and a warm malty welcome can be guaranteed to all. More information:
Was the first one such a success?
It was a big relief to stand in front of the 65 or so delegates on the Friday night (3rd October 2003) and open the
Convention. The numbers of attendees were lower than we hoped and it wasn't a success financially, but from a conceptual point of view and from the reaction from the industry and our delegates it was a big success. We didn't really have
any idea who or how many we were going to attract and while we got some rusted on malt enthusiasts of the old school, (several of our delegates were over 70), we did attract a healthy proportion of younger drinkers, including quite a few in
the trade who were interested in broadening their knowlegde across the single malt category. From a personal point of view, and given that the whole idea was cooked up in an e-mail between two of the foundation executive committee in
February 2002, it was extremely gratifying that we pulled it off.
Bill Lark
kicked it off in 1992 and Cradle Mountain lived a short while (alas now also defunct with less than 5000 bottles left in stock), Tasmania Distillery is back in full production and Whisky Tasmania in Burnie is laying down the most significant
stocks of malt whisky ever in Australia, but haven't yet released onto the market. The interest in single malt whisky prompted Samuel Smith & Sons to release their Smith's Angaston Whisky which is another malt like the Lammerlaw; the
stills were only fired up three times (in 1997,1998 and 2000) and the stocks in barrel and bottle is all there is as the still was decommissioned/dismantled in 2002.)
Our programme is split between discrete chunks that are aimed at different sectors. The Friday Night is devoted to an Australian Malt
Whisky Showcase which will show whiskies from all extant producers with malts in the market place (Bakery Hill, Smiths Angaston 7yo, Cradle Mountain, Sullivans Cove, Old Hobart, Great Outback and Lark) and will be a members only function by
invitation only. This is the function on the calendar that mirrors most closely the traditional club or society type event.
I'm really looking forward to the Masterclasses, especially to see what Gordon & MacPhail have been doing at Benromach and getting an
appreciation of their wood regime in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. As a person with an interest in left field whiskies, I'm really looking forward to the Peerless single cask old whiskies from Duncan Taylor & Co and I also expect
launching our Convention Exclusive Single Cask whisky in the Glenfarclas Masterclass will also be a malt epiphany. In reality though, a lot of the memorable moments came from the interaction of the people who were there, like the Bill Lumsden
and Jim Murray double act, which was totally unplanned and was a highlight of the whole programme.
All bookings will be through OzAccom, our accommodation organisers.
Contact: clandrum@picknowl.com.au
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/12 - Ask an Anorak: What is a Distillery?
Compiled on 15/01/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Although we've already received some questions from readers for our new 'Ask an Anorak' series, once again I have a pressing question of my own I wanted to 'throw to the wolves'. We'll start with some questions from readers in MM#13, I promise. This time the question looks deceptively simple: 'What is a distillery?'. As you can read in log entry 200 and this E-pistle, the answer is far more complicated that you might imagine.
Johannes: Lex and I are working on a Lex-Icon (a list of distilleries world-wide) and we want to make sure we have the same data on the lex-icon as on the Distillery Data list on Malt Madness. So, now we arrive at a fairly fundamental question; 'What is a distillery'? More precisely, should we consider Glenburgie / Glencraig as one or as two distilleries? And it's the same for Miltonduff / Mosstowie. They used different sets of stills to produce these whiskies, so Lex' argument that they are two different 'production lines' seems to make sense. But while 'still type' might be an important factor w.r.t. the end result, so it the peating level of the malt or the wood in which the malt is matured. From that perspective, you could also say that Tobermory and Ledaig are two different distilleries - or 'old' Macallan and 'Fine Oak' Macallan for that matter... Any thoughts on this?
Lex:
I now realise that Johannes and I are the only ones who know what the Lex-icon actually is.
The full name is Global Malt Lex-icon (GML) and it's a database of all malt whisky distilleries in the world.
So one distillery is one entry
(hence the question as to how to treat Glenburgie/Glencraig etc). Information provided are things like addresses and phone numbers, web-sites, grain used, still type, operating status, main labels, etc. There will also be a
downloadable/printable checklist which will only list the distilleries per region and country.
Just so people know what we're talking about!
Serge: Maybe we should consider a distillery is an 'equipment', which is mainly characterized by the stills they use, whilst the raw
materials they use (like the malt) isn't really part of the distillery, so to speak – as they almost always come from other locations/plants. So, I'd say I'm a 'Lexian' considering this matter ;-). Tweaking of the equipement (rectifiers etc.) but with the very same stills (and even if not using all the stills)
equals same distillery, even if not the same brand names. For instance at Loch Lomond. Variations of peating levels, organic barley or not, bere or optic or chariot etc., finishings, warehouse location, type of yeast and captain's age don't
count when the same stills are used. Otherwise, as they all start to launch dozens of variations on these aspects (like, say at Bruichladdich), there will soon be much more 'distilleries' than stills in Scotland! My two cents...
I'd say different stills (either wash and spirit, or only one of those) means different distilleries.
(Especially when considering the use of Lomond stills within a site that normally uses pot stills.)
That also means that single grain
made for instance at Lochside or Ben Nevis comes from a 'different' distillery, even if they carried the same 'brand name'.
Davin: My humble opinion: diferent stills or consistant different processes equal different malts, therefore different products and I think of them as different that way. Ledaig is not a variant of Tobermory, it is a different malt and I prefer to see it listed separately. Same for Longrow/Springbank. Definitly Glencraig does not equal Glenburgie, nor Miltonduff Mosstowie. I think consistantly different products should be listed under separate heading on the Matrix & Monitor and dispense with 'please see': But what of Knockdhu and An Cnoc? To me they are the same. Macallan though has chosen to call both of two diffrerent product Macallan so let it be. Same with finishes. They want those to represent the distillery while others have chose to differentiate the names.
Thomas: Here's my take on things: I don't know if I got Davin right, but if so I have to disagree: not every different production process justifies a separate distillery name IMHO. Case in point: the new Ardbeg
Kildalton. An unpeated malt from the distillery that is usually known for the most heavily peated whisky, so totally out of line with their regular range. But would you consider it a different single malt? I don't think so. And how would you
name it, btw, since they had chosen to label it an Ardbeg after all? And what if a Ardbeg had chosen a different name for this malt? Would that make it a "new" malt? They used the same equipment, only they used unpeated malt in this
case, so most would still consider it an Ardbeg, I guess. And if one day they'd choose to produce an only lightly peated whisky? Yet another distillery? I thing that's taking it too far. Or are we supposed to investigate every production
process from now on (Bruichladdich alone would probably drive us crazy..). Next borderline scenario: Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn. So to me it boils down to the "hardware" that is used in the process. In that respect I'm on the same page as Serge. Let me use a
"car analogy" here: if tomorrow Ferrari decided to produce red trucks you would still consider them a Ferrari no matter what they look like. The same goes for whisky in my mind.
In Schobert's latest Whisky Treasury (I believe that's what's it called in English) Frank McHardy
describes the rather complicated methods that Springbank uses to produce three different malts. According to that (and this is really simplified now), Longrow is double distilled, Hazelburn triple distilled and Springbank somewhere inbetween
(two and a half distillations). But they are using the same stills even if in different combinations.
Davin: I accept that stills define distillery.
Arbeg vats both peated and
non-peated distillations and releases it as Ardbeg (eg 17yo includes both). Others do the same (eg Glengoyne) Why not let the distillery decide if they have one product or more. W.r.t. cars, Daimler Chrysler makes Maebach,
Dodge Ram, Prowler and Mercedes, using the same production facilities, in part, but one would not consider them even siblings (OK maybe Merc & Maeb) nevermind the same product. I think we should organize the matrix and monitor by the
name given by the distillery so people can find things at first glance. As far as your Lexicon - I think different mechanical processes (i.e.) different stills in the same facility producing different malts equal different
distilleries. However not all is black and white, for some distilleries vat different malts from different stills to make different malts with the same name (Macallan e.g.).
Ulf: Regarding the classification issue I am tagging along with Serge.
Back in 1996 when I first launched my web page
I tried to categorize by talking about 'hard' and 'soft' versions, with soft as a subsection to hard. My definition for hard followed Serge's and was, hence, equipment driven. Simply, if one distillery operated multiple production lines then it qualified for multiple, uniquely named, entries in the distillery column. Soft was 'recipe' driven. Like different levels of peating, type of finishing/maturing, type of barley but also special bottlings by the producer or any IB. Simply, I used 'soft' to categorize all versions that deviated from a specific production line's main characteristics as defined by the distillery per see.
I treated, and still do, a 'soft' version as a recipe version from a given distillery. My two pence.
Olivier: I might have missed one chapter, but how about this.
If stills define the distillery, how do you distinguish Bruichladdich, Port Charlotte and Octomore?
After all, they are produced with the same stills, same age of the captain?
Only peat levels differ, but they are presented as different distilleries.
Lex: Are they, Olivier? Neither of them has been bottled yet, but I very much doubt the label will say that Port Charlotte is distilled at Port Charlotte distillery and Octomore at Octomore
distillery. Personally, I'm on the line as Serge and Ulf, which is that different sets of stills at the same site are different distilleries and that variations having to do with peating, maturation, finishing, etc are different malts.
So, a single distillery can make different malts; But of course you can argue long into the night about this, preferably with a nice dram, as
there are arguments either way. For MM and the GML, what Johannes wants to get at is whether to consider situations like Glenburgie and Glencraig as different distilleries (i.e. listed separately) or as one.
Springbank: Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn
Bruichladdich: Bruichladdich/Port Charlotte/Octomore
Johannes
: Yeah, Lex is right - we could argue about this long into the night... And as long as we're making fundamental decisions, how about these distilleries?
For example, I could postulate that casks are very important 'equipment' as well.
Anyway, it's obvious that not everything is completely 'black or white' in this
case, so we may as well decide on this issue in a democratic fashion. And the majority vote clearly goes to treating Glenburgie and Glencraig as two different distilleries - and Miltonduff and Mosstowie as well. Two more distilleries for the
Distillery Data overview on Malt Madness.
Blasted - that means that phase III of my mission just became a little bit harder ;-)
I know some of these were already mentioned, but I'd like some more opinions.
- Littlemill & Dunglass
- Glen Flagler / Killyloch / Garnheath
- Springbank / Longrow / Hazelburn
- Tobermory / Ledaig
Lex
: Here's how I treated these in my own files:
- Littlemill & Dunglass: Same set of stills AFAIK, so same distillery.
- Glen Flagler / Killyloch / Garnheath: AFAIK two different sets of stills, so two distilleries.
- Springbank / Longrow / Hazelburn: Same set of stills, so one distillery.
- Tobermory / Ledaig: Same set of stills again.
Davin: I have thought about this from time to time and my preference has been to use the same naming protocols as the ditilleries, but I have
never felt strongly enough to raise the issue. We are trying to organize objectively, information that is subjective. If we all use the same definition, whatever you decide, we'll get used to it and become comfortable. I think
Serge and Ulf have made the most cogent arguments so far and I am quite agreeable that unique equipment equals distinct distillery regardless of where housed. So Glencraig and Glenburgie are different distilleries. Good. But
what happens when one distillery buys stills from another? 1. Littlemill & Dunglass - hypothetical at this point. I believe Bruichladdich has already released a bottling that includes both 'Bruichladdich' and 'Port Charlotte' so they seem to be going with the 3 products but one distillery approach. Agreed,
casks are important equipment, but what of Glenmorangie 10 which is matured in ex-bourbon casks as opposed to Glenmorangie 18 which is a vatting of whiskies matured in ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks? Of course that's not the biggest can
of worms Glenmorangie has opened...
(Can't remember the examples but am aware of some.)
2. Glen Flagler and Killyloch - made using different stills therefore different distilleries.
3. Springbank / Longrow / Hazelburn is made using same stills but different mechanical processes.
Therefore different malts. I would personally prefer to list them as different 'distilleries' as well.
4. Tobermory / Ledaig are entirely different products by RECIPE but are made by the same processes using the same
stills. I prefer to list them separately but agree both are product of same distillery. In fact, in correspondence with the distillery a while back I was told that sometimes the current owners didn`t know whether a cask contained
Ledaig or Tobermory until they tasted it!
Charlie: And don't forget LochLomond/Inchmurrin/Old Rosdhu/Craiglodge/Croftengea/Glen Douglas/Inchmoan.
All made on two pairs of pot stills with 14-plate Lomond-style rectifying columns attached. Each of the
seven is distinguished either by being drawn off at different plates or by using differently peated malt....! The truth is they are different 'makes' from the same distillery/plant, rather than different 'expressions' of the same make (as in
ages of a particular malt, or a wood finished version). As such I would be inclined to list them separately. 'Make' is the key word - used by producers, not by marketeers, who refer to 'brand' (take note Serge!), as, I'm afraid, do most
consumers. This raises the whole issue of even using the term 'brand' in relation to malt whisky, the product(s) of a single distillery. Are the products of the chateaux of Bordeaux 'brands'... hold me back from a rant! In your Lex-Icon the
problem can be solved by simply heading the list: DISTILLERIES AND MAKES. 'Expressions' of either may be listed under the individual entry. How's that?
Mark
: I think Charlie's idea is a good one, provided we supply a few words in explanation of the terms.
'Makes' and
'brands' are different, but we might well remember that most malt anoraks will seek out product and info on said product using the name given on the label. So, in the end, labelling practice holds sway. I think that the Matrix and Monitor
should use the fuller list of Distilleries and Makes. The Distillery Profiles section should include distilleries only, and list all of their make in the details, 'distillery' here defined as a structure or structures housing stills, and
resulting necessarily in a shorter list of 'distilleries'.
Ulf: I think Charlie solved the Gordic knot by separate what I lumped together for my own classification several years ago under the umbrella 'recipe versions' by dividing this group in 'make' and
'expressions'. I feel comfortable with this as long as a product name, a 'make' corresponds to an identical setting of a flexible still over time (Loch Lomond case) but also where the process always is manipulated in fixed stills in the same
way for a specific product (the Springbank case). Expression then categories a 'make' in subgroups such as type of barley, peatiness, maturation parameters, finishing and bottlings (OB-series, IB-series).
Two pence thought.
Johannes
: Thanks, maniacs. You've given me a lot to think about. Sweet drams,
Lex and I will use your comments for the Distillery Data section and the Lex-icon.
We'll brood on it a little bit and publish the results of our deliberations in the forseeable future.
Johannes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/13 - 2004 Wrap-Up
Submitted on 16/01/2005 by
Louis Perlman, USA
As the year comes to an end, it's time to take a step back and see how things went. Bladnoch 11yo 1991/2003 (46%, Signatory Unchill Filtered, Cask 4014, D 7/17/1991, B 2/7/2003) Glenmorangie 10yo (43%, OB) Suntory Yamazaki 12yo (43%, OB) Ardmore 10yo 1992/1993 (46%, Signatory Unchill Filtered, Cask 1364, D 2/25/1992, B 2/10/1993) Caol Ila 18yo (43%, OB) Caol Ila 14yo 1990/2004 (56.2%, Signatory 'Binny's cask', Cask 04/549/1, D 7/25/1990, B 8/13/2004) Mini-Monster. Back in 2003, Compass Box Whisky created the Monster for Park
Avenue Liquors (in NYC, on Madison Ave. actually, just south of 41st street). It is a cask strength vatting of Ardmore and Caol Ila, averaging around 12 years old. I can personally attest to the fact that it is a monster indeed, providing
liquid central heating during the bitter cold weather we had last January when the conventional heating couldn't really keep up. As you may well have guessed by the preceeding three drams I've just written about, I played around a bit with
home-vatting, trying to come up with my own monstrous dram. It was actually another Caol Ila, a 19yo 1976 (56.2%, Signatory) that worked best. I've got to hand it to John Glasser of CBW, the Ardmore-Caol Ila combination has a certain magic, no
matter which CI I used. The current CBW Peat Monster has 18 and 12 year old Ardmore in it, is bottled at 46%. It is sold by all stores that carry CBW, and costs only $40. I have a bottle, but may not get to it this winter.
Springbank 10yo (50%, OB) Ardbeg NAS Uigeadail (54.2%, OB) ***CONSUMER ADVISORY*** Bowmore 12yo 1989 (50%, Jewels of Lombard) Macallan 12yo 1991 Elegancia (40%, OB)
Not to bad, as it turns out. With the weak dollar and increasing demand for the likes of the older Ardbegs and any
Brora, it was good to see some worthwhile affordable drams. Of the new releases, my favorites were the Uigeadail, Springbank 10/100, and the Caol Ila 18. And it was good to catch up with the revitalized Glenmorangie 10 and Suntory 12, which
had previously managed to slip under the radar. So without any further ado, here is my 2004 wrap-up.
Rosebank 13yo 1989
(59.1% Mackillops Choice)
These were replacements for my Signatory bottlngs of each, which I have enjoyed over the past two summers.
The general flavor profiles were lemon shebert for the Bladnoch, and buttercups for the Rosebank. So
how do the replacements compare? Well for starters, both are higer ABV, shifting them to evening comsumption. Both drams have a bit more going for them than the older Signatories. The UCF Blabnoch adds gumdrops and a few other things, while he
Mac K. Rosebank has just a touch of oak, making it a firmer dram overall. I'm going to carry over the ratings at 83 points for each.
Imagine you had a good friend that you grew up with, but eventually went your seperate ways from.
Now let's say you meet up again years later, and discover that you now have even more to talk about than before.
Well, to the Glenmorangie
10, all I can say is 'hello old friend'. This was one of the first 'real' single malts that I ever tried, dating back to my Black Label/Glenlivet/Glenfiddich days. It was always a pleasant dram, on the light side, with a pleasant spicy twang.
I purchased this bottle for a family gathering, and was surprised (shocked?) to find that the body had noticeably firmed up, with everything else pretty much the same. This is now a very fine dram, with a slightly extroverted character. It
looks like Jim Murray's push away from chill filtering at Ardbeg has extended to the parent distillery as well. A HTH with the Bruichladdich 10 shows that there's a little bit of a ways to go, but I am increasing my rating from 80 to
83 points. In a day and age where we routinely find one malt after another that seeems to have gone downhill, it's nice to see one that goes in the opposite direction.
For the last couple of
years, I've bypassed the Suntory 12 at my local liquor store each time I have gone in to pick up a bottle. Better late than never, as this is a very nice dram. I covered the distillery in
For the last bunch of years, Jim Murray has been carrying on about how
Ardmore is the peaty Speyside that needs to be experienced as a single malt. Finally, we get some in the US. A bit malty with a touch of honey, and of course, the peat. Not that anybody is going to confuse it with an Islay, but a break from
the usual Speysides with varying degrees of sherry. For some reason, it was bottled two weeks before it could be bottled as an 11 year old. Decent stuff, rating 82 points.
While not a favorite of Jim
Murray or the Malt Advocate, I enjoyed the 18 and Whiskyfest, and purchased a bottle. And while I typically prefer more agressively peated whiskies at 46% or higher, the 18 finds it's own place in my open stock. There is still plenty of peat,
as indicated the face my wife made when I waved the glass at her. Although a bit pricey at $60-65, I find the 18 perfect for general purpose dramming day or night, especially when I don't need the extra alcohol or a full frontal peat attack.
Rating is 86 points, matching Michael Jackson in the 2005 edition.
About what you'd expect. A bit more kick, but with less complexity than the 18.
An excellent value at $52 (available at www.binnys.com). Rating 83 points.
The standard set by the legendary Springbank 12 year 100 proof bottling of 1997-98 led to unfulfilled expectation of subsequent releases, although I really like the 12yo 46% bottling that followed. The new 10yo
100 proof is the best yet, superior to the standard 10 and 15, the 12yo 175th Anniversary, and the rum and sherry casked Wood Expressions (the 12yo Bourbon WE is supposed to be quite good, but I have'nt had a change to sample my bottle enough
to form an impression yet). It is apparently mostly boutbon casked, just a hint darker than the Bourbon WE. For once, we get the lively coastal quality that non-sherried Springers are supposed to have. Very smooth even without water, unlike
many younger high proof malts. The magic is back, rating 90 points.
The Uigeadail absolutely requires break-in. The sample I took home from Whiskyfest was rather harsh
there and a week later as well, and so was was my bottle when I opened it. But after a couple of weeks.... The Uigeadail is a vatting of Ardbeg distilled in 1990 and 1993, as well as sherry casked malt from the seventies. Presumably, the
latter had dropped below 40% ABV, and couldn't be bottled on it's own. It is described by it's producer as 'Christmas pudding on fire'. I found it to be slightly different, though. The younger whisky seems to provide most of the kick, but the
contribution on the seventies malt adds roundness and depth of flavor. Each component ends up doing pretty much what it is supposed to. The 54.2% ABV is just right, it can be consumed straight up, or with just a small amount of water. The best
part is price in the $60-70 range, which makes the Ugi one of the all time bargains. Just one small reservation, overall complexity is a bit shy of the great older Ardbegs, but my rating bridges the gap between them and the current 10yo at
92 points.
Last year, I polished off three independent Bowmores. While I really like the OB 12 and 15 year olds, it's the independents that really show the true distillery character,
contrary to the Morrison-Bowmore party line. THe Lombard however, is a bit out of profile. It's more like a summer Bowmore, lightly peated, with a spray of the sea. While it's a perfectly decent dram, there's only minimal family resemblence.
Rating 84 points, keeping in mind the preceeding caution.
This is a duty free only expression, made up of oloroso AND fino casked malts, the only Mac to use fino.
The result is a
lighter profile than the standard 12, but rather pleasant in its own right. And while I usually have little use for 40% ABV, here it works well. At 43%, I might be asking 'where's the beef?', but the lower proof combines well with the lighter
profile. The price was $38 for a liter, which is equivalent to $28 for 750ml at 43%, not too bad.
The Elegancia is just fine for daytime dramming, rating 82 points.
Macallan 13yo 1988 (56.1%, MacKillops Choice) Glenlivet 15yo French Oak
(43%, OB) Glenrothes 1992/2004 (43%, OB) Tomintoul 16yo (40%, OB) Deanston 12yo (40%, OB)
And now for tasting notes from the samples I brought home from Whiskyfest. Balvenie 25yo (42.9%, OB) Macallan NAS Cask Strength (58.6%, OB) Macallan 21yo Fine Oak (43%, OB)
Littlemill 20yo 1984 (55.1%, Scott's Selection) Longmorn-GLenlivet 32yo 1968 (61.4%, Scott's Selection) George T. Stagg 15yo (129 proof, OB, Third release) Louis
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I purchased this bottle instead of the OB Cask Strength for the same
price in order to run up my malt mileage. Bad idea. While the MacK Mac isn't a bad dram, it is not quite as good as its distillery counterpart, being rather single dimensional.
Rating 82 points.
The previous French Oak was a 12 year old, but it was decided that 15 would provide better differentiation from the standard 12 year old. While I enjoyed the 12, the 15 doesn't do much for me. Similar to the American Oak version,
it's a firmer dram, but I don't find anything else to get excited about. Rating an unenthusiastic 80 points.
The 1987 was a real sleeper, as good at 11 years as the previous 1982 16yo.
The
1989 was darker, and initially seemed richer. But something was missing, and my bottle has languished in my cabinet. Apparently I was on to something, as Jim Murray was equally unenthusiastic, rating two versions of the 1989 75 and 76. The
1992 goes in a totally different direction. It is lighter, but with some fruitier components. A good summer dram, rating 82 points.
This replaces the previous 14 year old bottling. A nice perfumy
nose (but not up to FWP), with some gumdrops and a few similar things. It's a medium sherried Speyside, not up there in Macallan territory. If you're in the market for this type of dram, it's a decent buy at $40. If nothing else the age should
impress the blend-loving general public, who won't be put off by the 40% ABV.
Rating 81 points.
Only one word is necessary to decsribe this, BLAND. This malt offers virtually nothing. Maybe a
touch of fruit somewhere. I really feel bad for my friend who bought the bottle for a party, but I didn't have the heart to tell him he should ask for his money back. Even at $24, there are blends for half to two thirds the price (Grants,
Ballantines) that are far superior. I note that Jim Murray gives a 66 rating, and Michael Jackson is a sport with 70, so I'll split the difference and go with 68 points.
A bit fragile at this age, but still with much to offer. The traditional Balvenie honey was muted, some vanilla, and a bit of oak.
A good example of old whisky, and I would say actually worth $250 if you have that much to spend on a single bottle. Rating 93 points.
Let's see now. The CS is made from whiskies 12-15
years old. I like the 12, and found the 15 to be virtually identical. So this ought to be just like a turbocharged 12, right? And for once, you get exactly what you expect. And if Macallan is having problems finding enough sherry casks to keep
up with demand, at least they haven't diverted them from the Cask Strength. A good buy at around $50, and a worthwhile substitute for the standard 12 if you feel that the current bottlings aren't up to the traditional standards. Probably a
good idea to stock up, since my bet is that the CS won't be around much longer for the afforementioned reason.
Rating 86 points.
Yes, I get the general idea, but this stuff is hardly worth the $215 asking price.
I see that Johannes feels pretty much the same in
My standard Littlemill 8yo tastes like grass and marshmallows, one of the most unusual malts (or any other spirit, for that matter) that I have ever tasted. This one has more grace and
refinement, but is otherwise quite similar. And all I can say is YECH. If this is all Littlemill ever produced, it's one distillery that I don't miss at all. Not worth rating, if you actually like this distillery, go for it. Otherwise, avoid
at all costs.
I've tried the SS 1970 and 1971 Longmorns, so it was going to be interesting to see where the 1968 fits in.
It turns out not to have anything in common with
either of it's younger siblings. While there is obvious sherry character present, a good deal of the distillery profile remains, even after 32 years. My only reservation is that it isn't really an exciting dram, and I would prefer a bit more
distinction with a price tag that approaches $150. Nonetheless, this is a quality dram, and rating is 92 points.
Tremendous nose, with predominant notes of tobacco and
leather. A huge whisky, with incredible depth and complexity. Use the absolute minimum amount of water, easier to do than with the two previous releases. STOP, wait a minute. Isn't this bourbon? yes. So
what's it doing here. Well OK, I'll
tell you. First of all, this is one of only two whiskies (the 2nd release, actually) to get a 97 rating in Jim Murray's 2004 Whisky Bible. And put simply, the George T. Stagg is one dram that transcends it's genre. It barely tastes like
bourbon, per se. Instead, we have a dram that rivals the finest malts, without peat or sherry. If you are a fan of huge, expressive whiskies, then you must own the George T. Stagg. Price and availability is a good news/bad news situation. It
cost's only $50, but supplies are limited and it is extremely hard to find. Purchase on sight! My rating is 95 points.
E-pistle #12/14 - 2004: My Year in Whisky
Submitted on 20/01/2005 by Thomas Lipka, Germany
The Brora Experience:
In a way, it was only in March 2004 that my year in whisky really got kicked off. Then finally one night I had my friend Hans-Jürgen over for a little tasting. Our lineup consisted of six new whiskies with the Brora set up as the last one, the pre-determined highlight of the evening! But, you guessed it, when we opened
the bottle we were flabbergasted and dumbfounded. The smell that developed in our glasses was just terrible. It drew non favourable comparisons with rotting foliage on a compost heap, with the smell of the river Weser on a bad day (like they
just had pumped you know what into it...). And THIS was supposed to be so great? I just couldn't believe it! So the very next morning I wrote that e-mail to Serge, depicting lat night's experiences. I offered to send him a sample of this
"rarity" that he hadn't tasted till that day. I was just curious if he'd be just as fond of this one as of the other Broras. If so I'd probably had to judge the scores on the MaltMonitor quite differently from now on... Not only was Serge
interested in this bottling (of course) but somehow he must have been so piqued by my disappointment that he decided to make me a real Brora expert (his words, not mine!). Soon enough we agreed to trade a few samples and he chose these five
fine Broras for me: So much that the Brora 30yo turned into one of my two favourite malts! Oh, by the way, this is how Serge judged my
Brora: Colour: white wine. Nose: light, grassy, smells like plastic. Very weak nose, alas. Not the Brora I know, in any case. Mouth: grassy and sugary. The worst Brora I ever had, as long as I can remember. What a disappointment! Medium,
lactic finish. Too bad! 72 points (Davin 71, Olivier 73). Too me that plastic description is still a euphemism. On my scale it is still stuck at 65 points.
Is there a morale in this? Yes, don't give up on a distillery after the first try. The Laphroaig Quest:
I've read a lot about Laphroaig being that much different in former years from their recent bottlings. Talk is cheap, they say so I decided to put my money where my
mouth is. I went out and bid on three different Laphroaigs 10yo (40%, OB) on Ebay that were all offered in one auction and supposedly from 1995 to 2003. The seller was Klaus "Pinkie" Pinkernell of Cadenhead's Berlin branch so I was assured
these bottles were from a reliable source and they were not exactly rarities anyway. Two of them had a neck label that said "years 10 old", one was showing the now familiar "1815" label. It was pretty obvious that the latter one is the
recent bottling but what about the other two? Too bad even Pinkie couldn't give the exact bottling dates except that the older one had to be from about 1995. This one didn't show the Royal seal of the Prince of Wales yet which is now on every
Laphroaig bottle but already carried the German recycling trademark "Gelber Punkt" which was introduced in Germany in about 1994. So that guess seemed to be pretty accurate as well. Two down, one to go..
I then did two things: first I contacted malt maniac Klaus who happens to be a Laphroaig aficionado as we all know. The next thing I did was to bring up this topic on the German discussion boards.
Wow! Do I want samples of old Laphroaigs? Are you kidding me? Who was that guy? Sample #1: It was obvious right away that this was a cask strength whisky so I knew immediately that this was the Limburg bottling
Laphroaig 16yo 1987/2004
(56,1%, Douglas Laing for The Whisky Fair, Single Sherry-Cask) because among the samples I got it was the only one with a high ABV. And I would have not have recognized it as a Laphroaig, more probably I would have guessed it's a Caol Ila or maybe even an Ardbeg: smoke in the nose, but not medicinical. With water some nice wood comes through. long tail but in the end of the finish I detected some ginger which I didn't like. Pretty good stuff but no stunner (
85 points). Sample #2: Nose starts with damp leaves, a hint of seaweed, slightly musty. I would have taken this for a (not so stellar) Brora until that point. Palate and finish show notes of berries like early Bowmores. Too bad there
is some bitterness in it as well. Not exactly my cup of tea. Turns out it's the Laphroaig 10yo
(43%, "Unblended Islay Malt Scotch Whisky", screw cap, imported by Bonfanti, 75cl, early 80's). Maybe this sample had just turned bad already by too much oxygen. When I told Carsten about it he thought this to be most likely because most held this whisky highly in regard. He promised to check if the rest of the bottle (if there was one) had deteriorated just as much. Still
80 points, though. Sample #3: Ah, now that's better even if again I would have been wrong. The nose reminded of a Highland Park 18yo or 25yo, that I was able to enjoy a short time ago. Again I found berries combined with a little peat
and smoke. At this point I was asking myself if I was somewhat immune to peat tonight. But in the palate smooth and sweet peat finally dominated the berrylike notes. Only the finish was a little bit short and disappointing compared to that but
this was clearly the best malt so far that evening. So what was it after all? The Laphroaig 10yo (43%, Jacobi Import, early 90's). I rated it at 87 points.
Sample #4: Okay, now that is a Laphroaig! Sweet peat, iodine, smoke. Here we go!! :-) Now for the last one: starts off
with leaves again, some smoke, too, followed by some sweet malt. The palate is dominated by the malt as well. Wonderfully rounded but at the same time astonishingly strong for - as I found out afterwards - 43%. Oh! That was the
Islay Mist 8yo (43%, blended by Johnston's at Laphroaig mid 70's, 75cl) If all blends were that way... (86 points). Actually I had planned to test these whiskies against some more Laphroaig samples that I still have but my
nose and tongue already where somewhat tired and I didn't want to force it. Anyway, that was a great experience and I can't thank Carsten enough. Also, I'm looking forward to finally meeting him at the Whiskyfair in Limburg where he happens to
be one of the organisers. Maybe the other Laphroaigs give my some fodder for another E-Pistle. Looks like my quest isn't over yet.... Other highlights in 2004: The Founding of FLUESSIG: It took me a few months but I finally
convinced my pals Andre, Hans-Jürgen and Helge that we needed to launch our own little but fine whisky club that eventually we called FLUESSIG (for those of you who speak German: that's short for Fishtown's Launige Und Extrem Standfeste
Scotchtrinkende InteressenGemeinschaft). Sole purpose: to buy (and drink, of course) bottles that we can't afford regularly on our own. Ultimately we intend to create our own website with pictures, tasting notes and such. Nothing spectacular,
but ours. By the way, the grand total of bottles we drank so far: one! And it took some detours to finally get that far, right Andre? ;-) But that's a story for another day... The Whisky Convention in Bremen:
I already wrote an E-pistle ( What? Me – a malt maniac?: Yep, Johannes'
invitation to join this exclusive circle most definitely came as a surprise and obviously was THE highlight of my whisky year even though it reached me only a day before New Year's eve. It still feels kind of weird to be included now but I'm
very excited about what's laying ahead. But most of all, I'm looking forward to meeting many of my fellow maniacs on Islay this year. 2005 couldn't have started any better! But for now, excuse me. I have to work on my malt mileage…
Best to you all in 2005, Thomas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Of course I had a few drams before that but it was then that I contacted Serge for the first time.
Why, you ask? Well, I do not remember exactly when I first discovered the MaltMadness/MaltManiacs/Whiskyfun websites but I've been following
them for quite some time already. After reading all of Serge's raving yarn about that silent still called Brora I had already set aim to finally try one of the expressions of this special distillery when I saw a bottle of
Brora 20yo 1981/2001
(43%, Signatory, cask #576, 380 bottles) at my local dealer's shop with a price tag of about 62 EUR attached to it. Already I had ascertained that most Broras were pretty expensive, obviously a consequence of the dreaded silent stills syndrome. So that bottle at 62 EUR was a steal, no doubt about it. At least so I thought….
• Brora 14yo 1982/1997 (60.60%, Cadenhead),
• Brora 18yo 1983/2001 (52,9%, Signatory Silent Stills, cask 40, 294 bottles)
• Brora 19yo 1981/2000 (58.8%, The Prestonfield by Signatory, 545 bottles)
• Brora 22yo 1980/2002 (51%, CS, Ian McLeod for le Clan des Grands Malts, France, Cask 823, 345 bottles)
• Brora 30yo 1972/April 2002 (46.60%, Old Malt Cask, cask strength, 204 bottles for Germany, code L6622), 46,6%
Once bitten twice shy I was a little hesitant to have a go at them at first but soon enough I discovered that this distillery is really something special. I didn't take tasting notes at that time but let me tell you that the lowest
scoring among them was the Prestonfield at 85 points! Just like most good old Ardbegs which to me appear to have some delicious fruitiness hidden beneath the peat these Broras, although they were all quite different in style, seemed to
share a thread of at least some distinctive pleasant sweet grass and seaweed. And that just grew on me, and grew, and grew...
And THAT kicked of my year in
whisky, because from now on I not only chased Ardbegs everywhere (I like Ardbeg so much that I once considered changing my forum nick from Peaty Tom to ArdBear. But why restrict yourself to one distillery? Single Malts are all about
diversity!) but had to spend my money on Broras as well. And THAT put a more than serious dent in my bank account for good as well. Thanks, Serge! (Insert sarcastic undertone here!) ;-)
And don't trade with Serge if you care about your money....
So, I was curious enough to find out what that talk was all about. Today's expressions were supposed to be so much more tame and
restricted. No half measures? Not anymore I was told! Less iodine, less medicinical notes, much more mainstream in style catering to a potentially broader group of consumers.
He couldn't help me put a date on the "middle" bottle either but he was friendly enough to put some pictures on his
website. It's still there and you can have a look at it if you're interested: http://www.whiskyfun.com/klaus/laph2.htm#3different.
Response still was sparse to non-existent until I received a mail from "CE". And this is what he had to say:
"I wouldn't expect that much of a difference between these relatively recent bottlings. Tests with Laphroaig cask strength
bottlings from the last few years have proven them to be slightly different but not really in quality. But Laphroaigs are really worlds apart from each other when you compare one from the 70s (islay malt scotch whisky) to an 80s (unblended
islay malt) versus a 90s bottling. It is a wonderful thing to detect how the character of the whiskies has changed over the years due to changeovers in the production process (different stills, more oriented to quantity manufacturing). In the
beginning Laphroaig used to be very oily with a lot of iodine, had a rich body but not a lot of smoke and a somewhat „furry" finish (that's where that „medicinical" description stems from, not from today's intensive smoky palate). Over the
years it developed more fruity notes and even more smoke. Today, iodine in Laphroaig is almost rudimentary only. The whisky just has changed if for better or for worse probably is up to everybody's liking. If you test some late 80s/early
90s against your Laphroaigs you already will detect some nuances. If you want to I could check if I have a few samples from that time left for you. Best regards, CE"
I was a bit sceptical at first to be honest with you. Was this just a know-it-all who bragged about some old stuff that would never reach me? But to make a
long story short, a few mails and a phone conversation later I not only had learned a lot more about old whisky but also discovered that CE was none other than Carsten Ehrlich from Mara Malts, a highly regarded specialist in whisky rarities
(just read Luc's E-pistle #11/16 about Mara's 5th Anniversary Tasting). And not before long we actually traded samples and I among others I received some Laphroaigs from yesterday and today. Oh, you don't want to hear stories anymore but
like to know how I liked them? Okay, here's what I wrote down after I tasted them blindly:
The taste offers some citrus fruit as well similar to a Laphroaig 16yo from Douglas Laing that is among my currently open bottles. So far
this is my new favourite tonight. And it was... the new Laphroaig NAS Quarter Cask (48%, OB). Here's hoping I'm among the first 1000 to receive a bottle. I liked it enough to score it at 88 points.
E-pistle #12/15 - Ask an Anorak: Fake Signs?
Compiled on 27/01/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Johannes: I've enclosed a picture of the fake Hazelburn that Flemming mentioned in E-pistle 12/10.
I have to say that this entire 'Thorne & Sons' range of 'antiques' is starting to look highly suspect indeed.
And if the response I received from Mr. Andreas Jacobs (see entry 209 in my Liquid Log) is anything to go
by, maybe we shouldn't trust 'traders' too much when it comes to protecting us from buying a fake bottle.
It seems we need to play a more active role ourselves - so let's have a closer look at that Hazelburn...
To me personally, the design and typography of the label somehow don't seem quite 'right' and I've received
a few comments from readers along the same lines. Also, the slogan 'This Whisky is 12 Years Old' seems a bit
our of place, but maybe that's just my paranoid nature. Dutch malt freak Michel van Meersbergen just made
another comment I'd like to verify. He said that the length of the 'capsule' around the cork seemed unusually
long - he thought that these used to be much shorter around +/- 1900. Can anybody confirm or deny this?
And while we're at it, are there any other 'fake signs' anyone could look for on a potentially fake bottle?
Lex: I agree that the 'whisky is 12 years old' statement looks out of place and, after the Macallan case,
I think I'm allergic to shoulder flashes. One thing to do is check whether the company actually existed at
the time the whisky is said to have been bottled. Dave can probably say something a bit more solid.
Olivier
: Doing some homework on Highland Park, my most recent passion, I saw a few pictures on the BarMetro site in Italy. The Thorne bottlings caught my attention and the picture of the Hazelburn comes from there, it seems. Could this bottle perhaps come
from Giorgio's collection? See: http://www.collectorsencyclopedia.com/dettaglio.asp?IdProd=579311why
If the Hazelburn is a fake, what about this one and the other 11 bottlings from the same company?
All of them use the same labelling, see http://www.barmetro.it/thorne.htm Humm?
Johannes
: Oh yeah... I should have mentioned that Serge found this picture on ther BarMetro site. I'm looking at the pictures again
and my suspicions grow stronger and stronger with every puzzled glance. It doesn't look good. I'm asking myself;
A) Were 'independent bottlers' offering such a wide range of different malts at the time?
B) Don't the malts seem a bit 'old'? Wasn't most whisky drunk at a much younger age then?
C) Would a 25yo grain whisky - the Caledonian - have been available at the time bottled as a 'single'?
D) Most importantly, how likely is it that both a German and an Italian 'collector' (and these are the only ones we know of) have
managed to collect a nice 'set' of bottles from more than a century ago. I could accept that for 'official' bottlings from a distillery like Macallan, but from an 'independent' bottler? That almost seems to good to be true...
Luc
: If you look closely to the bottle you'll see the almost impeccable state the bottle is in.
I think this needs some further investigation. I find it very hard to believe that in 1900 they put very rare on a neck label and have
difficulty in believing that a bottle is still that well preserved after ± 100 years. I've seen genuine old wine bottles and you always see
"signs of time". The only way we can check this is to buy a bottle from each and have them tested in the UK......
Lawrence: As has been stated the pristine nature of the capsule and label has to lead you down the path of suspicion, also there are simply too many bottles popping up in the Italian market (the home of the fake Macallans).
Charlie
: I happen to have several c.1900 Thorne's labels, including one for their brand 'SCOTTISH ARMS' which bears a very close
resemblance to this Hazelburn. It is of course logical to depict the Royal Arms of Scotland on a brand with this name, less so for
Hazelburn. All the other labels I have are plain cream, 'Thorne's Finest Highland Whisky', with the company's trade mark, over-printed
with the brand name in red ('Thorne's Blend', 'O.B.S.', 'Athole', 'S.B.', 'Extra Old', 'A1 Liqueur'). Having said this, I see a bottle of 'Thorne's Blended Scotch Whisky', offered for sale by Christie's in Nov. 1999 with a Scottish Arms label.
The capsule. Almost all whiskies from this era had capsules which were about a centimetre shorter than the 'Hazelburn', however, the bottle mentioned above has a long, white and gold label like the Hazelburn.
The label condition. Looks too pristine.
The foot of the 'Hazelburn' should read:
This appears on all the labels in my collection.
The other Thorne's bottle is lightly foxed and discoloured, as one would expect.
I cannot read all the Hazelburn label, Johannes, but the typography is different from the 'Scottish Arms' (and the other bottle). The
banners read 'Thorne's Ancient Whisky'; the use of the term 'Malt Whisky', let alone 'This Whisky is Twelve Years Old' is unusual,
indeed unique in my experience. Single malts usually described themselves as 'Pure Malt', sometimes 'Unvatted' or 'Highland Malt'; very few whiskies made an age statement, and where they do it is usually at 6 or 8 years old.
Scotch Whisky Distillers
Greenock London and Aberlour-Glenlivet (Note: no punctuation)
Estd. 1831
So, like Johannes and Luc, I am not convinced...
Ulf: Some food for thoughts. Regarding the Hazelburn fake; at least two bottles are identified. Thorne, indeed, was a famous distiller and blender with a wide range of versions available at the time in question.
Then the question regarding the use of qualifiers like 'Very rare' and '12 year old' and similar at the time.
Regarding pristine bottles; having seen so many bottles of port and table wines positively identified to stem from decades near and far
from the other time side of WW I, and in pristine conditions, I wouldn't rule out correctness on the parameter 'pristine wrapping'. Assertion; Pristine is not necessarily a suspicious condition.
Regarding the the Italin Abyss when it comes to origin of fakes; I happen to have an odd Italian whisky book 'Il mio amico whisky' by
Piero Acolti, printed 1963. The oddity with this book is that it contains several genuine looking whisky labels loosely attached on special pages. They could easily be removed and glued on to time-proper bottles.
I have in my possession all Christies whisky auction catalogues since 1989 (to and including fall 1998).
The one at Bar Metro and the one stemming from the Andreas Jacobs collection sampled at the Danish tasting where I participated.
The first one seems to be identical to the Danish bottle when comparing Johannes photo with the photo attached to the Danish
warning letter Johannes distributed Jan 10, 2005. Following the Thorne trace and the suspicious large collection of Thorne versions at
bar Metro I would like to add following, but keep in mind that I am not convinced these bottles are genuine:
Not only were the distilleries Greenock, Glen Moray and Aberlour in the firm's possession. They acted also in part of UK as agent for
Lochindaal and Lochhead Distilleries. And as a brooker for (some examples from 1898) Macallan, Mortlach, HAZELBURN, Ardbeg,
Glenlivet, Glen Grant, Cardow and on the Grain side for Caledonian, Dundashill, North British and Adelphi. (source The Scotch Whisky
Industry Record p 185-186). Hence, there is no question regarding the possibility that the bottles on Bar Metros's shelf, including the grain version, MAY (not is) be proper.
Just browse through the 'The Art of Whisky' by our common acquaintance Jim Murray and you will se several examples of age
statements at adverts from that time. Forres neck label '11 year old' (from 1911, p 48), John Jameson bottle stamp label '1900 Season'
advert sas 6 yers old ( from 1906p 58) Fitzgerald bottom band label '10 years old' (from 1911, page 77), and others. The phrases 'very old' and 'very rare' are frequently used as well. Conclusion; such statements were in use at the time.
Some fakes may appear there as well. I happened to be at their last whisky auction (1998) and there was already then strong rumors
among the auction goers regarding Italian whisky fakes. Perhaps Christies management had their ears to the ground too. I got my
warning, though, and refrained since then from oldies who had taken a detour via Italy. If my memory serves me correct it was
Sukhinder who made a complaint concerning a Spanish Ladyburn which was announced as a genuine one. It was withdrawn, of course.
This occurred the Autumn of 1998. After that incident Christies stopped their involvement in further solitaire whisky auctions, and their
auctioneer left. I am glad that Dave's brave and meritorious WM article brought up to the surface that had been, if not in the 'public' domain, but collectors for some years.
Charlie: Excellent research, Ulf, and most interesting!
Earlier today, I was trawling through my old Christie's catalogues (which go back to 1994). Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems to
me that, around 1998, old bottles began to appear which were in much better condition than in previous catalogues...!
Serge: Regarding the 'pristine' condition of the labels, I'm wondering if any of you high-flying experts ever saw one of these Thorne's
(same series), but with 'faded' labels? I mean, were all the bottles you saw in pristine condition? Or was that set the only survivors? I
agree with Ulf, some very old bottles of wine can be in very good condition, especially if they were kept in their original cases. BUT then you also come accross the very same bottles, but in much poorer shape!
As for the company, you can find many jugs, pitchers etc. on the web.
Another thought: I guess companies like Thorne were also shipping whisky in bulk, or bottled but un-labelled, with some labels on the
side (so that the buyers could either reprint the labels with their own name, or put their own labels on the bottles). That could
suggest that some 'brand new old' labels were to be found in some drawers or at flea markets etc. Btw, some indie bottlers still seem to ship un-labeled bottles to their 'best' or 'oldest' customers, although I'm sure they'll never admit that.
I'm just happy about the fact that there hasn't been a Clynelish in this series ;-)
Johannes
: Wow, the people who produced this fake certainly did their homework!
Hmmm... I'm glad I didn't buy ANYTHING in Italy in
Well, at least they did their homework better than those who made that Arran 1982...
I have to admit that I'm not that interested in the 'collecting' side of things myself, so I had never even heard of Thorne & Sons. I
guess I should read a book more often ;-) So far, all roads seem to lead to Rome again - or at least to Italy... And as far as I understand it, 1998 seems to be the year the 'troubles' first came to the surface.
Our report hasn't been published yet, but we found a fake or misprint from Mandibolari; an Ardbeg supposedly distilled in 1988. But...
The distillery was closed in 1988! However, the funny thing is that I liked that potential fake one point better than the 1989 from
Mandibolari that's supposedly a 'real' bottling... So, if that was a fake it was at least done by somebody with taste ;-)
Dave: I see the Thorne bottlings rear their pretty (but fake) heads once again.
Here's my take on it. In the late 1990s there was a flood of 19th century bottles onto the market -- bottles which had never been
seen before often from distilleries which hadn't appeared at auction sporting labels which were remarkably pristine. Among these were
the 'Thorne' bottlings. The bottles appeared both at auction, were offered to private collectors/retailers and also to distillers. Now, I'm
a cynical journalist and when something comes along which seems too good to be true, my reaction is "it probably is". Sadly some collectors, some distillers and every auction house didn't take the same jaundiced view.
The rest, sadly, is history and isn't worth repeating here.
I am however still surprised .. no, make that amazed .. that these bottles are still being punted on eBay.
I'm not assuming that every whisky collector reads Whisky Magazine, but hasn't the exposing of this massive fraud been widely
reported within the collecting community? The cognitive dissonance which caused the problems in the first place are proving
remarkably resilient. I'm equally baffled as to why no-one has asked very hard questions of some auction houses who, as far as I am
concerned, have been remarkably lax. I accept that the occasional pristine bottle may turn up. It's the Bentley in the chicken shed
syndrome. I do know, however, that you don't find 10 Bentleys in the shed, yet this is what happened with this scam and for years no-one seemed to be bothered.
What are the signs? How do you avoid being caught out?
Well, the cynic in me would say, don't bother buying anything for some while unless you can categorically prove its provenance. How
to prove the provenance is the problem, as the auction houses take the line that it isn't their responsibility which strikes me as being the equivalent of a fence saying "I never knew it was nicked your honour".
Neck flashes may have been used, but they were not commonplace.
Indeed, single malts were not that common. One of the questions which we asked Macallan for years was -- can you check the neck
flash? Since antique bottles and labels can be bought on the open market (quite legally) it isn't too difficult to mock up a 19th century bottling. What would suck the collector in? A date.
Be suspicious of bottles which seem too clean. There should be some foxing of the label, some wear and tear -- but as I've been
saying for god knows how many years -- remember that the people you are dealing with here are FORGERS. It is their job to make things look old.
Check with the distiller. Most of the major players have an archive.
Diageo, Dewar's, Allied, Chivas and Wm Grant all do.
But most of all .. make the assumption that it IS too good to be true.
In all honesty I am sure that this whole scam could have been exposed relatively early on had everyone accepted the evidence of
their eyes rather than assuming that, while there were fakes on the market, it wasn't the bottle which they had bought. The warnings
were given -- by distillers, by Sukhinder, by some collectors, by bottlers and by Whisky Mag but no-one chose to accept their fears. Let's hope a more open, honest (or cynical) outlook now prevails.
Johannes
: Hear, hear Dave! If everybody took this advice to heart we might not have a 'fakes' problem.
Meanwhile, here is some very interesting background information from the 'typographical' end of things. Michel van Meersbergen is a graphic designer and as such he is in the perfect position to offer us an 'expert opinion' on the matter;
Since I'm not a Whisky Magazine subscriber, I didn't realise that these bottles have been 'in the news' before.
I did a search on the web and found a very interesting page dating back to 2003. For a good laugh, check out:
www.whiskymag.com/magazine/issue31/news_analysis/whisky_fakes_was_the_case_really_proved.html.
It seems Flemming has made a 180 degree turn in the last year - he initially argued the bottle could be genuine!
Well, I'd say Dave has the last word in that discussion ;-)
Michel: As Johannes stated, the label has serious flaws.
Being a graphic designer I think the typesetting of the
age-statement is really 'off-beat'. Widening fonts in the
early part of the 20th century was not so common and
when it was done, all characters were drawn by hand.
Even considering the capabilities of typographers in
those days this looks too smooth, too even, just
NOT hand drawn. So.. if, as stated by the seller
and others, this label is 'authentic' there must be
a readily made font available for printers.
This is something to hold on to and a quick look
thru my font catalouges identified the font as:
Linotext, drawn by Morris Fuller Burton in 1901.
This is what Myfonts.com has to say about Linotext:
'Linotext was designed by Morris Fuller Benton in 1901
and first appeared with the name Wedding Text with
American Type Founders in Jersey City, where its
metal forms were cut by hand. The font was so
popular that its forms soon began appearing with
other font foundries under different names, Elite
Kanzlei with D. Stempel AG, Comtesse with C.F. Rühl, etc.'
NO widedened version of Linotext is mentioned in catalogues of Benton's works.
And if this doesn't fuel up things: My first impression of the typesetting made me think it was done by photosetting. I will spare you
the details about that technique, but photographic typesetting wasn't available before the early fifties!!! To be sure I sent an picture
of the Hazelburn to one of my former professors at the academy and his anwser was short and devastating: typesetting done by
photosetting! In short, this label is from the post 1950 area... To illustrate this I created the small example of the Hazelburn
typesetting shown above. Typesetting as done in the lower example would be more age-realistic as an example for this label. It takes a lot more than stains and fancy typography to recreate an antique label!!
Mr. Andreas Jacobs claims he doesn't know
for sure if these bottlings are fake. So, it seems that consumers like you and me can only trust ourselves in this matter.
Johannes: So, these fakers are not just bad people...
Based on Michel's research, they seem to be bad craftsmen as well ;-)
However, if producing fake bottles was an olympic discipline the Italians would beat
the Taiwanese with their fingers in their noses. To my untrained eye, the Hazelburn
looked a lot more convincing than the Arran 1982 or Mortlach 21yo from Taiwan.
And the Italians seem more consistent as well; it seems they produced an entire
range of 'Thorne & Sons' fakes - the picture at the right shows only three of them.
Well... the other bottlings have not been proven to be fakes yet, but I think the
comments of the maniacs have made it painfully clear that these bottles are more
likely to be fake than genuine. There's the typography issue (all bottlings in this
range use the same typeface that didn't exist at the time) and the fact that at
least one bottling in this range was proven to be a fake. Remember, like Dave
pointed out all bottlings in this range 'magically' appeared around the same time.
Plenty of reasons to consider the entire range fake - until proven otherwise.
Yeah, right... But he hasn't responded to my suggestion to have one tested either.
And Mr. Jacobs isn't the only trader who - knowingly or 'not-wanting-to-knowingly'
offers these 'collectable' bottles to unsuspecting consumers like you and me.
That's why I decided to add a new feauture to Malt Maniacs; a
At the moment the page contains details on the seven suspect bottles we have discovered so far.
Check it out and don't hesitate to let me know
if you have found a suspect bottle yourself.
Sweet drams,
Johannes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/16 - 2004: The Last Reports
Submitted on 30/01/2005 by Craig Daniels, Australia
Here's the latest newsletter from the Earls of Zetland Malt Tasting Club in Adelaide, South Australia.
Report Card # 1 - 27 October 2004 - "Islay Heavyweights - OP Night"
Other international tasters have compared the 46% Peated Malt favourably with Islay malts, Ardbeg in particular, so maybe he wasn't
in for too rough a journey during the feedback session at the end of the meeting. Recently Jim Murray has given David the highest
accolade ever awarded an Australian Distiller, by naming Bakery Hill the "Small Distillery of the Year for 2005", for a barrel sample of his
peated malt. The whisky we sampled isn't the whisky that won the gong, but an earlier release of similar lineage, vintage and
provenance, but bottled at 46%. I was lucky enough to be given a bottle of the Cask Strength (at 60%ABV) by David and have spent the odd few moments contemplating, including revisiting when I clocked Jim's huge endorsement.
As the tactical browser, who's acquaintanceship with malt whisky is more than casual will observe, Jim Murray's tasting notes
occasionally teeter on the edge of hyperbole, however, there is something stellar about the Bakery Hill Peated at Cask Strength. I
don't know which cask my Cask Sample came from, but there is that brilliant definition of malt, diamond clarity of barley, along with
nice supportive oak and insistent waves and length of clean peat and malt in the palate and finish. The balance between sweet malt,
dry but fresh & clean wood and smoky peat is genuinely profound and the spirit never gets hot or nasty. I'm still not sure that Jim can
ever convince me it's worth 94, as in my whole (not quite as vast) experience there's less than a dozen that I've scored that high.
John Roberts brought the blind along, which I misidentified as Lagavulin 16, mainly because I thought that, while I didn't find a huge
amount of peat, it might have been because my peat detectors were massively overloaded by the Ardbeg and Laphroaig. Funnily
enough I normally get Talisker right when it is the blind, but this time I missed it, but I won't lose much sleep over it.
The most lasting memory of the night was moving leisurely (and lovingly) between the Ardbeg and the Laphroaig and keeping watch as
the drams opened up: unravelling like a nice Claude Debussy or Ry Cooder piece. These two could keep a moderately patient malt fan
happy for a couple of hours, and must crank up lots of points on the quality price ratio. I didn't score the Laphroaig as high as the first
time I came across it: I wasn't sucker-punched by the enormity of this pocket rocket like I was in October 2002, when a blind sample landed from Johannes van den Heuvel from Holland. Malt Reports: Bruichladdich 1988 Natural Cask Strength
(58%, G&M) - 83 points Ardbeg 10yo 1993/????
(50%, Douglas Laing Old Malt Cask) - 88 points Laphroaig 10yo Cask Strength
(57%, OB) - 90 points Bakery Hill Peated Malt
(46%, OB) - 81 points Blind: Talisker 10yo (45.8%, OB) - 84 points
Undoubtedly, the most anticipated night of the year is almost and invariably the BIG ISLAY Night, except when we do something
extra-special with Macallan or Laphroaig. The frisson of anticipation was heightened by the inclusion of the incomparable Laphroaig
Cask Strength on the agenda and the rare chance to pay a visit to an independent bottling of Ardbeg. This meeting had the added
bonus of Melbourne distiller, David Baker turning up and presenting his Peated Malt. It could be viewed as a brave decision on David's
part, as it is pretty hard for a young Aussie (3.5-4 years old) whisky to go up against such Islay heavyweights, coming as they do from cult distilleries, acknowledged as of the very first order.
Nose: Cream, a little bit of ointment, touch of pine, honey biscuits, some sponge cake and Italian biscotti.
Palate: bitey spirit early, big and mouthcoating with whipped cream and some tart, fresh sour fruit, then a big dollop of white chocolate, topped with vanilla and fresh cream and a bit of oak, but not forward.
Finish. Creamy and a hint of drying wood, quite malty and a biscuit reprise.
Overall Comment: Nice malt and a lot cleaner than I remember. Didn't have any of the charred, wet wood or slightly vegetal notes I
got when previously tasted. Some malts show minor faults with water and I didn't water this one on this occasion. As Bruichladdich doesn't normally light my fire, the score is merely good.
Nose: Lots of lemon and tar, white rubber, bicycle tyre repair kit, gypsum and chalk, quite dry.
Some charcoal notes, old coal fires and smouldering, subterranean peat.
Palate: up front lemon slice biscuit, salted lemon butter, then big tarry palate, some acidity and rubber bitterness as it travels past the epiglottis. Interesting and accomplished balance between sweet and bitter.
Finish. Lots of tar & smoke, drying wood but good balance - drier and tighter than the OB 10.
Overall Comment: - Very nice - a little more dry and austere than the OB 10, but equally as good.
Nose: Sweet, warm spirit, lots of Islay ointment and leather, then some ferns and fresh herbs (rosemary and thyme). Very even and
relatively restrained, maybe even waxy and slightly fruity - lots of nooks and crannies and plenty going on to keep one amused. Didn't leap out of the glass and assault me like the one in 2002.
Palate: sweet & sour, savoury, a hint of brine, nori & soy sauce, then peaty and leathery, black tea, vegetal & ferny- lots of development and lots of complexity.
Finish: Drying tar and leather, peaty reprise and lots of lingering smoke. Hangs around - sweet then dry.
Overall Comment: - Very impressive package. Maybe not as stellar as I remember it, but still superb.
Nose: Interesting, bit of sweet grist, then quite a lot of sweet ointment, a chunk of fresh peanuts and a big whack of nice fresh malt.
Left in the glass, gets maltier with even some Ardbeg style tennis shoe soles.
Palate: Silky Oak, fresh cut oak wood, some straw and grass then peanuts and peat - lots of flavour development that suggests Caol
Ila or Ardbeg.. Lots of nice clean malt and spirit underneath.
Finish. Peaty and a hint of ashtray, then malty notes and crisp barley.
Overall Comment: Has a lot going for it, especially in the cleanliness and nice crushed malt and a good background of nice malty peanuts and lingering clean peat.
Nose: A bit of sherry and leather, then a bit of peat and sour sherry. Solid but nothing exceptional.
Palate: Nice sherry attack with peat in reserve and a hint of balsamic sourness in the back palate.
Finish. Sour sherry, peaty, some nice old autumn leaves, quite long but nothing sparkling or special.
Overall Comment: The score says Talisker, so I should have exercised a greater critical faculty.
Report Card #2
- 24 November 2004 - "The Xmas Show - Value Malts" Malt Reports: Glen Moray NAS Chardonnay Finish
(40%, OB) - 78 points Old Pulteney 12yo (40%, OB) - 80 points Bowmore 12yo (43%, OB) - 83 points Glendronach 15yo 100% Sherry Matured (43%, OB) - 85 points Ardbeg 10yo
(46%, OB) - 88 points
The first meeting of next year will be, as always, Laird's Choice.
Incidentally, had the first try of the new Balvenie 15 Single Cask (I think the ABV is 47.4% (but am not sure as I didn't write it down,
just noted that it wasn't the usual 51% (very much lots of vanilla and not much else), the Glenfiddich Gran Reserva 21 (used to be
called the Havana Reserve) and the Glenfiddich 30. The 30yo was nice but not exceptional and I like the 21yo - there's some leather and tobacco notes that give it more complexity than the usual distillery output. Cheers, Craig Daniels - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm conscious of the fact that few of the (very welcome) horde that rolled up to the Earls of Zetland Malt Tasting Club's much
vaunted Christmas Show were aware of the momentous historical occasion that was in train, with a wholesale changing of the guard
imminent and at hand. Some of the longest serving officials in the Club's history were hanging up their spurs. Of course, the old guard
wanted to go out with a bang and those relinquishing the reins want to leave a solid legacy, so there was a big effort to get the
troops out and to make our swansong occasion memorable. It might not be apparent to the casual observer, but quite a lot of thought
went into the malt selection on the night and it was driven by one major criterion; the whiskies had to score more than 75 and
represent good to great value for money. A note on QPR (Quality Price Ratio) is that anything that scores above 0.9 is good and anything that scores above 1.2 is a strong buy signal.
Nose: Cream, honey & honey on toast segueing into grass/straw and then into clean malt. Nice Speyside nose.
Palate: slightly sweet and then a hint of balancing acidity. More honey and cream, then maybe some grainy notes and only a tiny hint of feintiness, maybe a hint of salt and burnt toffee,
Finish. Creamy and a slight reprise of slightly sour fruit and more malt. A wee bit of bitter metal.
Overall Comment: Glen Moray is one of the quiet achievers of Speyside. The malt is always solid and has been benefiting from better
wood selection recently. Great value for money with an amazingly good QPR of 1.22.
Nose: Malt, linseed, chocolate, then liquorice/chocolate bullets. A hint of patchouli, lavender perfume, then a whiff of warm machine oil/steam engine with even a wee hint of highland peat, but merely a soupçon.
Palate: Malt and chocolate, some nutty oil, a hint of brine. Maybe a bit thin in the middle, but interesting flavour development and good balance. There's an interesting hint of unwrapping a chocolate bar here.
Finish. Malt, dark chocolate, then aniseed and a hint of linseed, gets drier, maybe even some cocoa/coffee.
Overall Comment: This is accomplished whisky making, make no mistake. Interesting and complex. A worthy contender for a
connoisseur's house malt although the QPR of 0.86 might indicate it is slightly overpriced.
Nose: Sweet, warm spirit, lots of honey and violets, then ferns and resin and a bit of honey and peat.
A bit of Islay ointment then more waves of leafy, ferny vine sap & resin.
Palate: sweet & sour, honey and a hint of brine, honeyed malt then peat. A bit warming; maybe a bit feral.
Finish: Nice warming and quite long. A reprise of honey and peat, some burnt, charred wood and toast.
Overall Comment: Maybe not as good as the Bowmore 12 of a decade ago, but still a pretty good malt with a lot more going for it than
the younger sibling in the Legend. Good QPR of 0.93 but if you can buy it for around $58 the QPR would go up to 1.01 which would be a strong buy signal.
Nose. Lots of sherry, polished wood, (varnish, floor polish), mint toffee, cherries & a bit of balsamic and some big oak in the background. Some slightly musty old cupboards and cardboard suitcases, but very subdued
Palate: Lots of sherry, sweet and sour, something a wee bit earthy & funky. Slightly sour, sherry notes become drier
Finish: Becomes increasingly dry with a hint of gunpowder.
Overall Comment: Lots of sherry and with slightly better wood than some 15's I've tried. QPR iof 0.93 is OK but the real reason to track this one down is that it isn't being made anymore. It's a good whisky, but not great.
Nose:.Unique and distinctive combination of fresh citrus (lemon rind, fresh coriander, lemongrass) and tar, bitumen, carbolic, coal tar,
a hint of white rubber, pencil eraser. Nice combination and always fresh and clean.
Palate: Lemon cheesecake, more tar & creosote, especially in the back palate
Finish. Long, peaty and tarry; an echoing hint of lemon slice biscuits. Completely flawless; exemplary effort.
Overall Comment: Scary how good this is for the money. My nomination for the Best Value for Money Malt on the Market. If cleanliness is truly next to godliness, this is bedding down with the angels. Stellar QPR of 1.32.
Bernie, as the new Laird, has gone coastal (that's coastal not postal) and gone back to some old favourites. Included is the ultimate
'Zelig' (shameless reference to an OK/mediocre Woody Allen movie, but with some of the greatest lines ever uttered in American
cinema) chameleon malt and everyone's terror blind - Oban 14. Bernie notes that while we always treat Oban 14 like the malt that
dare not mention its name, we actually haven't drunk the stuff since 2002. Time to get re-acquainted with the second most demand stressed malt in the Classic Malt portfolio.
There must be fair batch variation in the 30yo as this one wasn't the same (or as nice) as the one I tried in 2001.
Very hard to score any of them (the sample was small and in a small copita (which isn't my usual nosing glass) but for reference and the Matrix - the B15 would be around 78, G30 around 84 and the G21 86.
Proudly Maniacal
E-pistle #12/17 - Vox Populi: Glasgow Festival 2005
Submitted on 31/01/2005 by Ralf Mitchell, Scotland
Glasgow's Festival of Whisky 2005 (27th - 30th January)
This year has seen the inaugural Glasgow Festival of Whisky which was planned for the last week of January, either by design or
default, to tie in with the very successful Celtic Connections World Music Festival. Organized through the Drinks Trade Journal 'Dram'
along with a major brewer and local News Paper, the event was not greatly publicized and rather low-key, arranged as
tutorial/informal tastings in pubs, with many of the weeks events short in numbers attending. However, it's a first of it's type for the
City, and as such should be considered a success with those present keen and appreciative, including some Scandinavians specifically over from Sweden to make a holiday of it.
In fact the only perplexing reality of the festival was the peculiar relationship that scottish people have with their national drink,
namely one of smug disinterest, and at events (despite the offer of a free quality spirit) preferring to continue with regular pub drinks
of chemical lager, breeze-pops, synthetic flavoured rums, and muddy-mushs at 30% alcohol -and falling!, usually mixed up with
assorted sugary sodas. The relationship that the Scots have with whisky is confusing to say the least, but that is a subject far bigger than this e-pistle is offering to cover here.
So back to the festival, which was blessed with various distillers including;
Diageo offered Talisker 10yo (88 points), a less 'integrated' malt than of my previous experience! Also, Bell's Vatted malt (74 points,
no big event here!) Johnny Walker Black Label (85 points, yes, a better quality blend and popular in Scotland) and Bell's Blended (70
points, it's what ice cubes are frozen for!). Black Bottle's contribution was confined to their basic blend, but that was o.k. 'cos it's such a triumph anyway (90 points).
Jon ,Mark and Robbo's Easy Drinking Malt Whisky Experience (scratch n' sniff cards, three 'different' and trendy bottles, cool dudes!,
lifestyle attitudes etc.) and apart from the flannel, three perfectly competent whiskies (averaging 84 points) to tease a new and desperately wanted generation of young malties before the ................
And although Balvenie and Grant's were advertised as taking part, they were not in evidence for the Last Day Finale where all the
Distillers put up stalls at an old Glasgow Church, converted at vast cost from a place of ethereal, to practical spirituality - get my
meaning?;- from church to public house, the Lord moves in mysterious ways, as was I, after an afternoon on Sunday the 30th
January, following a three hour 'shindig' of free quality whisky, served without the use of an optic, ................... oh!
thank you lovely lady from Auchentoshan. It is said that from small acorns, large oak trees grow, and I can only hope, on behalf of all malties, that this beacon of light in the
depths of a Northern winter glows brighter in years to come, ... and goes global, 'cos the world deserves a special treat. Cheerio,
Auchentoshan: Auchentoshan 21yo - by far the best of the ages present, 87 points.
Bunnahabhain: Bunnahabhain 12 yo only, but a worthy malt indeed with quiet Islay complexity and balance, 88 points.
Glenfiddich: Good range, including 15yo Solera Reserve, a fruity one finishing a little abruptly, 84 points.
Connissueur's Choice: Some average drams but a good young Rosebank 1991 (84 points) and Jura 1992 (83 points) made available.
Their Benromach malt looks to have a 'Glen Moray' style potential, and special mention due to Alex the Tasting Presenter, a direct and authoritative rep for Gordon & MacPhail who won respect from his audience.
WICKED ANORAKS GET A-HOLD OF 'EM ! ....... Boo! ........HIss!
Anyway, it seems to work as an animated group of under-thirties got into the spirit of things !
Ralf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #12/18 - 2004: Ask an Anorak: Only Oak?
Compiled on 31/01/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Second of all, all the distillers seem to talk about is the difference between
That would be fairly odd, because, freshly sawn, American oak wood seems much more like beech wood (Fagus sylvatica) than like
European oak - and both American oak and beech grow much faster than European Oak. Any insights in this 'anoracal' issue?
Johannes: Calling all anoracles...
A recent discussion about casks brought some questions to my mind.
First of all, is there a 'technical' reason for the fact that only oak casks are
used for maturation of whisky and wine, or is this mainly based on tradition
and would other wood types do as well? I guess pine wood wouldn't be such
a good idea, but how about beech or chestnut? These are fairly 'dense' and
hard wood types as well. There must have been experiments with that, no?
American Oak and European oak. However, we have three different types of
oak trees in the woods on 'De Veluwe'; first of all there's American red oak
(Quercus rubra) and then two European species; Quercus robur (English Oak,
Pedunculate Oak, 'zomereik') and Quercus petrea
(Sessile Oak, 'wintereik').
That made me wonder - is there one specific species of either American or
European Oak that's primarily used for the maturation of wine and whisky,
or don't they care about these distinctions?
Lex: Hi maniacs, I wrote a wee piece on some of these issues for the 2003 WoW Expo.
Saying that whisky is matured in oak ignores that there is oak and there is oak.
Here's part of the article;
Worldwide, the genus Quercus contains about 400 species, not counting the many hybrids.
Maybe a dozen or so species are used for maturation of alcoholic beverages somewhere in the world and the oak species used for
whisky basically fall in two groups; American white oak (Quercus alba and related species) and European oak (Quercus robur and
Quercus petraea). Research has shown that there are clear differences between the effect of Amercian oak on the one hand and
European oak on the other. For instance, spirits matured in European oak have much higher concentrations of tannins and phenolics
than those matured in American oak. On the other hand, Amercian oak contains much higher levels of lactones (which impart a
woody character to a spirit) than European oak. But there are also differences among the two European oak species: Quercus robur
has higher levels of tannins and lignins (such as vannillin), whereas Quercus petrea has higher levels of lactones. There is already a
wee bit of a move in the Scotch whisky industry towards identifying the oak species used for maturation and I hope this interesting angle will continue.
By law, the major whisk(e)y types have to be matured in oak. As said before, whisky matured in wood other than oak can not legally be called 'Scotch Whisky'.
Nevertheless, persistent rumours talk about the odd chestnut or mahogany cask lurking in dark corners in warehouses in Scotland.
Assuming they indeed exist, the chances of them ever being bottled are nihil, simply because they can't be labeled as Scottish
whisky. But outside the main whisky countries, other woods are used for maturing whisky. In India, experiments are going on with a
number of native timber species such as Shorea robusta and Terminalia robusta. The only whisky actually on the market that I know
of which is matured in wood other than oak, albeit partly, is 'Za', a Japanese blend. A Suntory spokesman told me that at least some
of the constituent whiskies in 'Za' are at least partly matured in casks of which the heads are made of cedar wood. The staves are 'normal' oak.
I do hope though that an innovative, visionary distiller will see a possibility in the future to bring a single malt on the market,
matured in a wood other than oak, properly identified as such ('Chestnut-matured Single Malt' or something like that) and aimed at
the connoisseur end of the market (which would not be put off by the words 'Scotch Whisky' missing from the label).
I'd be among the first in the que for a bottle!
Charlie
: Fascinating article, Lex, and the most thorough non-scientific treatment I have read on the subject.
I have nothing to add to Alex's article, except to confirm the rumour that there may be some chestnut casks lurking in dark
warehouses. Jim Swan tells me these import a bitterness to the whisky. So far as I am aware, the requirement for oak maturation was only introduced to the definition of 'Scotch' by the Scotch Whisky Act of 1988.
I tasted some Suntory Yamazaki from 'Japanese oak' last year, in a tasting for SMWS - alongside American and European matured
samples - all done blind. We were not even told it was Japanese; just that all samples came from the same distillery. (As an aside, the
samples all did unusually well - ALL capable of being bottled as singles, which is, I think, unique in my 14 years of chairing this panel!
Though I think Suntory had gone to some lengths in selecting the casks they were offering.) What is 'Japanese oak'? Alba, robur or
patrea - or something else? Unfortunately, since my notes were taken blind, I don't know which casks were Japanese, but some seemed to have a 'dark cherry' key-note.
Davin : Lex, your article is quite informative. I thought that the American oak used was red oak due to it being less porous than white. Perhaps my memory playing tricks. Were I to nominate new species for cask making they would all be fruit woods - apple, cherry. We sometimes roast a whole pig on a spit and use apple wood to add sweetness. Red oak is very easy to distinguish from white just by colour of the heartwood; reddish - duh... My understanding is that the wood for staves comes from the tree trunk, not the branches, as the force of gravity, over the life of the branch creates an assymetry in the wood (more cells on the down side) that causes warpage as humidity changes.
Johannes: Yes indeed, great stuff Lex.
In case you're interested in oak species, you can find some more information on:
That is precisely the information I was looking for. Apparently, the fast growing species of American oak that we have in our neck of the woods is Quercus rubra and not the Quercus alba
that's traditionally used for bourbon casks. But then again, if I ever fulfill my pipe dream of producing my own 'local barley, local wood' Dutch whisky I could use any sort of wood I bloody well like - I won't be producing SCOTCH
whisky so the SWA isn't the boss of me! So, maybe you'll see me producing the first whisky matured in 'Quercus
rubra' some time in the future... Hmmm... But I guess 'fresh' oak casks wouldn't give the best results - I'm particulary fond of whiskies
that were matured in an ex-sherry cask. So, maybe I should try to produce some 'local' sherry first before I get to work on whisky? But I guess that's an entirely different topic.
http://www.floridata.com/ref/Q/quer_rub.cfm.
Ulf: Hello MM's, As some of you may have observed I have tried to get a fix standpoint on what is and what is not (and have been)
permissible when it comes to type of wood to be used for casks containing maturing fluids marketed as 'whisky' or 'whiskey' within
Euroland, and in UK pre-Euroland days. I have heard rumors that odd (non-oak) casks exists/have existed. Hence, my obsession. I
simply would like to get confirmation on the existence of such anomalies, or even better samples... Any MM helping hands? Also, there
is rumors that new producers (ex-Scotland) are experimenting with casks made from, for instance, juniper wood...
Keep in mind that before 1989 'oak' was NOT declared in the Scotch Whisky Order (SWO) as the only permissible or limited too as type
of wood to be used. Hence, pre 1989, the broader definition 'wooden cask' made it possible to use even 'old herring casks' often made
from fir, or maybe chestnut wood and cherry (not sherry) wood casks. Further, as the set of Euroland Regulations (ER) for whisky
developed, the concept of 'traditional' was introduced in the ER. This phrase became applied not only to the type of casks but also to
the type of cereal permitted, for ex-scotch whisky. Therefore, we have now two set of rules in circulation; the SWO that since 1989
defines oak casks as compulsory for SCOTCH whisky, and the ER rules that specifies 'wooden' and 'traditional' for casks used to mature EX-scotch whisky. 'Traditional'... wow, a 'gefundenes fressen' for Juris Doctor Mr Loophole.
So even under EU rules you cannot use any cask - it must be an appropriate one of the type traditionally used for maturing whisky. An old herring barrel, for example, would not be acceptable!
We are not aware of any country where it is traditional practice to mature whisky in anything other than an oak cask, and given the
limited number of EU countries which have traditionally produced whisky, we would be surprised if anyone could now demonstrate a
traditional practice of maturing whisky in anything other than an oak cask. That said, if a court was satisfied on the facts that maturation in a different type of wood was traditional, then that would be permitted under the EU Regulation.
The Scotch Whisky Order, of course, makes it clear that only oak casks can be used for Scotch Whisky.
Following is SWA's standpoint today on the matter:
1. The cask must be of a type which will allow "reactions to develop naturally...thereby giving the spirit drink in question
organoleptic qualities previously absent". Therefore, an inert wooden cask would not qualify.
2. The cask must be "appropriate" for maturation. The preamble to the Regulation is important here, as it sets out the purpose of
the Regulation and gives guidance as to how the Regulation should be interpreted. In particular, it makes clear that the Regulation is
intended to protect traditional products: "the appropriate means of maintaining this quality standard is to define the products in
question taking into account the traditional practices on which their reputation is based; whereas, moreover, the terms thus defined
should be used only for products of the same quality as traditional products, so as to prevent their being devalued". A cask is which
is not of the type traditionally used for the maturation of whisky, or which produces a spirit which does not have the traditional characteristics of "whisky", would not be "appropriate".
This simply reflects traditional practice in Scotland.'
Charlie : Ulf, like you, I have continually heard about casks other than oak being filled in Scotland pre-1989 - notably chestnut. I have also been told that they are impossible to identify by appearance, and I don't know anyone who might be able to tell for certain that the spirit has been matured in non-oak. Oak has been acknowledged as the best wood for so long that I doubt there are many (if any) casks in the system not made from this wood. Also, with the availability of relatively cheap American white oak casks post 1946 there would be little reason to fill non-oak, except experimentally - and there are certainly small experimental casks around.
Lex: As you may know, that's been an issue of interest for me over the years as well.
Alas, I've never been able to get any solid info regarding other-than-oak casks in Scotland, let alone samples!
The one spirit I know of which comes closest to 'whisky-from-a-cask-other-than-oak' is a spirit distilled by the Weidenauer distillery in
Austria. This spirit is distilled from spelt and matured in mulberry casks. Oswald Weidenauer does not claim this spirit to be whisky, so
there are no issues with violating regulations. I have my personal definition as to what, for me, constitutes 'whisky' (i.e. a spirit
distilled from grain and matured in wood, with no further added flavours), so this mulberry-matured spirit is a 'whisky' for me. But that's
just my personal slant on things and legally it ain't whisky. Still, if you ask me, this Austrian spirit is more 'whisky' than the chestnut-spirit from Corsica.
Ulf : Charlie advised me to contact Dr Jim Swan, the whisky nestor, regarding the possible existence of non-oak casks within the trade. So I did, and here is his reply: 'Until the Scotch Whisky Order (mid 1980,s) woods other than oak were allowed by law and during those years of massive growth casks of other woods such as chestnut (southern Europe), Jarrah (from the Antipodes) were imported and used. They are EXTREMELY difficult to find - almost impossible - most people, including Customs officers cannot recognise them. Best of luck in your search - the flavours can be very good. Jim Swan'
Craig: Nice to know it's not only Australian barley (and Dutch for that matter) that has ended up in Scotch Whisky, but Aussie timber in barrels as well. AFAIK, Jarrah is only found in the south western corner of Western Australia. Of course it's a plantation timber elsewhere in Australia, but it's original rangeland was in WA. In