E-pistle #13/12 - Erin's Mega-Malt Tasting
Submitted on 17/03/2005 by Lex Kraaijeveld, England
When I became interested in malt whisky in 1994, the first two whisky books I bought were both by Michael Jackson. So, how to bring some structure to such a large tasting?
Bushmills 10yo is partly matured in bourbon casks, partly in sherry
There are only a handful of IB bottling of Bushmills.
On the subject of Irish malt whiskey, MJ's 'World Guide to Whisky' says that Bushmills 10yo is "the only single malt Irish
whiskey". The 3rd edition of the 'Malt Whisky Companion' adds a 34yo Coleraine, as a cask from that long-closed distillery had just been bottled then, and Tyrconnell, the first bottling from a recently established distillery called Cooley. Jim
Murray, in his 'Irish Whiskey Almanac', also published in 1994, describes four more expressions: a 5yo Bushmills for the Italian market, two Cadenhead bottlings of Bushmills and Bushmills Millennium tasted as a 'work in progress'. Ten years on
from this handful of Bushmills bottlings plus one each from Coleraine and Cooley, I felt it would be interesting to take stock of the Irish malt whiskey situation and bring together what I could for a large comparative tasting. I must say I
was pleasantly surprised by the enthusiasm shown by almost all of the main players in making samples and bottles available to me. I also had some bottlings on my shelves or could pick them up easily and got some help from a few fellow maniacs
and malts-L-ers. Thanks to all of you, you know who you are! In all, I managed to get 29 different bottlings (plus a handful of cask samples) and I think that makes this one of the largest comparative tastings of Irish malt whiskeys ever
published.
Well, what I decided to do is first taste and comment on the OB expression from a distillery. Once I have put those on a 'mental taste map', I will look at the IB
bottlings, asking what OB expressions they are most similar to and what they add to the distillery taste spectrum already on the 'map'. Joining me in the tastings is my girlfriend Irma. We work well together tasting a whisk(e)y, bouncing notes
and associations of each other, so the tasting notes you'll read are the result of these 'bouncings'. By the way, if you don't see a %abv given that means it's bottled at 40%; I'll explicitly mention any other bottling strength. Also, if I
don't mention an age, it means none is stated on the label, box or company website.
The logical place to start is with Ireland's oldest operating whiskey
distillery,
According to McGuire's thorough study of the history of the Irish
whiskey industry, it may have existed as early as 1782 or it may
have been established sometime during the late 18th or early 19th
century (we all know that 1608 is a marketing myth, so I won't go
into that now). Bushmills does not use any peat for drying its malt,
triple-distils all its whiskeys and makes use of a range of cask
types for maturation.
casks. Light malt, some vanilla and fudge, a touch of fruit, toffee,
and a slightly drying finish. All very soft and smooth and easily drinkable.
Compared to when I last tasted it a few years ago, it seems to have a
bit fuller taste. Maybe a slightly higher proportion of sherry casks used
recently? Bushmills 16yo is based on the same strategy of part-bourbon,
part-sherry maturation, but the two constituents are then married in port
pipes before bottling. The sherry clearly comes through with nutty notes.
There is toffee-fudge and also some flowery notes? The port pipes impart a clear
fruity-winey character and the whole is richer and with more depth than the 10yo. The Bushmills 21yo finally has a similar
maturation scheme, but the bourbon and sherry matured whiskey are sent to madeira casks for their honeymoon. Less sherry and a
richer nose. Cookies and wine, but not so fruity as in the 16yo Somewhat softer, with a dry finish. A tightly complex dram, the most
sophisticated and balanced of the three. In a way it's also the least 'Irish' of the three and sometimes I think I detect the faintest
whiff of peat smoke. Clearly, that can't come from the drying of the malt, as Bushmills doesn't use peat (although some processes during fermentation and maturation can also produce phenolics). Definitely an intriguing whiskey!
For instance, Blackadder has bottled a Bushmills at 45% under the label
A Drop of the Irish.
Soft fruit (blackcurrants?), sometimes chocolate and vanilla. Pretty light, with an oily mouthfeel
and a drying finish. Great Spirits bottles Irish malt whiskeys with a vintage year under the
Knappogue Castle label. The Knappogue Castle 1993 is 8yo and fully bourbon-matured.
Very soft, faint vanilla, cocos?, very light fruits, honey?? Knappogue Castle 1994 is 10yo
and, again, bourbon-matured. Creamy with fresh fruity-floral notes (elderflowers, grapes, pine
apple). Quite similar to the 1993, but clearly with a bit more flavour and body.
Cooley
was established in 1989 and had a difficult first couple of years during which it got Tyrconnell
is the first of Cooley's main brands. A relatively easy whiskey with a delicious nose: very fruity, like sticking your nose in a
jar of boiled sweets, pear drops, pineapple cubes, vanilla. The 'hard' fruit of the nose is replaced by softer fruit on the palate,
bananas, maybe some cocos? The fruit then gives way to vanilla and more malty notes and a short dry finish. I'm very curious what Tyrconnell would be like at cask strength; I hope Cooley is considering that for the not-too-far-away future.
When Locke's was first bottled it had no age statement, but now it is bottled as an 8yo So, on to the independent bottlings. Signatory
has a 10yo Irish, bottled at 43%.
Robert A. Merry & Co is a producer of Irish cream liqueurs, but also bottles a single malt: Merrys. And then to some of the 'own label' bottlings of Cooley.
Finally a rather enigmatic bottling: Ambiente. Ireland has three operating whisky distilleries, right? Besides those mentioned and (mostly) tasted so far, there have been several discontinued expressions
From the "only single malt Irish whiskey" in MJ's book, Irish malts have really taken off in those 10 years.
It's interesting to see how the two main Irish malt distilleries 'play' with different parameters.
Cooley doesn't yet have that much age variation to play with, but of course time will take care of that. What will the future bring to Irish malt whiskeys?
More than half of the Irish malts in this mega-tasting I had not tasted before and this has definitely given me a solid 'taste basis' from which I can judge future releases. Am I excited about the future of Irish malt whiskeys?
Lex - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
very close to failure. Fortunately it has survived all that and is without a doubt the best single
thing that happened to the Irish whiskey industry for quite a while as it broke Irish Distiller's
monopoly. I'll taste and discuss OBs first again, then move on to the 'classical' IBs, and finally
to a handful of 'own label' bottlings. Unlike Bushmills, Cooley distills its malts twice and matures
them exclusively in bourbon casks (originating from Heaven Hill to be precise).
I get toffee, vanilla, malt, sometimes a whiff of mature cheese? Very light peat and maybe tobacco leaves?
There are light fruity notes and the finish has a crisp dryness. Quite a complex dram in a subtle way.
The first peated Irish whiskey for something like 35 years,
Connemara first came on the market
without an age statement. Gentle, soft peat in the nose, some vanilla every once in a while.
The palate is fruity-sweet, touches of smoke and tobacco. Liquorice?
Warming and drying towards the finish. As it's quite young, it obviously lacks the complexity
that comes with age, but me being a peatophile I've always been partial to it. Connemara is now
also bottled at 12yo
. Creamy fruit (somehow the creaminess reminds me of durian), soft peat,
blue cheese, warming. The peat becomes more pronounced in the palate (though less so than
in the n.a.s.) and the whole is fuller and has more complexity than the n.a.s. version.
Incidentally, I really like the 'tube' in which the bottle is sold.
It's not made of cardboard, but of inlaid wood.
Definitely something that will find another use somewhere in my home.
And then Connemara Cask Strength. This is the second release of Connemara CS, bottled
at 60% and now comes in the same dumpy bottle as the lower strength version (the first
release came in a slender bottle). Fruit and smoke are intricately combined. Tobacco, apples,
some vanilla. Quite an oily mouthfeel and dry-woody notes in the finish.
Again, the peat is more present in the palate than in the nose, but overall this is less peaty
than the lower strength versions. Overall, the peating level of Connemara is only 15 ppm phenol;
you sure get a good amount of peat for your phenols!
A soft, mellow dram. Musty fruit, tart apples, light vanilla, touch of acetone, liquorice root, hint of toffee?
Sweetish overall and with a finish which is not as dry as Tyrconnell. Another Irish is bottled by James MacArthur - this time as a
12yo and at 59.7%. A delicious soft creamy-smoky nose (smoky, not peaty), followed by fruits (dried apples?), toffee and liquorice root. The smokiness comes back late on the palate and leads to a very dry finish. Cadenhead
bottles a 1992 Cooley at 12yo and 60%. Compared to Connemara CS, it has more peat in the nose and something like kippers. The palate has faint vanilla and fruity,
malty and biscuity notes. It has the same kind of oiliness, but a drier finish. Excellent stuff! Before Knappogue Castle's vintage malt whiskeys were bottlings of Bushmills, there were three Cooley bottlings. The 1992
, bottled in 2000, is the last one of that trio. Very much in the Tyrconnell style, from fruity nose to dry finish, but I do pick up a few more things here which I don't find in Tyrconnell:
toffee notes in the nose and palate and some spiciness in the finish. 
The Celtic Whisky Compagnie has two Cooleys, a peated and an unpeated, under the Clonmel label.
In the Unpeated Clonmel, I get green apples, sour fruit, Tyrconnell-like boiled sweets, some vanilla
and something perfumy? There's more malt in the palate and the finish is smoother and not as dry
as Tyrconnell. In the
peated version, bottled at 8yo, the nose has some sweet fruit mixed with soft
light peat and toffee. There is some vanilla and spikes of fruitiness before the peat takes over the
palate; the peat remains quite soft though, making the whole softer than Connemara. Ian MacLeod
bottles three Cooleys under the name Magilligan. The unpeated version is 5yo, bottled at 43% and
a true single malt, despite the 'Pure Pot Still' on the label. It has a light malty nose, with a touch of
fruit. Fresh, biscuits, custard, a bit grainy perhaps? The finish has something which I can't put my
finger on. Wine gums?? Then it becomes drier. The Vintage 1991 has been finished for one year in
Oloroso sherry casks in Scotland and is bottled at 46%. Nutty nose (roasted nuts?), sherry (but not
overpowering), touch of rubber, fruits in the background. Dark chocolate and vanilla. Quite full-bodied
with an oily mouthfeel. Finally, there is an 8yo peated version of Magilligan, again bottled at 43%.
Fruity nose, with the slightest hint of peat, lighter than Connemara. Some malty notes underneath.
The palate is the mirror image of the nose: less fruit and more peat, drier than Connemara (almost
like liquorice root).
Faint Tyrconnell-like boiled sweets and buttery notes, which don't develop until the whiskey has
spent some time in the glass. Malty and fruity sweetish notes; redcurrants? fudge? Cream coffee.
A light, quietly enjoyable whiskey, provided you give it time. Clontarf is bottled by Roaring Water
Bay Spirits, which incidentally has recently merged with Great Spirits to form Castle Brands. Before
bottling, the whiskey is filtered through charcoal. In other words, the Irish equivalent of 'Jack Daniels'.
I must say, this really is not my cup of tea, or rather ball of malt. I get some malty notes, but whatever
other nice notes this may have, they're swimming in a sea of vanilla. And when I say swimming I actually mean drowning. I do like
vanilla notes in a whisk(e)y, but in Clontarf the vanilla is so overpowering, it is almost sickening. The 'new kids on the block', the Easy Drinking Whisky Company, bottle an Irish single malt besides two Scottish vatted malts. The
Smooth Sweeter One has tart apples and raspberry on the nose. I get vanilla and cream, then sweet-malty notes and a dry finish. The last half or so of the taste
experience reminds me strongly of Tyrconnell, but the first half, and especially the nose, has a different kind of fruitiness, less hard boiled sweets.
These are bottlings for specific supermarkets and off-licences and are, usually, quite cheap for a single malt.
First two UK supermarket bottlings. Sainsbury's
is very very light. Soft mouthfeel. Faintest touches of sweet fruit, vanilla and malt and a slightly bitter-dry finish. Waitrose is not as light as Sainsbury's, but still pretty light. I get some rubber in the nose, some fruit
and maybe vanilla. The finish is more bitter and drier. There is something quite unappealing about this one; possibly a case of pretty mediocre casks. 
Then a bottling from the French supermarket chain Intermarche labelled Shanagarry.
Fruity nose, reminiscent of Tyrconnell, but also cardboard notes. Sweetish, a bit dusty,
touches of malt and vanilla. Pretty light. Back to the UK, where the off-licence chain
Oddbins has a bottling of a peated Cooley: Slieve na gCloc. On the nose apples and a
hint of peat, vanilla, some boiled sweets. Then there is the typcial Connemara pattern
of the peat being more prominent on the palate and the drier finish. It's clearly not as
peaty as Connemara though, lighter and thinner.
When I first came across it, I automatically assumed it was Cooley-distilled.
But when I contacted Cooley, they had no records of this label in their files. To cut a long story
short, Ambiente turned out to have been bottled by a tobacco company in Germany. The label
proclaims it to be 'Fine Malt Whiskey - Irish'. Note the lack of the word 'single'. I could be reading
too much into that, but could this be a vatted Irish malt? I sent a sample to Cooley for testing and
Noel Sweeney was 99.5% certain it indeed originates at Cooley. The taste confirms that: To me it
has very much the Tyrconnell fingerprint, but lighter in every aspect. Imagine a diluted
Tyrconnell and you've got the picture. Light and inoffensive, but nothing to excite.
The bottle is very classy-looking by the way; I'll keep it to use as a vase.
From north to south, we have Bushmills, Cooley and Midleton.
We've dealt with Bushmills and Cooley, so what about number three?
The 
So no OB Midleton malt. But bottling of a Midleton malt has happened.
Exactly who bottled it and how they managed to get the casks is unclear, but the result is a 6yo
Midleton malt whiskey called Erin Go Bragh. Soft mouthfeel, hints of malt and toffee, perfumy, some
leathery notes. All very light and thin with a slightly bitter-dry finish. Until very recently I thought this
was the only time Midleton malt was bottled, but then I got my copy of part 2 of Valentino Zagatti's
"The Best Collection". And what's there on page 57? A 22yo Erin Go Bragh, distilled in 1963; imported
into the US by the same importer as the current 6 y.o .... Does this also come from Midleton?
There is nothing on the label as shown in the book to suggest it does, but still, it's curious.
such as Knappogue Castle 1990 and 1991, Hennessy na Geanna, two Adelphi bottlings (Suir and Slaney)
and the malt-which-isn't-a-malt (Preston's Drogheda Millennium Malt). All of these were Cooley-distilled.
Then there are and were quite a number of limited edition Bushmills, including some single cask bottlings
from bourbon, sherry or rum casks. Plus the SMWS has bottled Bushmills as well as Cooley.
A quick trawl through various books and internet sources gives me well over 70 different Irish malt whiskeys
bottled between 1994 and now and I'm sure I missed a few. Not bad if you keep in mind that all bar two
come from two distilleries, one of which has only been operating for 15 years. Historically, such a richness
of Irish malt whiskey is unique. Besides a short period in the late 18th century, when distilling whiskey from
raw (unmalted) grain was prohibited, Irish whiskey distillers have always focused on distilling whiskey from a
mixture of malted barley and unmalted grains (now only barley, but rye, wheat and oats were also used in the past).
Besides by Bushmills and Coleraine, malt whiskey was made by distilleries like Glen, Waterside, Bandon, Connswater, Gorton and Royal
Irish. Most of these made malt whiskey alongside their main pot still whiskey production, but Glen and Gorton seem to have distilled exclusively from malted barley.
Variation among Bushmills' malts is mainly due to age and cask type. Bourbon, sherry and rum for maturation, port and madeira on top
of those for finishing. The distillery sent me three cask samples (ABV% unknown) to allow me to get a better feel for what the cask does to the whiskey. All were distilled in 1989 and are 14-15yo The sample from a bourbon cask
was creamy, toffee-fudge, malt, biscuits and pickled gherkins. The sample from a (second fill) sherry cask was fuller in taste and with more body. Dried fruits, toffee.
Hardly any sherry in the nose, but there was a touch of it in the finish. Finally, the sample from a rum cask was fresh, spicy, with a hint of menthol and a slightly drying finish.
As they exclusively use bourbon casks, their main 'play parameter' is of course peating level. A few years ago, I tasted a number of
Cooley cask samples in preparation for an IB bottling that unfortunately never became reality. All of these were distilled in 1992 and
tasted at 10yo Here are some of the notes I wrote for the various casks back then: "lots of peat, raspberry, apples, toffee", "soft
smoky-peaty, vanilla, balanced sweet notes; luscious!", "butter, peat, butterscotch, dry-ish finish", "light sweet fruitiness, toffee,
faintly earthy". I thoroughly enjoyed them all and some of the casks were just superb. Of course, it also gave me the chance to get a
wee bit of a feel for variation among casks in the Cooley warehouses. As said, Cooley uses exclusively bourbon casks and only one IB
finishes (unpeated) Cooley whiskey in a sherry cask. So I couldn't stop myself musing what kind of cask would be the ultimate finish
for a 10+yo Connemara. I'm not so sure about sherry or port; it somehow doesn't fit comfortably in my mind if I try to imagine either
of them together with Connemara. One which does 'fit' is a cognac cask. I tasted an absolutely brilliant cognac-finished Caol Ila
(bottled by Gordon & MacPhail) where the peat and the cognac were multi-layered in a wonderful way. Sauternes might be another
possibility; the Celtic Whisky Co. has bottled a Sauternes-finished Caol Ila where the heavy sweetness of the wine was balanced very
well with the peatiness. Or maybe even a Tokaj cask? Edradour is maturing in Tokaj casks and the cask sample I tasted of that one,
at just over 1yo shows Tokaj casks can impart rich sweet honey notes. (By the way, given that I had cask samples from both
Bushmills and Cooley to taste, I also asked Irish Distillers for a cask sample of Midleton malt. They very politely declined.)
Cooley is quietly hoping of firing up the stills at Locke's distillery at some point in the future again; will they make malt and/or pot still
whiskey if that happens? Only time will tell ..... Then there are serious preparations on-going to build a new distillery in Kilbeggan:
Coola Mills. Once operating, it will be making both a double-distilled and a triple-distilled single malt (in addition, they also have plans
for a pot still whiskey distilled from malted/unmalted barley and oats). And, fingers crossed, there are the plans for Cloonaughill distillery in the west of Ireland.
You bet!
E-pistle #13/13 - Ask an Anorak: New SWA Naming Conventions
Compiled on 19/03/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Shortly before the news about the new SWA naming conventions was 'leaked', Ulf brought up a very similar topic.
Here's a transcript of the first part of our discussions;
Ulf: Hi all, a correspondent on MALTS-L provided following link;
http://business.scotsman.com/agriculture.cfm?id=139782005
which I assume may be of interest to all MM's. Should be interesting so see if this rule:
"
A distillery name should not be used on any Scotch Whisky which has not been wholly distilled in the named distillery."
will be applicable when somebody is re-using the name of a long or lately gone distillery as a trade mark.
Especially in cases where the distillery name was not unique but equal to a distinct geographic site...
Craig : Very interesting. Obviously directed at Cardhu/Cardow, but one wonders whether Stronachie, Tambowie, Ben Wyvis will be caught up in this as well. Personally I'd like to think so, but maybe it will be interpreted as 'new' brand names only. Will this impact on what Bruichladdich has planned? I think it is a lesser crime if the distillery of origin is clearly identified on the label, rather than where a label which contains a defunct distillery name but has no information as to the actual distillery of origin.
Davin: Very interesting Ulf; thanks for this link.
Craig, I think Bruichladdich has chosen not to belong to the SWA, specifically because they perceive them as a bunch on bullies
without a whole lot of brains. I'm not sure SWA rules apply to the black sheep from Islay. Personally I think introducing the term
blended malt will only lead to more confusion. Pure Malt has been used by more than a dozen distilleries to mean Single Malt then
adopted by others to mean vatted malt. Why not just revert to the term "vatted malt" for vattings? I have in front of me an old
Laphroaig 10yo which is labelled "Unblended Malt", just to add to the confusion. A few weeks ago I had a Glenlivet single malt that
was labelled "Unblended All Malt." Clearly some definitions are in order, but I think the average whisky drinker will think "blend" when they see the term "Blended Malt" on a label.
Ulf : Davin mentions Bruichladdich doesn't belong to the SWA. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons why Springbank, and if my memory serves me correct Ben Nevis and Speyside Distilleries refrain from membership too.
Dave
: Bullies or not, if agreed this will form an amendment to the Scotch Whisky Act.
It will therefore be part of UK (and EU) law.
Davin: Thanks, Dave, I did not know this. Makes careful reflection all the more important in their decision making processes. To me, the term blend is already well understood by the buying public, at least as well understood as it is going to be without a deliberate education campaign. Applying it now to vatted malts will be confusing in my opinion.
Lex : What isn't yet clear to me is, if this becomes part of the Scotch Whisky Act, is whether Springbank will still be able to use the Longrow and Hazelburn names. Same for Bruichladdich (Port Charlotte, Octomore) and Edradour (Ballechin).
Craig
: Hi Lex, you put my query much more clearly than I did myself, thanks.
I don't think it is merely whether companies are members of the SWA, but rather whether they will be open to legal challenge if there
are changes to legislation. It is very rare in english law for legislation to be retrospective, so if those names are protected, I would
think they would be safe, but I don't know for sure. Besides, given the SWA's tendency to seek legal remedies for all sorts of very
marginal slights (like Glen breton or Mackmyra) then some of the non-SWA members could find themselves targetted.
Olivier: Two years ago I bought a cheap Ben Wyvis, vatted malt, 12yo, from Invergordon.
It was very cheap (around 25¥) and I was curious. It was for sale at the airport of Bordeaux 2 years ago !
Haven't tried it yet. There is a picture in Zagatti's book.
And how about Ben Wyvis. Well, here the story gets a little more complicated. Which brings us to the next point. Olivier mentioned it's a vatted malt but I'm not sure.
Johannes: Hah! Check out my Liquid Log entry #72
from January 2001, Olivier.
I've tried it; it's part of Invergordon's 'malts of distinction' and sold in Holland by Gall & Gall.
At the time there were three other malts in the range; Ardnave, Cairnluish, and Glen Foyle.
I've checked my 'Moss & Hume' and it seems that Ardnave and Cairnluish are 'fantasy' names.
However, Glen Foyle was an actual 'real' distillery, just like Ben Wyvis. It was closed in 1923.
However, the warehoused were used by Tullibardine and they were sold to Invergordon in 1971.
So, Invergordon could very well own the 'brand name' (although they were never involved with
the distillery when it operated). Nevertheless, the whisky inside the bottle can't have anything
to do with the whisky distilled at the real Glen Foyle distillery - which would be priceless.
There actually were two distilleries by that name, both now closed. The first one, also known
as 'Ferintosh' was built in 1879 and closed in 1926. AFAIK, Invergordon was never involved here.
Then, in 1965, the Invergordon distillery (located in the same area) built an all new 'Ben Wyvis'
distillery next to their complex. This distillery has been silent since 1977 and is now dismantled.
So, even though the age statement on the bottle only indicates a 'minimum' age, I would say
it's highly unlikely that the whisky in the bottle at the right was distilled at Ben Wyvis.
As you may be able to make out on the top of the label, it claims to be a single Highland malt.
Of course, there's no way to be sure but so far I've classified it as a so-called 'bastard malt'.
Remember, I bought this in 2001 so under the old rules I guess the name of a trademark may
not have been illegal. Of course, whether or not it's ethical is an entirely different question.
But I find it hard to believe that a large company like Invergordon would label a vatted malt
as a single malt, so I guess it's not a real 'fake', just something bordering on deception.
I may have to invent a new category for the 'Fake Alert' page for this one...
Ulf: For this gray zone, often up to debate, my standpoint is:
If a name, recognized as a distillery name, is reused and the product is declared as a single malt then 100% must stem from that
distillery else it ought to be classified as a 'fake', provided that the producer does not make a distinction between 'trade mark' and
'origin of production'. For me, definition on 'recognized as a distillery name' is whether a license to distil anytime in history have been granted under such a name or not. My tuppence...
Davin: I just received this question below from Gordon Homer about the 'Ardnave' Johannes mentioned.
'Quick question, have the MM's tasted the 12yo Ardnave, i've trawled the site and can't see it mentioned. The reason I ask is that
there is one on E-bay at the moment and i've pointed out that he's got it down as an Ardbeg and it's actually Bruichladdich! What
makes it worse is that he's a whisky retailer in the UK and he claims he was told it was an Ardbeg, he's changed the wording slightly
but still got it down as still possibly an Ardbeg. Just really wanting confirmation as I've got a bottle and mines definitely Bruichladdich !
In the meantime, I know Thomas tasted Ardnave a few weeks ago and thought it was a Bruichladdich. Johannes tasted it a few years
ago and was not sure what it was, but based on the flavour was convinced it was NOT from Ardbeg. A few years ago on Malts-L there was mention that Ardnave was from Bruichladdich. That's all I know so far; here's Gordon's question;
Johannes: Indeed, Davin, I did taste a 10yo Ardnave in January 2001.
It was one of the 'Malts of Distinction' from Invergordon, together with Ben Wyvis, Cairnluish and Glenfoyle.
However, all these were 10yo's. I've never seen a 12yo and I can't really imagine another bottler could come up with the very same
fantasy name on his own. Are you sure it's a 12yo?
Charlie: This is interesting. I just spoke to Richard Paterson (Master Blender, Invergordon/Whyte & Mackay).
The choice of names intrigues me. Richard believes they were all defunct distilleries, but Ardnave and Cairnluish do not appear in
Charles Grey's comprehensive list. Ben Wyvis and Glenfoyle were owned by Invergordon - you may remember that a bottling at 35YO
(?) of the former was done by the proprietor a couple of years ago, and a 1967 by Signatory in 2000. Much confusion was caused when the Tesco-Ben Wyvis was introduced. Anyone know anything more about these brands?
He confirms that these brands - Ardnave, Cairnluish, Ben Wyvis and Glenfoyle, and also Lochindaal - were introduced for Tesco as
own-labels around 2000. They were single malts, although the filling malt was not declared. It is likely that Ardnave and Lochindaal
were filled with Bruichladdich, since Whyte & Mackay owned the distillery at the time. Ardnave, and possibly some of the others, were
bottled at 10 and 12 years in very limited amounts. This brand also went abroad, but not the others. Lochindaal was quickly pulled, since someone else was using the brand name; the others are no longer bottled.
Dave
: To the best of my knowledge it was Bruichladdich (bottled by Invergordon/Whyte & Mackay).
Taste certainly confirmed this. It entirely possible however that the bottler may have changed it to Ardbeg.
Common practise in supermarket own-label brands!
Martine: Ardnave certainly refers to Ardnave Point at the very end of Loch Gruinart. A beautiful spot. I have always heard it is a Bruichladdich. Quite drinkable I thibnk (apart from artificial colour and chillfiltering).
Thomas
: I bought a bottle of Ardnave in early 2003 at 'my' local whisky store because it supposedly was a Bruichladdich and on sale
for about 20 EUR. The shop owner also told me it was bottled as Ardnave because Bruichladdich's new owners couldn't afford to buy
all old casks in stock when they took over the distillery in 2001 so other bottlers were able to buy some as well. The independent bottler wasn't allowed to use the Bruichladdich name, however, as often in similar cases.
As for the whisky, I had a 10yo, not a 12yo (as a matter of fact, I've never seen one, either).
The Ardnave was a nice pleasant malt, only lightly peated and a very good fit for a hot summer in 2003, when it got 'killed'. If that
was an Ardbeg I very well might have tried the very first expression of the new Kildalton. ;-) In other words: no way! It was very
much like the old Bruichladdich 10yo bottlings and not as briny as the new 46% version. If it had had a little more peat I might have taken it for a Black Bottle blend just as well.
Serge: I also have a Kincaple 10yo (Lowland) from the same series.
Not too bad but uninteresting. This series has been heavily pushed by a French distributor two years ago.
Ulf: Hello MMs, Today, March 1, 2005 is a big (whisky) day.
At a seminar held at Dalmahoy Hotel near Edinburgh the new (SWA) rules are presented.
I have the complete document in my hand and would like to cite a few items:
a) Scotch whisky can no longer be matured overseas on top of the mandatory three years on Scotch soil.
And if exported in bulk only glass and steel containers may be used.
This may kill firms (in Euroland) who make business out of added maturation ex-Scotland.
b) Categories; Two majors, Single or Blended.
For Single there will be two sub categories; Single Malts and Single Grain.
For Blended there will be three subcategories; Blended Malt, Blended Grain and Blended Scotch Whisky (Malt & Grain)
No more 'Pure', 'Vatted' or Malt with a romantic prefix or suffix. Which I find to be great.
c) Bottling MUST occur on Scotch soil; This will initially be limited to the category 'Single Malt Scotch Whisky' which should only be
permitted to be exported in bottle and not bulk. This may kill firms and whisky cooperatives (in Euroland) who bottle their own whisky ex-Scotland from bulk and links it to be a 'Scotch Whisky'. Not so anymore.
d) Traditional regional names; If a traditional region name appears on the label 100% must stem from the area.
Explicitly the SWA blocks the use of expression like 'Islay Cask Finish' (used for f.i. for Balvenie).
Existing trademarks like 'Highland Queen' excluded. 'Traditional names' are defined.
I assume this Islay cask Balvenie version will become a collectors item.
e) Distillery names; If a distillery name is used 100% must be distilled at that distillery. There will be some exceptions granted. Distillery name is defined as a name that has been carried by a Licensed Scotch Whisky Distillery, anytime.
f) The Scotch Whisky Order; Several new definitions are included, here are some:
- Batch distillation only in Pot Stills for Single Malt Scotch Whisky. (Up to now Patent Still have been permitted since their days of
invention. Last, to me known, producer who used Patent Stills for Single Malt Whisky was Strathmore in the end of the 1960's.)
- Cereal clarification for Single Malt Scotch Whisky.
(The text is now ...'from water and malted barley without the addition of any other cereals'...)
Dave: Thanks for this Ulf.
I was being made to wait until next week to see this. Glad to see that the SWA has such a high opinion of the press!
That said, I can't agree with you that all of these represent a new and clearer way of labelling. While they do address many of the
grey areas they singularly fail to solve the confusion over vatted malts. "Blended Malt"??? In my opinion rather than stopping any
confusion this will simply add to it. Consumers already struggle to understand what a blend is. Now the term is being applied to malts!
Why couldn't vatted malt be used? It has provenance, the industry uses it as a term, it is easily explained to the public and it differentiates between blended and malt whisky (rather than bringing them dangerously close to each other).
I've yet to meet anyone in the industry who thinks that the term 'blended malt' is a good idea.
Quite how the committee came to this decision is baffling.
Sorry, just re-read that sentence..
It was a committee decision..
That explains it all!
Slainte...
Lex: I agree Dave, 'blended malt' is causing more confusion than 'vatted malt'.
Also, as we now have a 'blended Scotch whisky' next to the 'blended malt' does that mean that a 'blended malt' can not be labelled as a Scotch whisky anymore? Or are we going to see 'blended malt Scotch whisky' next to 'blended Scotch whisky'.
Clear as mud .....
Charlie
: My thoughts entirely, Dave.
And I too was surprised to hear about the meeting at Dalmahoy... Vatted malts (and vatted grains, for that matter - pity the poor
consumer who now starts to look for these) stand between single malts/grains and blended Scotch, by style and price. They are in a
category of their own, although closer in style to single malts/grains. Why on earth not use the time-worn nomenclature 'vatted' to
distinguish them, explain it where required and let consumers get used to it? It is the old tactic of change for the sake of it - being seen to be doing something - methinks. But I don't think its that important, frankly.
Davin : Dave, Agree 100%. Vatted Malt is much more descriptive and is already widely known and used.
Ulf: Hello Dave, It was not my intention to evaluate, just report.
Concerning committee decisions; I assume we all know that a camel is a horse designed by committee...
Lawrence: I've always wondered if this renaming business is simply catering to the lowest common denominator.
A long time ago I found out about chill filtering from a little black and white label on the back of a Springbank bottle, being curious I
then followed up by reading a few books and then I understood. Conversly I read about vatted malts in a book and then saw one in a
store and I knew it was slightly different beast. I expect we have all had similar experiences, I guess my point is do we really need a
common set of names for a product or the current ones in use good enough? I'm leaning towards leaving things the way they are let people educate themselves, I found it to be fun.
Louis: Hello everybody, 1) The new terminology is no big deal to me. the term 'Vatted malt' was only known to the fairly small whisky enthusiast community. I
know that when I tried to explain the difference to friends, they became confused very quickly. Of course none of them actually knew the difference between malt and non-malt whisky, and probably forgot seconds after I explained it to them.
So then...
2) It is no secret that I am a big fan of Compass Box products.
A couple of thoughts about the new SWA terminology, and blending as practiced Compass Box Whisky.
Single malt means one distillery, all malt whisky.
Blended malt means More than one distillery, all malt whisky.
Blended scotch means multiple distilleries, malts and grain whisky.
Makes sense to me.
But what gets me is that many 'single malts' aren't that much different. The standard Bowmores that are made up of first fill bourbon
AND sherry casks, is the most glaring example. Also Balvenie 10, which is 10% sherry casks, the Ardbeg 17 which has all sorts of older
stuff mixed in. So what's the big deal. If the stuff tastes good, enjoy it. Those stuck on terminology can always buy Deanston 12.
Charlie: Lex, et al, Just returned from Whisky Live London. When I pressed for further explanation I was told that the term 'blend' was familiar in EC legislation, so the proposed changes would be
easily assimilated. I was later told privately that the members of the Working Group ('senior industry representatives' - from all the
leading companies) were vehemently against the term 'vatted' from the start, on the grounds that it would be 'difficult to sell and
would require further explanation'. I also discovered that this 'vehement opposition' had come from marketeers, not production people. This will come as no surprise to you...
Great to see Ulf, Serge and Olivier. An excellent dinner and chat. The day before (last Thursday) I attended the meeting of the SWA
where they explained their decision in regard to the matters cleverly leaked to us a week or so ago by Ulf, notably that vatted malt shall hereafter be called 'blended malt' - in order, inter alia, 'to prevent consumer confusion or deception'.
Lex: Good seeing you as well, Charlie!
And no, I'm not surprised this silly 'blended malt' idea comes from marketeers rather than actual whisky people.
I didn't meet ANYone at Whisky Live who thought these new definitions were a good idea. I can 'sort of'' see that the term 'vatted'
might not appeal to people as it sounds maybe a bit stale from a marketing point of view. So if they want to get rid of that word, ok, I
can live with that. So what to call a 'vatted malt' then? How about simply 'malt whisky', i.e. without the word single. Can't be simpler,
does exactly what it says on the tin: it's whisky distilled from malt. If it all comes from one distillery, you add the word 'single' to
denote it's a special malt whisky, i.e. from a single distillery. That would restore the word 'blended' to what it has meant for more than a century: a mixture of malt whisky and grain whisky. So tell me, where am I being naive or stupid?
Luc : Hi Alex, I couldn't put it any better. You're sooooo right !! Blended Malt will add even more confusion since people are familiar with what Blends are and now will become confused again by Blended Malt. Just my thoughts......
Ulf
: Charlie, the Albannach sojourn was a perfect interlude for a chain of amazing whisky encounters.
Thank you for wise words an encouragement. Glad my piece of information was to use for at least Dave Broom and yourself. Lex and
others; Regarding the outcome of the seminar I must admit that I do feel a bit victorious. Especially in the light that I, and I believe
other 'purists', who for the last 15 to 20 years or so have fought for the abolish of 'pure', 'vatted' and other 'creative' descriptors in
conjunction with non-single malts. Further, I can't see why a strict term as 'blended' may blur the mind of fellow whisky consumers. Perhaps I overestimate the constituency of whisky imbibers ability to rational reasoning?
Lex: Hi, Ulf and other maniacs,
Where I see the heart of the confusion is that the term 'blended' has different meanings for different types of whisky in the new
definitions whereas it used to have a very clear meaning (i.e. mixture of malt and grain). A 'blended Scotch' in the new definitions
means a mixture of malt and grain whiskies, a 'blended malt' means a mixture of malt whiskies from more than one distillery, a 'blended
grain' the same but now for grain whiskies. Of course it doesn't confuse any of us but to explain to the public what the word 'blended'
means is now a lot more complicated than it used to be. I have not heard anyone making the case for why making the word 'blended'
mean different things for different types of whisky has cleared up the confusion created by turning Cardhu from a single malt into a vatted malt (a term, incidentally, which I will keep using; SWA, sue me).
Davin : Maniacs, It was the marketing types who created the Cardhu fiasco in a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers thus allowing the marketers to sell a vatted product using the reputation of a supposedly superior product: single malt. After a long and hard-fought battle they finally acquiesced, but not happily, to the outcry from consumers like us who would not have been fooled anyway. These same marketing types now want to create new definitions that, speaking objectively, cannot help but bring new confusions to the average consumer. If 95% of the whisky sold is blended whisky, how convenient to be able to create a source of confusion between blends and the supposedly superior category: malts. In creative minds this confusion will give rise to all kinds of opportunities to falsely imply that a certain blended whisky, in the traditional sense, is malt whisky as there will be real 'blended' malts out there to confuse the issue. A cynic might see a deliberate vanguard of obfuscation preparing the way for future incursions by blends into malt markets. Someone less cynical might just view this as sour grapes by marketers who now realize they are not as smart as they thought they were.
Dave : I was also told that the Chivas representative on the committee argued against blended from the off..
Lex: Hi Dave, Well, I did not say all marketers would have the same motivation, nor, given the length of time it took the SWA to achieve even the slightest comprehension of the possibilities for confusion or misuse of terms in the Cardhu fiasco, would I suggest a collective intelligence sufficient to have long range thinking. Rather, I suspect like most bureacracies they have a need to do something - anything to justify their own existence. Certainly nothing I am aware of emanating from that office in recent years bears any resemblence to new value or a contribution to the industry. But then again, I know nothing more than the possibly minutia that makes its way into the press or on-line.
Craig: Hi Lex, Me too - I've never had a problem with vatted.
I find the term accurate and informative, neither of which I would apply or accord to "Pure".
Alexander: ...excellent point, Lex.
I agree that the ONE term which would be appropriate here would be malt whisky.
Let's stop making things more difficult. Let's apply some logic and call things by their name.
Serge
: Hi Davin, Maniacs,
So, which are the options for marketeers? For once, influence the offer more than the demand.
So, if the Far-eastern markets continue to boom, the best distilleries should have to change their products one way or the other - or
increase their prices heavily (Lagavulin?) Whether we like it or not, Macallan, for instance, prefers to sell 10 bottles of Fine Oak to
Asia rather than 3 bottles of sherry to Europe/US, and I'm not sure we can blame them for that. What they'll do when the boomerang comes back (Asian markets are more volatile than Western ones), I don't know.
Frankly, if the marketeers pushed the 'blended malt', I believe it was because a part of the market sort of said 'we don't want you to
use pure malt'. As for changing the brandname, don't dream, they will never change a name they've been advertising for years.
'Vatted'? Nobody knows what it means (remember the largest part of the market does NOT understand English - Spain, France, Asia
etc.) and even MS-word doesn't know that wording. So, what other option do they have? 'Mix'? 'Mixture'? 'Assembling'?...
Maybe I'm playing the devil's advocate here but I guess everybody's looking for the 'least worst' solution because there isn't any 'best'
one. I must say I prefer a nicely matured vatting, rather than a dodgy finishing, a poor single (but hey, it's a single!) or an immature
one. As for using the words 'blended malt', and as 'blend' usually equals lesser quality, we can't blame them for trying to make up
things, can we? That will make the 'Blended whiskies' and the 'Blended malts' look more the same than previously, but that will also
stop any confusion between 'single' and 'pure-vatted'. There will be some confusion, I'm sure, but that confusion will be at the lower end of the market, not at the higher one. Isn't that what all aficionados wanted?
That was Serge playing the devil's advocate from sunny Scotland (joking).
Right from Stirling in Scotland, a slightly different point of view - and not saying I'm right here...
Marketeers are used to have to sell products that are on almost endless supply. Like gin, vodka, blends, 'vatted' malts, and quite
often single malts... Yet, the demand grew larger than the offer regarding some very successful brands - oops, sorry Charlie,
distilleries. Lagavulin, Macallan, maybe Glenmorangie one day, or Ardbeg... This is especially true when considering the rise of the Far-eastern markets like Taiwan (I think +700% within just 2.5 years!!!) or China.
- Either dumbing down the products by changing the standards of quality (Macallan's option - yes maybe short term view)
- Selling the product at younger age (Ardbeg?)
- Multiply the versions while being able to do that within a short period of time, i.e. the various finishings (Glenmorangie) that also
allow them to sell some whisky that wouldn't really fit the main product's profile quality-wise.
- Simply change the main product itself while trying to maintain the quality and its profile, and that was the Cardhu option. I don't
know if all maniacs agree but the pure malt was a little better than the single. The problem is that it didn't fit the 'mystic' and many cried wolf.
Btw, my propositions:
- Blended Scotch Whisky
- Grain Scotch Whisky
- Malt Scotch Whisky
- Single Grain Scotch Whisky
- Single Malt Scotch Whisky
- Single Malt Scotch Whisky Blended With Wine (;-)))
- Single Cask Malt Scotch Whisky
Lex
: Exactly my proposal, Serge. Logical, simple, least likely to cause confusion.
Don't forget to add a category for blended Scotch mixed with coke (;o)!!
Klaus: Just found this on my peatmonster box:
I agree with Serge's categories. But what do you think about slaughtering the term "single malt".
'In Scotland, we call this a vatted malt. It's a term for an old style of whisky making that dates to the 19th century.
John Glaser.'
Most big OBs are vattings and we all know that a single distillery can produce malts with a wide range of flavours.
So the difference to vatted malts is not that large. Of course the term single malts will never disappear, because the marketing people will defend it do last drop of blood.
Lawrence
: It seems to me that if the marketers have their way all definitions will become bland and somewhat sterile.
What a pity as the various terms such as blended, vatted, single malt, double matured etc are the marketers tools and the various
distilleries and blends have used them effectively to differentiate their product from one another and win market share (as Charlie's
email pointed out). I firmly believe that no matter what terms are used there will always be confusion in the market place. The
industry should understand this and turn it to their advantage and educate the consumer instead of trying to re jig the terms used. As
I said before, how in the world did we ever figure all this out? Well we educated ourselves and when I first saw the word 'vatted' I leapt on it like a duck on June bug and found out what it meant.
Hurumph...
Davin
: Hi Serge, I sent that message knowing you are in marketing, and confident you would not see it as an attack on yourself or
your professional ethics, for it wasn't. Yes, I agree marketers have an important job to do and the vast majority who we hear of, do
it well. Hats off to you. My problem is with the SWA which seems devoted to tilting at windmills and fixing problems that don't exist.
I mean, really - publicly, they simply could not understand where the confusion might arise in the Cardhu fiasco, yet they were ready
to take legal action against a tiny Canadian maker of a sketchy whisky for using the name Glen - then they want to change the
definition of whisky to something less definitive - and now the rumour they want to define finish (I like Olivier's definition; it fits the
first thing that comes to the mind of an anglophone - [the end - i.e. termination]). I just can't follow their logic so was pleased when
someone suggested that some marketers may be pulling their strings. It's not a matter of right or wrong, but mere conjecture with
tongue firmly in cheek. I mean, how can I possibly, actually, know anything? I'm not in marketing and I'm not on any SWA mailing list.
Others among us are, or do one, the other, or both. I can only react to the image created by the info I do get given the filters it passes through on its way to me.
I find your points, as usual, thoughtful, enlightening and balanced, so thanks to you and Dave for enlightening me.
Now can anybody point out something useful the SWA has done recently?
<SNIP>
Johannes: Ah, well, maybe that's a topic for an entirely different discussion.... Sweet drams, Johannes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For now, I think it's safe to say that opinions are divided about the wisdom of the SWA's proposal.
As I understand it the rules wouldn't go into effect until 2007, so we'll have some more time to think about it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the topic came up again in the forseeable future...
E-pistle #13/14 - Vox Populi: 'Doing' 267 Years of Whisky in 4 Hours
Submitted on 20/03/2005 by Michel van Meersbergen, Holland
It's a cliché, I admit it, but every time I hear an Amercan saying that 'they're 'doing' Europe in two weeks' I can't help feeling sorry
about it. One the whole I have no problem with that, you want to see as much as possible and hey, time is limited. It's about that
annoying attitude: Paris you say? Yup, been there, done that... took us two days. London took us two days as well and now we're
doing Amsterdam, tomorrow we'll be in Brussels and the day after that it's off to Italy. And so on, and so on... How on earth can one state to have actually experienced an 'Old World' cultural center in a lousy 48 hours of time?
This was my opinion about fast consumer tourism in the late 20th and the early 21st century. What's the story? During the Whisky Fesival 2004 at Leiden Andries from Is it: Okay Andries, bring it on!
Three weeks later I received an email, the sugested tasting had become reality, the fourth of march would see a Springbank Millenium
tasting... Lex, a good friend and devotee of Springers considered the tasting for a few moments, one second to be precise, and
decided to come with me. After weeks of waiting, finally it was march the fouth. We couldn't help feeling excited like a little child and
due to the bad weather, freezing cold, snow and all, we decided to take no risk and left for Amsterdam by train in the early
afternoon. Without any trouble we arrived in Amsterdam some 20 minutes later... why are things always going smooth when you
expect the worst? Due to my 'avoid any risk I want to be there in time' we had to kill several hours before we could go to the Cadenhead shop. We decided to go for a drink and a meal at the Pulitzer Hotel not to far away from the shop.
As the restaurant was still closed we had to wait at the bar and there we had one of those classic moments... Well, the greatest collection on earth consisted of no more than 10 single malts...
We made our way thru heavy snowfall to the shop, where we were welcomed by Andries.
Finally we all sat down at the tables, a brief introduction from Andries and Eric from Cadenhead was followed by a welcome from Kate
Wright of Springbank. I was very happy to hear her telling more anecdotical stories about Springbank and Campletown that the
everyday PR b.s. Not that we had any time to listen to it, no sir, we had to sniff and taste and talk and make notes at a killing rate. The honours of being kickoff was: Springbank 12yo '175th Anniversary' (46%, OB, 2003) So far for adjusting the tastebuds... Let's waste no time and continue: Springbank 25yo Millenium Edition (46%, OB, refill sherry hogsheads)
Before I could finish my notes the next contender was up: Springbank 30yo Millenium Edition (46%, OB, fresh sherry). Just emptied my glass... when I was presented with: Springbank 35yo Millenium Edition (46%, OB, fresh and refill sherry).
After this beast it was time for a little snack and a smoke. I rushed outside into the freezing cold, man...
After a quick snack we continued: Springbank 40yo Millenium Edition (40,1%, OB, refill bourbon).
To be honest, I was still busy with the 40yo when I found the next in front of me: At this time Lex asked me what the hell I was sampling that moment.
And just when you tought it was safe to come out, Kate presented us a cask sample of: And it's not over yet! There was still the miniature set to be won, remember?
So, this was our night of Springbank Extravaganza.
I can't end this e-pistle without thanking Andries and Eric from the Michel van Meersbergen
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Since the 4th of march this year however this opinion finds no legimate reason anymore. Why? I had about four hours time to work my
way into 267 years of whisky making and due to that experience I assume to have actually experienced an 'Old World' cultural center.
Old because the youngest whisky on offering was 25 years of age and cultural because it came from the Springbank Distillery.
- Not My Style?,
- Better Than Sex?!,
- Not Worth The Money?
- Huh?! What Distillery Did You Just Mention?
- A True Classic?
'Hello sirs, can I get you something?' Yes you can, what whiskies do you have?
'Ha, we've got single malts, blends... eveything!' Great, do you have a list?
'There you are sirs...'
Wow! what to choose? They had the Springer 175th anniversary, we tought that would be the only logical choice to make this
evening. Well then, two Springbanks please! Okay sirs, fine choice, do you want ice in it? Excuse me? Well sirs, you have just chosen
the best single malt on this planet, and you want to have it without ice?? Ermm... Yes, just plain... ehmm... as it is please... Have it
your way then... there you are sirs. You might have guessed it, the Springer was poured it the worst possible tumbler you can think
of, I mean the humongus expression of a tumbler!! We had to check twice if it contained any liquid at all. Luckily for the barman a
waitress came in the bar telling us that our table was ready, so the bill of 31 euro's for two 'drams' didn't receive to many complaints
from our side. Well, as bad as the drinking was, so good was our dinner, which due to limted time consisted of only a main course. A
perfect Brill-filet, a very, very well balanced truffle sauce, black salsifies and some mashed potato's of near perfect consistancy. 10 out of 10 for the food but minus several millions for the drams... you can't have it all.
We had to wait for some other attenders so we had some time to check the shop for something special.
This was no problem as a corner of the shop was dedicated for older Springbank bottlings, Local Barley 1965 and 1966, 25yo and 30yo
parchment label, 12yo from the early '90's plus 25yo 'McHardy', 25yo, 30yo and 35yo Limited Editions, not to mention a Longrow 25yo. Cursed those prices!!! We decided to settle down for a more modest OB Macallan 18yo 1980 for 80 euro's.
Do we need additional information about this bottling? Right, here we go: colour: medium gold. nose: vanillapods, honey, briny. Behind
the vanilla there's quite some spicy and nutty wood. With time some peaty aroma's emerge. palate: a little simple, sweetish, some bitter malts and roasted red bellypeppers. finish: slightly bitter with pepery notes. Balanced and lightharted -
81 points
Next on the table: Springbank 25yo 'Frank McHardy' (46%, OB, 2000, refill sherry butts)
The 'Tripple F' as it's called at Springbank. Frank's F****** Forty. Scottish humor never accured to me as something funny. Anyway.
colour: Deep gold. nose: very sweet, almost like bourbonwood, granberries, cloves, cherrycompote, nectrar. The wood kicks in later,
coriander seed, marmelade, ashes and charcoal. Very nice! palate: bush honey, sweet but somewhat metallic, marmelade and grapefruit, lots of wood. finish: quite oily, spicy and peppery, again, lots of wood.
Very nice but the woody notes are just to much - 86 points
colour: amber with faint chesnut hue. nose: starts of with ammoniac and anis, muscat raisins, leans towards brandy, gets ashy, waxy,
some laether notes apear, chocolate. palate: very creamy, briny, raisins and salmiac. finish: oily and full bodied, very long, nice wood, eucalupthus, hints of coconuts. This is more like it! 89 points
colour: copper with chesnut hue. nose: lots of raisins, ammoniac, quite salty, morilles. Later some softer notes on sweet popcorn,
gentianroot. sulphur and lots of liquorice. palate: oxidized fruits as in marsalla wines, liquorice, coughbonbons and dried herbs. finish: again some marsalla notes, ferm wood and buckwheat honey. A little less bodied that its 25 yo brother -
88 points
colour: chesnut. nose: whoohoow, forgot to clean the cats litterbox? Lots of ammoniac, coalsmoke , muscat raisins, tabacco, hints of
sulphur, espresso, marmelade, sweet wood notes, rhum and madeira (as in oxtailsoup...) very impressive! palate: very seductive,
sweet, buckwheat honey, vanilla stems, rhum raisins. finish: a tad fatty, some dieseloil, pepper and green herbs (parsley).
Can I kick it? 93 points!
Why did I ever get addicted to nicotine... Anyway, I had the chance to exchance some thoughts with compagion addicts. All of us
tought the 35 yo was a beast, rightly so... All of us also tought the temperature of the samples was just too cold and due to the killing rate of sampling we just didn't have the time to warm things up a little.
Ahh, this is the ABV I feel suspicious about. The 'We Have To Bottle It Because Otherwise' dillema. colour: medium gold with grey
hues. nose: very spicy, a true whopper! Cinnamon, cloves, speculaas, spicy wood, dough, pineapple, bayleaves, mango, leather,
smokey. palate: bleached out, bitter, anis infused wood, ferny. finish: hints of honey and minerals. The previous sherry beast proofed to be a killer for this elegant and subtile expression. To bad, this night I'll give it 91 points.
Springbank 45yo Millenium Edition (40,1%, OB, refill bouron).
colour: deep gold. nose: leather, dadels, marmelade, liquorice, anis, fern, pepper and orange zest.
palate: sweetish liquorice, bayleaves, vanilla and almond nogat.
finish: light bodied, vanilla, bayleaves and waxy. Appears bleachd out.
Damn that dreadfull 35yo - 89 points
The 50yo I said. What?! he cried, I'm still busy with the 40yo! True decadence...
Springbank 50yo Millenium Edition (40,8%, OB, refill bourbon)
colour: medium gold with slightly green hues. nose: a redefinition of subtleness, vanilla and the finest thinkable cinnamon and other
dried spices. palate: the subtle vanille continues, some white peper and faint hints of coalsmoke, pine resin appears. finish: to bad it
looses on grip, hints of resin and salt. For a whisky this age the absence of wood was really surprising! Please keep the 35yo in mind when I give the 50yo 87 points ...
Longrow 5yo (+/- 60%, casksample, fresh bourbon). colour; pale straw. nose: lots of milkacid and sourish peat, very green indeed.
palate: very spirity, sweet malts and natural sugars. finish is somewhat dissapointing, hints of wet paper and the peat re-emerges. What to think of it, some new makes I tried were more approachable.
Let's see what the comming 5 years in the barrel will do... 65 points
With a healthy dose of envy I can tell you we brought it home that night, the set was in Lex' hands.
I hope someday we can taste that glorious 35yo and nose the wonderfull 40 and 50yo...
Was this enough to come up with an solid opinion about Springbank? My general rating for Springbank rocketed this evening and seems
to confirm the fact that older Springbank is the better Springbank. I will not make a judgement on the 'What Is This Springbank
Distilley Anyway' dillema, this tasting, however great, was not performed in the way I wanted to. Samples were too cold and comming
from just opened bottles fired at us at almost hilarious rate. Perhaps it would have been better to split the tasting into two evenings,
one before and one after the 35yo, the winner of the evening and litteraly taking no prisoners. For the ones who can't take 'maybe' for an answer: Springbank is great, when you are willing to pay the price!
E-pistle #13/15 - Ask an Anorak: Dumbed Down Malts?
Compiled on 30/03/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Shortly after Lawrence submitted his 'Dumbed Down Classic Malts' E-pistle the maniacs delved a little deeper into this prickly topic. Many maniacs have expressed many different viewpoints in the past, but I think most of it has been in the form of private discussions. Reason enough to ask some maniacs for their respective perspectives. Davin kicks things off with a comprehensive piece;
Davin: Dumbed-Down Malts - or Tuned-Up Palates?
It is not only the Classic Malts to which people's taste buds have become inured through repeated exposure. Laphroaig 10 has also
been the target of complaints about dumbing down. I recently had the good fortune to taste Laphroaig 10 from the 1970s 1980s,
1990s and a recent version. My verdict? NO difference when tasted HTH, but also no whack in the head like I got from my very first
sip some years ago. I published a glowing report of my first tasting of Laphroaig 10 somewhere; it's probably on Malt Madness. It
would be instructive to go back and see just how staggeringly good that first bottle was, then remind myself that I still really like
Laphroaig 10 but it no longer gives me that same exhilaration because I now know it well, and I've had better since then, but most
importantly, because my palate has grown since then. In fact, as my palate has developed I have come to like Laphroaig 15 better
than Laphroaig 10 because of its (Laphroaig 15's) subtleties. I couldn't taste those subtleties the first few years I was drinking malts.
The same with Lagavulin 16. I bought an old bottle minus one dram from a friend who couldn't stand it's smokiness and guess what? Indistinguishable from today's version.
No doubt there ARE batch differences, but I doubt there is the kind of directed drift in flavour profile that so many people do find, and
I did count myself among those people. I think the difference is that as our palates become more sophisticated with practice and with
exposure to a greater variety of malts the initial exhilarating kick we got from Lagavulin16 doesn't hold up in comparison to some new experiences and becomes less and less of a surprise (a pleasant one for sure) with each new exposure.
I talked to Nick Morgan on Islay last year about the changed profile of Talisker 10 and he told me the profile had changed temporarily
as they did not have sufficient top quality casks of 10yo at hand so were using older casks to produce the best product possible at
the time. He also told me the flavour profile would soon return to normal. I based my assessment of a changed flavour profile on a
head to head with the original Talisker 10 I discovered in 1998. I like it so much when I first tasted it I bought several cases of minis
which means I can do HTH tastings for quite some time. I have not compared the latest bottling to my original batch but will do so
eventually. Like many others, I did find last year's version sweeter than in the past, but I attributed that sweetness to increased
vanilla from the bourbon-wood. I also considered myself lucky to have found out I was actually drinking a 12yo (nearly 13 Nick said) Talisker from my 10yo bottle, because I missed Talisker 12 when it was the standard.
If you want to look at changes in flavour profile, Edradour 10 provides a good starting point. My first Edradour 10 was just a
wonderful malt and I couldn't understand what was wrong with me to like it so much when others were indifferent. I have had many
Edradour 10's since then and each has been different, but the differences do not all point in the same direction. It's not flavour profile
drift, but just random jumps in different directions. I was lucky; my first bottle was a good one so I was very pleased to see how well some other Edradours did in the Awards. I really would like to repeat my first experience.
So I am not convinced the flavours have been dumbed down, rather, I think we have slowly but surely 'dumbed-up' our palates. To
compensate for this, when tasting I almost always keep a bottle of Glenlivet 12yo at hand for comparison. I know it consistently
scores 75 points, has no extremes, and has not changed much over the recent past (although some older versions are MUCH better
than those of the past 8 or 10 years). If I didn't have a standard I think my scores would fall for subsequent tastings of some malts,
and I think my average scores would fall also as my palate continues to develop. This is also the reason I think some scores have fallen over time on the Matrix, and not because the malt has declined in flavour.
Unfortunately I find the latest batch of Glenlivet 12 to be different than before. I like it better because of a new vanilla ice cream
note so I have recalibrated to use it as my new standard. In a HTH tasting with the old version I gave the new 76 points versus 75
for the old version. I hope this is just batch variation and the next batch will revert back to my old standard. This brings up a side
issue: I don't think my palate is always ready to taste whisky objectively. Having a standard allows me to assess my readiness. I
know I am ready when I can smell linseed oil in my Glenlivet 12 and can get a nice (and very familiar) sherry/malt balance on my tongue. The lack of these markers was my first indication there was some variation with the newest release.
I know some among us are convinced that the marketers are dumbing down some malts to make them more accessible, but surely not Lagavulin 16 when the price has risen so much recently and they still can't seem to keep up with demand.
There is a predictable thread that emerges every few months on the whisky fora: Someone is dumbing down popular single malts to
make them more accessible to a broader audience. I have been participating in this debate for some years now and for the past few
years my position has been that the malts have not changed, but our palates have. I used to think Talisker 10 was the only whisky
I'd ever have to drink. It was pretty damn good when I first encountered it, and still is, but now I've tasted others in comparison to
which Talikser 10 pales. I think that too much exposure to a good thing dulls our senses and we look elsewhere to get our flavour kick. We all seek out new malt experiences rather than repeating the familiar.
Dave
: An elegant and eloquent response Davin and one which I concur with (mostly).
That said, there has been a slow steady drift - seen particularly in Speyside. The increase (and dominance) of American oak changed
profile, peating levels dropped, often as on-site maltings closed, worms were replaced with condensers but this has happened over 50
years! Some distillers would even argue that the phasing out of Golden Promise had an effect on mouthfeel. Certainly in recent years
(ie a decade ago) there does seem to be a convergence of style among many (but not all) 'filling' sites in the region, the result,
conceivably, of some firms ramping up production, cutting ferment times and running the stills fast. No names !! :-) As for caramel
sweetening things up/dumbing them down -- it doesn't. Over caramelisation makes the whisky bitter and not sweet. The only way to
compensate for this would be to do as some in Cognac do and add a bit of sugar as a dosage which, as we know would be illegal under the Scotch Whisky Act.
Familiarity breeds content and not, perhaps, wild excitement. A bit like marriage (or so Mrs Broom tells me).
As for drifting of distillery style. It does happen. Sometimes it happens dramatically (witness Dalwhinnie's flirtation with condensers,
which was quickly rectified) but most of the time it is because a blender has dictated that he wants X amount of one particular style
and that a certain distillery can provide it. This means it happens rarely with front line single malts. I recently tried a (very) old
Lagavulin 12 year old against the new 12yo cask strength. No dramatic change and certainly no drop in peat. That said, I thought
Laphroaig was showing an increased maltiness in recent years (and therefore there was less peat on show) but that could be
explained away by over-familiarity. Certainly the quarter cask shows it is back to its old style .. so if it did change it was a blip.
Davin
: Your kind words are most appreciated, Dave.
Yes, I agree there are batch differences, and, over time, drift as well; I just don't think this drift is directed to improve sales. Rather,
I think the drift just happens as other things change, as you say. For sure there are sudden and deliberate changes in the profile of
some malts. Look at the new Bruichladdich for example, but this is based on selection of mature casks by a different enterprise. Yes,
spirit caramel is bitter. I had tasted it many years ago and long before I got interested in malt whisky and I recognized it instantly as a dominant flavour in Loch Dhu.
Like you, I do taste more malt in Laphroaig 10 now, as I do in most of the peated malts I am familiar with. I think it is because my
palate has become more discerning and I am learning to taste behind the peat. The Ardbeg Kildalton is living proof of just how much
flavour (and maltiness) there is behind the peat of some of the great peat monsters. As I said, HTH, Laphroaig 10 from 3 decades tastes essentially the same to me.
Luca: Your point of view is understandable and it might also be right, Davin.
As a matter of fact, I recently received as a gift from a friend a bottle of Talisker 10yo.
It was an old bottle, from the early-mid '90s. He had it in the house (sealed) since then because he had been given it but he doesn't
drink whisky. Well, I can certainly say that this wonderful bottle is maltier, punchier, more peppery than any other Talisker I have
tasted in the past two years. No "golden memories" effect, as I tried this bottle last month... Of course this might be due, as you say,
to the forced choice of casks in recent vattings (as opposed to intentional dumbing), but the difference was striking. The "old" bottle
scored 5-6 points more than the new ones I have tasted. Let's wait and see if Talisker returns to its former self in a couple of years to confirm the theory of temporary batch variation....
Dave: Actually.. just struck me...
Last week I did a comparative tasting of Caol Ila 12, 18 and 24 for some retailers. Asked the guys to then tell me which was the
'peatiest'. The 12 scored fairly high up the scale, the 18 was much less so and the 24yo sat closer to the 12. Then did the same with
Talisker 10, 18 and 25 (refill) Virtually the same result. Was there less peat used at one stage in both of these whiskies' production?
No. What affected the perceived levels of peatiness (aroma tolerance levels as the boffins call it) was the activity and impact of the
oak used. Greater oak impact has the effect of suppressing the peat (especially on the nose) Both of the older examples were from
fairly exhausted casks, so the peat was once again the dominant factor. So, changing wood profile can be (wrongly) perceived as a change in distillery character. Who said whisky was simple?
Serge: Hi 'gain all,
On the other hand and like Dave, I can't see why the progressive replacement of sherry casks with bourbon wouldn't change the
malt's profiles - which doesn't mean dumbing down in all cases. Talisker might be a good example (change of profile but no dumbing down IMO), but Macallan just made another 'superb' demonstration, didn't they?
I had also though that the phenols contained in the whisky vanish with age, either in cask (like 35ppm in the malt, 15 in the new
make, 10 at 10yo, 5 at 25yo) or in the bottles (but then it's much slower). That's why if you taste for instance some very old bottles
of Laphroaig 10yo, the peat is replaced with tropical fruit and/or quince jelly. The same happens with Bowmore, except in the
ultra-air-tight bottles that have been sealed with plastic twist caps (the old dumpies). So, the fact that some very old Laphroaig 10yo
are as peaty as some from today's bottlings might indicate that the older ones were maybe much peatier when freshly bottled. Anyway, I like tropical fruits and I love quince jelly!
My two dinars (for a change).
Davin : Well the Laphroaig 10's that I tasted all came from the same collection and all had been sealed with wax when purchased. There was no detectable ullage and I feel confident the flavour was unchanged, barring any 'glass effect' as Robert Hicks suggested to us last year on Islay. Also no influence of the wax.
Klaus
: Davin's explanation that the palate gets more educated seems to be reasonable.
Although I am quite sure that there are batch variations. Talisker 10 has always been a mystery for me. I never could detect the
famous pepper. Maybe this is because my first encounter with Talisker was a total desaster. The stuff tasted like cheap Ballantines and when I sent a sample to UD they said, it was OK. In fact it was a catastrophy.
Johannes
: I think it's no secret that I still love the Talisker 10 - just a little less than I did in the 1990's.
Anyway, I have no doubts whatsoever about the fact that the profile of OB's does change over time, even though I know that my
nose isn't nearly as accurate or 'educated' as that of some of the other maniacs. That's because the opinion of my nose and tongue is
backed up by my brain that says that vattings of many individual casks can never be exactly the same as the previous batch. There
needs to be just one 'funky' cask in the vatting to make a significant impact on the profile. As details in production keep changing (notably the replacement of sherry casks with bourbon casks) the profile of an OB WILL change over time.
The points Davin and Dave made regarding 'tuned up palates' are very reasonable, but I have to say that a number of H2H's I've done
(some of them blind) showed significant changes in profile for some OB's (not just the classic malts) over time. Laphroaig 10yo,
Lagavulin 16yo and Talisker 10yo are just some of the malts that showed very different 'faces' when submitted to a H2H
confrontation. Serge makes a very interesting argument about dropping PPM's as well - if he's right a Port Ellen 10yo (43%, Scottish
Wildlife) from the early 1990's I tried in september 2004 must have been a beast when it was just released. Hey... And that might also explain why you won't find that many mega-peaty Port Ellens these days.
That being said, I don't think the marketeers 'dumbed down' the classic malts intentionally.
Lawrence suggests that the malts have changed because the tasting notes (probably written by those marketeers) have changed. I
don't think that's necessarily the case. The whole point of the 'classic malts' was to highlight the variety within single malts for
'beginners' and I think they have done a great job in bringing new customers to the market. If the goal is highlighting variety, there
would be little point in intentionally 'dumbing down' some of the most expressive bottlings in the range - especially at a time when
heavy, peaty malts are becoming ever more popular. So, I don't think any 'dumbing down' that occurred was intentional.
Still, I think the Lagavulin 16yo on the shelves today is
quite different from the one available a decade ago.
Anyway, I think nobody really can deny the fact that official bottlings do change over time.
The same goes for Talisker 10yo - and I think Davin can testify to that. Maaike brought a recent bottle to a tasting some time ago
and that was a particulary weak example. Of course, that's just my opinion - it could be that a more 'natural' dram would appeal more
to 'the wine brigade' within the maniacs. That would mean that their score for the bottling wouldn't drop significantly over time while
the maniacs with more 'nordic' palates might rate it much lower because some of the punch has disappeared. Interesting... I'll have a look at the matrix later on to check this hypothesis.
But maybe it's important to make a clear distinction between BATCH VARIATION (random, short term) and a TREND (significant, long
term). Maybe Edradour is a good example of a distillery that suffers from batch variation - as does Bowmore, in my experience.
Edradour's Andrew Symington has cleverly turned a disadvantage into a USP, but with Bowmore every purchase is still a gamble. But
then again, only single cask bottlings are immune to batch variation, so I suppose it's an issue for every major distillery. Trends, on
the other hand, only become apparent after a longer period of time. As crazy as it sound, maybe the +/- 1000 malts we have on the
matrix so far just isn't enough to make any solid claims about possible trends just yet. I imagine a clearer picture will become visible when we've tried some more consecutive batches of some of the major OB's.
Any more thoughts on this topic, maniacs?
Davin
: I think I tasted the Talisker Maaike brought to Johannes' and to me.
It was not like the sweet vanilla version on the market last summer, nor like the older 10yo from a couple of years ago. It was as smokey as an Islay - very smokey indeed and quite unTalisker-like.
Thomas
: Ever since I read Johannes' reports about the changing profile/quality of the Lagavulin 16yo on his Maltmadness website I
tried to get an "old" White Horse bottling because as with many others the Laga is/was one of my early favourites. I finally managed
to do just that when I bought a bottle supposedly from the early 90s a few months ago. Soon enough I opened this bottle and a
'new' one simultaneously to compare them both blindly. And I came to the same conclusion that Lawrence had described in a recent
mail: the older version was a little bit maltier, more complex, better rounded in a way. Not worlds apart, but it had that little edge that
set it apart from the newer 'Port Ellen' bottling. I tried the same trick with a few friends and they, too, preferred the White Horse in a blind test.
At that point I was convinced that Johannes' theory was right and went out to buy some more White Horse bottlings to be set for the
future. Then a few weeks ago Gerold Vincon ( who runs the very informative www.bruichladdich.info website, btw) told me about an
occurrence at one of his club tastings where one of the participants presented a new Lagavulin that was TOTALLY unenjoyable and downright horrible according to ALL club members trying it. Thank God I never had a Lagavulin that bad.
I cannot for the life of me imagine that Lagavulin/Diageo are purposely trying to change the profile of one of the most successful malts
in a way that it becomes a substandard whisky. Nor do I think that they changed the recipe/production process for whatever reasons. If that would be the case how could the 12yo cask strength bottlings of recent years be so excellent?
So have some of the classic malts been dumbed down? What does that mean anyway?
Anyway, maybe I should bring some blind samples of old and new Lagavulins with me to Islay.
Even though I detected differences in quality as described above I never had the feeling that it had less peat or smoke. That makes
me think that what we get today is rather the consequence of batch variations in a sometimes very bad way. Considering the relative
shortness in supply in recent years could it be that Lagavulin just used casks it would not have considered for single malts in former
times? Casks they would have sold for blending purposes or to independent bottlers? As far as I know production has been low in the
mid to late 80s and maybe they just tried to feed the demand no matter what. Here's hoping that the lower quality is just a temporary occurrence and they will be back to their former high standard soon.
Then we would know if our collective maniacal noses could detect differences after all. :-)
Luc
: Dear All, this is indeed true and is the case with most malts nowadays. This happens not with all brands, proof the new Glenfarclas 105 to be much better then previous versions.
I often complain to my friends whiskylovers that nowaydays you have to test/taste at least 30 malts to be able to find a single 90+
scoring malt (if you're lucky). If you let's say put 30 of the same malts in a row that were bottled late 70's, early 80's the difference
is soo huge. The percentage of 90+ malts will be simply much higher. What causes this ? I think personally that the casks/wood
being used in the past was of a better quality, the barley (offen still local barley) was much richer and distillers often used Golden
Promise in the past. The stills were often coalfired, making it harder to maintain a stable temperature, thus adding a certain
complexity in the distillation process. Also, the quality of the water must have been much better, the air, the warehouses that were
used, etc.... I don't really believe the "old bottle effect", which is still not proven, makes these malts complexer, richer, heavier. And
last and most certainly not least, they added to a standard 12yo malt much older casks. I've done tests over and over. Compared old
bottlings with newer editions and every time the old edition scores much better. Too bad that only the Italians have stocks left of
these old beauties and they know what treasuries they have...........and to know that these were just standard malts at the time, that you could buy for a few Lira's....... Here some of the results (done blind) :
Highland Park 12yo (40%, OB, 2004) - 83 points Ardbeg 10yo (46%, OB) - 83 points Bowmore 12yo (43%, OB, circa 2000) - 75 points
Macallan 10yo 'Cask Strength' (58.8%, OB) - 89 points Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, 2002) - 88 points I rest my case...
Quality is going downhill as the big brands and distilleries have a hard time to keep up with demand. How could anyone foreseen let's
say + 16 years ago that the maltwhisky consumption would boom in recent years. I'm convinced, although there is no actually proof,
that the current classic malts and others too are in fact being dumbed down, no matter what it means. I strongly believe that older
versions of f.e. Lagavulin 16yo contained a portion of casks much older then 16yo simply to add complexity to the whisky, which is
nowaydays no longer done. Lagavulin 16yo is nowadays just 16yo old, not a minute older. Just my guess !!
The new 105 contains a bigger portion of sherry casks and the average age of the new 105 is 10 years compared with the old 105
that contained lesser sherry casks and with an average of only 8 years old. So not all distilleries dumb their malts down. The new
105 casks and composition was personally selected by George Grant himself and a first demonstration that the new generation whiskymakers might move back to quality rather then quantity. So George, keep up this good work !!
Highland Park 12yo (40%, OB for Belgium/Luxemburg, bottled 1992) - 88 points
Highland Park 12yo (43%, OB, Ferraretto Milano, bottled 1979) - 96 points
Ardbeg 10yo (40%, OB, clear bottle code SC 803, black label, 75cl) - 95 points
Bowmore 7yo (43%, OB, 1960's, Sherriff/Cogis Milano) - 97 points
Macallan 10yo (57%,OB, 75cl, imported Giovinetti & Figli Milano) - 94 points
Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, 75cl) - 91 points
Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, 75cl, circa 1987) - 92 points
Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, 75cl, Islay Malt White label, late 70's) - 97 points
Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, Bonfanti import) - 96 points
Dave
: Hi Luc. Quality IS going downhill? In new make? Remember we are currently tasting what was laid down 12, 14, 16+ years ago.
While I can see the argument that the attempt to keep up with increased demand might persuade/have persuaded some distillers to
cut ferments, rush distillation and thereby change the character, the argument that big = branded = low quality is over simplistic.
Some distillers did this. Most soon changed back. Neither does quantity automatically mean a lessening of quality.
The idea that Lagavulin 16 once had older casks in the mix makes sense and could be true .. it could still be true. A shift in the mix:
less 'sherry' casks, a different vatting of ages doesn't mean the whisky has been 'dumbed down!' [ie is less peaty, which is what this
discussion seems to be about] My opinion from regular tastings of Lagavulin? The flavour profile has not changed.
I'm glad that the 105 is back on form .. though surely the fact that you feel that it went through a difficult period means, in your
terms it was 'dumbed down'? The last thing you want in a whisky -- any whisky - is variability. Consumers, be they maniacs or the
occasional drinker, want the reassurance of the same flavour every time they crack a bottle. I'd argue that this is as important for big brands as small -- in fact, it could be even more important for the former.
I'm also glad you have to taste 30 malts to find a 90! We maniacs should be hard markers.
As for the difference between decades. I too have noticed a shift -- especially in Speyside. The wood, strangely, was probably of a
poorer quality in the past, (or at least more variable) though this might well have had the effect of allowing the distillery's character
to show through more effectively. The 'vanilla/butter/cream/coconut/pine' notes which now appear in a huge number of malts actually points to more high quality first fill American oak being used, but could mask the character.
As for local barley -- again, sorry but the industry tended to use more English barley in the 70s and early 80s than Scottish, though I
do agree that GP appears to give a subtly different mouthfeel. Coal-fired stills certainly did give "a certain complexity" though 90+%
of distillers I've talked to equate that "complexity" with variability and inconsistency, both of which are the enemies of any whisky
maker be they big or small. Water is water is water. Yes, things have changed, yes there has been a shift. Is quality poorer now than
20 years ago? In balance, I don't think so. Some malts have improved, some have undoubtedly gone the other way. The shift in flavour (where it exists) has also to be balanced against the fact that we maniacs are not only familiar with these
products but that we are becoming grumpy old men. Things never are as good as they used to be, are they? Slainthe! Dave ... and as for the Italians having stocks.. they sure do ..
The more you taste, the more experienced you become. You can draw on a richer database of information in your head, your
increased knowledge and familiarity with whisky inevitably means that you become harder to please -- the same heavily sherried malt
you loved when you started out might now be over-wooded, the fresh, vibrant malty dram might now simply seem one-dimensional. The more you taste, the more critical and analytical you become..
This goes for whisky, wine, food, music etc.
Go on .. admit it!
Amazing how many remarkable old whiskies are discovered in that country, isn't it?? :-)
Luc
: Hi Dave, Point taken. I'm not trying to lay down a simple or simplistic argument here. And I don't agree with you on your point:
"As for the difference between decades. I too have noticed a shift -- especially in Speyside". I have noticed the same shift in Campbeltown, Islay, Skye, Orkney, etc..... I have done tests (blind) with Springbank,
Laphroaig, Highland Park, Clynelish, Aberlour, etc..... and the old versions were almost always complexer, richer, heavier. Simply better ! And Dave, I don't consider myself yet a grumpy old man..........;-)) I like this discussion very much....... Regards, Luc
I just notice that the richness and complexity of quite some whiskies from the past (cfr my testing results) is very significant. And I'm
not the only one that has noticed this remarkable difference. Although I'm not sure but my guess is that the amount of older
whiskycasks in a standard 12yo whisky from the late 70's early 80's was significant. The Springbank 12yo 100° Proof (old edition),
one of the most remarkable examples of all time, although a standard 12yo is one of the richest, most complex Springbank's ever to
reach the marketplace. Where does this come from. Simple, because they diluted the 12yo to 100° Proof not with water, but with
old whisky casks, hence the difference. Which distiller does this nowaydays ? Nobody !! The newly released 32yo old Springbank OB,
a complex whisky indeed, can not reach yet the richness and complexity of that 12yo 100 ° Proof, and the former costed only.......60 EUR or so at the time of release........
As far as the Italian stocks are concerned, I buy them for drinking, and if my drinking bottles of Laphroaig 10yo Bonfanti, Macallan
1947 Rinaldi, Bowmore Sherriff's 7yo, Glenfarclas Giacconne are fake, my goodness, there must be some Italians out there that poors fucking great whisky in these bottles.
Dave
: Luc, at the end of the 'dumbing down' E-pistle you wrote: 'And I don't agree with you on your point : "As for the difference
between decades. I too have noticed a shift -- especially in Speyside". I have noticed the same shift in Campbeltown, Islay, Skye,
Orkney, etc..... I have done tests (blind) with Springbank, Laphroaig, Highland Park, Clynelish, Aberlour, etc..... and the old versions were almost always complexer, richer, heavier. Simply better !'
'especially' is the important word! I accept there has been a shift and agree that it has been a dramatic one in some cases. Mostly
this is down to a shift in distillation practise, but I take the point that if a malt suddenly becomes a popular 'brand' then the distillery
might not be able to over-age some of the components. If what you say about the Springbank method of dilution is true it would
explain partly why the distillery has been faced with stock problems in recent years. I still wouldn't call the cessation of this approach
dumbing down (not that you have) .. rather it is having a sound commercial attitude. If the 12yo has suffered as a result then, sadly, so be it. Come to think of it, isn't this all to do with malt's increasing popularity? As for considering oneself 'a grumpy old man'... It's a state of mind.
If so, in some ways it's our fault. Damn!!
Maybe it comes to we Scots earlier than others. I enjoy it!
Luc: Dave, concerning
"If so, in some ways it's our fault. Damn!!" - YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ; OUR FAULT
And one day I will turn into an old whisky-enjoying-grumpy-old-glenfarclas-geek ;-)))
Serge
: Hi all, Where I agree with Dave, is that 'dumbing down' isn't a proper wording. Not a belief, a fact! And again, blind!
Dumbing down sort of means it's been done intentionally, to fool the consumers, and I'm sure that hasn't ben the case.
Well, not always... I'd rather use the words 'change of profile', or even 'matching up with the demand'. As for old bottles (20yo +), I
just think we can't really compare them to new ones to track down a 'dumbing down'. A Laphroaig 10yo for Bonfanti (1970's) against a
contemporary Laphroaig 10y? I guess they bottle 20 or 50 times more Laphroaig 10yo than 30 years ago with rather similar ressources
- at least!!! But I agree with Luc, the old ones were simply better - all (really, all) tasting sessions we do with old versions (bottled at
least 10 years ago, if not 20 , 30 or 40) against new versions (and blind, at that) lead to the same results. The old ones win.
Davin: Hmmm... Not a fact, a perception. BUT, I think you and I agree on the main points.
Also, remember that 95% of the malt whisky produced goes to blending, meaning there could be a very large selection of casks to
choose from should sales of singles increase. To my knowledge blenders buy by flavour profile, not distillery name so substiutions of a
less popular filling could cover increased sales of another. Also remember many companies make malts we never see in the market -
such as non-peated Caol Ila or Macallan fine oak. Obviously they've been making that for at least 30 years and we just found out
about it, so there are lots of reserves, alternative malts and tricks of the trade we will never know of. Just because sales increase
does not mean supplies will decrease. As to purposeful changes - look to Bruichladdich, as to accidental changes look to Jura 10yo when they changed yeasts (according to Willy Tate).
There are just to many uncontrollable variables to make really factual comparisons.
Serge, you have mentioned that old Laphroaigs change in the bottle unless the seal is perfect.
I do like older bottlings more, but I think that is just because they are older and not because the are better.
However, I did try 3 old and one new Laphroaig 10 and frankly the differences were not significant - certainly not enough to suggest
dumbing down. All were maltier than the first dram I remember. The 3 old ones all came from a collection and had been sealed with
wax when purchased so I think it's a fairer test than most, but really not perfect. Yes there are changes between batches of all kinds
of different malts, in fact many bottles change from the first dram to the last. I think we just can't say for sure because we don't
know what may have happened to those bottles in the 10, 20 or 30 years they have been sitting on a shelf or in someone's window.
There HAS been change and continues to be, BUT it is not a plot to make the whisky more accessible therefore no dumbing down. I
still stand by my tuned-up palate theory as accounting for most of the so called changes that lead people to post angry notes on various fora about the malts getting weaker or more accessible or whatever as the result of some conspiracy.
Louis
: Hello All, Another possibility is the casks used to age the stuff currently being bottled. Sounds good, but... The whisky intended to be bottled 12-16 later was matured in first or second fill casks.
Lets assume that 12 or 14 or 16 years ago, the distillery expected to bottle X bottles around now.
But demand has increased over time, so X+N bottles are needed. But how do you increase supply retroactively?
Keep in mind that the output of the majority of distilleries goes for blending, and much of it for NAS blends.
So there's the answer.
The NAS stuff? Good question. 3rd fill, 4th, 11th. This may not have even been intentional, I read somewhere recently that 'wood management' is now an important function at any distillery nowadays.
That's my two cents worth.
Mark
: Agreeing here with Dave and Serge that "dumbing down" is not proper verbage.
I am coming around to thinking of changes as "features of the release". Laggie 16's place (and other malts) in the hearts of maniacs
worldwide has led others to the dram. They led yet others. Pretty soon there was hardly any left. Producers/craftsmen/noses did their
best to keep the products the same, but it is not as easy with single malts as it is with the blends (old usage here). How could we
expect a single malt *not* to change with time? Hopefully there will be more good changes than bad, since I think it is inevitible.
Davin: Hi Mark, Hmmm again... Features of the release. I remember from reading some of his notes that Mike Padlipsky and some of
those guys used to refer to different batches as "Instantiations" or some similar word. They believed each batch was different, but did not suggest any trends, just "features of the release". That was a decade or more ago.
I've been drinking malts only about 7 years. That seems like a long time, and I have been really quite dedicated and studious about it,
but frankly I don't think that is long enough to really say I am enough of an expert to make grand sweeping statements and not live to
regret them (like I may this one). I think my understanding is still quite sophomoric. You know. That's second year university when you
think you know everything because you still hang around with your friends from high school and you are now so much smarter than
they are and you still haven't learned enough to know how much you don't know. I think this is what makes me nervous about drawing solid conclusions from what is really just anecdotal evidence.
The old saying, and I'm sure it has already occurred to you as you read this, is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Frankly I
don't want to look back on my contributions to this discussion as springing from my "instant expert" days, but I really have struggled
with this dumbing down thing and I think the tuned-up palate theory is much more plausible. It is just absolutely predictable when a
new name shows up on a whisky forum, that they start off complimenting everyone else on how wise they are. Later they start to
drop little tid-bits of inside information to let even newer newbies know how smart they are, then after a while they buy their second
bottle of something and start wondering why it doesn't taste as good as the first bottle and assume someone is tricking them.
My whisky palate learning curve has been quite Sigmoidal - a long gentle stretch at the beginning where I learned very rapidly followed
by an ever-steepening incline where learning is deeper than wide. I'm hoping for another flat stretch when I have a few more years
under my belt. But to me it is a good sign that I can really begin to appreciate an unpeated and unsherried malt. I used to need those flavours as crutches to convince myself I could understand such whiskies.
Does it sound like I'm full of crap (or myself)? I hope that is not how I am coming across.
At least Dave can take solace from my remarks knowing there's someone even grumpier than him out here...
Mark: Haven't read Padlipsky, though I am aware of him.
Davin, my "features of the release" phrase is in daily use here in software central.
Kind of an inside joke; since bugs are so prevalent they are called "features of the release".
You certainly don't come across as a sophomoric grump to me ;-)
Johannes: Interesting stuff, maniacs. It would seem that opinions so far are more or less divided 50/50 on the issue. And as luck
would have it, Luca has just submitted a tasting report about those classic malts. I'll cut off the discussion at this point but I wouldn't be surprised if we picked it up again somewhere in MM#14. Meanwhile, for your enjoyment and education, here's Luca's report on a recent tasting session with all six 'classic malts'; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #13/16 - Common Does Not Mean Bad
Submitted on 31/03/2005 by