E-pistle #14/10 - Musings about the 'Original Question' - Part II (Ireland)
Submitted on 12/04/2005 by Lex Kraaijeveld, England
Ireland is a very fertile breeding ground for early claims of distillation and distilled spirits. But before I go on, let me pour myself a dram. The Irish whiskey I've picked to lubricate my musings in this E-pistle is a
12yo peated Cooley, distilled in 1991 and bottled in 2003 by the Celtic Whisky Compagnie under their new 'Spirit Safe' label. The Celtic Whisky Compagnie, incidentally, <plug> is working hard at the moment building Glann ar Mor, its own
distillery in Brittany. </plug>
If the course of history could be decided by a democratic vote in the present, Ireland would be the winner by a mile.
The oldest claims stating that Ireland knew of distilled alcohol long before the rest of the
world centre on Irish monks from the 5th century onwards who encountered distillation on
their travels in Europe and brought this knowledge back to Ireland. Especially St Patrick
often gets credited for this. Allegedly, the monks used the distilled spirit not for drinking,
but for rubbing on the stiff joints of their mules. Needless to say, no one has ever
produced a single scrap of evidence to back up any of these myths .....
Nose of this 12yo Cooley has very soft peat, with some fruitiness breaking through;
dried plums?? There are the faintest touches of vanilla and wood.
Back to history and to the most stubborn story about an early form of whisky distilled in
From Henry II onwards, the claims for early drinking of spirits in Ireland come thick and fast: - In 1276, Sir Robert Savage allowed each of his soldiers "a mighty draught of aqua vitae" before going into battle.
- In 1316, a famine was caused by the Scots soldiers under Edward Bruce having surfeited themselves "with flesh and aqua vitae Lent long"
- In 1350, a knight called Savage, before going into battle, gave each of his soldiers "a mighty draught of aqua vitae". (This can't be
the same Savage 74 years later. Is serving mighty draughts of aqua vitae a family trait or is someone getting his dates mixed up?)
- In 1405, according to the 'Annals of Connaught', Risderd MagRagnaill "entered into rest after drinking water of life to excess; it was
deathly water to him". A very similar story occurs in the 'Annals of Loch Ce': Richard MacRaghnaill 'departed this life after drinking
water of life to excess; and it was water of death to Richard.' The 'Annals of Clonmacnoise' mention that in 1405 Richard Magranell
"died at Chrismas by taking a surfeit of aqua vitae". Finally, the 'Annals of the Four Masters' for that same year only mention that Richard MacRannall "died of a surfeit of drinking".
Ireland. According to a large amount of whisky books, the soldiers of Henry II invading
Ireland in the early 1170s, encountered widespread distilleries making usquebaugh. Two
problems with this claim. First of all, again, no one has ever produced any evidence for it.
The second problem is in timing. As we have seen in part 1
of this series of musings, the
earliest solid European record of distilled alcohol is in a very obscure alchemical text dating
from the early 12th century. How likely is it that in those days alcohol distillation would have been
transformed from being obscure alchemical knowledge to a 'widespread' recreational drug within a few decades?
Extremely unlikely, if you ask me ..... Unless, of course, Ireland acquired the knowledge of distilled alcohol independently from the rest of Europe; as we shall see later, there is not the slightest shred of evidence for this.
A soft whiskey, this peated Cooley.
The fruitiness from the nose gives way to more peat.
Some vanilla remains on the palate.
The problem with the 13th and 14th century claims is that there is no contemporary So this only proves that aqua vitae and distillation were known to Campion in the 16th Of course, absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence. But there is such a large amount of this 'absence' that it does
strongly point to distilled spirits not being known in Ireland long before they were known in continental Europe. For instance, the
Vikings raided Irish monasteries from the end of the 8th century onwards. If Irish monks were making this 'magic water', you might
expect the Vikings to make a mention of it or even try and make the stuff themselves. I got in touch with Else Roesdahl, a Viking
expert at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. She told me there are no records in early Scandinavian literature and no archaeological
finds to suggest the Vikings knew of distillation. I also got in touch with Dáibhí Ó Cróinín at University College Galway, a leading
authority on the early history of Ireland. According to him, there is a bewildering array of documentary and material evidence for the
history of Ireland from the 5th century down to the close of the 12th. I specifically asked him whether he was aware of any record of
distilling alcohol in Ireland during that period. The answer was a very clear and simple 'no, nothing whatsoever'.
evidence, and the stories were often written hundreds of years later. The Henry II story
does not appear to be older than 1838 when it appears in Morewood's book 'A Philosophical
and Statistical History of the Inventions and Customs of Ancient and Modern Nations in the
Manufacture of Inebriating Liquors' and I have not been able to track the other claims
further back than Campion's 'History of Ireland'
, published in 1571.
century, not that Savage knew about it in the 13th. With regard to the various 'Annals',
it is not clear how long after 1405 the particular entries for 1405 were written.
But if we assume for now that the 'Annals' are at least near-contemporary, the earliest
record of someone drinking a distilled spirit in Ireland dates from the early 15th century.
Was it an early form of whisky? Impossible to say, 'aqua vitae turned aqua mortis' could
have been distilled from wine as well as from beer or ale.
Typical 'Connemara pattern' in that the fruit/peat balance shifts towards more peat between nose and palate.
Less peaty than Connemara 12yo, though.
So what really is the earliest solid record of distilling an alcoholic spirit in Ireland?
This appears to be the 'Red book of Ossory', thought to date from the 14th, or possibly even 13th century.
It contains the following quote:
'Simple aqua vitae is to be made in the following manner: take choice one year old wine, and rather of a red than of a thick sort, strong and not sweet, and place it in a pot, closing the mouth well with a clepsydra made of wood, and having a linen cloth rolled round it; out of which pot there is to issue a cavalis leading to another vessel having a worm. This latter vessel is to be kept filled with cold water, frequently renewed when it grows warm and the water foams through the cavalis. The pot with the wine having been placed previously on the fire, distil it with a slow fire until you have from it one half of the quantity of wine that you put in.'
The description itself and the timing fit with what is known about distillation of alcohol in continental Europe.
But we were looking for the ancestor of whisky, so for the earliest record of a grain-based spirit.
There is an explicit mention of cooling the vapour, which is absent from the earlier 12th century descriptions, so this neatly matches
the technique having become more sophisticated between the 12th and the 14th century. Distillation not being known in Ireland
before the 13th/14th century is backed up by archaeology. The remains of several 'worms' which have been found in bogs in Ireland; none of them has been dated to before the 14th century.
For that we must wait until 1556, when an Act of Parliament talks about
Drying finish, in the typical Connemara fashion. Some woody notes coming to the fore.
Sometime between when the 'Red Book of Ossory' was written and halfway the 16th century did someone in Ireland switch from using wine to using beer or ale for distilling alcohol. But we won't know when exactly unless a so far unknown text emerges that pins down the moment of this switch a bit more accurate. While we're waiting for that to happen, let's move on to Scotland!
Lex Kraaijeveld
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #14/11 - Ask an Anorak: FWP - Part I
Compiled on 15/04/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Lawrence - I'm not sure if this subjest has been covered before but does anybody have any experience of heavily
perfumed OB Bowmores? I've experienced it in nearly all the expressions from the 12 year through the 17 and in a number of finishes and it seems to have reared its ugly head in the last few years. The current OB 25 year old seems
to be immune to the 'perfume effect'. The 'perfume' seems to increase with exposure to air however I did notice it in a newly opened bottle of Dawn but it dissipated after 15 minutes. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Ulf
- The explanation of the FWP (French Whore Perfume) and as I have heard it, is following:
To break the surface tension in pot stills and by that minimize the risk to 'boiling over' a small amount of soap, yes
soap, is added to the fluid, a common trick of the trade. The story goes that some cheapskate at Bowmore got a bargain when buying soap not realizing it was PERFUMED and not neutral soap he acquired... My two pence...
Luca
- Well, in my short maltmaniac "career" I tried only three Bowmores.
The 12 (slightly perfumy but not in an artificial way so I rule out the possibility of FWP), the Cask Strength
(no perfume at all, quite good too), the Mariner (no perfume, and very good, but I tasted it only once in a
restaurant near Reggio Emilia, from a freshly opened bottle). I plan to buy a 17 and a 8 (what in other
markets is called Legend) soon, so I will be able to report. Should I also buy the 15, or if I have tried
the 12 and 17 I don't need the 15 too?
Luc
- Hi all, also trying to find out why some Bowmore's have this FWP and some others haven't.
I noticed that even Bowmore's from the same year but from different casks can have the FWP while others don't.
Even when the distillation dates are close to each other, some have this FWP, others don't. Unfortunately I have not yet been able to
find me a Bowmore distilled on the same date but from different casks. Currently I have built up a lot of samples from different
vintages (only single casks) to try to establish some kind of test to see which vintages are effected and which aren't. Once I have
one or more samples from each vintages from 1965 until let's say 2000 I will run a test. I currently have been able to get these
vintages (only single casks): 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1982, 1984, 1989. So any help on this would be
highly appreciated, so that I can run a Vintage test to see which Vintages have this FWP effect and which haven't.
So feel free to add samples to my test....
Johannes - Sorry, I can't help you out with Bowmore samples.
In my experience, batch variation is very strong in Bowmore so I haven't 'gambled' by buying a bottle in a long time. I've found the
'FWP' in different batches of different official expressions (notably a 'Darkest' and a 17yo) but never in the cask strength. Some older
and independent bottlings had something faintly perfumy as well, but not quite as much as in these fairly recent OB's, where it was
married with a 'burnt caramel' bitterness that didn't agree with me at all. In fact, the experience for me was quite close to that with a 'vomity' Edradour produced shortly before the take-over.
Thomas
- Hi all, I agree with Johannes. Batch variation seems to be big with Bowmore.
One more note: usually I didn't find the FWP that offending in the nose but more so in the finish.
What does that tell you about quality control at that distillery? Do they even care? I looked up my list: so far I have scored 17
Bowmores, ranging from 86 to 71 points. Basically all the low-scoring Bowmores had that dreaded FWP. The best ones? Bowmore 13yo
1989/2002 (46%, Signatory Un-Chillfiltered Collection, Matured in Hogshead) and a Bowmore 13yo 1990/2004 (56,4%, "Lost and
Found" Single cask bottling for "Art of Whisky"). Both bourbon casks, no sherry influence. Is that a hint? Is FWP only caused by sherry
casks? As for the original bottlings I've had good ones and bad ones w.r.t. FWP. So far I've always been lucky with the 12yo. A light
flowery touch, but not in an artificial perfumey way (same experience as Luc in that regard), the 17yo and even the dreaded Darkest
were o.k., but others like the Dawn (don't add water if you hate dissolved gummi bears!) and even the Sea Dragon had it badly. According from what I've read, many had it just the other way round. Makes me scratch my head again..
And then it stays with you and stays... yuk!!
Davin
- Johannes, et. al.
The cask strength they served at the distillery last year was loaded with FWP as was a 17yo.
On the other hand, the 12yo was fine. At home I have it in a Cask Strength as well.
After 6 months open it disappeared from a Darkest that had been really foul when first opened.
Johannes
- Well, there's 'batch variation' for you - thus neatly proving a former point I made ;-)
Of course, that could be the topic for an entirely new discussion - perhaps we should focus on the FWP for now.
Batch variation is very difficult to establish and even harder to define, especially when you're not doing a head-to-head tasting.
Obviously, if we really want to get to the bottom of the batch variation phenomenon we'll first have to determine whether or not it is
caused by variations in raw materials and production processes or if it's indeed simply a matter of 'quality control' like Thomas suggests. Either way, it would require sampling dozens of expressions for anybody to make any 'definitive' claims.
Luc - I have currently scored 43 Bowmores, scoring between 45 and 97, yes, the Bowmore 7yo (43%, OB, 1960's, Sherriff/Cogis Milano) points. The worst vintages on my list are from 1984, the Bowmore 1984/2000 (45%, Samaroli, fino sherry puncheon) scoring only 45 and the Bowmore 1984 (58,8%, OB) scoring only 63, both had that awful taste FWP and finish, even some rotten eggs in there. I recently also tasted two new SMWS casks from 1992. One was very good (Bowmore 11yo 1992/2004 (61,2%, SMWS 3.92), no FWP and the other from a Refill Port Pipe (Bowmore 11yo 1992/2004 (59,7%, SMWS 3.96, Refill Port Pipe) was awful. Not the FWP but a very bizarre nose and pretty disgusting taste of rubber. So indeed, batch variations are very big with Bowmore, althoug I think in this case the cask was to blame. But I can already conclude that the average score from all Bowmore's from the sixties are very good. Of course for me, that is if you like fruity, even ripe passion fruit, whisky.
Charlie
- I agree with you about the horrid SMWS port-wood finished Bowmore, Luc!
Is anyone in touch with St. Jim McEwan? Would anyone dare to ask him about the use of soap at Bowmore during his time there? You
now how distillers go all funny if the subject is raised! The only place I have seen it being used was Balvenie, about ten years ago.
Interestingly - I think I have said this before - the only other malt in which I have detected FWP is Glen Garrioch, also owned by Morrison Bowmore. Anyone else found this?
Dave - I too get it in Glen Garioch and at the same levels, which makes me wonder if the problem was less to do with an accident with perfumed soap and more to do with a switch in the company's distillation policy. Unlikely that the same 'mistake' was made at both sites at the same time! (what about Auchentoshan? perhaps the triple distillation simply omitted the offensive aromatic) It couldn't be yeast ... could it?!! Recent tastings suggest that it was a batch problem and that the issue has been resolved. The 12yo Bowmore is clear (as are new, young GGs) but I am now getting it on older examples. As for variations between bottlings, two possible solutions.. Certain types of cask mask the aroma more effectively than others or, quite simply, the vatting of each batch used less (or more) perfumed stock. I'll ask my friends at Suntory what their take is on the matter and get back to you. For those interested in the use of soap in distilleries, if you happen to be at Fettercairn have a look at the sides of the wash stills which still sport soap grinders (though they are no longer used).
Johannes - Yes, good call, Charlie - I've also noticed FWP (or something I've until now mistaken for FWP) in some expressions from the other Morrison Bowmore distilleries; Glen Garioch and Auchentoshan. But that still doesn't tell us if it's a problem with the production regime (given they are owned by the same company there could be similarities introduced after the latest take-over) or with quality control. I don't really think it has something to do with perfumed soap - unless the same employee from Ulf's story keeps making the same mistake over and over again ;-)
Thomas - I've seen a report about whisky on German TV just a few weeks ago.
They also showed pictures of Glenfiddich where a worker threw 3 bars of soap into the still just like that. They were very open about
it and did not make a big fuss about that little extra ingredient. But I've never heard of Glenfiddich being some kind of soapy or perfumey. Must be a better brand of soap than Bowmore's, I guess. :-)
Ho-cheng
- Well! At least when I was at the Bruichladdich Academy last May they still used soap in the wash still.
Interesting, the soap was hidden under the still. (The very bottom.) I was very surprised to learn that, and checked with Charlie's
book and found one sentence mentioning this "rumor". But, Charlie is right, I wouldn't dare to ask Jim about this question. But I didn't found the same "perfume" nose in the new make spirit of Bruichladdich.
Davin - I doubt they use consumer-type soap except in an emergency.
I think it was the PLOWED boys who dubbed it FWP about 4 or 5 years ago. I can detect it quickly in the nose. On the palate it is strong, florid (more than floral), and astringent.
Charlie, I am still wondering about that piece you wrote some years back - LCBO published it as a booklet - in which you referred to
the floral aromas of Bowmore, like that was the normal profile. I have never found floral notes in Bowmores bottled in the 1980's and early '90s. Am I just lucky?
Commercial 'soaps' are sometimes used in commercial food preparation to reduce surface tensions.
These are not perfumed hand soaps however and have no noticable ill effects. Commercial surfactants (such as Tween 80) are
cheaper and much more effective. But then again, I`m speculating. I have also found FWP in an Auchentoshan that was a distillery
bottling done exclusively for Park Avenue Liquors. I`ve heard of it in Glen Garioch. I think FWP is a cask problem and is slowly working
its way through the system. It was found first in younger (NAS) Bowmores, then a few years later in the 12yo; now it's in the 17yo and I predict the 21yo will be next.
At that time Bowmore threatened legal action against anyone who spoke of it on the net.
As a result Johannes was quick to talk about it on Malt Madness ;-)
Yes, the finish lingers. This is one time when a long finish is a fault. I can't understand why some well-respected palates don't
mention it. Perhaps fear of seeming negative, but the phenomenon (FWP) is very real. The new 12yo we had at Bowmore last summer
was pretty good. The ancient 12yo we had in a bar was spectacular with absolutely no hints of floral notes.
Luca
- Well... I thought that adding soap would INCREASE superficial tension, from what I recollect of chemistry lessons. Proof is that
with plain water it's hard to make bubbles. Adding soap to water increases superficial tension and makes it possible to create bubbles
and foam. So something is not too clear to me: why add soap to reduce bubbles and foam??? Wouldn't it increase them?
Davin - I think the way soap works is that the 'soap' molecules are soluble in water at one end and soluble in oil at the other end so they allow water and oil to mix. Some commercial soaps do not produce bubbles. I think bubbles are there in consumer products for marketing purposes: to make people think the soap is working...
Serge
- And why not think about Pajarette - or any other 'stuff' they use(d) to prepare the 'sherry' casks?
Nobody ever got IWP (my version of FWP - International Whore Perfume ;-) in a 100% bourbon Bowmore, am I wrong?
Would it be possible to check whether 'the more sherried, the more IWP-ed the malt' is true?
Johannes
- Yes, indeed, Serge - it would be great if we could narrow it down to a 'sherry cask issue'!
Thomas also suggested a relation with sherry casks. I've checked my Track Record (and my notes about the Bowmore sessions with
Luc, Serge and Olivier in Bologna) but I couldn't find enough expressions where the cask type was specified.
A nice topic for research on Islay at the festival this year. Maybe we can 'sniff out the FWP'!
Serge - Excuse my Frenchness here, but may I stress the fact that most whores in France are now from Eastern Europe or Africa? Almost only high-class call-girls may still be French these days, and I doubt they 'wear' such perfumes as the ones you can smell or taste in Bowmore. Ever smelled Chanel N°5 or Joy de Patou in Bowmore? I think regular 'French Whores' still exist only in the fantasms of a few American fellows ;-), or in the memories of the ones who visited Paris thirty years ago or earlier ;-)
Johannes - Well, Serge, It's funny you immediately assume that the 'French' part refers to the 'professionals'.
Perhaps it refers to the perfume - i.e. Whore perfume from France?
Much better than the generic whore perfumes made in America ;-)
Davin - First of all, Serge, ;-))
Here in Ottawa, one must cross the river into Québec to find the best of the best «péripatéticiennes» (at least so I am told). I
cannot recollect IWP in any but sherry-casked Bowmores. Darkest was the worst, Cask Strength second. Pajarette is as good an
explanation as any and could explain why the problem seems to be limited to a Bowmores of a certain distillation 'era'. May I suggest that all tainted Bowmores be shipped to Turckheim for re-distillation?
Klaus - Does Morrison Bowmore have its own bottling plant?
If so, could the FWP also come from here? Maybe something unwanted is still in the pipes after cleaning?
This would explain why other Morrison Bowmore malts are also afflicted. On the other hand it does not explain the creeping of the taint
to older malts and why the Bowmore boys did not discover the source and stop it. I can't believe they are so fond of FWP. In this
case Davin's bad cask theory is more convincing. But can it really be true that they do not check the casks first when they make their large vattings? An FWP cask should be detected and rejected.
Martine
- Hello Lads, I do not know how many distilleries still observe the soap tradition in the wash-still.
I smelled the bar of soap : absolutely no soapy scent neither lavender, or honeysuckle or God knows what. Very plain and bland. And
the amount that was thrown was really small. I was told that even a small amount of soap is enough to prevent the foam from coming
up into the neck and making what they call a « fouler », an accident which is feared by stillmen and not very popular with the
accountants as it ruins the distllation. Balvenie'stillman told me that some distilleries use a chemical antifoam product instead of natural soap.
As for the fragrance of French whore perfume, I would recommend you to buy (or rather to steal because it is not worth wasting your
money on) some 'Soir de Paris' perfume (a dark blue bottle). This is my olfactive vision of FWP. Something close to violet… really foul…
Not the best aroma in Bowmore I am afraid. I recently sampled a 12 year-old. I did not find FWP but I found it bland, very emasculated
(not to suit a FW business….). I did not find the exquisite fishnet aromas I usually spot in Bowmore 12. My nose maybe ????
But I personnaly threw some soap in Balvenie's wash still some 3 years ago when I was doing my week's work at Glenfiddich/Balvenie (I
wrote a piece on that fantastic experience in one issue of whisky Magazine). The day I was sent to Balvenie stillroom, among my task,
was the «lancer de savon dans l'alambic». I joked with the stillman, saying that the stuff was completely exotic to me as, being a French person, I had never seen soap in my life !!!
Luc - Dear All, please find below the respons I got back from Glenfarclas.
Ian used to work for 8 years in the production before joining the commercial department.
Hip hip hurray for the traditional Glenfarclas !
'Dear Luc, I know that soap is used at some distilleries but not at Glenfarclas.
I am sure you are pleased to hear we don't use any additives during the making of Glenfarclas.
Soap can be used for two purposes as far as I know. It can be added during Fermentation into the wash backs to stop them from
switching (overflowing) as it keeps the head (bubbles) from rising to high. Also it can be added to the wash still to stop the head
from rising to high inside the still. As you know if the head is left to rise to high inside the still it will eventually overflow through the
sample safe and into the Low Wines & Feints Receiver. By adding soap it would mean that you can run the stills hotter and faster. As
Glenfarclas do not use any sort of soap or other additive during the process I do not know what type of soap is used. I am sure that it will be a special type of soap / chemical that is produced for this purpose.
Kind Regards, Ian McWilliam, Marketing Executive, Glenfarclas Distillery'
Dave - I see a potential link here -- perhaps someone can help.
As for Bowmore: I would be careful of being too quick to lay the blame at the door of the distillery manager's office.
The reason for adding soap to the wash still is to prevent excessive frothing and carryover.
The cause of this is a 'lively' wash. A lively wash is one which has a high level of solids and potentially (this is where my memory may
be playing tricks) yeast cells which haven't died during fermentation (ie it is a phenomenon of cloudy worts and short ferments - Charlie, am in the right ball park here?) I know .. yeast again!
The fact it was also in Glen Garioch and Auchie (thanks Davin) points to it being a (short-lived) regime imposed by the
distillery/production director whether in Glasgow (or Japan?).
Davin - Yes Dave, I think you have hit the nail on the head.
A short-lived regime, imposed from without that is slowly working its way through the system.
Johannes
- I'm popping back out because Dave brought up Auchentoshan and Glen Garioch.
So, that set me thinking. What characteristics do Glen Garioch and Bowmore share?
Actually, for me, the Auchentoshan 'Three Wood' also went in the direction of the Bowmore Darkest.
Of course, that could have been caused by either distillation policy, the casks or maybe even caramel. As far as Glen Garioch is
concerned: yes, I've also tried a few that seemed 'over the edge' to me, but so far the problem seems to occur in Bowmores more often - or maybe I've just been choosing the wrong bottles.
My first answer would be smoke - I've always found Bowmore more smoky than peaty and some Glen Gariochs (particulary the older
ones distilled before '84). And often the 'bad' ones combine an overly perfumy palate (like grazing in a field of violets) with a 'Buysman'
bitterness that I associate with burnt caramel. So, maybe it's not a specific ingredient of a specific distillation policy that causes the problem, but the interplay of two different factors?
Davin
- Johannes, I wonder if we are really talking about the same thing.
FWP is not "over the edge." It is very distinctive and miles past the edge. There is just no mistaking it.
It is not the same flavour as caramel gives (Loch Dhu). A recent Glen Garioch 21yo is quite smoky and just lovely.
The Auchentoshan was not smoky at all. I find some floral flavours in whisky quite enjoyable and nothing like FWP.
FWP is a contaminant and just ruins the dram.
Lawrence - Thank you for your excellent responses to my question about Bowmore & the dreaded FWP.
It seems clear that Bowmore know they have a problem but have decided to bury their collective heads in the germinating malt and
pretend that they cannot see anything. Perhaps they're hoping that the new FWP Bowmore's will become next "Love it or Hate it"
malt of Islay? I have just had a quick vision of the FWP label a la Voyage and Dawn. It seems to me that the inconsistency of their
product will prove the folly of such a bankrupt policy; most Bowmore fans prefer their single malts without FWP.
I found them to be both informative and illuminating, especially the comments about soap being the potential culprit. It struck me as
very Macallan-ish that when a customer and fan of your malt, comments on an unpleasant aspect of your product the reaction by the
distiller is the threat of a lawsuit. This looks like a good opportunity for a very public scrap; well done Johannes for helpig to bring this phenomenon into the light.
Johannes - And that little rant from Lawrence is the perfect opportunity to wrap things up - for now.
It's obvious that we haven't reached a 'definitive' conclusion on this topic yet - see FWP Part II
for more.
Perhaps we'll also be able to investigate the matter further with our own noses on Islay next month - if I'm not mistaken we'll have the
biggest gathering of maniacs ever on the island in 2005; Davin, Serge, Olvier, Peter, Charlie, Martine, Luc, Thomas and myself. That's nine malt maniacs! We should be able to come up with some answers if we put our heads and noses together...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #14/12 - The Lost Pandora Box
Submitted on 16/08/2004 by Serge Valentin
, France
Ugh! He was right. These blind samples had been hiding on my shelves So, as His Highness had sent me a list of all the blind mini-bottles he had shipped to me (I had already sampled quite a bunch), the
first thing I did was to check which ones I hadn't tasted yet. Here's what my Mac told me: Ardbeg 11yo 1991 (62.2%, Cadenhead's
Bond Reserve), Arran NAS 'Non-Chillfiltered' (46%, OB), Auchentoshan NAS Three Wood (43%, OB), Bladnoch 14yo 1989/2003 (53.6%,
Cadenhead's), Bowmore 17yo (43%, OB), Bruichladdich 11yo (59.6%, Caledonian Sel., Cask #2301), Edradour 10yo (40%, OB, New
Pernod Ricard), Glenfarclas 1983/2001 Family Reserve #4 (46%, OB), Glenrothes 1989/2002 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, Rum Finish),
Imperial 18yo 1982 (43%, Chieftain's Choice), Laphroaig 15yo (43%, OB, Bottled 2000 or after), Ledaig 20yo (43%, OB), Ledaig 7yo
'Peated' (43%, OB), Ledaig NAS 'Peated' (42%, OB, Sherried), Macallan 1990/2003 (50.5%, W&M, Extra Strength), Miltonduff 34yo
1966 (43.6%, Hart Brothers), Mortlach 16yo (43%, Flora & Fauna), Pittyvaich 21yo 1976/1998 (43%, SigV, Sherry), Rosebank 11yo
1991/2001 (43%, Chieftain's, C#1646-1648), Talisker 1986 DE Double Matured (45.8%, OB), Tamdhu-Glenlivet 10yo (58.9%, Cad., 18.75cl), Tobermory 10yo (40%, OB), Tobermory NAS (40%, OB) and Tormore 12yo (40%, OB, Blue label),
Yep, I know, that makes 24 malts and not 12! Well, I had forgotten to uncheck quite a few I already had, it appears, but I decided
not to do some double-checking and to sample the first six blinds, based on this list. That should make things a bit harder, but as the
malts on the list are all very different (ABV's, styles, ages), it shouldn't be too difficult. The rules are always the same: sampling the
malts by flights of six, coming up with three guesses per sample, and ask the sender (i.e. Johannes) to give the answers. We then
usually get some points, but as the flights should be relatively easy, that would be… err… pointless! Too easy, this time! But enough ramblings, let's sample the first set now, which gathers blinds #7 to 12… Blind #7 - Colour: amber.
Blind #8 - Colour: dark amber. Blind #9
- Colour: amber-orange.
Blind #10 - Colour: amber. Blind #11 - Colour: gold. Blind #12 - Colour: amber.
Okay, after I got Johannes' answers regarding the first flight, I finally decided to have a closer look at the Matrix.
Ledaig 20yo (43%, OB)
Shouldn't be too difficult, don't you think? Three peated malts having the same profile, including an old one, plus two Tobermories of
which one must taste older, plus a very old Speysider that should taste so different (okay, better)… A piece of cake – and that ain't bragging! So, let's go… Blind #13 - Colour: pale straw. Blind #14 - Colour: straw. Blind #15 - Colour: pale straw. Blind #16 - Colour: straw. Blind #17
- Colour: straw. Blind #18 - Colour: straw. … and that's been much more enjoyable than you say…
Thanks again and till next Pandora operations! Serge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All this started on April 3rd 2005, when I got an alarming email from the
Maniacs' most revered boss, His Highness Johannes, that was shouting:
'While checking my 'sample administration' I noticed there are still a
bunch of blind samples I sent you in march last year that don't appear
on the matrix yet. According to my information, the numbers of the
blinds should be 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
Any news on these bottlings? Johannes.'
for quite some months, and as they were part of kind of a 'punishment
package', I had procrastinated since the parcel had reached my doorstep.
Yep, that's naughty-naughty, I know, but since I get quite some samples
every month, I hardly need any arm twisting to let some old Bowmores,
Highland Parks or Broras overtake some of the more mundane malts that
are queuing on my list… Anyway, Johannes' reminder had been strong
enough to make me decide to take advantage of a gloomy Saturday
to sample these twelve babies.
Nose: 'dirty' sherry, quite sour and woody (old plank). Notes of rotten fruits, really too vinous for my tastes.
It does improve after a few minutes, though, the sour notes having vanished. Good news!
Palate: oh no, too bad, now it's got really weird, sourish, oddly fruity (rotten oranges).
Hints of cheap liquor, triple-sec, cooked wine.
Finish: medium long, sour.
Comment: some cask mismanagement here?
Rating: 62 points
- Guesses: Old Edradour? Auchentoshan Three Woods? A weird indie Bowmore?
Johannes' reply:
This is one of the last Pernod Ricard bottlings before Andrew Symington took over. Now you know what I've been complaining about
all those years - and I'm glad to see you pick up the resemblance with the Auchentoshan Three Wood and some Bowmores as well.
I've already mentioned in our discussion about 'FWP' that some 'funky' Edradours and some expressions of the Suntory Trio (Auchentoshan, Bowmore and Glen Garioch) show some similar traits - at least it seems so to me.
I was quite surprised to see Olivier give this substandard bottling 72 points, by the way. Serge's reaction: well, all I can say is that
this one was quite easy to guess. 62 points might have been quite generous indeed. It also stresses the fantastic work Andrew
Symington and Iain Henderson did at Edradour's, as all the bottlings they issued since the takeover have been constantly better than this old oddity. Even the 'finished' ones! ;-).
Nose: again some rather heavy and weird sherry, although it's a little less dirty and also more on fresh fruits.
It really starts to smell like an armagnac after a moment. Quite some caramel too.
Palate: rather un-enjoyable, on cardboard, old butter, stale beer and wine, overcooked coffee…
Finish: rather long and sour…
Comment: another serious cask problem.
Rating: 69 points
- Guesses: Auchentoshan Three Woods? Old Edradour? Or any other oddly finished malt.
Johannes' reply:
Nose: this is much better, and much more balanced. Nice wood, with some elegant winey notes.
Vanilla crème, fudge. Hints of balsamic vinegar and crystallised oranges.
Palate: rather punchy attack, on caramel and American coffee.
It then gets a bit disjointed, lacking body and fruitiness. Not bad but a little weak and getting somewhat bitter.
Finish: medium long and curiously 'sparkling' like some Schweppes.
Comment: the nose was nice but the mouth doesn't quite deliver.
Rating: 76 points
- Guesses: any average Speysider. I'd say it could be, Pittyvaich, Imperial or Mortlach (but I doubt it).
Johannes' reply:
Nose: another middle-of-the-roadish sherried nose.
Not too bad, even quite fragrant, with some musk, balsamic vinegar again, and even a little soy sauce.
Palate: ah yes, the mouth is better too. Bold, compact and satisfying.
Lots of crystallised fruits, caramel, praline, roasted peanuts… Some hints of mango.
Finish: rather long and very nicely balanced till the end.
Comment: things are improving, it appears. This one is very good!
Rating: 85 points - Guesses: Mortlach, Glenfarclas, Pittyvaich,
Johannes' reply:
This is the Mortlach 16yo (43%, Flora & Fauna). I love it too; my score was 87 points. If they manage to produce this in large
enough numbers they may even offer a nice alternative for some sherry freaks that don't find the new Macallans to their liking. I think this is my favourite Flora & Fauna bottling so far (I also got this one from Alexander - his loss ;-).
Serge's reaction: yeah, Mortlach is very good. Very, very good. It's a shame Diageo does not promote it a little more. Nick, I hope you'll read this! Johannes, if
you ever come across the new official 32yo, have a go at it: it's a thrill. And Alexander: thanks! I think I'll buy some bottle(s) of this one.
Nose: rather nutty and a bit waxy right at thee start, getting quite fragrant and flowery (lavender, violets).
A very nice nose, very elegant and flawless.
Palate: bold and rather powerful, with quite some tropical fruits. A sign of old age? Really excellent.
Develops on mirabelle and apricot jams, maple syrup, caramelized pecan nuts… Some dried pineapple.
Finish: not too long but balanced and elegant.
Comment: now we're approaching stardom. The best news is that malts keep perfectly well in these sample bottles.
Rating: 88 points - Guesses: Miltonduff, Mortlach, Glenfarclas.
Johannes' reply:
This was the
Glenfarclas 1983/2001 Family Reserve Edition #4 (46%, OB) that Klaus hauled from 'Weinquelle' for me a few years
ago. It was the first Glenfarclas I REALLY liked (I gave it 89 points) because it was the first one to show more individuality and 'spunk'
than the main range of OB's I tried up until that point. Since then I've tried many more excellent Glenfarcli. I think some of the 'special' OB's offered by Weinquelle and Maison du Whisky offer excellent value. Serge's reaction: blasted! I'd have loved to make a strike… Well, the fact that the sherry was very subtle and not obvious at all sort of put me on the wrong track. But what a perfect
balance! Thanks for this one (to you too, Klaus). I'm sure Glenfarclas (and Aberlour) will manage to occupy the seat that's been left vacant by Macallan's recent moves towards un-sherried territories.
Nose: starts on cocoa and sherry, very much like Glenfarclas.
Some very interesting perfumy notes, LYS, lilly from the valley. Lots of clove and ginger.
A very good one again, probably a single cask or a very small batch, for it's so special. Hints of wine sauce.
Palate: powerful and bold, very spicy: clove and ginger again, plus some Chinese anise, cinnamon…
Lots of cooked strawberry. Very good but perhaps a tad too winey for my tastes.
Finish: long and spicy, with some tannins.
Comment: a very good one again, although it's a little less balanced than #11 – and more sherried.
Rating:
87 points - Guesses: Glenfarclas, Macallan, Aberlour.
Johannes' reply:
A good idea, as the list of possible choices regarding the last batch of 6 blind samples got much shorter:
Ledaig 7yo 'Peated' (43%, OB)
Ledaig NAS 'Peated' (42%, OB, Sherried)
Miltonduff 34yo 1966 (43.6%, Hart Brothers)
Tobermory 10yo (40%, OB)
Tobermory NAS (40%, OB)
Nose: hello, somebody in there? Please, open! Ah, yes, something spirity and quite rubbery, getting yeasty.
Mashed potatoes, hot milk, porridge… Rather harmless but also quite uninteresting… Yet, I sort of like its cleanliness.
Some notes of freshly cut apples.
Palate: rather satisfying at first sip, fruity and yeasty.
Rather close to a nice new make, with some apple compote, beer, pear spirit… Quite clean but very, very simple.
Finish: longer than expected, on cider.
Comment: it's a rather good, undemanding malt. No flaws but not much character, I'm afraid
Rating: 73 points - Guesses: Tobermory, Glenkinchie, Craigellachie… Probably Tobermory NAS.
Johannes' reply:
Nose: rather similar, but even simpler, I think. A little smokiness, but no fruits at all.
Oh, the smoke grows stronger after a moment… Is that peat? Simple but rather enjoyable and, again harmless.
Palate: pretty nice! Quite some peat, of the 'farmy' style, together with some apple compote again.
It isn't complex, though… Kind of a 'sub-Ardbeg'. Some yeasty notes coming through (beer, muesli).
Finish: medium long, rather flawless.
Comment: a good one, recommended to any newcomers that would like to check what is 'smooth peat'.
Rating: 79 points - Guesses: Ledaig, Caol Ila, Ardmore. Yes, probably the Ledaig 'NAS'.
Johannes' reply:
Nose: again, very similar. Hard to make a difference with #14… Whiffs of peat smoke but not much else.
Is it the same whisky??? Perhaps a wee bit of added fruitiness…
Palate: very similar again but with some added complexity, and more interplay between the peat and the ripe apples.
Hints of pepper, which should mean more wood…
Finish: again, medium long but more satisfying than #14.
Comment: a good one again. There must be a place on the market for such a mellow/peaty malt!
Rating: 81 points - Guesses: Ledaig, Caol Ila, Ardmore. Probably the Ledaig 7yo.
Johannes' reply:
Nose: again some marked similarities, but little peat this time.
Similar to #13, but with some added very subtle whiffs of peat. Much less peat than in #14 and 15, that is.
Quite delicate… It's getting yeastier and yeastier… And there's perhaps a bit of added sherry.
Undemanding but nicely made.
Palate: a bit sugary, with quite some caramel. It's sort of lumpish this time, lacking #13's vivacity. It gets a bit disjointed…
Finish: quite short, with just some bitterness remaining after ten seconds or so.
Comment: the nose was quite nice but the mouth really lacks body.
Rating: 68 points - Guesses: Tobermory, Glenkinchie, Craigellachie… Probably Tobermory 10yo.
Johannes' reply:
Quite right! It's the Tobermory 10yo
(40%, OB) - and I agree it's inferior to the younger Ledaigs - and even to the 'No Age Statement' Tobermory. Funny to see how we both prefer the 'NAS' over the 10yo version; my score for this one was 54 points. the oil, the oil...
Serge's reaction: well, it's Tobermory. Again, it might well not be the best distillery on Earth, but it's honest malt whisky.
Just for that it could as well deserve 100 points. I like the way it says 'it's our old distillery, and this is how its output tastes after 10 years in some oak casks – punto basta.' Okay, perhaps that's a bit too romantic…
Nose: again and again, we're in the same territories, but the peat smoke is back again.
It's more complex and deeper than all the other ones –probably older. Getting nicely spicy and gingery.
Some tropical fruits emerging, together with some apple juice. Very nice, the best of the flight so far.
Palate: very nice attack on peat, apples, white pepper and nutmeg. An older one indeed.
The development isn't too complex, that is, and it lacks a little vivacity.
Finish: longer but a little indefinite.
Comment: a good one, that's for sure, but its style makes us think of Ardbeg, and Ardbeg is much better.
Too bad… I even liked #15 a little more.
Rating: 79 points - Guesses: Ledaig, Caol Ila, Ardmore, probably Ledaig 20yo.
Johannes' reply:
It's the oldest of the Tobermories and Ledaigs in this flight. And this time you got the score exactly correct as well - 79 points.
That's right; that was my conclusion as well. Just short of recommendable. It doesn't quite make up for what you had to go through before, does it? I can certainly understand why you've put off this tasting for a year ;-). Serge's reaction: wot? What correct score? You mean, scoring a malt just like you makes it a 'correct score'? Err… ;-) Well, as for this Ledaig, perhaps there wasn't enough peat
in it to stand 20 years in some oak. The spirit isn't a 'high profile' one, so when the peat sort of partly vanishes, maybe what's left
gets a bit weak and undetermined. Now, I've had some excellent old Ledaigs – mostly single casks, that is. I guess a top-notch cask will save even a so-so spirit… but not a bad one!
Nose: ah, this is completely different. Starts on some heavy marzipan, almond milk and old cardboard, getting very waxy. Notes of
beehive, mastic, argan oil. Quite special and quite resinous. It then gets quite oaky… A very nice one, probably significantly older…
Palate: oh yes, an old one. Lots of wood influence, resins, camphor, wax, heavy marzipan again. I never had such strong marzipan, to be honest. Some notes of vanilla crème, orgeat syrup. Quite some lactones too.
Finish: medium long, on… marzipan and mastic candies.
Comment: I'm sure it's quite old, as the cask's influence is so strong.
I like this profile, although it could have been a bit more complex (where are the tropical fruits?)
Rating: 86 points - Guesses: Miltonduff, Benriach, Bunnahabhain… Probably the Miltonduff 34yo.
Johannes' reply:
E-pistle #14/13 - Ask an Anorak: FWP - Part II
Compiled on 20/04/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Let's try to describe FWP. I think of it as soapy, perfumy, flowery, herbaly, spicy.
Going back to possible switches. Was the other than coal heatsource that much hotter or difficult to manage?
I'll return to Dave again: "I too get it in Glen Garioch and at the same levels, <snip> Bulls eye!! Let's combine Growing Demand and Cutting Costs.
Suddenly I have visions of the perfume collection of a certain Mrs. McEwan... 
Michel van Meersbergen - Sorry to rekindle your discussion about FWP, you maniacs!
Reading the discussion so far I am afraid that you may be overlooking some possible causes.
First of all I want to say I'm really bored to hear over and over about the suggested perfumend
soap incident at Bowmore. To be honest, I don't believe a word of that story. Don't you think that
a 'soaped' run wouldn't be recognised? Do you really think that when it is decided to continue a
perfumed run they would put it under the Bowmore label? And even if that's the case, the perfumed
casks will be blended down beyond recognition by casks that do meet standards to keep losses as
small as possible. A crappy Blended Scotch would and should have been the perfect backdoor for
this suggested incident. FWP seems to be arround for many years, so that rules out an incident,
and has become some kind of integral part of Bowmore and/or the other Suntory owned distillery:
Glen Garioch. To quote Dave: "more to do with a switch in the company's distillation policy".
You're spot on Dave!! That makes me wonder: When was FWP first noticable in Bowmore?
I have no awnser to that question, but let's concentrate on the word 'switch' in Dave's quote.
What switches, specifically concerning Bowmore and/or Glen Garioch, can we think of?
- Could it have been a transistion from coal fired stills to another heat source?
- Did Suntory wanted a malt that would please the palates from the homeland?
- A growing demand for single malts or whisky (blends) in general?
- Cutting costs?
Al these flavors are to be found in the Aldehyde side of the scale. I'll give you a quote from a despription of Aldehydes I found on the web;
'Higher molecular weight aldehydes, e.g., benzaldehyde and furfural, have pleasant, often flowery, odors and are found in the
essential oils of certain plants. Aldehydes are used for the manufacture of synthetic resins, e.g., bakelite, and for making dyestuffs, flavorings, perfumes, and other chemicals. Some are used as preservatives and disinfectants.'
Interesting isn't it? Even more interesting is the fact that Aldehydes appear stronger (flavoured) when fluids are heated longer and hotter and that the 'weight' is higher. I guess we'll all know where this leads to: Afterrun...
Can be. But adjusted in a matter of days. A malt to please the japanese palats then. No way, did you ever hear from FWP in
expressions from Suntory - disitliled in Japan or Nikka or others? Growing demand for whisky... Hmm this is more like it. Cutting costs? As usual the ever dreaded 'at the end of the day we're making money' excuse, alas, it's legimate...
Unlikely that the same 'mistake' was made at both sites at the same time!"
That means an increase of volume in a shorter amount of time. In other words:
A larger middlecut at Bowmore means more afterrun. (nobody's complaining about esters...)
In a smaller amout of time means hotter distillation and there you have all the ingredients for FWP!
It's my feeling that Bowmore disitills two seperate batches: one with a large amount of afterrun and one with a more conservative
middlecut. Vatted together they will make a more 'neutral' product. This might also bring some light to the batch variation a lot of us
encounter... Mind you that a more pleasing FWP is also to be found in some Bruichladdich's i.e. 'Links - Augusta', Cairdean Family and
some G&M Reserves (also from the '89 – '90 era)... Interesting to see what the Jim McEwan runs from Bruichladdich will bring us in the not so far away future...
Dave - I just came back from Bowmore with some ideas as to when it started (and finished).
Fantastic analysis Michel, which is well worth looking at in more depth. The issue of excessive soapiness, which I get as a
textural/palate fault (and which I don't get in Bowmore but have done in other malts); my understanding is that it can be caused by an excessively hot wash still distillation. Either that or finishing in Fairy Liquid containers.
Mark
- Tasted it again just last night, in a new Bowmore 17yo OB for the US (newest batch to hit the US, not a new release per se).
Kills the enjoyment for me. Vile! Also, Edradour recently replaced their new 10yo for a WeDram club mate, and the replacement bottle
was just as full of perfumed soap as the return. What gets me is that Bowmore and Symington neither will say that the characteristic
is present at all, denying on every occasion that anything is amiss. Like Michel, I wonder about future Bruichladdichs, but I will not
admit such speculation to Jim-san. He knows how to pick a cask, seems to have wizardly knowledge about all things whisky, and I don't think we have enough info re FWP to name names. Another puzzle: Wines can sometimes be 'corked'.
Is there any similarity in smell between a corked wine and whisky FWP?
If so, I would suspect cork stocks as causitive.
Lawrence - I also picked up a very similar FWP profile in a bottle of Edradour when I tasted it New Years Day.
It was just overpowering. However the two other who tasted the bottle seemed quite content and I was a guest at a friends home so I never said anything but it did strike me as odd at the time.
Lex - I don't think 'cork' is the cause, Mark.
I was sent a sample of Connemara some time ago which was said to be corked.
It surely was disgusting, and I really like Connemara. But the 'corked' taste was not at all like FWP.
It was a horrible mouldy cardboard taste. Imagine chewing on old egg cartons.
Klaus - Regarding 'cork': If I remember right chemists are proud that they lowered the limit of detection of tri-chlor-anisol (???), the compound which is responsible for the vile rotten cork aroma. Hmmph, their detection limit is still at least one magnitude lower than that of the human nose. I bet the mysterious FWP-compound is also such a lousy bastard only present in the ppb-region.
Mark - Hmmm. My only experience with something being 'corked' is with a Bowmore 10yo which also had heavy FWP.
That is my reason for asking, and that I have not (thankfully!) tasted corked wine.
Ulf
- No, Mark, there is no similarity in flavor between cork and FWP.
BTW, corked whiskies are now turning up in unseen quantities for the time being. Not as much as in the wine trade where 3-5% of the
wines sealed by corks made from 'natural cork' is said to affected by the chemical process that creates the foul odor and taste. As a
wine taster I have had too many corked wine encounters, at trade shows seminars and private homes incl. my own, not to mention restaurants. Within a short period (early 2004), I encountered the experience by:
I 'confiscated' the Ardbeg and used it (still do) as an example of corked whisky at seminars etc.
I'll bring a corked Ardbeg 10 with me to Limburg on your behalf. A sample may be drawn to be brought to Feis Ile by Serge and you to
be examined by other MM's who likewise never encountered a 'corked' whisky. It is my understanding that this one (Ardbeg 10) is TCA (Trichloroanisol) infected. Same stuff that is found in wine classified as corked.
a) Famous Grouse bought at the Tax Free shop Kastrup/Copenhagen
b) Macallan 12yo at a Macallan lead vertical tasting in Stockholm (I had it withdrawn) and
c) Ardbeg 10yo at a Trade Show in Sweden.
Earlier, I had maybe such an incident in 4-5 years intervals. Fellow whisky enthusiasts have reported similar experiences. Perhaps the
culprit is the corks made from compressed cork fragment were parts may stem from infected corks rejected from batches earmarked for the wine trade. Just a thought though.
Olivier
- No, TCA (Trichloroanisol) or PCA (pentachloroanisol) do not have at all the same smell.
It is more musty, wet dog, rot like. I never saw a 'corked' whisky, but I guess it is less likely to happen as the bottles are kept
standing with little contact of the whisky on the cork. Corks used for spirits are also more heavily waxed, to make them more resistant
to the alcohol. If you are interested I can ask my cork supplier to explain me how they treat the corks for the spirit industry and what is the advantage/drawbacks versus screwcaps...?
Serge
- Thanks Olivier but you might be wrong when you talk about bottles kept standing.
They are standing on the maniacs' shelves, sure, but I've seen some distributors' warehouses were they are lying on the side (while,
of course, wine cases are standing 'vertically').
Mark - Yes ! And in stores too. Main victims are caskets (usually pricey), and Mission Series, who are all too tall for normal display and usually are laid down. I wonder how long a cork can fight off damage like that.
Luca - Here in Italy I always see whisky bottles stored vertically (good), and in 99% of the cases also wine bottles stored vertically (they say it's not that good). Frankly, I have often found bottles of Grignolino and Dolcetto (but even white Cortese di Gavi or Antinori Rosè) with a strong cork taste, and I am sure that these bottles had been stored vertically during all of their life. So, if the cork is tainted it affects the wine no matter the position the bottle is stored.
Dave
- I know that Diageo's Brand Technical Centre has been working closely with cork supplier Amorim.
They are trying to find ways to eliminate cork taint. It is a problem in whisky, though less prevalent than in wine.
What percentage of wines do you think show TCA taint Olivier?
Olivier - The trade admit an average of 5 to 7%.
But bad lots can go up to 35% (according to Torres in Spain; they have their own lab an do random checks).
If you can get corks that have been picked from mountains versus rich valley floors (they grow 3x slower and therefore the bark is
less permeable) and also, very important, if the supplier eliminates the first 4 feet of the tree closer to the soil, you can go down below one percent. I hope I fit in this category !? At least according to our various distributors...
Davin
- Hi All, According to LCBO more than 10% of wines sold in Ontario are corked.
I do have a corked example of Knockando. The cork was saturated when I opened it, and the wet cardboard flavour was quite
evident. I'll bring a sample to Islay with me for 'analysis'.
Johannes - Interesting stuff maniacs, but I personally think 'cork' and 'FWP' are different issues.
If we can sample Ulf's Ardbeg and Davin's Knockdhu on Islay next month we may be able to gather enough evidence for a new
anoracal discussion about cork, but now I'd like to steer the discussion back to FWP. (Although bringing up this topic again right
before we're off to Islay may not be the best example of timing - they might kick us out at the Bowmore distillery ;-)
Right now I'm wondering about a proper 'definition' of the smell and taste of FWP.
I often get 'chemical' perfumy impressions that remind me of lilac and lavender.
Lex - I was at the SWMS clubroom in London last night (Luc, you know how come (;o) ....) and had a very enjoyable evening. I've written a report for Celtic Spirit to be published in a few weeks. Among the whiskies I tasted was a 14yo 1989 Bowmore (cask 3.88). Nose very innocent, bonfire, sweetness. Then the FWP hit on the palate. I asked my girlfriend, who does not know about the whole FWP issue, what she tasted: sickening perfumed soap .... Just to show that it wasn't just me being paranoid!
Serge - You mean the one I tried last year on December 13, Lex?
Here are my notes, see the archive on Whiskyfun for more details.
Bowmore 14yo 1989/2003
(58.9%, SMWS, 3.88) Colour: dark straw. Nose: really farmy, with lots of liquorice and roots. Gets very bourbonny (vanilla, oak). Some interesting perfumy notes, plus some dried fruits. The peat is then growing stronger, getting farmier
and farmier. Mouth: lots of candies at first, pear drops, English liquorice, parfait amour liquor. Gets sweeter and sweeter (plain white
sugar). Lots of pepper then, and some peat… Sugar and pepper! Long finish, on lavender syrup and hay jelly, with a pinch of salt. The nose is absolutely great, but the palate is a little too much on 'chemical' sweets. 85 points.
Luc
- Yes Lex, that is the same as the one on Whiskyfun.
I don't agree with your sensation on FWP on this one though.
Ok, this one is perfumy, with violets and lavender.
But I don't associate that with FWP.
Lex
- That's the one, Serge & Luc! But clearly it didn't offend you as much as me!
It wasn't the perfume that got to me as such, it was the soapiness in combination with the perfume ....
Irma, my girlfriend, who as I said doesn't know anything about the FWP issue, really thought it was disgusting (and she loves peated
Islays, so ....). The curious thing was that it wasn't detectable on the nose at all, so not a 'classical' FWP-Bowmore, but there was enough FWP to spoil it for me.
Davin
- Yeah Lex, I'd sure like to get to the bottom of this. There are so many older Bowmores that may have heather and floral
notes but not the sickening soap, but when I read MJs notes from 1989 (in the US version of his guide called Complete Guide To Single Malt Scotch there) I began to wonder if this phenomenon is not as new as I thought it was.
Luc, I'm curious to hear what you associate exactly with FWP.
To me it is very much lavender and soapy sweetness.
Luc - Hi Davin, I don't associate lavender and violets with FWP, otherwise other malts might also qualify under this FWP. Have you tried the Bowmore vintage 1984 (58.8%, OB) or some other 1984 Bowmore's. From 1989 I've tried these Bowmore's and none have 'for me' the FWP effect : The 1988 vintages don't seem to be affected either (in my humble opinion) but that is yet far from conclusive : But for example the 1984 seems a vintage that has been affected by the FWP a lot :
But my research goes on and on.
Have you ever given a "neckkiss" to a lady that just put "cheap" perfume (or whatever perfume for that matter) in her neck so that
you can taste the perfume on your lips... That is how I associate FWP. Try it, you'll see that is disgusting. But that aren't lavender/violet notes to me.
The 1984's seems to be affected by the FWP but the 1989 seems not be affected.
That is from the results I have from my Bowmore comparison tasting.
Bowmore 14yo 1989/2003 (51,5%, SMWS 3.81, port finish)
Bowmore 14yo 1989/2003 (58,9%, SMWS 3.88)
Bowmore 1989/2004 (53.2%, Berry Bros, casks #1968/1969)
Bowmore 15yo 1989/2004 (58%, SSMC, Cask 6185)
Bowmore 15yo 1989/2004 (46%, SigV for MW Paris, cask 6186, La Préceptorie finish)
Bowmore 1989/1999 (50%, Lombard)
Bowmore 15yo 1988/2004 (52,9%, SMWS 3.91)
Bowmore 1984/2000 (45%, Samaroli, fino sherry puncheon)
Bowmore 1984 (58,8%; OB)
I'm currently investigating other samples (still have 22 samples waiting to be evaluated).
Davin - OK then Luc. We taste it the same then because that is exactly it - the horrible astringent perfumy soapiness of cheap perfume. I think it is "what does lavender smell like " that we need to work on next. I HATE lavender soap and I hate the vogue here of putting lavender pot pourri in trendy boutiques - I just walk out. But there are some very nice lavender notes in some malt whiskies. (nothing like FWP, but I also associate lavender with FWP) just in overwhelming amounts. I also like lots of different floral notes in various malts. Now here's a surprise - just plain soapiness sometimes associated with mundane bourbon-casked malts is kind of appealing to me in very low quantities.
Luc
- Hi Davin, Ok, I see. Lavender soap and lavender in pot pourri, highly concentrated.
Different then when you small fresh lavender in the french Provence. Of course I hate lavender soapiness, and especially in my malts.
But if I mean lavender and violets in my malts I never mean lavender soap !! Never, I mean delicate lavender notes, when you smell them in the french Provence. Lovely ! And that are not FWP !
Lex - Davin, I think I know exactly what you mean. It's not gentle lavender, violet or whatever notes. It's an astringent sickening scented soapiness which seems to stick to your lips and coats the inside of your mouth. And makes you think "yuck!"
Lawrence - Yes, the non technical description is "yuck!"
Davin - Hi Luc, as soon as you said it was like kissing the neck of someone with cheap perfume, we got quickly onto the same page. No need to say more! Yes, I think we are closing in on it. Serge, in your tasting notes you mentioned lavender and hay jelly. Hay jelly? Did you make that up? I know what lavender jelly tastes like; I bought some for my wife just a few months ago and it is really quite wonderful on lightly buttered toast. Got a whole series of flower jellies - really quite different. Are they common in Europe?
Serge - Davin, no, these jellies are not too common here but they get quite trendy these days. I'm starting to wonder whether FWP isn't a matter of special wood treatment (concentrated sherry, pajarette and all that stuff).
Maybe we could check whether we get 'lavender-soapiness' only in wine-matured or wine-finished Bowmores or not. Did you ever find
FWP in bourbon only or refill only Bowmores? I mean, we all know that they 'prepare the casks' before they fill them (as they aren't allowed to pour the 'stuff' directly into the spirit, as some Canadians do...)
Could it be that FWP is/was in the 'sherry mixture' or the 'port mixture'?
Hay jelly is interesting, for it's not too 'violent' and rather subtle...
Davin - Hi Serge, Flower jellies are becoming trendy here as well, but not very common.
FWP completely floors me because sometimes it's there and sometimes it isn't. As for Canadian whisky, stick to Lot 40 and Gooderham and Worts.
I have never heard of hay jelly though. Next thing is to add a bit of whisky to it - or wine jelly?
I bet the Alsacian whites would be the best for jellying!
I was quite surprised to find MJ describing something similar (and suggesting he didn't like it) in 1989.
I thought the guys in PLOWED discovered it about 5 or 6 yerars ago. They certainly are the ones who named it, or are they? I have very little experience with independent bottlings of Bowmore and can only remember it in the OBs.
I've had a good Darkest and bad Cask Strength and 17yos that I remember specifically.
Most of the rest need their up to 7% sherry added afterwards. But we can learn something about finishing from the Canadian
producers. It is known here that you can buy a recently emptied whisky barrel to use as a rain barrel or whatever, but if you add a
bit of water, seal it up and then roll it around you can extract a lot of whisky from the wood and make a type of home-made hooch
called "Swish". It would be fun to try this. I know the barrels at the garden centres often smell very much like whisky and they are
often very charred inside which would provide a lot more places for the whisky to soak into the wood.
Serge - Hi Davin, Oh yes, wine jellies are quite hot here. I also think the
We have a lady next to Turckheim, Christine Ferber (http://msupress.msu.edu/bookTemplate.php?bookID=67) who is making lots of
great jams and jellies. We often use wine jellies with foie gras (goose liver paté). As for whisky, I had a 'Bowmore jam' once (eh???) and I think I've seen several variations using other malts.
And what an interesting story about the 'hooch'! That makes me think of this Johnnie Walker old ad:
http://www.whiskyfun.com/ArchiveMarch05-1.html#070305 (scroll down a bit)
Ulf
- Indeed it was named by Brian. It happened in note at MALTS-L where he was cited in April 1999.
However, the phenomena (soapy lavender like perfume) begun to be discussed on MALTS-L already in late 1996.
In early 2000, Bowmore (via Derek M. Gilchrist
, Marketing Director) labeled Brian and his fellows as "self styled whisky connoisseurs" due to this, the FWP, flavor remark. I am still in doubt whether this to be understood as an offending classification or as an admiring
one?
Davin - Well, I think Brian was the first to bring it to MALTS-L (as FWP) because he had written to Bowmore and sent them a sample and got a snotty reply back from them, but we had been discussing it for quite some time before that. Brian just took the bull by the horns and contacted Bowmore. I remember exactly the e-mail in which it was dubbed FWP, and I am sure it was not Brian, but another guy who is no longer active in PLOWED. I will remember his name, or maybe some of my buddies will remember.
Johannes - Pfft... Sometimes it's like a henhouse in here! And one with slightly intoxicated hens at that ;-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So far the maniacs have chatted about corks and jellies and kissing the necks of perfumed ladies, but in this second instalment we
haven't come very much closer to determining the cause of the dreaded 'FWP', have we? Maybe it's time to take a little break to
'collect our thoughts' and look a little closer at some of Michel's theories? Meanwhile, I'll try to collect an overview of the things we've learned and the remaining questions to kick off Part III of our deliberations.
E-pistle #14/14 - The Taiwanese Whisky Market
Submitted on 26/04/2005 by Ho-cheng Yao, Taiwan
Many people said that Taiwan is the "Liquor Paradise". As I grew up, the alcohol drinks have changed from local liquor to brandy to whisky and to wine.
I've checked with the official custom data and found some interesting numbers as below: In 2004, Taiwan imported 12.6 million liters of whisky, 2.5 million liters of brandy, 11.4 million liters of wine, and 5.9 million liters of
beer. It is an amazing number as the population in Taiwan is only 23 million. Which means for each year, every Taiwanese drinks 0.5L whisky, 0.1L Brandy, 0.5L wine and 0.25L import Beer. Not to mention the local liquor and local beer.
You must wondering how the hell people in Taiwan can not tell the good whisky to "normal" whisky.
So, how about other whiskies, Suntory is also doing quite good.
Later, I also arrange to have a tasting with the Green Label with another Green Label Ambassador.
In my opinion, it is a necessary move for Diageo, as they would not being able to compete with Matisse and Suntory in price. The only
way to move on is to educate people what is good whisky. They must also find a way to convince people to pay premium on the fine
whisky. It is also a good sign that Nick finally visited Taiwan earlier this month. I hope Diageo finally recognize the importance of the
Taiwan single malt market. Think about it. If Macallan can sell, let's say, 250, 000 bottles each year, Diageo can surely sell the same
or even better in Taiwan. That's an much easier way to increase the sales instead of fight in the blend market alone. I hope in the near future, I can finally have some Rare Malts Series in Taiwan. Ho-cheng
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That is not only because there is no custom tax for whisky, but also because there are so many choices of liquor in this small island
country. It is kind of a tradition that local people need alcohol to show their respect to the guests. I remember when I was still very
little, I knew nothing about drinks but I was still able to recognize Johnnie Walker. That's just because my parents always brought lots
of them for their business clients whenever we traveled back from overseas. I also remember that every time I attended a wedding
party, there were lots of local-produced liquors on the table. And it is for sure that one bottle is not enough for one table.
Not to mention the tradition that we need to send gifts for the customers in the three major Chinese Festivals.
There was an interesting survey on a newspaper several days ago. It shows that the first choice for this kind of gift is liquor (mainly whisky and brandy). However, the least thing people want to receive is also liquor.
Let's dig out a little bit more on the whisky.
Among the 12.6 million liters of whisky was imported last year, 11.2
million liters was imported from UK, only 1 million liter from Japan and
0.22 million liter from America. I don't know how much portion is at
the single malt side as it is not available from the custom data.
According to my own estimation, only half to one million liters are
single malt, and Macallan is sure to be the best selling Single Malt,
account for half of the single malt market. As for the Best selling
Blend Whisky, it's Matisse. I don't have official number to support it,
only some brief story from a magazine and words from local liquor
dealers, most people believe Matisse sold 1 million liters, about 10%
of the market share last year. For many western whisky lovers,
Matisse is a mysterious name, probably only very few people notice
it from Magazine or IWSC some time ago. Matisse was created by
some Taiwanese three years ago, the whole purpose was to create
an Taiwanese' taste whisky. They were able to target well in almost
every market, and most important, the margin for the distributors is
much higher than any other whisky. It is believed the liquor shop has 100% margin on Matisse while only 10% margin on normal blend
whisky like Johnnie Walker and Chivas. It can be also confirmed by looking at the custom data. It is believed that Johnnie Walker sells
less then Matisse, but in terms of import value, Johnnie Walker import over 50 million US dollars value of goods while Matisse only import less than 10 million US dollars value of goods.
First, we have to recognize, though I don't like Matisse, Matisse may not taste too bad. After all, it had won silver award on IWSC and
also above normal points on Whisky Magazine. Second, you must recognize that most whiskies were consumed during business dinner
or on the wedding. The host would like to have some famous whisky instead of some good drinking whisky. Third, your must also
recognize that many whisky in Taiwan were send out as "Gift" as I mentioned earlier. The reason people like to send out whisky is
because of the good promotion (TV commercials, Press advertisements.), and the reason people don't like to receive it is because
people don't drink it at home, thus most people received it but they don't even open it and send out again. Kind of silly but that's
what happens here. And you must understand that the people create Matisse brand are some TV producers, they know people, they
know how to promote the brand. It is still a mystery that who bottled for Matisse? It is very likely that Glenmorangie may be the one
to supply Matisse' whisky as Matisse use Glenmorangie's pot still photo in their advertisement last year. Matisse also claims that Rachel
Barre as the Blender on the advertisement. And it is a fact that Rachel Barrie is the Glenmorangie Product Development Manager. However, I was not able to confirm the relationship of Glenmorangie and Matisse.
But they are also facing the pressure from Matisse and has to put a new Scottish pure malt, "Prime Blue", and claimed it comes major
from Bowmore, though I can't even smell any peat.. Johnnie Walker found out they can not just compete with Matisse with price.
Thus, they finally know they have to educate people how to taste whisky. They rent a space in the very hot spot in Taipei and
provide walking tasting lessons every night. The space were designed to let you understand the art of blending. Without reservation,
people can show up right before the tasting.(3 time every weekday night and 10 times on weekends.) The tasting starts by showing a
brief introduction film, then a good good looking Johnnie Walker Ambassador walk out and ask the taster to taste the first glass, which
is the Black Label. Then the ambassador will ask the tasters compare the next four whiskies with four nosing samples (matches,
apples, raisin, and vanilla bar). The Ambassador asked the whisky taster to add some water to bring out the aroma, and told these
four base whiskies were used in the Black Label and represent four different elements as Earthy smoke, Fresh Fruits, Rich Fruits, and
Creamy Vanilla. It is not surprised when I later found out the four distilleries are Talisker, Glendullen, Mortlach, and Cameronbridge. The
tasting end with another film and open for the Q&A. Disappointing that the Ambassador is not familiar with whisky and can not answer
most of the question well. But I was very impressed that Diageo take the efforts to educate people how to taste whisky. And most attendants appreciate it.
The Green Label event were take place in a fine restaurant. It starts with some party food to let the taster know the Ambassador and
also understand the four base distilleries (Talisker, Caol Ila, Linkwood, Cragganmore). Then it moved to the tasting place. Unlike the
Black Label, it did not serve with tasting glass but in shot glass and then on the rocks. Neither did them provide the four base whisky
but there were live string quartet and beautiful waitress with short skirt to serve the Green Label, which comfort me a little bit on not
being able to taste the four great malts. I later found out that it is Diagoe Taiwan do not want to show the four base malts because
they are afraid people like the four base malts better instead of Green Label. I think it is non sense as Green Label is promoting the
four distilleries globally. Since your mentioned the four distilleries on the advertisements, people will try them if they are interested at
them. The best way is to "educating" people that the Green Label actually tasted better than the single malt, though I myself don't quite believe it.
E-pistle #14/15 - Winter Peat Monster Bash
Submitted on 14/05/2005 by Louis Perlman, USA
There seems to be a method to how the world was put together. A few years back, I conducted my first Winter Peat Monster Bash.
Scotland has damp and rainy weather for most of the year, and it was also provided with peat bogs.
While peat produces lots of smoke and little heat when burned as fuel, it also makes for great whisky that can be used for internal
central heating (it should be noted that Seattle, Washington has similar weather but no peat, so they had to invent Starbucks). The
thing about peated whisky and bone-chilling cold weather is how complimentary they are to each other. Peat Monsters in the summer
just don't work for me, no matter how much the air conditioning is cranked up. But on a bitter cold winter day such as the
unseasonably cold January of 2004 that we had in New York City when cold was coming in thru places I couldn't even see, that's a whole 'nother story.
And when the peat smoke settled, here's what happened.
Middleweight Division:
A tie between Laphroaig 9yo 1987 (46%, Murray McDavid) and Port Ellen 13yo 1982 (43%, Hart Brothers)
Light Heavyweight Division:
Laphroaig 10yo 'Cask Strength'
(57.3%, OB) out-pointed the Ardbeg 9yo 1991 (53.3%, D&M Club)
Super Heavyweight division:
So with memories of the 2004 winter firmly etched in my mind, I made sure that I had a good supply of peat in the liquid form on hand
at the end of last year. And that means time for the second Peat Monster Bash. The rules are simple. It's not ratings that count here,
but how much peat the whisky brings to the table. Balance and complexity are of secondary importance here, we're looking for that
full frontal attack. The classes break down as follows. Middleweight is for standard strength drams up to 46% ABV, and not too expensive. Light Heavyweight allows cask strength, but without totally breaking the back. And Super Heavyweight is
run-what-you-brung, as they used to say in outlaw auto racing down South, back in the late sixties and early seventies. Now here is
something to consider. Intense whiskies tend to mellow with age, older and more expensive may not do that well in this type of
competition. With some contenders probably being eligible for more than one class, I slotted them where they had the best chance of
competing. This actually produced a couple of paradoxes. The Ardbeg Uigeadail is vatted, whoops, blended, from 10 & 13 year old
whiskeis, and some older stuff from the seventies. But since the younger malts would be expected to contribute the punch, the Ugi
was slotted in the middleweight division. The Compass Box Monster has an average age of 12 years (10 for the Caol Ila and 14 for the
Ardmore). Sounds like middleweight, but anything that calls itself 'Monster' is going to compete for all of the marbles. OK, now. The first time around, Laphroaig won two out the the categories outright, and tied for the third.
Laphroaig 12yo 1984 (59.8%, Cadenhead) out-slugged the Port Ellen 22yo 1976 (57%, Scott's Selection)
Could it win a second Distillery Title? Lets find out.
Middleweight division:
So much for winning streaks. The CI 18 has been panned by Jim Murray and The Malt Advocate, but I go with Michael Jackson on this
dram. Plenty of intensity even at 43%, and it hasn't lost too much at 18 years. The general public (i.e blend lovers or those who think
Caol Ila 18yo (43%, OB) beats the Laphroaig 14yo 1988 (46%, Signatory 'Unchillfiltered', Cask #3595, Bottle #357/679)
that single-malt means Glens Livet & Fiddich) will find the CI 18 intense enough. And that's good enough to win this match. The UCF
Laphroaig has definitely mellowed out. It can't match the CI, even at 46%, and the body is lighter than what would be expected
without chill filtering. Worst of all, it is often price gouged, as independent Laphroaig bottlings are hard to come by.
Light Heavyweight division: The Binny's Cask is a nice dram, and works well with varying amounts of water, but that wasn't enough. I think that the problem in
this competition is that it has a straightforward attack of peat, but doesn't do much else. And against the competition here, that
wasn't enough. But as I said, it's a nice dram the rest of the time. The Laphroaig Cask Strength here is a 'Green Stripe' bottle
purchased duty free back in 2001, but only opened recently (the last time, I had a sample that a friend gave me). And while the
tarred rope that Michael Jackson mentions was good enough in the past, it got a little tiring here. Been there, done that, seen it all
before. So the belt goes to the Uigeadail. The older malt adds some reserve muscle, in addition to depth and complexity. This is really
great stuff. And kudos to parent company Glenmorangie for keeping the price reasonable, they could have easily charged 50% more. Since there is obviously a finite supply of this stuff, enjoy every drop while you can.
Ardbeg Uigeadail (54.2%, OB) beats both the Caol Ila 14yo 1990 (56.2%, Signatory 'Binny's cask') and the
Laphroaig 10yo 'Cask Strength' (57.3%, OB).
Super Heavyweight division: So is the Monster really a monster?
It took a while for the Plowed Port Ellen to finally get shipped (with many bottle lost in transit, alas), but it was worth the wait. While
March is usually past the Peat Monster season around here, we got a couple of weeks of annoying mini-snow storms, so I was able to
finish out the competition. And the wait was certainly worth it. I have seen some old PE tasting notes that motioned various
mechanical components. The (admittedly few) expressions that I've tried didn't have any, but they show up here. First of all the cask PS: Just a word on availability.
PPS: Already signed up for next winter are the CBW Peat Monster and the new Talisker 18.
Port Ellen 22yo 1982
(61.1%, OMC Plowed) beats the Compass Box Monster (54.9%, OB bottled for Park Ave. Liquors)
Absolutely. It was the dram that got me thru the worst of Winter 2004.
That smoky bacon fat and peat combination is amazing. But it really is a bulked up Evander Holyfield with Mike Tyson in jail and no other legitimate heavyweight competition. But here, there is legitimate competition.
held up really well, coming in at 61.1% after 22 years. Silly angels, what on earth were they drinking that was better than this? And it
still has a full dose on intensity. In addition to the peat, I detect some rubber, and maybe a few more things. Just a touch of water is
required, use the absolute minimum you can get away. This stuff rocks, and it's a shame for all of the bottles that were lost in transit.
The Binny's Cask Caol Ila is available from www.binnys.com, and there are still a few bottles left as I am keying this in.
The Monster was an exclusive bottling for Park Ave Liquors, and is still listed on their website, www.parkaveliquor.com. The newer Peat monster is bottled at 46%, and is available at all shops that sell Compass Box Whisky.
I love winter. No I don't.
Whatever...
Louis
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #14/16 - A Journey Back; A Dram Fine Time
Submitted on 15/05/2005 by Lawrence Graham, Canada
I have heard a saying that even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step or some such rubbish. I think that for most single malt lovers the journey is similar, you generally commence with the younger distillery or official bottlings at
10 and 12 years, then work your way up through the ranks sampling the 15's, the 18's the 25's and the over 30's. At some point you
become curious about what's on the other side of the fence and delve into the uncharted pastures of the Independent Bottlers and
discover the different ages and then cask strength whiskies and all the variations contained within the genre. Earlier last year I
commenced another journey, that of retracing my steps through my early routes (get it?) and revisited & re-tasted the distillery
bottlings of the 10 and 12 year olds that I had not tasted for along time due to the fact that I was off exploring the older and rarer malts and had turned my back on my first few dram steps.
Before I begin I have to declare a bias; both the Macallan 10 and the Ben Nevis 10 are possibly scored higher due to the fact that
were both evaluated in extra ordinary circumstances. The Macallan 10 was the malt of choice in my hiking flask while I hiked Hadrian's
Wall in the north of England and helped me keep pace with my eccentric and very maniacal brothers. Ben Nevis 10 was the logical
local choice when I hiked the Great Glen from the start near the old fort and the Safeway in Fort William, through the heights between
Invermoriston and Drumnadrochit in dreadful weather and finally through to the sea lochs and the bitter sweet end in a gale at Clachnaharry. Everybody needs a malt that saved their life while Scotland however it didn't help me see Nessie.
88 - An Cnoc 12yo 40% - I had never really appreciated how good this is.
* Some of these whiskies were not available when I first started with single malts. Slainte Lawrence
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In any case, my journey through single malts started with a first dram of a 10yo distillery bottling of Laphroaig.
That dram has remained a favorite to this day...
79 - Auchentoshan 10yo 40% - A nice gentle dram.
87 - Ben Nevis 10yo 46% - A good solid dram without any floral hints, bonus.
78 - Bruichladdich 10yo 46%* - Hmm, not quite living up to the hype.
81 - Bunnahabhain 12yo 46% - Some recent floral notes replacing the former sweetness but still a good dram.
82 - Caol Ila 12yo 43%* - A very drinkable Islay.
82 - Cardhu 12yo 43% - A well crafted dram but will I miss it? Eventually. Good thing I stocked up.
79 - Benromach NAS Traditional 40%* - Hints of smoke darting in and out, excellent for the young age.
78 - Glen Garioch 10yo 40% - No longer the solid dram I remembered.
88 - Glenfarclas 105 60% - Much better than I remembered, a great dram!
82 - Glenfarclas 10yo - Not the "thin" dram they gave us at the distillery, better. Malty and sweet. Good breakfast whisky?
89 - Glenfarclas 12yo 43% - I'm a bit of a sucker for the sherry.
85 - Glengoyne 10yo 40% - Proof positive that the lack of peat is not a hindrance.
82 - Glenlivet 12yo 40% - Much better than I remembered, salvation in all those bars who stock ubiquitous twins 'Livet & 'Fiddich.
85 - Glenmorangie 10yo 40% - Loads of flavour, there's lots there & benefits from gentle hand warming.
86 - Highland Park 12yo 40% - Hints of everything, good stuff.
85 - Macallan 10yo 40% - A great dram for a hike, even a brother or two liked it.
90 - Macallan 12yo 40% - Improved, a small patchy bit in there, it seems to be back. Good news.
82 - Scapa 12yo 40% - A welcome friend to return to, we need to see more from this distillery.
82 - Speyburn 10yo 40% - A soft balanced dram that has started many nights excellent out on the town.
85 - Springbank 10yo 46% - The distinctive Springbank 'gout' is still there.
82 - Strathisla 12yo 43% - Yup, still good.
79 - Tamdhu NAS 40% - A good solid enjoyable malt.
However, I have included them because I wanted to; this is a personal journey and not a scientific evaluation involving government
grants and white lab coats. I have not included Aberlour 10, Aberlour a'bunadh, Ardbeg 10 and Laphroaig 10 due to the fact that they have been constants in my line up for several years.
E-pistle #14/17 - Baladin Elixir
Submitted on 16/05/2005 by Luca Chichizola, Italy
MaltManiacs… a name which clearly has a meaning!
Since the '90s, a small brewer from Piozzo near Fossano (province of Cuneo, in Northern Italy) started to be recognized worldwide. His
name is Teo Musso, and he's a guy who studied his craft in Belgium and other places to learn the art of beer-making. Teo owns a pub
in Piozzo, where live music is played and nice food is served. But the main interest of the place are the beers made in his microlab,
beers made according to ancient and genuine recipes, made with love and passion and a touch of innovation. His beers are to be
found not only in his pub but also in elite delicatessen shops around Italy, in very little quantities for the true connoisseurs. Teo does
not aim to mass production: he hand brews all of his beers, according to his maniacally high quality standards. His beers have an
opaque appearance thanks to non-filtering, and are said to be very fit for aging in a cellar like a fine wine. Go and have a look at his website at www.birreria.com, also in English, and make your mouth water! Elixir is a "demi-sec" beer, matured and refermented in the bottle (yes, a bit like champagne).
Baladin "Elixir" (10%, Italy, Bottled February 2005)
So, if you can snatch a bottle of Elixir or of some other Baladin beer (like Noel, or Isaac.. truly great stuff), don't let it slip by. They
are exported in selected retails worldwide, and if you can't find them try to visit their website and send an e-mail to ask for the
nearest distributor. If you like deluxe beers, you are in for a treat… It's not by chance that Baladin beers were declare
We love malts, and thus Malt Maniacs… but does "malt" only mean "single malt Scotch whisky"?
Of course not. Like Johannes sometimes experiments with other spirits, we maniacs like to experiment too. This little experiment of
mine stays in the realm of malt-derived beverages, but it's not a spirit… As you might have guessed, we are talking about beer.
One of Teo's latest creations, Elixir, is of enormous interest for malt maniacs.
Not only because it is a pure malt product, but because according to the label Teo
used
interest which probably struck you just now, also struck me! I decided to call Teo
for a quick phone interview, and he was very kind to provide some more insight.
Well, Teo has been working for several years as "consultant" for a distillery on
Islay: he isn't allowed to say which one because of an explicit request of the
distillery, but this doesn't make the story less interesting…
Teo asked the distillery if he could experiment with some of their whisky yeasts.
This caused some sceptical reactions at first… "Not possible", "unlikely to yield results".
But his sixth sense kept speaking to him: he knew that with some tinkering he could reach something useful for his great beers. First
experiments were not succesful, but patience and further experimentation to make the original Islay yeast strains evolve and "adapt"
eventually gave some results. Teo of course is jealous of his brewing secrets (and rightfully so, I must say!), but the end line is that,
yes, the yeast strain used for Elixir is a direct descendant of varieties used for whisky making by a major Islay distillery.
It is a very strong beer, at 10% ABV, which Teo suggests drinking in a very large glass and deeply chilled (while for a better tasting
experience of most of his other beers he prefers a natural cellar temperature). The ingredients are water, malt, hops, Islay whisky
yeast, raw cane sugar from "commercio equo e solidale" (which means that it doesn't come from multinationals, but from small independent producers to avoid exploitation of work in third world countries). Here are the tasting notes:
Nose: Very delicate, with evident yeasty notes.
Palate: Sweet, round, with red apples and a hint of burnt sugar. Some licorice. Enormously malty, with a big intensity and richness.
Some very distant peatiness, very well hidden in the sweet round character. If you have drunk Lutèce beer when it used to be good (not the crap they make nowadays), you might have a distant comparison, but the Elixir is much richer and better.
Finish: Malty, licoricey, again red apples.
Score: 94 points, words do not give justice to this beer!