E-pistle #15/05 - Feis Ile 2005; May 26 (Second Prelude)
Submitted on 25/07/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland My first day in Scotland
reminded me about one of Scotland's most famous traits: it's wet.
To my dismay, our second day in Scotland started only slightly less drizzly than the first one had ended.
Fortunately, the full breakfast they served at our hotel kept us occupied long enough for the weather to change.
The
sun still didn't seem very confident, but every now and then it peeked at us from behind the clouds to see if it was safe to start shining yet. By the time we had cleaned out the breakfast buffet the drenched city of Glasgow
started to dry up. Serge and Olivier wouldn't arrive from London until late in the afternoon, so Davin and I had much of the day to ourselves.
Davin adds: In Glasgow for a pre-Feis Ile day, and what to do?
The Whisky Shop in Buchanan Galleries has been visited; the booty opened or packed away. Tick.
The Pot Still on Hope Street has been visited (several times) and many exotic drams consumed. Tick.
But did you know that Glengoyne Distillery is but an eighteen pound cab ride from downtown Glasgow?
For less than nine pounds each, four happy drammers can take a taxi there and back to visit one of the most
picturesque distilleries in Scotland and still make it home to their Travelodge beds in time for more power dramming. Tick, tick.
This is exactly what a contingent of PLOWED/MANIACS did just before Feis Ile this year.
For others visiting Glasgow, one word: RECOMMENDED. 
Yeah, I guess travelling with four passengers would indeed be better.
But did you know that it is also possible to fit five sizeable people into
one of those typical British taxi's? Well, I didn't, but with some creative
arrangements which included stuffing the least sizeable of the five (that
would be me) in the luggage compartment we managed to do just that.
Davin and I shared a taxi with double agent Peter Silver and Plowedsters
Todd and Jay who proved to be very entertaining travelling companions.
If their tall tales were anything to go by, Davin and I missed quite a
spectacle last night when Plowedster Dave Russo went into overdrive
and started to call everybody Euan. It seems it took Dave just one
long wild night to become a living legend in the Glasgow area ;-)
I'm almost sorry Davin & I opted for a matrix session instead...
Meanwhile, the drive from Glasgow's city centre to Glengoyne gave me a wonderful opportunity to appreciate the architecture and
different landscapes. Not that I had much choice, with my face pressed against the window like it was ;-) Still, the drive itself only
took some twenty minutes and the conversation provided by four other whisky freaks more than made up for any minor discomforts.
One moment we were still making our way through the outskirts of Glasgow, the next we found ourselves surrounded by countryside.
Just a few minutes later we arrived at the Glengoyne distillery - and suddenly the city seemed a hundred miles away. The distillery is
small and very attractive, nestled between rolling green hills. The impression would have been absolutely idyllic if it hadn't been for the busy road running between the distillery and the warehouses.  Once again I was pleasantly surprised by Glengoyne.
The first time was during the
2004 Malt Maniacs Awards
when they submitted a bunch of excellent bottlings that
were infinitely more interesting than the relatively bland
10yo and 12yo OB's that were available in the 1990's.
The second surprise was the beautiful countryside
surrounding the distillery; after I looked up Glengoyne
on the map I had expected it to be swallowed up by the
outskirts of Glasgow by now. Fortunately, it's still 'rural'.
Davin adds: Glengoyne is one of those good, solid malts
that everyone knows, but also one which has until recently
lacked the panache to really turn the heads of malt
afficianados. That has all changed since the takeover by
Ian MacLeod. In addition to their standard range of top
shelf bottlings at 10, 17 and 21 years Glengoyne is now
producing high-end single cask and other low-volume
bottlings targeted directly at the connoisseur.
Quite right, Davin! It seems Ian MacLeod is doing good things!
And I guess this is another
example of how the right management can have a huge impact on a 'brand'.
Just like Bruichladdich, the new owners had to work with the stocks that were laid down by previous owners. By careful cask selection
and vatting they managed to transform a 'middle-of-the-road' malt into one of the hottest tickets in town. Picking up three medals in
the MM Awards (two silver and one bronze) is no mean feat, and snagging two awards is positively impressive. Glengoyne received the 'Single Starlet Award' for their Glengoyne 12yo Cask Strength
(57.2%, OB, Bottled 2004) and the prestigious 'Highlands Award of Excellence' for the Glengoyne 19yo 1985/2004 'Summer' (52.6%, OB, Cask #608). Particulary impressive because Glengoyne is
sometimes considered to be a Lowland distillery, located on the border between Highlands and Lowlands. Davin adds: The new focus on the connoisseur begins with cask selection to ensure bottlings will not disappoint.
The opinions of malt fanatics have been solicited and listened to as well. For example, their recent Glengoyne 31yo 1972/2004 (57.9%, OB, Cask #2968) was widely sampled by malt heads at Feis Ile 2004
, among other places and it was malt fans who selected this cask for bottling from among a range of truly stellar samples. But back to our visit. I must say it did my heart good
to see a contingent of PLOWED peat-monster-hunters join
us Maniacs in opening the new outdoor bar beneath the
Glengoyne waterfall. Glengoyne's Robbie Hughes and
Stuart Hendry welcomed our motley crew in royal
fashion, touring us through the warehouses to taste
the resting nectars, then honoured us with the first
drams poured at the newly built bar.
Inspired, I think, by more exotic wilderness bars,
the ambiance was almost tropical and it was a treat
to be the first to trod the bicoloured gravel path within
a path. When you visit Glengoyyne, and you must, do
not fail to wander back to the waterfall.
Yeah, I have to agree with Davin!
It's a beautiful spot for 'picnic' dramming; just below the
waterfall and completely surrounded by steep hills filled
with lush vegetation. Things were improved further by
the company of the PLOWED people and Robbie Hughes
and Stuart Hendry (second and third from the left in the
picture at the right, behind the bar) who poured us a
stiff skalk, the Glengoyne 12yo C/S (57.2%, OB) which
was from a later batch than the MM Awards submission.
Nose: Subtle smoke, but I couldn't get a big impression
from the fairly odd glasses available at the bar, I'm afraid.
Taste: Solid and malty, maybe just a little bitter in the
finish. Perhaps a distant hint of cod oil or Butter?
Score: 82 points - but that's not a very 'solid' score. Hmmm... I hope to be able to try it again from my own glasses some time.
I wouldn't be surprised if that revealed new layers of complexity I missed this time. And even if this batch proves to be little less maginificent than the previous one, it's still a big leap up from the standard Glengoynes from a few years ago. Davin adds:
Glengoyne has long had a range of special 'seasonal' releases, but have Glengoyne bottlings really reached the upper
echelons of degustatory excellence? Well, I know of one Maltmaniac who, allowed by Canada Customs to bring only two bottles
home from his trip to Scotland, included the Glengoyne Belgian release, (Glengoyne 15yo 1989/2004 (55,8%, OB for Corman Collins,
Cask 1219, 264 b)) in his booty. Fellow Maniac, Luc Timmermans had recommended it giving it a whopping score of 93 points.
Glengoynes new-found status really underlines the importance of good cask selection. Just as Bruichladdich went from drinkable to
desirable when Jim McEwan took over cask selection, so too has Glengoyne reached a new level of excellence under the watchful eyes of Ian MacLeod & Company and distillery manager Robbie Hughes.
Good work, boys, keep 'em coming. 
Peter adds: I was very excited about visiting Glengoyne today,
since I am a big fan of the Scottish Oak and the older bottlings.
I consider Glengoyne an underrated distillery that will hopefully
one day get the accolades it deserves. The sheer beauty of
the setting of the distillery was overwhelming. I really loved the
waterfall flowing into the holding pond right by the visitor center.
You can see the contemplative look on the face of PLOWED
Ringleader Frank Christ as he enjoys the momentary peace
and solitude, before the mayhem to come later.
Hmmmm....
I'm afraid I may have been one of those people 'underrating'
Glengoyne, Peter - but that doesn't mean I won't stick by my
ratings for the old 10yo and 12yo bottlings. There was nothing
'wrong' with them, mind you (72 and 73 points is nothing to
be ashamed about; just a tad below average) but I usually
need a little more character to become really excited.
Their latest bottlings have exactly that: character.
The same goes for the distillery itself, by the way - small and traditional.
Stuart showed us that one still (I think it was the one in the middle of the picture below) was running on its last legs; the copper was
just a few millimeters thick and it had been patched up at a few places. I have to admit I never really thought about it, but as it turns
out, stills actually 'dissolve' over time - very slowly, fortunately ;-) Apparently, the copper of a still doesn't merely act as a 'catalyst'
for the spirit, some particles actually make it into the spirit. So I guess copper is an 'ingredient' of whisky as well... However, as I
understand it, the rate at which the stills dissolve varies a lot - it can last from mere decades to over a century. Stuart admitted
that, being Scottish, they had been running and patching up the old worn still as long as possible, but now retirement was around the corner. The still will probably be replaced before the year is over.  After the tour of the distillery we were taken
into the warehouses just across the road where
Robbie and Stuart poured us a bunch of fresh
cask samples - now in proper nosing glasses.
Ah, that's much better! That was all the help
my nose needed to really get to work. They
served us young samples from some sherry,
port and bourbon casks - all +/- six or seven
years old. My personal favourite (and quite a
few PLOWED people seemed to agree with me)
was a magnificent 7yo from an Oloroso cask
that really knocked my socks off. Just great.
If I'm not mistaken it was cask number 1966.
Robbie or Stuart, if you're reading this report:
Bottle! It! Now! Amazing at just seven years.
I jealously guarded my glass during the rest
of our raid of the warehouse and I almost had
to be forced to try some other cask samples.
Lovely, lovely, lovely... We had a great time in the warehouses, but
eventually our rumbling stomachs forced us
across the road and back up the path behind
the distillery to the excellent lunch that was
waiting for us in the 'VIP room' overlooking
the waterfall and Glengoyne's pretty pond.
What a brilliant location to finish our tour. My enjoyment was enhanced even further
by the Glengoyne 15yo Scottish Oak (43%,
OB, Bottle #3007, Bottled +
2005). An earlier
'Scottish Oak' bottling released at 16yo didn't
really work for me, but this one went down
much easier. The nose was quite gentle with
various apple overtones. It was smooth and
chewy on the palate. A beautifully balanced
dram that earned a score of 84 points in my
book. Another recommendable Glengoyne. The Glengoyne 31yo 1972/2004 (57.9%,
OB, Cask #2968) was my personal favourite
among the bottlings they poured at the distillery.
Once again I found plenty of apple notes (mostly
the skin of Granny Smiths) but over time the complexity
grows and this is a dram that keeps teasing you with lots of subtle surprises.
The taste was dominated by fruity notes but I also found some chocolate in there.
All in all a very satisfying dram: 88 points
- a fine finish to a fine morning at the Glengoyne distillery. Peter adds: When we were being treated to a lovely lunch and tasting in the VIP room, I was told an interesting tale by one of our
hosts. There is a lovely balcony overlooking the picturesque holding pond and I mused if anyone had taken a dip. I was told that it
was not considered a swimming pool. However, there was this one time, when a German dignitary was visiting, and he disappeared
from the tasting room. His hosts assumed he had gone out to admire the view and have a smoke. Actually, he went out with two of
his people, proceeded to disrobe and hand them his clothes and then dived into the water! He swam around for a while, much to his enjoyment, then rejoined the group as if nothing unusual had happened.
I wonder if the whisky that was distilled that day will have a special finish? Hehe ;-) Best not to think of it, Peter...
But with all the 'free-ranging' sheep polluting the water and peat on Islay, I'd say one undignified German dignitary taking a dip in
Glengoyne's pond is a relatively minor concern. Thank heavens they distill the stuff before we get to drink it, eh? Olivier adds: It has been proven by large scientific studies that if we drink over a litre of water per day, we swallow in one year
over a kg of various bacillus, fecal coliforms and other streptocoques diluted in the water, which is in fact: 1 KG OF SHIT. In the
other way, while drinking beer, wine, whisky, rum or any other liqueur, we do not risk our lives. The various filtrations, heating
process, fermentations, and distillation for the spirits, will guarantee the purity of the liquid. For all those reasons, we ask you to
communicate to all those people that harm themselves in drinking bad water and tell them that scientifically speaking, water is shit and alcohol is healthy. So, for a non shitty life, choose the bottle!
Everybody conscious of this reality of life will draw the following conclusion:
"It is better to drink beer and talk like shit, than to drink shit and say nothing".
Health and prosperity! Erm..., on that slightly surreal note it's time to wrap up our report on the visit to Glengoyne. The PLOWED folks had an appointment to
test some more cask samples at Douglas Laing HQ while Davin and I had to pick up Serge and Olivier at Glasgow airport.
Once our dynamic duo would be expanded to a crazy quartet the malt mania could begin for real...
Serge adds:
Our first day in Scotland! Every time we fly to England or Scotland together, Olivier and I go and check the duty free
shop at the Basle Euroairport. Nothing really special there, but there used to be quite a bunch of old Scott's Selection bottlings.
Okay, as always, the Port Ellen had vanished from the shelves quite early, but there still was an old Glen Grant, a Glenrothes and a
Linlithgow last year. This year, nada, niente, nichts! Except some ancient 22yo 'Moonlight' and 30yo 'Sea Dragon' ceramics from
Bowmore's that had been gathering dust since… yes, three years, at least! Most funnily, some tasting notes are displayed, signed by
a certain… James McEwan. Granted, the Swiss (we love you all, guys) aren't especially famous for their celerity, but still!Anyway, the Swiss/BA flights to Heathrow (home of the infamous glug-club, but I guess Scotland Yard has some more urgent
matters these days) and then to Glasgow went most smoothly, and it's always a thrill to listen to some Swiss air-hostess announcing
'vee arh' aboot to lantt' at Heattrowe errport', pleesse fass-tenn' yoor seetpelts'. Yeah well, only the Air France hostesses are doing
worse (and they're much less funny), and maybe the fact that we already did quite some heavy dramming and tasting – including a
fantastic Brora 28yo 1971 from the Laings - on the flights made it even funnier. And oh, I seem to recall the (Swiss) guys who were seating behind us thought the hostess was… Scottish! Ha! As soon as we had landed at Glasgow International Airport (did you
notice even the shortest aerodrome is 'international' these days ?)
whom do we meet? Yes, the most fearsome couple of fellows,
wearing two-day beards and Ted-Nugent moustaches: maniacs
Johannes and Davin themselves. Ha! Since Dave, and then Charlie
adopted some very Zappa-esque moustaches and goatees (yeah,
just like me), more and more maniacs had decided to go trendy
and I must say Davin looked great; somewhat between Buffalo Bill
and, again, Ted Nugent, if you see what I mean…
After we hugged like some old army fellows, we took the next
shuttle to Arnold Clarke's Car Rental where we had to pick what
was to become the famous ManiacMobile (which later was to get
even more photographed than Bowmore-from-the-peer by the various
tourists on Islay). Granted, Olivier had rented an estate car, but most
unexpectedly, the people at Arnold Clarke's had reserved a rather small fake-Jaguar (i.e. a 'not yet Chinese-owned' Rover). But how
will we manage to put our luggage into the trunk? Yes, it's incredible how much room some sample bottles need, when you have
hundreds of them. Most luckily, Olivier did some severe arm-twisting and we ended up with the red mini-bus that had driven us from the airport to the AC car rental station, i.e. The ManiacMobile. Cool!
It was time to drive West, so we took the road to Inveraray, where I had planned to meet Richard Joynson.
Too bad, the delay caused by our car changing made us reach Loch Fyne ten minutes after closing time (which is, by the way, very
early – 17h30 or something). Too bad! So, we went to our hotel, 'The George', which is just opposite the street. It's a rather nice
place – nothing too special but they serve good food at the pub and they have lots of whisky at the bar. I asked the people there for Richard's phone # but guess what, they didn't even know who Richard was.
Gosh! Even in Japan, they know Richard!  Anyway, after the excellent fish and ships for Davin, Olivier and
me and half a tomato and a mushroom for Johannes (who really
seems to seek his proteins and calories from whisky rather than
from solid food) it was time for a short walk around Inveraray
(a digestive walk for three of us, purely touristic for Johannes),
but we were soon to hear 'the call of the
Matrix
' so we headed
towards one of our rooms to do some serious dramming.It's during that session that something appeared quite clearly:
Davin and Johannes had come to Scotland to pursue their own
maniacal challenges (like, tasting at least five 6th-fill sherry
Strathmills) instead of adopting Oliver's and my very French
challenge: simply drink what we like best - the most we can.
But no need to say we're both very civilized (unless somebody
touches our Broras and Highland Parks), so we decided to go
with the Dutch-Canadian flow, and to taste quite a bunch of
odd and obscure samples our fellow Maniacs had selected.
Such is life in Scotland, with some malt maniacs!
Thank God we had to go get up early to drive to Oban, so I seem to recall the torture stopped after only a few drams, and we went
quickly to bed. I was soon to fall into the arms of Morpheus but I fuzzily remember a terrible nightmare: a giant bottle of 10yo Allt-A-Bhainne Portwood finish relentlessly going after me… Aaargh! Now, now, Serge... Don't be such a cry-baby ;-)
As this mini-matrix of the malts we tried at the hotel proves, we didn't do too bad at all!
But you have a point; rest assured that I will focus on the better stuff as soon as my 'research' is complete.
(Check out my personal Feis Ile report for my tasting notes on these malts.)SV - JH - OH - DK
85 - 79 - 83 - 82 - Benrinnes 1968 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, Old Brown Label)
93 - 90 - 93 - 92 - Brora 1971/2001 (50%, DL Old Malt Cask, June 1971 / April 2001, 258 Bottles)
87 - 80 - 85 - 87
- Glen Mhor 8yo (70 Proof, G&M, Bottled 1970's)
86 - 83 - 88 - 87 - Glen Mhor 8yo (100 Proof, G&M, Bottled 1970's)
90 - 86 - 89 - 88 - Ledaig 1972 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, Old Brown Label)
82 - 85 - 81 - 80 - Macallan 10yo (70 Proof, G&M 'Official Label', 4cl, Bottled 1970's)
91 - 88 - 89 - 86 - Macallan-Glenlivet 15yo (43%, G&M, Italian Import, Bottled 1970's) So, I only see one score in the 70's in there - and I was the person behind that one.
In fact, if my eyes don't deceive me, I see no less than three scores in the 90's in your column, Serge!
It's more likely that your nightmare was a foreshadowing of some REALLY bottom shelf stuff we would get to try on Islay ;-)
But we weren't on Islay just yet.
As Serge pointed out, we would be heading to Oban early the next morning.
More about that in our next 'Feis Ile' E-pistle - first I'd like to ask the other maniacs about copper...Sweet drams, Johannes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #15/06 - Ask an Anorak: Copper
Submitted on 26/07/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
They often say malt whisky is made from 'water, air, fire and... erm... barley I suppose.
But during our visit to Glengoyne Davin and I learned that copper is an 'ingredient' as well...
One of the stills was almost worn down - Stuart Hendry told us that the copper was just millimeters thick at some points. It seems
copper isn't just a 'catalyst' - it's also an 'ingredient' of whisky. However, as I understand it, the rate at which stills dissolve varies a
lot. Any ideas what the range is between the stills with the shortest lifespans and those with the longest?
Since there's a apparently lively trade in second hand stills, I imagine some survive for quite a long time.
And for those of you who are chemically inclined: any ideas on how copper purifies whisky?
Maniacs, I ask you: any thoughts about this? Ulf
: Hello Johannes, copper certainly is an 'ingredient' too.
Not lethal though. I think the alcohol will get you quicker than the copper.
Regarding the lifespan of the pot/kettel; it is off course related to usage/boiling frequece.
As a rule of thumb I have heard that the lifespan varies beteween 20-25 years when the usage is near or close to daily. Reminder; the
pot/kettel may be and often is replaced segment-wise over time. By the way: copper has an effect on blond and grey heads here in
Florida. The pool chemicals contain copper and a light green tingue is added to the hair when pools are too frequently visited. Johannes: Wow, Ulf - people with green hair... Are you sure those aren't just aliens? ;-)
Yeah, I imagine the lifespan of a still depends on how often it's used - good point. That brings up loads of other interesting questions.
I've been told many distilleries run more or less continuously while others (like Springbank) close for weeks on end. Or how about
Scapa or Glen Scotia, that operate even more infrequently? Well, assuming a still doesn't 'wear down' if it's not used, it's reasonable to
define the lifespan of a still by the number of days it's actually used. So, that would be +/- 6000 days of distilling for a 'whole' still of
average size and shape - assuming it isn't 'patched up', right? That brings me to the next question: I assume wash stills don't wear
down as quickly as spirit stills; I imagine the higher proof of the distillate in the spirit still would make it more corrosive, no?
Can anybody confirm or deny this? Davin
: Hi Johannes, I think there are many variables influencing how long a still will last.
For example what is the level when distillation starts? Was the wash more or less acidic?
Is the still generally run hot or cold / fast or slow? Has it boiled over frequently?
Does the shape lead to more or less contact / more or less reflux?
Some distillers start with the still less than half full, others fill it up 65% or more.
Some distilleries ferment longer or hotter than others leading to different chemical content and pH in their washes.
Some do a crude fast hot distillation, other seek finer spirit with a longer, slower distillation.
Some have more accidents than others.
A ball still will have more reflux than a plain still.
And on and on...
So life expectance of a still is like that of a human - it depends on what goes in and how it is processed. Whether copper becomes a
constituent of the whisky or is thrown out with the pot ale, I don't know, but I would suspect mostly the latter. Klaus: Malt whisky contains quite a lot of copper for a liquid.
According to literature the average is 477 µg/l. This does not sound like very much.
You would need almost 7000 bottles of whisky to get the equilvanent of one euro-cent worth of copper!
But nevertheless the loss of copper is not negligible for the distilleries.
In a publication (www.scientificsocieties.org/ jib/abstracts/2002/g-2002-1309-002.htm) I found a simple calculation that Talisker
looses approximately 1.1 tons of copper from their stills every year. I have to admit that most of the copper lands in the pot ale and
spent lees. Only a minority is present in the final product. If the loss of copper is so drastic, why haven't the distillers switched to
stills made of stainless steel, ceramics or glass? I am quite sure that they tried. But the result must have been terrible. Why? Because copper plays such an important role in malt whisky production.
It is the magic, or as the modern man would say the chemistry of copper.
I hope the combined efforts of the malt maniacs will shine a little light on that topic. Ulf: Malt Advocate carried an article on the subject recently.
It is also published on the Web: http://www.maltadvocate.com/html/am_cop.html Johannes
: Hey, that's an interesting Malt Advocate article, Ulf!
I've now learned several interesting new things about copper. Like the fact that the main reasons copper became popular among the
early distillers in Scotland had little to do with its effect on the taste - it was simply a convenient metal to make stills from because it
was relatively cheap and malleable (iron or tin would have been too brittle), not to mention an excellent heat conductor. So, it was
more or less by chance that they stumbled across copper. It was only much later when they started to experiment with materials like
stainless steel that they discovered that copper has a significant effect on the bouquet and taste of the spirit as well. For one thing,
it removes the minute amounts of sulphur that find their way from the grain into the spirit. In fact, it seems that in some bourbon
distilleries that use stainless steel column stills they just throw pieces of copper shrapnel into the still to get 'the copper effect'. Klaus
: I said earlier that malt whisky contains quite a lot of copper for a liquid.
Here is some additional info I have found in booklet from an environment protection group (released 1985):
Located in the harbour of Hamburg is Europe's biggest copper production plant, the Norddeutsche Affinerie.
The heavy metal concentration in the water from the official drains and the water running trough cracks, splits and sliders was
measured. I only give the values for copper. Official drains: average 705 µg/l and one astronomical value of 41100 µg/l. Cracks etc:
lowest concentration 1500 µg/l, highest concentration 750.000 µg/l. Well, - single malts cannot keep up with the copper concentration from cracks etc. but the copper concentration from the official drains is in the same region.
Btw. copper is relativly harmless for humans, but it is extremely toxic for microorganismis.
It kills Algae, fungi and bacteria. The poisonous effect starts at copper-concentrations of 10 µg/l. Charlie
: Whisky is actually good for us, Klaus! We are all familiar with Dr. Jim Swan's recent remarks about the beneficial effects of
ellagic acid in whisky ("a highly effective, free-radical scavenger that absorbs or eats up rogue cells", and thus not only prevents but
cures cancer) - malt whisky having more ellagic acid than red wine. A leader in The Scotsman last month (8th June) takes this a stage further:
"Scientists in Japan claim to have discovered that a dram a day is also good for keeping wrinkles at bay. A three-year study
has found evidence that the chemical constituents found naturally in barrels made of oak are secreted into the whisky. These react with the whisky itself to slow down the ageing process, leaving your face looking much younger."
James Hogg (The Ettrick Shepherd; 1820s) could have saved them the research: "If a person could just find out the exact proportion
and quantity that ought to be drunk every day and keep to that, I verily believe that he might live forever, without dying at all, and that doctors and churchyards would go out of fashion" ! 'Tak aff yer dram', Maniacs!
Klaus
: I will ask my malt drinking friends with phd's in chemistry to explain in detail why copper stills are good for our eyesight. They
say with copper stills there will be far less methanol in the spirit. And on the second stage I will try to find out how copper influences
certain chemical reactions during the distillation an in the bottle. This is very interesting, because I already have found out that
ethanol does not simply oxidize to the corresponding aldehyde in the opened bottle (when you study the common whisky literature it always sound like this is the fact). You need copper for this process. Johannes: OK, Klaus - you're the 'mad scientist' ;-)
I'll await the results of your research with open eyes... Olivier: I can confirm that copper is also used in wine making as a purifier.
A very small amount (ppms/litre) would break down sulphur compounds (including H2S) that comes from the use of too much sulphur spraying on the vineyards and the use of SO2
in winemaking at the wrong moment when the wines are still very reductive. Klaus
: I recently claimed that copper is good for our eyes, because it reduces the amount of methanol in the spirit.
Now, after a dramming session with my friend Michael (a chemist), he revised his opinion. He said that he and his wife had thoroughly
searched their old textbooks but found no indication that destruction of methanol happens, when spirit is distilled in a copper still. I am
glad that I can withdraw my earlier statement before it becomes an urban myth. As compensation for the unexpected change of mind
of my chemistry-knowledge-source Michael offered me some new information. I hope they are reliable this time: Copper reduces the
amount of unpleasant sulfur-compounds (smelling like drains, chicken shit or rubber) in the still. These compounds are destroyed and
you will find copper-sulfate in the residues after the distillation. Stills made of silver would perform even better on that job. But silver is far more expensive and has not the best mechanical properties. Charlie
: I think the crucial role of copper has only recently been fully realised and described by chemists.
Dennis Nicol (in 'The Science and Technology of Whiskies' [Piggot, Sharp and Duncan] 1989, p.118) says:
"It is only recently that another attribute [of copper], its ability to influence flavour, has been more fully appreciated... underlying role as an essential ingredient in the whisky recipe."
He goes on to say (p.139): "The copper patina which has formed on the copper surfaces exposed to spirit vapours, plays a marked role in the fermentation of congeners, especially the esterification of organic
acids by alcohols...In this respect it has been demonstrated that the volatile compounds of sulphur derived from the yeast (sulphides
and mercaptans) are reduced and removed by the interaction with copper, especially in the wash still. Copper is therefore an essential element in producing clean spirit."
The same author expands slightly upon this in the more recent 'Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing' [Inge Russell, et al], 2003 p.166:
"Sulphur compounds present in the distillate vapour are highly volatile and odorous substances that take their toll on the
copper, forming sulphides; the carbon dioxide in the wash encourages the formation of copper carbonate, which manifests itself as
verdigris... Attach by carbon dioxide and sulphur also thins the copper, so that eventualy areas subject to this attack wear away,
needing constant patching and eventually complete replacement. A still affected by erosion emulates the breathing of a dog, with the shoulders rising and falling in rhythmic pattern; such a condition is known as 'panting'..."
What a wonderful image! He concludes by saying: "...and indicates the need for replacement of the pot".
You bet! Later (p.169) he says:
"Copper has already been mentioned as a silent contributor to the quality of the spirit, as it removes
the foul smelling, highly volatile sulphur compounds, and is allegedly implicated in the formation of esters. Copper catalyses the formation of ethyl carbamate from the cyanogenic glycosides derived from the original barley."
Increased exposure to copper in the still and the condenser makes for a purer, lighter spirit.
Greater exposure is achieved by various factors (size, shape and height of stills, and how full they are charged - leading to increased
reflux, or the reverse; angle of lye pipe; whether or not purifiers are fitted; how slowly and how hot the stills are run, etc.) Perhaps
most important are the condensers: worm tubs give much less exposure to copper than shell-and-tubes, so make for a noticeably heavier, more characterful spirit. This is cutting edge stuff! Craig
: From practical experience in observing the spirit safe I can confirm that copper carbonate (pale green crystals) comes across
with the low wines. There are also black bits, but I don't know what they'd be, maybe copper sulphide? My inorganic chemistry is
only high school level. Also anecdotal reports would also support the role of the patina on the inner surfaces of the still. From
discussions, lots of distillers wouldn't redistill low wines from the first run after a still is cleaned or repaired and would wait until the black/dark grey sheen is back on the internal surfaces. Just my two bobs worth.
Johannes
: Thanks, fellows! Your comments pointed me in the right direction.
Of course, with so much new information to fuel its engine, my train of thought ran out of control again.
Charlie, you mentioned worm tubs and I was just thinking about that. There was one particular piece of the Malt Advocate article that drew my attention, a quote from Bill Lumsden;
"The surface area of copper available to the vapors in a worm tub (...) is a fraction of that you have in a condenser. The whisky made in a distillery with worm tubs is typically much more meaty and sulfury in character.
The only distillery I know of which currently utilizes both types is Linkwood distillery. I was posted there as a trainee manager in my
distiller's days, and I did a few experiments on my own, looking at the two different spirits. I could pick out the difference, nosing
and tasting blind. There was such a distinct difference. That's a quite dramatic illustration of how having a greater surface area of copper can really make a great impact on your spirit." Hey... That reminds me of our trip to Scotland in 2003 - didn't we see a worm tub at Edradour?
And isn't Edradour rather infamous for some funky batches? My main impression of the bad Edradours I had was vomit (excuse my
French), but I imagine sulphur isn't that different in the overall nasal spectrum. But then again, there could be a relation to the 'FWP'
problem at Bowmore and some other distilleries. And how about Oban (a report about the visit from four maniacs is coming up); they also use worm tubs but they produce a fairly clean spirit, don't they? Charlie: Johannes, Precisely!
Currently there are only 13 distilleries which retain their worms - and those at Dalwhinnie were removed in the 1970s and replaced in
1996 BECAUSE THE STYLE OF THE SPIRIT HAD CHANGED. They are: Balmenach, Benrinnes, Cragganmore, Dalwhinnie, Edradour, Glen
Elgin, Glenkinchie, Mortlach, Oban, Royal Lochnagar, Speyburn, Springbank (wash still only) and Talisker. By no means do all of these
produce 'meaty/sulphury' new make - this depends upon how they and the stills are run. In some cases (e.g. Lochnagar) the worms
are run hot so as to achieve a 'green-grassy' style. It all depends upon what the distiller is looking for. Dave: And Pulteney.
Oban also makes this grassy style but the worms do add to the richness of the palate. Ulf: And how about Linkwood, Charles?
Cooling for Linkwood B is performed via conventional vertical copper tube condensers.
But how about Linkwood A ? Is it or is it not still cooled by a traditional cast iron tank with the 'worm' submerged? Dave: If it were operational then yes, Ulf!
Currently it is only being used occasionally as an 'experimental' plant.
It's where a lot of the work in unravelling the secrets of worms took place.
Regarding Johannes' comments on copper: The longer the alcohol vapour is in contact with copper the lighter the whisky is likely to
be, but there's many a tune that a distiller can play! FYI: Worms don't give 'vomit' neither do they give 'perfume' or 'soap'. I associate
the aroma of baby sick/old parmesan cheese/rancid butter/Tibetan tea etc. with butyric acid which is a completely different problem. There are as many faults in whisky as there are in wine and they tend to have different roots.
Johannes
: Hey Dave, Very true - I typed too hastily.
In fact, your closing remark gave me an idea - quite a good one, I think.
In our discussion about FWP the discussion touched some other potential 'problems' as well - cork, for example.
I'm still knitting all the comments we received so far into a piece with something resembling a 'plotline', but maybe we should have a
look at potential problems in the various stages of the production process in a series of discussions, starting with the raw materials
and working our way through the process through to the bottling at the end. Yeah, I think that would be excellent - especially
because that will give Klaus the opportunity to do some further research into the chemical side of copper.So, let's start our next discussion with a look at the raw ingredients; water, yeast and barley.
Oh, wait a minute - we already discussed barley and yeast in E-pistle #14/01
quite extensively.
So, that leaves water
- but first, please prepare yourself for the third and last 'prelude' to Feis Ile 2005.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-pistle #15/07 - Feis Ile 2005; May 27 (Third Prelude)
Submitted on 28/07/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland During our
second day in Scotland Davin, Peter and I visted Glengoyne.
With three certified malt maniacs in attendance, that could be considered our first official distillery visit.
However, on the second day our paths diverged; Peter went off with fellow PLOWED person Jay to visit Auchentoshan while Serge and
Olvier joined Davin and me for tours of Oban and Springbank. Before I get to the visits of the fearsome foursome here are some words from Peter about his tour of Auchentoshan's new visitor's centre;  Peter writes: On Friday, May 27th, our last day in
Glasgow before heading off to Islay the following morning,
I had arranged a visit to the Auchentoshan Distillery.
I was joined by by fellow PLOWED Ringleader Jay Stotsky
and we later met up with Malt Maniac Charles MacLean.Auchentoshan has just recently opened a lovely visitor
center. Apparently this center is so new, our driver and
his dispatcher had no idea where it was! With some help
from Charles we finally made it and were greeted by
Mr. Ronnie Learmond, the Distillery Manager. Ronnie took us on a wonderful tour of his distillery,
answering all our questions and even took us outside
in the rain to show us the American flag that was flying
in honor of our visit that day! Then we retired to the bar
for some lunch and a few drams. My favorite was a single
cask Auchentoshan 29yo 1973/2002 (55.8%, OB, Sherry).
It was delicious with the wonderful power and subtlety of
old Auchentoshan with the butterscotch and lemon.
Perfectly balanced, rated a 92 points by myself. Charles joined us just in time for drams and then gave
us a ride back into town where we enjoyed a lovely lunch.
Wow... That Auchentoshan 29yo sounds delicious, Peter.
It's no secret that I've never been a big fan of the standard
10yo Auchentoshan OB (or any young IB for that matter),
but a fantastic Auchentoshan 21yo 1970 (43%, OB) that
I sampled in December 2004 convinced me that, just like
other Lowlanders, Auchentoshans can become very complex
given enough time in a good casks. I guess that's why some
young Lowland malts are more popular with people who want
to see the distillery character in a whisky - more often than
not members of 'the wine brigade', by the way.Personally, I prefer malts with lots of 'personality'.
Unfortunately, character isn't something you usually get
from triple distillation. In fact, the whole point of the triple
distillation process as opposed to 'normal' double distillation
is producing a much 'cleaner' spirit with fewer 'impurities'.
But I like my malts 'dirty'! And unchillfiltered if at all possible...
And if they bottle a single cask at cask strength, I'm even happier...
So, unless they start working on a peated Lowlander or have some matured in a fresh Oloroso cask (which, I admit, sort of defies the
purpose of making a Lowland type whisky) I think I will keep my eye on the Highlands and Islay most of the time. Which reminds me...
Islay... We're still not there yet - at least not as far as this report is concerned. I'd better get on with it.
So, meanwhile, in the Highlands...  ... Serge, Olivier, Davin and myself found ourselves on
the roof of the Oban distillery where Willie MacDougall
had taken us to proudly show off his waterworks.
I am talking, of course, about the copper worm tubs
that are still used at the Oban distillery. Willie took us
to the roof of the distillery at the end of an 'espresso'
tour of the distillery that focused on the things that
would be of interest to malt maniacs like ourselves.
I learned lots of new things during the tour.
But before I get into the details about the distillery,
I need to mention the 'collosseum' towering over Oban
in the picture at the right. I was really curious about
it; it looked almost Roman in style, but as far as I know
the Romans never made it this far north. Also, if it had
been built in Roman times, it surely would have been a
ruin by now. Willie told us
that this was 'McCaig's Folly'.
According to Wikipedia a folly is:
'An extravagant, useless, or fanciful building, or a
building that appears to be something other than what
it is. The term comes from the fact that such structures
have often been dubbed "[name of builder]'s Folly", in the
sense of foolishness or madness. ... They were especially
popular from the 16th century to the 18th century.
In this case, a local banker by the name of John Stuart
McCaig gave the orders to start construction in 1897.
Even though that was around the time of one of the
biggest whisky booms in history, unemployment in the
area was extremely high. Building McCaig's folly was a
job creation sheme as much as it was an act of madness.
However, after some 5,000 pounds had been spent the
construction stopped and the building was never finished.
Maybe that's just as well; it seems McCaig had planned
to fill the apertures with statues of his ancestors. Anyway, back to the Oban distillery. Here's what I remember from the tour;
Oban is said to have been founded in 1794 by Hugh, John and James Stevenson & Co. and it remained in the hands of the Stevenson
family until 1860, after which the distillery had several different owners. Between 1883 and 1887 the distillery was rebuilt by Walter
Higgin - but I'm not sure if this was before or after the fire that destroyed part of the distillery around that time. Oban was silent
between 1931 and 1937 and between 1969 and 1972. In the late 1960's and early 1970's the stillhouse was rebuilt.  I have to admit that we heard so much interesting stuff
during the tour that I couldn't focus on making any notes.
As a result, they are pretty vague - to put it very mildly.
For example, it says here: '140,000 6 Bottle Cases/Year'.
I assume that's the annual output of Oban; not quite as
much as I'd expected, to tell you the truth.
They use liquid yeast at Oban, but I can't make a lot
of sense from my next notes; '13 degrees. Washbacks.
Larch. Stainless Steel.' Or how about this obscure note:
'Diageo >7.000.000 casks'. Does that mean Diageo owns
over seven million casks of whisky? Probably. I guess...
Man, I really should bring my tape recorder next time! One thing that I do remember without having to consult
my notes was that Oban has one wash still and one spirit
still, both of which had a fairly unusual 'lamp glass' shape. Another unique feature are the worm tubs built into the
roof; I think the maniacs haven't seen any distilleries from
this perspective before. One last snippet of information:
according to Willie only bourbon casks are used at Oban.
Hmmm... I forgot to ask about the 'Distillers Edition'....
A.f.a.i.k. that's finished in Montilla Fino casks. But that's really the only sarcastic comment I can make
about the tour; it was relatively short (which isn't a bad
thing if you have some ten other distillery visits to look
forward to) but packed with information. To bad I didn't
make any proper notes; otherwise I could have shared
a lot more of it with you ;-) After the tour Willie poured us a few Obans, but you
can read about that in
my personal Feis Ile 2005 Report.
Well, I only mentioned the Obans we tried but Willie also
poured us two magnificent 8yo Glenlossie cask samples.
One came from bourbon and one came from sherry casks.
A wonderful illustration of the points Willie made about
the importance of wood - and quite an eye-opener when
it comes to Glenlossie. I never gave the distillery much
thought because bottlings are hard to find, but from
the looks of it this could very well be a 'hidden gem'.
From the Obans that were served to us in Willie's office
the Oban 32yo 1969/2002 (55.1%, OB, from 13 European
Casks, 6000 Bottles) was my #1 favourite: 90 points - XLNT! The visit to Oban flew by and we were very sorry we had to leave a little after noon.
We had an appointment at Springbank - or so we thought based on the confirmation Serge had received by e-mail. We arrived on time
but as it turned out there was no record of any reservation for the malt maniacs. We had to wait outside in the pouring rain for half
an hour before we could join a group of tourists for a 'misguiding' tour of the distillery and a tasting which, as it turned out, wasn't really worth the wait.
That was one afternoon I would have liked to spend otherwise - but if you're trapped on the tip of the windswept Kintyre peninsula there's not really that much else to do.
Brrrrr... Just thinking back to that cold and wet afternoon in Campbeltown makes me shiver.
You know what? I can't think of a lot of positive things to mention about Springbank and neither could Serge, Olivier and Davin. So,
instead of whining on about an utterly disappointing afternoon I'll just finish this report with a 'photo impression' of one afternoon spent (or should I say wasted) in Campbeltown. Well, that's a detour I won't be making again anytime soon...
Check out my personal Feis Ile report if you REALLY want to know how little fun I had,Sweet drams, Johannes
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-pistle #15/08 - Ask an Anorak: Water
Submitted on 29/07/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland As it turns out the
discussion about copper lead us to another topic: water.
We already discussed barley and yeast in E-pistle #14/01 quite extensively, but water is an 'ingredient' too.
Mark got the ball rolling with an intriguing remark about Auchentoshan
's water source; Mark
: A recent info-byte my eye scanned has me thinking about Scotland's regional borders again.
Auchentoshan is a Lowland malt but uses Highland water, as the source that is tapped is in the Kilpatrick Hills just to the north of
the Highland Line. I wonder if any other whiskies have such a straddlesome position to their whisky production?
(Of course, the info-source may be tainted: www.liquor.me.uk/en-gb/dept_311.html) Dave
: An interesting question Mark though, if you pardon me, one which is pretty irrelevant.
[That's not meant as a personal criticism by the way!] The statement infers two things: that Scotch whisky has fixed regional borders and
that each region is imbued with certain physical properties which have a direct impact on the character of the whiskies it produces. As far as I can tell, neither can be said to be 100% accurate.
Received wisdom (the SWA plus those pesky writers) tells us that whisky can be neatly divided up into regions:
Lowlands, Highlands, Speyside, Islands, Islay, Campbeltown.
However, in my experience, no-one can agree where Speyside is.
Why is Islay separate from the other islands? Why should the Islay 'region' not include Jura?
Is Arran part of an island grouping or is it a Lowland, or Highland distillery .. or maybe part of an extended Kintyre?
Should the Orkneys be considered as part of the islands, or a separate entity?
The Highlands... what's that then? Basically everything which isn't Lowlands or Speyside (whatever that is).
That's a lot of ground -- from the suburbs of Glasgow to Wick!
The bottom line is that these regions are not demarcated in the same way as wine regions are.
There is no appellation system within Scotch -- although interestingly the new SWA labelling guidelines will have to do something
along these lines -- if only too say where the borders are. So, do whiskies produced within each specific geographical location have a shared character?
If so, when taken to its logical conclusion, this suggests that whisky
exhibits terroir. OK. If the region has such an impact perhaps we can discuss the shared characteristics between the seven Islay distilleries, or how Talisker is the same as Arran, or Jura. How Glengoyne is the same as Oban, how
Pulteney is like Dalmore. If there was terroir in whisky Mortlach would have a similarity with Glenfiddich. Come to think of it, Balvenie would have a similar character to Glenfiddich.
That's a good reason for not having an AOC system! Much of this interpretation of whisky is based on the notion that magic Scottish water somehow has a massive influence on a whisky's character. [Highland water feeding a Lowland
still]. This is down to those pesky writers again, this time given their fuel by distilleries' marketing departments. The idea that each region can be read according to its magic water is, sadly, romantic nonsense. Does water have
an influence on character? Yes. Everything has an influence on character. Does it have a major influence on character? No. Not when compared to peating levels, fermentation time, distillation regime and wood influence. A
distillery's character is built within the distillery itself and this can/will override any supposed 'regional' style. Take a couple of examples. Benriach is normally a light/medium bodied whisky, but was also made in a
heavily-peated style (Billy Walker has just released one, as has Signatory). Should this be considered a Speyside whisky? Same water, same distillery, same region. An extreme example I know -- but the same could be applied to
Springbank distillery making three very different makes, or Bruichladdich, or Edradour. Take the case in point. Auchenstoshan could make a heavy spirit if it wanted to. It doesn't. Why not?
Because of the dictates of its
owner. Since the late 19th century the majority of distilleries have produced a style of spirit which chimes with the demands of blenders. In recent memory, the regime at Royal Lochnagar was changed from one which produced a heavy
spirit to one which produced a light one. Does it matter if it uses Highland water? Of course not. This notion that a whisky is heathery because it is surrounded by heather-clad hills might appeal to the romantic in all of us,
but it is no more than romantic fancy. The idea that Lowland whiskies are soft and gentle because the Lowland landscape is soft and gentle is... sorry to say... nonsense. I'd say the exception to this would be the peated whiskies
of Islay. There's also the the 'marine' character which can be picked up on some but NOT all seashore distilleries. But surely, you'll say, there is a similarity in character between the Lowland whiskies.
I'd agree. In fact, I
would argue strongly for the case of there being a cultural/historical terroir operating within whisky. The Lowlands made a specific style of whisky for a number of reasons: a large population needed large volumes of whisky
therefore larger stills [see Glenkinchie] were built, therefore lighter style was made. From the 18th century until the middle of the 19th, Lowland distillers were primarily engaged in producing volumes of 'plain' spirit to be
shipped to England for rectification. The style was 'light'. From a geographical/geological point of view the land and climate allowed a wider spread of cereals to be grown, meaning that the flavour profile of the Lowland whiskies
would have been different (and 'lighter'). Speyside? Culturally this was a whisky-making region: remoteness and ready access to raw materials (geographical terroir), experience (cultural terroir). Remember that today's Speyside
is miles away from the Speysides of the past, by the way! Even so, I'd argue that there were two parallel Speyside styles from the word go: the 'pineapples' quoted in 19th century notes for Glenlivet and the richer meatier style
of, say, Mortlach and Balmenach, something which can still be seen today. The cultural history of Speyside gave it an advantage over its rivals post 1823.
It grew in fame because of, conceivably, the skill of its distillers
and also the effect of Gold Rush Syndrome.: as soon as a thing becomes popular (and profitable) everyone rushes in for a piece of the action. Speyside became defined by the stylistic parameters laid down, for whatever reason, by
its early distilleries and then by blenders demanding variations on these themes. If Speyside was making these styles, the Lowlands making light, the islands using peat (for geographical reasons) and Campbeltown (also remote) had
built its own way of making whisky then you have a suitably varied palette to blend with. Can you say there is a connection between land and whisky? That's the big one.
I would like to think that those early distillers
(either consciously or unconsciously) tried to capture the essence of their environment in their whiskies. They wanted them to exhibit geographical terroir. There is the undeniable fact that, pre-1823, they would also have been
making whiskies to suit the palate of the local population [that cultural terroir at play again]. No-one can deny that the aroma of a peated island malt somehow does distil the place of its birth.
The issue isn't as simple as what effect magic water has. It's far more complex. Thank your own gods for that! Klaus: Considering the influence of water:
Dave says that the water has marginal influence on the aroma of water.
I agree, especially because of the use of demineralized water. However I have several questions.1) Can we create create a list which distilleries use which kind of water and where during the production?
I think this could also be helpful for other malt afficionados. 2) The "water effect" can be large when it comes to diluting the whisky to a certain proof.
But who uses just plain filtered water? 3) Although no
minerals will come over to the spirit with the distillation, traces of certain elements in the water could influence chemical reactions. Therefor I can not deny the influence of the water source here. Johannes
: Hey, I like your idea of creating a list of water sources for the various distilleries, Klaus!
In fact, I'll include the water source of each distillery in the distillery profiles on Malt Madness.
So, once I'm done with the profiles we could easily make a list with all the water sources.
However, maybe we should first determine the importance of water in the entire process? Luc
: The influence of water is in my opinion in some cases very important.
Walk to the Laphroaig water source and taste the Laphroaig water like we did and you will agree.
That water tastes very vegetal and peaty and this will surely contribute to the final taste of Laphroaig. Dave: Even when that water is boiled, and then distilled? twice?
As far as I know, peatiness comes from the phenols produced
when peat is burned but let's say that Laphroaig's water is peaty in taste. Do you really think that you can taste that through the heavily peated malt? The only way you could judge if there was any uptake would be if the whisky
was unpeated, but in that case wouldn't Jura be peaty? Even if there is some uptake it is so light that I would guess that the process in the distillery and extended maturation in oak will render it undetectable.
Have you ever tasted the non-peated barley at the Port Ellen maltings?
It is --- unpeaty! Have you tasted the steeping water at Port Ellen? It is every bit as 'peaty' as Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Laphroaig and the barley sits in that
peaty soup for a few days. I would love it to be the case, but I just can't see it. Sorry! Regarding Klaus' question about the possibility of creating a list of distillery water sources: Only if it is in the context of an honest
and open debate about the influence (or otherwise of water). This could include information such as how many Scottish distilleries actually use hard water, how many use the town supply and how many water sources "rise through
granite and peat"
Would make fascinating reading! :-) I agree with most of Klaus' comments on 'the water effect'. Maybe I wasn't clear. Sorry.
The flavour of a whisky is the result of many millions of reactions and
interactions. Like life really. The mineral content of the water will have an effect. If it's hard, for example, the danger is the mash may be to alkaline and ferment may be less efficient. (after all, that's why Kentucky's
distillers add backset to their fermenters) It also means that machinery [pipes, stills etc] tend to fur up. So, yes, an effect, but when compared to the big flavour building blocks: length of ferment, distillation regime, wood
aging it is a minor one. Martine: Very interesting point on water, Dave.
That reminds me the theme of the debate we took part in at Speyside Whisky Festival : is there such thing as "Speyside whiskies" ? The contribution
of the nature to the distillery character is indeed very questionable. As far as I remember, we asked more questions than we answered, and we all agreed that there was some cultural and historical links; I called that "sense of
belonging" a cultural terroir. I have just finished going through a thorough tasting of the Glenlivet range today. And I must say that maturation (age and the selection of casks) make a stunning difference between those bottlings,
even if the Glenlivet style is perceptible (more or less) in each of them. Dave
: It always strikes me as strange how we have all clung on to this mythologising of magic water to the detriment of the fascinating development of flavours which are
produced in the distillery. Maybe it is our romantic sensibilties coming into play - we want whisky to be like wine, we want it to be "of the land" and subcosnciously perhaps we view the distillation process as ... well.
industrial. I'm as guilty as any .. which is why I want to try and find (create?) this link between the two types of terroir. Forgive me maniacs!
Davin: Dave, forgive you? On the contrary, thank you.
The borderline personalities debate made clear I just can't buy the regional styles business hook, line and sinker.
You describe some broad stroke regional styles but also note some (of very many) exceptions.
With distilleries adopting multiple styles we can pretty much throw the idea of whisky regions out the window anyway.
Hey, what does Macallan taste like? Or Caol Ila? Or now Bunnahabhain?Why does Jura not taste peaty? Good
question given their water is as brown as coke and they do use that same water (according to Willy Tate) to dilute the new make before filling their casks. According to Willy again, when they wanted to tweak the flavour of Jura a
few years back they changed the yeast and were pleased with the new floral notes. The Laphroaig water does taste peaty and it is vegetal (and brownish), but I don't detect that peat in Laphroaig.
If it's there, and I believe
others who say it is, on my palate it is just buried beneath the peat SMOKE. There, I think, is one source of confusion. I think there are many who confuse the taste and smell of peat smoke with the taste and smell of peat. They
are very, very different, and I dare say there are probably not many people who have actually smelled or tasted peat or peaty water. Agreed, trace chemicals in the water could affect flavours. PH will affect the metabolism of the
yeast and other organisms involved in fermentation thereby influencing the proportion of various congeners. Some chemicals, such as chlorine or other halogens, will react with the copper in the stills; impact unknown. But has
anyone ever tasted distilled water? It is not tasteless as you might suppose, rather it tastes kind of dusty. That is distilled water made in a still I am talking about. The water going into the spirit still is already distilled
water. All the involatile impurities have already been left behind in the wash still. I bet anyone a good dram that distilling the water from Laphroaig just once would remove all traces of peat smell, taste and colour. So, I am
with you Dave, I don't think the water used prior to distillation makes any noticeable direct contribution to flavour; I don't think flavours in the water carry over into the whisky. And the contributions of hard water, soft water,
swamp water or tap water, if any are so small as to be undetectable. That's what I THINK; do others know better? Martine: Davin, I would follow you regarding the influence of water (or rather the non influence) in the making.
But there is a
moment where it matters, it is when you add it in your dram. We have made a tasting for Whisky mag France (to be published in next issue, end of june), using 4 different mineral waters to dilute 3 malts (Macallan Sherry 12,
Macallan Fine oak 12 and Laphroaig cask strength 10). Serge has taken part in that tasting. I was surprised by the results. There are real differences in the display of aromas and flavours according to each water. It should be
carried more scientifically but that small test was not neutral at all. I more or less thought it would be a waste of time before doing it ! A water like Gleneagles works far better than Volvic (the allegedly more neutral
water we have in France), especially for bourbon cask bottlings wheras Speyside Glenlivet brings out sherried whiskies better. Johannes: Hey, this is turning into an interesting debate, maniacs!
Maybe we'll solve that 'borderline issues' conundrum after all... Any more thoughts on this issue, maniacs?
Could we maybe come up with an alternative 'style' classification that looks at the end result rather than where a malt was made? Lex: Guess my opinion on this issue was pretty clear in the article I wrote for Whisky Magazine #14 in 2001.
As for an 'alternative' classification: That's precisely the approach that David Wishart took in his classification work. Olivier
: I agree with Luc, but I remember that Isle of Jura has very peaty water, and the whisky is not peaty.
The Port Ellen maltings production manager (I forgot his name) told us during the Lagavulin visit that a very peaty water
will add something like half a ppm phenols in the finished product. Negligeable compared to what is added at the malting process. Whatever the truth, I like the idea of a pure, brown, peaty water used for whisky and I would hate to
know that tap water is used. Dave: Olivier, you wrote: 'I would hate to know that tap water is used.'...
And you enjoyed your time at Oban
as well!!
Ah well... Olivier: I know…. Do they really only use tap water ? That must be very expensive!
I cannot believe they do not have a spring or fresh water supply. Dave: Believe it Olivier - it's true... Charlie: This is turning into a definitive debate! May I make a couple of observations?
1) Dave's point about being perpetuated by pesky writers. Yes.
But particularly by publishers: it is very convenient to lay out a book by region.
2) Bear in mind, the notion was not invented by writers, but by blenders, who identified the traditional five regions.
Sure, as Lex and Dave say [excellent WM article, Lex, and the best account
of 'terroir' I have read, Dave !], the Highland/Lowland division originated in 18th century tax regimes (inter alia), but the other three were used from around 1900, I guess.
Can anyone point me to an earlier mention of the five regions?3) Both Dave and Lex emphasise tradition [I love 'cultural terroir'!] over location, and I agree.
Having got their spirit as their customers (the blenders) wanted
it distillers were reluctant to change it. Styles emerged in different areas - although, as Lex observes from David Wishart's findings not nearly so much today as previously, perhaps. I discern a move towards homogenisation, born
of changes in plant and practice since the 1960s, and influenced by what was perceived to be desired by the market (briefly, a lighter style of spirit). 4) All chemists now agree that the influence of water upon flavour is
marginal (except perhaps the water you add to the whisky in the glass. On which subject, Dr. Cribb ['Scotch on the Rocks', mentioned by Lex] presents a talk, which I have not seen, in which he dilutes with hard or soft water,
according to the style of water used at the distillery, and demonstrates the difference. Has anyone tried this? However, as with much else, this scientific understanding is only recent. May I draw your attention to that towering
authority, J.A. Nettleton, in The Manufacture of Spirits as Conducted at the Various Distilleries of the United Kingdom (1898), who remarks "As might be expected, mysterious influences are ascribed by these experienced
operatives [i.e. Highland distillers] to the use of moss water [i.e. peaty water]".
Elsewhere he makes an intriguing suggestion as to why this might be so:
"Whilst some distillers can safely risk the collection of
spirits as low as 10 or 15 under proof [i.e. 62%-65% Vol], many others dare not do so at a lower strength than 40 or 45 over proof [80%-83%Vol]. Operative distillers in Scotland usually ascribe this to the action of the moss water
used by Highland and Western distilleries for malting and mashing. Their evidence tends to support the view that, where presumably identical materials are used, and where the mashing, fermenting and distilling routine is the same,
and nothing differs except the quality of the water used, this great difference of 50 or 60 …is compulsory".
Any thoughts on this? 5) Another leading authority, Aeneas Macdonald [Whisky (1930)] writes:
"There was
once a distillery built at considerable expense in a west Highland seaport to make use of the waters of a burn flowing from a most august mountainside [Nevis Distillery, Fort William?]. The water was all that could be wished for.
It was clear and sparkling to the eye, pleasant to the palate, triumphant in the laboratory. But alas! It had one fault. Good whisky could not be made from it. Chemists, maltsters, and stillmen could try as they might: it was of no
avail…But a mile away was another burn, this time a mere trickle of water and not particularly tempting to look at. Despair suggested an experiment with this water, which came from the same slopes as the deceiving burn. The result
was astonishing – a whisky of high quality".
What do you make of this! 6) Finally, may I remind you about the story, oft repeated by Robert Hicks and solemnly written up in The Scotch: The Story of Ballantines 17 Years
Old (1996) about how his predecessor as master blender, Jack Goudy once detected primroses in a sample of Pulteney. He phoned the distillery manager, who denied that primroses could possibly have crept into his whisky. An
inspection team was sent up to Wick. Jack's colleague, Hector MacLennan, reported: "The expeditionary force then decided to investigate Old Pulteney's water source, and there in the lade ... they discovered a colony of rare
primroses growing on the banks". So there you are then. Terroir proved!
Keep 'em coming... Dave: Good points, Charlie - let me respond...1) Re. Pesky writers and/or publishers: A pox on all their houses!
2) Re. Earliest mention of the five regions:
Well.. there's plenty of 19th century bottles with Speyside on the label! :-)
Thanks for emphasising the role payed by blenders in this establishment of regions.
I actually have
nothing against the concept per se -- it is a handy way to introduce whisky novices to the notion that different styles are made in different parts of Scotland. We cannot deny that Lowland whiskies are light, that island whiskies
tend to be peaty etc. I am simply questioning the wisdom of perpetuating this notion of geographical terroir as having a major stylistic impact. We all have to be careful how we use our knowledge. Saying 'there are no regions"
could be taken to mean that all whiskies are the same. For some consumers regions are a great entry point to the world of whisky. I'll keep talking about them, just tweak the message away from the pure terroir/magic water angle.
3) Re. Homogenisation: I would agree with this convergence of style -- seen especially in Speyside where peat has gone, body has lightened, oiliness/silkiness has all but disappeared and maltiness has come more to the fore.
4) Re. Trying to dilute with different types of water: I haven't... but must do so.
I'd encourage anyone who is interested in this to cast an eye over Prof. Alex Maltman's [great name!!] article: 'Wine Beer and Whisky: the
role of geology'
published in Geology Today Vol 19.1. He is professor of geography and earth sciences at University of Wales and a great whisky fan but cannot find any link between geology and the taste of a whisky. Right enough maybe we need a botanist as well to investigate the influence of primroses. Especially "rare ones".
Far be it for me to take issue with Nettleton and the blessed Aeneas [a reprint of this, the finest book ever on whisky, is in the process of being done by Neil Wilson I'm pleased to say] but I wonder if they were all simply
looking in the wrong place. I have a whole collection of SWA booklets on whisky from the late 50s and 60s. The section on water stretched to a couple (if not three) pages, that on wood was a paragraph. If they believed that water
was the important ingredient or problem then that is where their research would be concentrated. It also strikes me that Aeneas is doing a bit of third or fourth party reportage. Keep it coming! I'm enjoying this!
Davin: As well as what Martine has
done with her experiments (to be published in the next French Whisky Magazine), I too have done some water tasting. We have an annual water day here in Canada - it's supposed to remind us how lucky we are to have an endless supply
of fresh water. Several times I have participated in water tasting competitions sponsored by Watercan, an organization that brings fresh water to developing nations. I'm proud to say that tasting whisky did prepare me very well to
nose out the subtleties among various bottled waters, tap waters and well waters. The differences in flavour were quite noticeable and no two samples were indistinguishable. Nonetheless, I bet they would all be identical once
distilled. Klaus: I
have another question about water. Why has water added to whisky in the cask or for bottling has marginal influence on the taste/aroma whereas water added to the dram can have a bigger influence? Davin: Volume, I suppose. Johannes: Or how about this; Time... We know that many
bottlers let the bottles 'rest' for a while after they have been bottled and diluted because the whisky can change relatively radically during this period. But we'll never know until we compare a few samples from before and a few
days after bottling. Maybe the same is happening in the bottle as what happens in our glass when we add water. I also assume that certain elements are released earlier than others when water is added to the glass, and maybe even
the proof of the whisky that the water is added to is a factor? In fact, I'm quite sure it is... Craig: Hi all, I haven't been active but I think this is taking on all the characters of an Ask an Anorak article and a bloody good
one too. Re water added to the cask at the disillery, versus water added at bottling, versus water added in the glass: I seem to recall some e-conversation, maybe througfh WM or Malts-L that offered the possibility that if you
water when you cask and when you bottle
that some of the volatiles are blown off, while these volatiles are still in the cask strength whisky and are available to be released when you add water to the glass. Don't know if this
is correct, but it is at least plausible. Serge: If water doesn't play any major role till distillation (although it might change the aromatic profile just as the yeast does - see beers), I think it must have an importance once it's used
for dilution, either prior to cask filling or bottling. I think either it does not change the malt's profile (high pH) or it does (low pH), in fact.
If it does not, then we can say the source isn't important - if it does, it is!
I did a few experiences (conducted by Martine) for Whisky mag France and indeed, I found out that high pH's (like in Gleneagles) make the water
much more neutral than low pH's - which is good, I guess. It's just the same when you prepare coffee or tea.
My tuppence... Johannes: Well, maniacs - I'd say the general consensus is that the influence of water (at least during the production
process) is relatively marginal compared to other influences like the wood that is used to mature the malt. In this case, when I say 'water', I'm talking about the chemical composition of the water. In fact, I'm not even talking
about the water itself - I'm talking about the trace elements that can be found inbetween the normal water molecules. But there's another aspect of 'water' that could play an important role in the profile of the whisky of a
distillery: the temperature of the wash. But that seems like a topic for a whole new discussion, so I'll wrap up our discussion about water (which was just as much a discussion about 'terroir') now. However, the next E-pistle deals
with a 'watery' topic as well: the dilution of overproof malts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-pistle #15/09 - Diluting Overproof Malts
Submitted on 30/07/2005 by Klaus Everding, Germany 
...by the maltmaniac's mad scientist.
You are a fan of overproof malts?
You are always open for something new?
You want get the most fun from your malt?
You want to see with your own eyes that unchillfiltered malts get cloudy at 43% ABV?
Then you should try a dilution row of cask strength malt every now and then.
The picture below shows the equipment you need. Well, some of the glassware there
is just for show, e.g. the big flask and all the small beaker glasses. But you really need a
calibrated measuring cylinder (1, e.g. 50 ml max.) and a calibrated pipette (2, e.g. 1 ml
max., simple thing made of plastic) for small controlled water splashes . When you fork
over approximately 10 Euro to a guy in a lab-ware shop, you can start controlled dilutions.
But what do I have to do when I want to go from the starting ABV o to the new alcohol
concentration o? The answer is just simple arithmetic, but since we had difficulties to
figure it out in my whisky circle (3 chemists with PhD, 1 computer science expert and
yours truly), I will give a detailed explanation.
We have the equation:(1) v*o = x*n
which simply expresses that the amount of alcohol remains constant.- v is the volume of the malt with the original concentration
- o is the original ABV
- x is the volume of the malt with the new desired concentration
- n is the new desired ABV Now it is up to you to decide if want a new generous dram (v, o, and n fixed), (2) x =(v*o)/n
or if you want a standard size dram, (3) v=(x*n)/o. Example: We have Glenfarclas 105 which has an ABV of 60% and we want to dilute it to 40%.
Generous dram procedure: We take a defined volume v (e.g. 2 cl) out of the bottle. Now the formula (2): x=(2 cl*60%)/40%=3 cl
shows us that the diluted dram with 40% will have a volume of 3 cl. We have to add 1 cl of water to our malt. Standard size dram
procedure: The final dram shall have a volume of 2cl. Then we use formula (3) v= (2 cl*40%)/60%=1.33 cl. This means you have to take out 1.33 cl of the original 60% Glenfarclas and add 0.67 cl of water.  Now you can start and arrange dilution rows of your own.
I do not want to steal you the whole fun, but maybe you
are interested, which results we received in my whisky club,
when we created a dilution row (40%, 43%, 46%, 50% and
the original strength of 58.8%) of Macallan Cask Strength
(58.8 %, European version, OB).
40% tasted a little bit weak.
That is what I often observe with other bottlings.
Why have they stopped to use ABV of 43%?
The additional 3% were really an improvement.
I also observed some cloudiness. That is the phenomenon
which they eliminate by chill filtering. It was not that bad
and I certainly would trade this cloudiness for an
improvement of taste.
The 43% sample tasted nice. Almost like the Macallan 12yo
OB at the end 90s. More fruits and sweeter than the undiluted
c/s. Btw. the malt was not cloudy, maybe because of the high
room temperature of almost 30°C.
46% was the real McCoy for the majority of our club. The perfect symbiosis of excellent taste and nosing sensation versus phosphorus bomb attack in the stomach. Again a proof that 46% is the holy ABV.
50% did already hurt a little bit. Heavy Sandalwood moved into the foreground. The impression is a little bit weaker as at original strength. The only argument to take 50% drams is imho that you get 8% more out of the bottle.
58.8% - full strength. That is the full power. You have to pay for the fun with a little burn in the stomach.
But hey, - the Mac c/s is relatively harmless.
There are candidates who behave much ruder at a similar ABV (e.g. the Aberlour a'bunadh). And now grab your measuring cylinders and explore how an overproof malt can change at different stages.
Klaus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #15/10 - The Peaty Smell of Arrogance
Submitted on 30/07/2005 by Michel van Meersbergen, Holland ... Or: A Blind Islay tasting at Cadenhead's Amsterdam...
Once upon a time there was a little kid who thought he knew a thing or two about Scottish Single Malts.
Not that he had lots of experience with SSM's, no, just a year or two. He did however, had quite some experience with wine. For
fifteen years to be precise. For some freak reason he had won a blind tasting event three times. No reason to say the first and second
time he was very surprised with the outcome. The third time something nasty seeded in his mind. 'Hell, I'm good at this, and the
others... mere jokes'. Yes my dear readers, it was not only alcohol which shot to and thru his head. Add to that the fact he even won
his first blind malt tasting and you can imagine that the just mentioned 'nastiness' growed like the Magic Bean from a certain tailor… It had to go wrong…
I'm not going to bore you any further with this silly story. Lets jump forward in time and go one with more interesting subjects on the
blind tasting of eight Islay malts organised by Cadenhead Amsterdam. It was announced as 'Islay As It Used To Be'. Perhaps it was my
recent 'Limburg' adventure. I got drifted away with visions from 1970's bottled Laphroaig, Lagavulin and Ardbeg. 1980's and 1990's
Cadenhead dumpy's. Things like that. I'll guess Limburg made me greedy and unrealistic. I wouldn't be fair if I had not told you the presented line-up at Cadenhead's was equally impressive. Here we go:
Ardbeg 'Lord Of The Isles' NAS 46% OB
Bowmore 21 years 43% OB
Bruichladdich '1970' vintage 44.2% OB
Bunnahabhain 1963 – 2003 42.9% OB
Caol Ila 16 years 58.6% Cadenhead
Lagavulin 25 years 57.2% OB
Laphroaig 30 years 43% OB
Port Ellen 25 years 4th annual release 56.2% OB The fact I had sampled four of them already made me feel very confident about the blind part of this tasting. The four others
shouldn't be that difficult… Wait a minute, this is about enjoying old Islay malts, not some kind of childish competition. Once entered
the Cadenhead store I had two samples from different bottles of Glen Elgin from the same cask. (Lombard) Whisky buddy Frank
pointed out that differences were beyond believe and was curious about my opinion. I didn't take any notes but the differences were
there, no doubt about that. I couldn't come up with an explanation so Frank came up with an interesting concept. He thinks the bottle
line was not properly cleaned before bottling the Glen Elgin. One bottle was filled right after emptying the cask and thus got polluted
with the traces of the before bottled malt. The other bottle was filled later in the process and therefore: clean. Sounds logical but
also very improbable. A possible reason for bottle variation? Perhaps the Maniacs can help us out on this theory. Once we all sat down the tasting started: 1st blind:
Colour: Deep gold. Nose: Lychee, hazelnut, apricot marmalade, butter. Develops towards honey, cederwood, dried apple,
crčme brullé, sour briny notes and grapefruit. Subtle and light smoke. Very special and needs quite some time to open completely.
Palate: Very parfumed in a good way. Raspberry, vanilla, grapes, lychee, orange marmalade, gala melon. Finish: Beautiful spicy wood, hints of pepper, smoke returns. Glycerine and fresh malts. Extremely satisfying.
93 points
- My Guess: Bruichladdich. It was: Bruichladdich '1970' (44.2%, OB, 2002). Nice start and a classic dram. For me the best Laddie so far. Lots of development to keep you focused for ever and you don't have to
work for it! Complexity combined with extreme satisfaction. 2nd blind: Colour: Medium gold. Nose: Yep, this is Ardbeg! Powerful yet subtle, deep. Faint rubber, chocolate with coffee, seaweed
and vanilla, wet wood en roasted notes. Subtle peaty underlayment. Palate: Hey, surprise here. Not as rounded as I remember, spicy
notes and cinnamon and white pepper. Slightly explosive and a tad sharp. Sweet apple and cake dough, later some peat emerges but acts as fundament. Finish: Vanilla, Italian licorice, some iodine and some civilized peat.
89 points - My guess: Caol Ila. It was: Ardbeg 'Lord of the Isles' (46%, OB, 2003?). Hmm. That's odd. I tried Ardbeg LOTI only two month earlier and that sample was much, much softer.
I got drifted towards a older Caol Ila because of the Ardbegish nose and the relative sharp palate.
Too bad… What was bad that our corner at the table was oh so sure it was Caol Ila.
We were screaming it. It was a hilarious moment when Andries showed the bottle. 3rd blind: Colour: Light gold. Nose: Lots of apples and acids. Peaty and licorice, smoke.
Seaweed, vanilla butter, salmiac, light sulphur, smoked fish, tar and rubber.
Palate: Butter, seaweed, smoke and salmiac Needs a lot of water to open.
Finish: Lots of pepper and sweetish peat.
85 points
- My guess: Bowmore. It was: Caol Ila 16yo 1977/1993 (58.6%, Cadenhead, july 1977 / december 1993) Ohhh… Missed the beat in this one, didn't I?
Talking about beats, almost everybody agreed this Caol Ila was quite 'off-beat'.
The ABV should have warned me and I got drifted away with the sour nose. 4th blind:
Colour: Hazel. Nose: Manzanilla and spicy. Lot of wood, sandle wood and oxidized seaweed. Coal smoke. Palate: Rather thin
and somewhat incomplete. Notes on seaweed and cooked apple, some more woody notes. Finish: The cooked apple continues, wet wood and disintegrated after a few minutes to come back with light maple syrup and tannins.
86 points
- My guess: Bunnahabhain. It was Lagavulin 25yo (57.2%, OB, 2002)
Not again! I tried the Bunna last September at the distillery and one thing that really stood out for me was the woody nose with lots
of Manzanilla sherry influences. The palate had trouble with the Bunna 'Moine' I had before, so little information from that. The Laga seems to have the same wood signature and that put me in the wrong direction. There you have it!
Time for a fag outside the shop and try reshape a bit.
A nice dish with smoked fish and beef jerkies (Frank didn't like them at all: "I'm chewing it for minutes and it's still the same size…
terrible!" ) made us ready for the second stint. Although the smoky jerkies were still leaving their marks nose and taste wise. 5th blind:
Colour: Light amber. Nose: Some very deep manzanilla sherry. Raisins, fudge, Marsala en lots of wood.
Palate: Big Manzanilla start. Raisins and old rum. Very nice balance and concentration.
Finish: Long and somewhat stingy. White pepper, raisins and again old rum, ginger.
89 points - My guess: Errmmm yes, this is Bunnahabhain. It was: Bunnahabhain 1963/2003 (42.9%, OB)
There you have it indeed! I did a H2H with the Laga to find out if the wood signature was really that confusing. Let's put it this way:
Incomparable the same… This blind proofed once again that older Bunna is something to reckon with. Woody as it might be, there enough behind it to beat the Laga with ease and fully justify the points given. 6th blind:
Deep gold. Nose: Quite sour and soft. Very relaxed and matured.
Apple, beautiful peat, butter and soft spices. Palate: Pepper, nutmeg, cookies, burnt salty malts.
Finish: Cloves, pepper, tar, tannins. Peat returns and some green malts as well.
90 points - My guess: Laphroaig. It was: Bowmore 21yo (43%, OB, white top).
Oh no! This is getting traumatic. To mix up a Bowmore 21 with a Laphroaig 30 is quite something. To be honest: I never tried the
Bowmore 21 years before and let me tell you, this is quite impressive stuff. Please take note this Bowmore had a WHITE capsule and
came from a wide box. I've been told that the version with the RED top is of much lesser quality. Embarrassing as this situation might have been, it was my eye-opener for this evening! 7th blind:
Colour: Medium hazel. Nose: Manzanilla wood, rubber. Sweet notes on Eau de Cologne, vanilla, pepper, nutmeg,
coriander-seed and anis-seed. Some musty notes as well: rotten wood and hints of truffle. Palate: Perfect harmony between spices,
seaweed, wood and traces of smoke. Finish: Manzanilla returns together with bay leaves, pepper and roasted notes.
93 points - I stopped guessing from this point… It was Laphroaig 30yo (43%, OB, 2001?)
You've got to love this one. Perfect balance!
What would have happened if the Laph. was bottled at Cask Strength? Almost scary thought… 8th blind:
Colour: Medium gold. Nose: Lots of pepper, smoked fish, smoked sausages, sulphur, black powder, sea weed, fudge, peat
and smoke. Palate: Salty licorice and malty. Sweetish sea weed. Finish: Rubber, pepper, salmiac, licorice and iodine. Very restrained
and difficult to approach. Because it's Port Ellen from a just opened bottle and not given the chance to breath properly, not even in the glass I'll give it 88 points on intuition. If that's worth anything at all.
It was:
Port Ellen 25yo 1978/2004 4th Annual Release (56.2%, OB, 5100bts) The Port Ellen closed the official part of the tasting. Well, what can I say? Essentially one out of eight from which I already four
sampled before… Hello reality! 'nough said about that. Looking from it from the other side, at least we (our corner at the table) dared
to speak out and motivated our guesses. It brought a lot of dynamics in the session and we had our laughs, as did the other
attendees. Actually, I m |
