E-pistle #16/17 - The Malt Mafia (Part 1)
Submitted on 01/12/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
You may have noticed that it has been a while since we identified a fake bottle.
That could suggest that the Fake Alert page has worked and everything is OK again.
But then again it could just as well mean that the fakers have studied the fake alert
page carefully and have learned to avoid some of the mistakes that allowed us to
label suspect bottles and confirmed fakes as such. The fact that no fresh 'cases'
have been published in the last few months doesn't mean that we haven't received
reports about 'suspect' bottles - it only means that we couldn't find quite enough
'hard' evidence to publish our dossiers about these bottles on the fake alert page.
In reality, there has been quite some murmuring going on behind the scenes.
So, it's high time for a 'fakes' update.
But first, let me explain why I get so riled up about these fake bottles.
The people that try to take advantage of the temporary lapses of reason that are one of the symptoms of malt mania are despicable,
as far as I'm concerned - scum of the earth, to put it in plainer terms. But there are various levels of despicability, and scum comes in
many different colours. One group of 'culprits' in the fakes caroussel are the traders who offer the fake bottles on the market. As far
as I'm concerned they are a (relatively) 'lesser evil' - or not evil at all if they really didn't know the bottle they were selling was a fake.
Just incompetent, I guess - but that's still legal... If the trader DID know (or even suspect) the bottle was a fake, I think offering it for sale is indeed 'evil'. What is that? I'm over-reacting, you say?
After all, I only buy my malts at reputable stores and I wouldn't pay 4,000 Euro's
for an Isle of Jura from 1882 even if it WAS genuine. And yes, I have to admit that
a small part of me thinks 'serves you right for buying your bottles on eBay' when I
receive yet another request to investigate the credentials of some suspect bottle.
But I usually quickly remember that the request comes from a fellow victim of malt
mania who, as such, can't really be held responsible for his irresponsible behaviour.
After all, I've made some ill-advised purchases myself as well over the years...
Well, let's take a look in our dictionary shall we? 
e·vil (adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est)
1) Morally bad or wrong; wicked:
an evil tyrant.
2) Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
3) Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4) Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful:
the evil effects of a poor diet.
5) Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
So, let's see... Pretenting an article is genuine while it might not be is deceitful, right?. So, let's have a closer look at the sources of some of these fakes. Sergio is the 'front man' of a dynamic duo of fraudsters; Sergio himself focuses on Well, 'production' may be a bit of a big word in this context - at least in some cases. One of their latest frauds involved buying an empty bottle of
So, what's the dumb part here, you ask?
It seems the recession has hit these fakers just as much as real people, though...
Yes, a.f.a.i.k. deception for your own commercial gain is still morally wrong. Check...
Malicious? Yeah, I think you could call it that. After all, by trying to unload a fake
bottle on a customer a trader isn't just enriching himself at the expense of his client;
by not taking the matter up with the person who sold him the bottle he allows the
problem to continue, damaging the entire whisky market in the process. Check...
Future misfortune? Yep, for the witless whisky 'connoisseur' who spent a lot of his
(often hard-earned) cash one a fake bottle. Check... Causing ruin, injury or pain?
Yep, as soon as the duped client even starts to suspect the bottle could be fake
he'll have a headache and heartburn for a long time. So, that's another 'check'...
That leaves the part about the 'reputation' - and that's what we'll work on today.
As it becomes harder and harder to get rock hard proof that specific bottles are
fakes, maybe we should focus on the bigger picture - the source of all evil...
We've already established that traders that offer fake bottles are either A) dumb or B) evil.
Well, as it turns out there's at least one trader in Italy that is both dumb AND evil - not to mention largely responsible for the bad
reputation of Italian bottles in collecting circles lately. The 
I am talking, of course, about Mr. Sergio Borroni from Campi Bisenzio - Firenze.
You may not know him under that name, though - assuming it even is his real name.
Sergio has been very active on eBay and other auction sites under many different
'stage names' like 'matteo5141', 'macmad2000', '
minybottles' and Nevila Alivodaj.
If one didn't know any better, one would almost start to think that Sergio suffers
from a multiple personality disorder - or perhaps it's just a guilty conscience?
And believe it or not, he even has his own website at www.mondowhisky.com.
selling the bottles (sometimes even to another aspect of his fragmented personality)
on auction sites while his partner in crime (who's name we can't divulge yet) takes
care of the 'creative process' - the actual production of the fake bottles & labels.
Well, in this case both the seller and Mr. Borroni had specified in their ad on eBay that they were selling bottle #109.
Obviously, there can be just one bottle #109 from cask #502, so the malt mafia did leave some very obvious clues about their dirty deeds this time. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. The
Many of their more recent frauds concerned bottles that sold for hundreds of pounds instead of thousands.
Like the 'Smiths' Glenlivet that's discussed at
We didn't have the time to discuss it on the fake alert page, but from the available info it seems an obvious case.
Other recent cases seem to be in the 'petty crime' class as well, like the refill Springbank I just mentioned.
The list of fakes produced and sold by Mr. Borroni and his fraudulent friend is almost endless.
We may get back to Mr. Borroni & his fraudulent friend in a future E-pistle, but for now I'd like to switch the spotlight to another
Italian; Mr. Giuseppe Gambi from Ravenna. He certainly doesn't seem to have taken up a career in faking bottles as enthusiastically as Mr. Borroni's 'artist', but some suspicious bottles could be traced back to 'Mandibolari'. Take the
We've listed only a fraction of the suspect cases on the
Fake Alert page. For example, there was an Ardbeg 27yo at 57% sold as part
of a collection of 31 Ardbegs sold through eBay. They also produced a 21yo Springbank supposedly bottled by Samaroli with a shoddy
cap and label that immediately betrayed it as a fake in most maniacal eyes. Listing all the suspect bottles that were most likely
produced by the dynamic duo from Italy on this page might bore you to death and I wouldn't want to have that on my conscience.
I have to admit that at some point I simply didn't trust ANY bottles with ANY Italian connection anymore.
Well, the recent shenanigans from Italian prime minister Mr. Silvio Berlusconi haven't helped matters either, I suppose.
Through pure dedication and hard work (false accounting, tax fraud, corruption, bribery of police officers and judges, etc.) he has recently taken over the pole position in my Top 10 of Most Despised European Statesmen from Mr. Jacques Chirac.
(Yes, I keep a list - and you can probably guess who's way ahead of the pack in the 'global' competition... ;-)
But now I'm getting side-tracked again - we were dicussing Italian fakes (other than Mr. Berlusconi). One of our sources remarked on the topic:
"I believe that in any collector's market there are fakes (paintings, sculptures, furnitures, you just name it) and also that a lot of them are eventually difficult to be identified as fakes but this fact of the antique whisky
bottles is really astonishing.' I often refer to this forgery as "The Perfect Crime" as not only the person (or persons) who have
worked on that are walking away unpunished and with a lot of money in the pockets but it is even sure that nobody, I mean absolutely nobody, has got any real interest in discovering the truth."
Well, actually.... I've just taken a blurry glance at the clock and I think it's time to wrap up this E-pistle.
I'll get back to the fakes issue in part II of this E-pistle - for now I'd like to close with a quote.
Well, call us crazy, but the maniacs are still on the case! Sweet drams, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, more about fakes in an upcoming E-pistle; we'll just keep whining until the problem is under control.
E-pistle #16/18 - Silent Distillery Profile: Banff
Submitted on 03/12/2005 by Ulf Buxrud, Sweden
Operational
: 1863 - 1983
Region: Speyside
Neighbours: Glenglassaugh, Glen Deveron
Address: Inverboyndie, Banff, Banffshire, AB45 2JJ.
Last Known Owner
: Scottish Malt Distillers Ltd, a subsidiary to DCL, later UDV/Diageo.
I happen to have an archaeological not to say pathological interest in 'deceased' distilleries.
Hence, I try to not only compile related technical and historic data but also sample remaining artefacts. In this epistle (my first for MM) I'll summarise what I have learned so far regarding one of my favourite blasts from the past; the Banff.
The Banff distillery was built in 1863 in the village called Inverboyndie This one, the forerunner, was located at the Mill of Banff near Colleonard and was founded in 1824 by James McKilligan & Co. It
changed ownership in 1837 due to the death of the companies founder Major James McKilligan. The new owner, Alex MacKay, operated
the distillery until 1852. Mr. James Simpson senior and his son James formed a partnership and acquired the distillery in 1852. A decade
later the partnership dissolved and the distillery closed. Simpson junior had decided to pursue his carreer in the distillery trade so he
built himself a new one. The site chosen was perfect, access to better water supply and in proximity of the new railroad, the 'Great
North of Scotland Railroad' built in 1859. A siding the Boyndie siding, was added to facilitate transports to from the distillery. The distillery prospered until a devastating fire broke out in on May 9, 1877.
Financial problems, stemming from the depression, caused the London firm to let the 'James Simpson & Co,' go into a voluntary
liquidation in 1932. SMD the 'Scottish Malt Distillers Ltd.' a subsidiary of the DCL 'Distillers Company Ltd.' bought Banff for £50.000 the
same year and became the new and last owner of the distillery. SMD closed Banff immediately and kept the distillery closed till after
the end of WWII but used the full capacity of all warehouses on the premises. The closing was decisions in line with DCL's policy to control over-production of whisky by absorb and close.
Saturday August 16, 1941 is a day Banff will never forget. During the late afternoon of that day a solitary German Junkers Ju-88
blasted the building complex with machinegun fire, emptied its bomb cargo over the distillery and got a perfect hit at warehouse No
12. The blazing fire that broke out was fed by the warehouses highly flammable content of exploding whisky casks. Some casks it was
said went propelling high up in the sky crashing to the ground quite a bit from were it left. A river of burning whisky surrounded the
place. Several hundred casks were lost that grim afternoon. Not all become victim of the flames. Thousands of liters were finding its way to farmlands and watercourses.
Farmers claimed that the cows were not milkable days after due to unsteady foots, not farmers but cows.
The exterior was left almost untouched during Banff's lifespan but the interior underwent several updates over the time. Banff was
initially configured for triple distillation but converted to the common and conventional double distilling practice some time after 1924
when the intermediate spirit still was removed. The last major renovation occurred just after the end of WWII where after full
production resumed. An accident occurred during the silent season in 1959, on October 3rd. A shattering explosion occurred when
repair work on one of the spirit stills ignited contained fumes. The spirit still and large part of the distillery were ruined by the explosion
and it took a good month to repair the damages. Luckily no one was harmed, not even the coppersmith and his assistant. The two
remaining stills were coal fired by hand until 1963 when mechanized stoking was installed. The stills were converted to indirect heating by oil burners in 1970 and the number of warehouses was increased from 8 to 12.
Banff finally closed in May 31, 1983 and became demolished section by section over the following years.
The process water was obtained from springs on Fiskaidly farm and the cooling water drawn from the Burn of Boydine. There are no remains of the distillery to visit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pronounced 'bampf' from the the neighboring city in Banffshire.
'Banbh' is a poetic name in Gaelic for Ireland and used as place name
around Scotland. This distillery is since long gone. Its last remaining
buildings, a warehouse complex, were demolished after a fire that
broke out on April 11, 1991. The distillery has a history of being wing
clipped by fires and explosions through passage of time. Banff town
was founded as a port community in the 1100s. Evidence shows that
King Malcolm IV lived here around 1160. The town's harbor silted up
and fell into disuse in the 1800s, leaving competing Macduff, on the
east side of Banff Bay, to take up the role of principal commercial
port along this stretch of coast.
located a mile west of Banff. It became called the Inverboyndie Distillery
by the locals to separate it from the original Banff Distillery.
The accident demanded a considerable rebuilding of its manufacturing works. The main distillery building was gone but maltings and
warehouses were left untouched. Quick rebuilding had it back on tracks already in October the same year and its market position was
rapidly reclaimed. As prevention an investment was made in a fire engine which kept permanently on the premises. The distillery
prospered and expanded in the mid eighties. Banff went from one wash and two spirit stills to six stills, capable of delivering an annual
output of 900.000 liters. The Simpson family formed a limited company with an estimated capital of £72.000 in November 1898. They
kept full control over the company until 1921 when the family sold out a large chunk of its equity to a London firm, the 'Mile End
Distillery Company', a subsidiary of the brewers 'Taylor Walker & Co. Ltd.'. A joint venture was formed were one of the warehouses were converted to a filling and bottling site.
Waterfowls, wild and tamed were found flapping drunkenly on the brinks of the Boyndie Burns and its mouth. A fireman, passing his
helmet to colleagues, filled to the brim with rescued whisky, ended up in court accused for pilfering. Lord Haw-Haw (P.G. Woodhouse)
claimed in his daily propaganda bulletins, transmitted from Berlin, that a major ammunition depot, not a whisky depot, in northern
Scotland had been destroyed by Luftwaffe. What was not disclosed to the public was that Banff was a training camp for the ones to
become RAF pilots recruited from occupied countries like Norway and, hence, perhaps a strategic target for the Germans. The soldiers
were billeted in the barley lofts and in Nissen huts on the site. Repair work after the bombing occurred during the winter of 1941. In 1943 Banff formally became home of one of the RAF Strikewings.
The still house was knocked down in 1985 and the last remains were leveled out in 1991 after a fire on April 11. SMD had, in the mid
sixties, applied for and obtained permission for a replacement distillery to be erected at the Inverboyndie industrial estate but never
activated the plan. Hence, a group of investors some years later put forward a plan to revitalize the issue. Again permission was granted but again nothing materialized.
At the end of Banff's life cycle barley was brought in from central maltsters however a minor portion was malted on site.
The strains of barley used is said to have been Golden Promise and Triumph. The yeast strain used was Brewer's. The mill is said to
have been a 'King of Nailsworth', in 1924 it was stated that it was the only one in use at a whisky distillery. Data concerning mash
tun, wash backs and the size of the wash and spirit stills is not known by the author. The stills were indirect heated, fired by oil
burners and the cooling was by traditional submerged worms. The maximal annual production capacity was 900.000 liters of alcohol.
Of the several versions bottled by IB's my favourite is the 21yo 1982, released by Diageo within their 'Rare Malt Selection series', and the only one bottled as an OB, AFAIK.
E-pistle #16/19 - Winesky, Woodsky or Weirdsky?
Submitted on 04/12/2005 by Serge Valentin, France
No thanks, I'll just have a whisky, please! We probably all remember what we were thinking about Scotch before we got more 'into it', don't we? Bagpipes and deer, castles and
pure water running down the hills… Indeed, it was all about 'heritage', and whether that was all marketing-driven codswallop or the
truth, nothing but the truth didn't really matter. It appealed to us. Yes, and it especially appealed to me, because as I was, and still
am, also a wine geek, the amazing world of whiskies seemed to be – at first glance – rather more authentic. No wooden chips, no
wines from other regions bottled under a 'terroir' name, no chemical additives, no yearly double harvests, no scientific tweaking of
Nature, no faking, no steal of other regions or countries' names, no world taste. In short, no industrialisation. I know that sounds
strange as we speak, but 'whisky' (well, Single Malt Scotch Whisky) looked to me like kind of a sanctuary, a world where the guys who
were making it had only one obsession: trying to make it even better than their kilted fathers did, but, quite paradoxically, just the same way. In short, the whisky world seemed to have intangible values.
Apparently, I was not the only one to fall into that friendly and, after all, rather harmless trap, and it seems we managed to buy and
swallow almost everything good our Scottish friends had been distilling in the sixties, seventies and eighties (even if I feel we still have
to talk a bit about the eighties). Why am I saying that? Well, because today, more and more distillers and bottlers are in the process
of changing the way Single Malt used to be made, and because these changes seem to have one and only goal: make us drink younger booze – for the price of older booze, preferably.
Indeed, what's the reason for all the 'tweakings of tradition' we can see today (we'll list them later on)? Providing us with more
variety? Come on, they already had vintages, ages, types of casks and a good 100 different distilleries for that, and let's remember
two casks lying next to each other already behave in different ways. Innovation for the sake of innovation – I've even heard the word
'progress'? Give me a break! It's just gratuitous words. Experimenting? Yes, experimenting is cool but usually, makers keep their
experimentations for themselves and don't sell them all for big money, while telling us something like 'Hey guys, here's something new
we tried, Please buy it – we know it's expensive but the process is costly and we made very little of it - and then tell us what you
think, coz we're not too sure!' Usually, makers ask a panel of consumers what they think before they launch a product, not after – unless they use the deadly 'committee' trick.
So, maybe we should really start to wonder what's the actual rationale for… drum roll (while you take a deep breath):
Wineskies
Some call them 'wine finishings', others call them 'winewood finishings', while a third party has been thinking hard and came up with
new words or acronyms such as 'A.C.E.'s' (Additionnal Cask Enhancement – wait, that might mean the whisky needed to get
enhanced, so, no, it's gonna be 'Experimenting' instead of 'Enhancement'). That's one of the Maniacs' wine brigade's favourite topics
and we could probably chat about it for days, and whether the whisky's poured into a wine cask for hours, days, weeks or months
doesn't change a lot to the concept, as the spirit needs very little time to re-open the wood's pores and to suck what was remaining
of the cask's previous content (let's not even imagine there were a few litres of wine remaining, or, oh horror, poured on purpose into the cask prior to filling it with whisky, not to mention high pressurizing or heating up the casks).
Whether they are doing that 'because there is a market' or because they need to enhance some otherwise bland whisky (please note
that their official answer will always be that you can't improve a bad whisky – but I'm pretty sure you can make a bland one tastier),
or because we drank all the good whisky of theirs anyway and there's only bland whisky remaining in their warehouses doesn't really
matter, as far as I'm concerned. The only thing that's important, at the end of the day, is whether the result is any good.
On the other hand, I fear some are trying to use a bunch of well-reputed names from the wine world, maybe to appeal to wine buffs,
or simply to 'add variety' to their labels. Famous winemakers' names, well-reputed wine regions, 'Grand Cru', 'Château'… there are many
of them, and it's sometimes funny to see that this or that batch ends up on the shelves of a liquor shop that's located… In the region
where the wine has been made, precisely. Like, let's say a Strathmill 'Saint-Emilion finish' that would be sold mostly in… Saint-Emilion. Clever, isn't it?
Another point that is troubling me a bit, is the confusion some bottlers are harbouring, between 'finishing – whether quick or slow' and
'full-maturing'. I've had the opportunity to chat with several passionate newborn whisky lovers, and found out that they make no big
difference between both concepts, mainly thinking that they are just the same, one being just a shorter process than the other (not
to mention a third concept, 'double – or triple – maturing'). So, basically, they think that the longer a whisky stays in a wine casks,
the more it'll catch the wine's original flavours and aromas, and they just forget about the 'marrying – maturing – merging of aromas'
process that can happen only with time. In other words, and just because they couldn't taste many of them, they don't know that a
'natural' whisky that's been finished in a Port cask for three months tastes Port, whilst a whisky that spent its whole life in a Port cask will taste like, well, Portwood-matured whisky. And it's not 'kind of the same thing' at all!
So, are 'wineskies' only smoke and mirrors? I say no, not obligatorily, and I'm not 'against' them at all (which would be stupid and most
brassy), although I think I almost never bought any. But I could taste a few, of course, and I have the general feeling that it almost
never works with heavily peated malts, except for a few expressions like the Lagavulin 'Distiller's Editions' (exceptional 1979, the 1987
is perfect as well). I also remember an excellent old Ardbeg 'sherry finish' by Douglas Laing (the Ardbeg 29yo 1972/2001, 432 Bottles)
but other than that, I feel the quick mix of wine and peat usually creates rather dissonant and disjointed results. Both flavours just stay apart. As for the other well-known brands – sorry, distilleries, there are several 'finishes' that I quite liked:
On the other hand, some expressions didn't convince me at all. As for most 'independently finished' Ardbegs and Port Ellens, please don't get me started!
By the way, although we can't really put them into the 'winesky' department – and I admit I usually try to avoid them, there were six 'spirit cask' finished malts I quite enjoyed within the last months: Anyway that was more or less all I wanted to say about wineskies today. I have much more to say, in fact but let's keep all that as
short as possible and switch our attention to...
More globally, I must say it's also very funny to see three distilleries/bottlers (Arran, Edradour/Signatory
and Bruichladdich/Murray McDavid) multiplying their 'wine' versions more or less explicitly, to the point that
a quick look at, either part of, or their full ranges makes you think you're browsing Harrod's wine department.
Hey, why not! The good news is that some seem to have learnt from some of their earlier errancies and,
for instance, the recent Edradours Madeira and Barolo (Angelo Gaja) finishings are simply on another planet,
compared to some rather weird 'attempts' they did two years ago. And I could try several other recent
finished Edradours, many were enjoyable. The same goes for some of Arran's new shiny wineskies,
I feel some may have gained something like 3 or 4 more tasting points through that 'treatment'
(for instance the 'Champagne') – but not all of them, that is.
- The Balvenie 21yo 'Port Wood', even at 40%, is always a hit (86)
- The new Benromach 22yo 'Port Pipes finish' is quite enjoyable (83)
- I liked the new Bruichladdich 'Fifteen' Yquem finish (86) and both recent 'twenties' (86 both as well).
- Glenmorangie 21yo 1981/2002 Sauternes Finish (46%, OB) (88)
- Glen Moray 1976/2002 'Vallée du Rhône Finish' (46%, OB) (88)
- Isle of Jura 15yo Gonzalez Byass finish (57.7%, OB, single c. for Islay Fest. 2004) (87)
In fact, sometimes I'm really just wondering 'why did they do that?'
- I'm sorry, but I think all official 'finished ' Bowmores still smell and taste weird (ha, the claret!)
- Most recent Dalmores (Black Pearl Madeira, 30yo 'Gonzalez Byass')
- The four Glenmorangies from the core range.
- The Glenmorangie 28yo 1975/2003 'Tain l'Hermitage' (46%, OB) I liked the Glen Moray so much better !
- The Longrow 10yo 1995/2005 'Tokaji Finish' (55,6%, OB, 2440 bottles) Woof! Plain weird (49)
Glengoyne 10yo 1994/2005 (61.9%, OB, rum finish, cask #9093, 264 bottles) (84)
Glenmorangie 12yo 'Golden Rum Cask Finish' (40%, OB) (84)
Speyside 1990/2005 'Armagnac Finish' (54.4%, Celtique Connexion, 297 b.) (87)
Ardbeg 12yo 1990/2002 (54.8%, DL OMC for 5th anniv. Speyside W. Bar Tokyo, rum fin.) (87)
Talisker 32yo 1972/2005 'Talimburg' (45,2%, DL for Whiskyfair, Rum Fin, 146 b.) (87)
Tomintoul 37yo 1966/2003 (52.8%, DL Platinum, Rum Finish, 201 b.) (93) – yes, that one was fantastic.
Woodskies
It's all about aromatization again, and what's interesting is that I feel what happens here is much closer to what happened in the wine
world in the last decades: giving the newcomers bold, simple, addictive aromas, by creating woodbombs – or rather vanillabombs.
Some will argue that whisky's always been aged in wood, so what's so new here? Again, it's all a matter of what you're looking for:
maturation or aromatization? Maturation is mostly – even if not only – obtained through the interplay between the spirit and the cask's
'mechanical' and 'chemical' faculties, while aromatization, achieved within a short period of time, gains primarily from the wood's
flavouring elements, mostly vanillin, lactones and a few other elements the names of which escape me at this moment. There is no
difference, I think, between re-racking some more or less matured spirit into new oak and throwing a few oak chips into a cask, except
that the former is legal. What's bad about that? Well, nothing, actually, and again, the truth hides in the glass, but like the wineskies, the development of woodskies might change tomorrow's whisky world's landscape.
Moreover, I feel there's a big difference between a winesky and a woodsky, which makes me think the latter is more 'dangerous' –
although that might be too strong a word. Wine finishing may allow you to transform a 'neutral', or aromatically challenged whisky into
a quaffable, expressive one, and that's just fine with me. But it won't really give us 'the illusion of age'. Remember, age has always
been a major USP amongst the whiskymakers. New oak finishing or even full maturing, by adding full, simple yet attractive aromas to a
malt, may just add a 'faked age' to it. Have you ever seen a vintage or an age statement on any of the largest selling new woodskies? No sir, because they are all very young, and young ages are killers for rank beginners. - Whisky is not about complexity or subtlety, but about bold, sweet, simple aromas. Yes, just like gin! So, ought we start to forget about age statements? Not yet, of course, but I feel we should get extra I don't mind if they manage to speed up maturation and if the result is as complex as a 'full-matured' Now, there's also our friend John Glaser's fairly new 'Spice Tree', that could be ranked amongst the
So, the use of new oak (and new bourbon might well not be too far from it) should offer the distilleries a
new super-power: being able to sell us whisky that's twice or trice as young as it used to be – again for
the same price. But for that to happen, we, the consumers, must first get used to a few new concepts
that contradict what we've always been told:
- It's not 'long and patient' ageing-for-many-long-years that gives it its incomparable flavours anymore,
it's simply its constituents, i.e. what's been 'added' to it after it started its life as British Plain Spirit.
careful from now on. Let's not get trapped by quick, simple and 'easy' flavours. Granted, the first rather
big-selling woodskies were very good. I quite liked Glenmorangie's 'Artisan Cask' (but what an ironic name),
I rated it 83 points, and I liked Laphroaig's 'Quarter Cask' even better (no less than 90 points).
whisky's. But if they start, on a wide scale, to replace complexity with 'obvious' aromas (and peat alone
would deserve a whole E-pistle, one day…) that would be a major disaster for the whisky world (but again,
it's just booze). Please, please, don't!
woodskies, but that I'd rather classify as one of the most emblematic recent…
Weirdskies
This section will allow me to finish this (too) long E-pistle on a much happier tone, as I love most weirdskies.
Well, a weirdsky is simply a whisky that's not made – and/or assembled - the traditional way, and that is neither a winesky, nor a
woodsky. But rather than a long and pointless rant, let me just list a few of them, in no particular order. Many are just funny experiments with single casks.
The Spice Tree. A malt that's been 'doped up' with new staves made out of a spicy kind of oak, which have been added into the cask
(not just by changing some staves). Compass Box has the right to do whatever they want, of course, and I'm sure their rationale for
doing that is 'authentic'. But the result is a spirit that, for my tastes and only for my tastes, is too far away from 'whisky' as I like it. Rather extreme!
Other distillery finished malts. Remember the Balvenie 17yo 'Islay Cask'? Now it's the Germans who decided to play that funny game
and we just saw a 1991 Ardbeg finished in a Strathisla cask for six months. It's a bottling by excellent German bottler Jack Wieber - I
have some but I still have to try it. Whiskykanzler Berlin, on their side, made a ZDFbeg (ZDF is the second German TV station, the first
one being ARD, get it?) finished in an old Glenfarclas oloroso cask – maybe was some Belgium Maniac somewhat involved? Playing with the bottling process. Usually, bottlers filter their whisky after it's been reduced with water, Single Grains. I think we never saw that many single grains being launched. Single Blends. Adelphi just launched an excellent old Ben Nevis 'single blend'. Peated unpeated malts. Heavily peated malts used to be the prerogative of Islay's south shore plus Caol Ila.
Very young, undisclosed peat monsters. Peated whiskies do not need so much ageing, it appears, as many 'no age' (i.e. very young)
branded monsters have assaulted the market recently. Blackadder, Cadenhead, Duncan Taylor spring to mind, and all range from good
to very good in my books. I should not like them but I do! Am I a hopelessly uncivilized peatophile? Hmmm, I swear I'm not!
Very special finishings. Signatory already granted us a funny beer-finished Ardmore (Belgian Kriek finish) that mostly found it's way to…
Belgium (amazing!), and although we didn't see many of these 'non-wine, non-spirit' wood finishings up to now, maybe the coming
years will be more prolific. We need a few laughs – and that reminds me of an anonymous German Maniac – first name stars with a K. –
who wanted to do a Naomi-Campbell finish, which consisted in letting the latter bathe into a cask of whisky before bottling. Not sure the SWA would have approved, though…
Good, I feel I should really stop my interminable babble now. You got it, I'm not really a winesky and/or woodsky lover – weirdskies are
fine as long as they are good, funny or one-offs – but there's another big, I mean, huge trend that looks much more promising to my
eyes: almost all 'real whiskies' distilled since, let's say 1992/1995 seem to taste better, much better than their older siblings from the
end of the 1970's or 1980's. And yes, even if there are no more sherry casks. Maybe it's just an impression but I don't think I'm too
wrong. So, please, Scottish friends, don't turn them all into wineskies or woodskies before they have fully matured! Peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Granted, I don't obligatorily love them for their inherent organoleptic qualities, but because they are usually funny and, in most cases,
not reproducible on a wide scale, although that's sometimes too bad. And, most importantly, they are not whiskies that are essentially
meant to solve the distiller's major problems: making marketable whisky quicker and get rid of so-so stocks while the market is high. But what do I mean by 'weirdsky', you may ask?
Vatted malts that tell their names. The excellent John Glaser popularized malts that are made out
of two or three singles, of which the names aren't mentioned on the labels but widely advertised on
the web (I love Eleuthera) – and there's been Ardbeg's 'Serendipity' that made us all laugh a bit.
La Maison du Whisky just went one step further with its 'House Blended Malts'.
They have, for instance, a blend of a cask of Pultneney 1989 with a cask of Caol Ila 1994.
Both distilleries are mentioned on the label, as well as the vintages and cask details.
Single Casks Vatted Malts? Why not!
so that the cloudiness is removed. La Maison du Whisky and Signatory made it the other way round, and
filtered the whisky at cask strength, and then reduced it to 40%. The results are cloudy to the point that
they called it, er, 'Very Cloudy' (there's a Jura, a Glenrothes and a Caol Ila if I'm not mistaken). Another
experiment involving 'La Maison' and Compass Box was to re-cask vattings and let them 'marry' longer in
bourbon casks instead of vats ('Mariage' range). A third experiment – although I fail to understand what
the point was – consisted in hand bottling a cask that had been reduced with water.
Or was it just about combining two 'gimmicks' in an unusual way?
Excellent old Invergordons by Duncan Taylor and Adelphi, Strathclydes, Girvans, Carsebridges, ...
Even Nikka… I hope they'll still have some left for making super-hyper-mega premium old blends!
Ben Nevis used to shelter also a grain distillery. I hope we'll also have a Lochside one day!
And then of course there has been Brora, Ledaig, Longrow… Then we could taste some heavily peated Ardmores (even peatier than
usual), and then Benriachs by Signatory… And the Juras… And Bunnahabhains… And Bruichladdich's Port Charlotte and Octomore… In
2005 we could taste Glen Keith's Craigduff (thanks to Signatory again), an heavily peated Caperdonich (thanks to Jean Boyer), an
heavily peated Tomintoul-Ballantruan (McKillop's)… And I probably forget a few. Shall we see a peated Macallan one day?
E-pistle #16/20 - The Malt Mafia (Part 2)
Submitted on 10/12/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel
, Holland
So, technically speaking, I wasn't expressing a political opinion ;-) Still, on the matter of politics: MM is all about expressing one's feelings and opinions.
Unfortunately, the world wide web of today has a dark side to it as well - the on-line whisky fraudsters. Here's Ulf's 'public warning' on the topic;
Well, well, well... The plot thickens...
The publication of the 'Malt Mafia' article provoked many responses.
And some of those responses contained new and very useful information.
I'll get to the useful information in a few paragraphs, but first I'll have to
address another matter. Some remarks I made about Italian prime minister
Silvio Berlusconi made one reader wonder if MM was the right platform to
express political opinions. Well, I should point out that my low esteem for
Mr. Berlusconi isn't based on his political ideas, of which I know very little.
It's simply based on the fact that I personally think he is a slimy bugger...
I mean, just take a look at him. Would you buy a used car from this man?
Or a brand new one for that matter? No, I wouldn't either...
In my opinion politics are just like malts, music and pretty much most other things in life: debatable.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion - even me. And if I expect people to respect my right to have an opinion, the least I can do
is respect their opinion in return. (Obviously, I repect some opinions more than others ;-) And who knows, opinions have been known to change during the course of an open and honest debate. That's one of the things I love most about the
And as it turns out, one of the other malt maniacs has now personally experienced the shenanigans of Mr. Borroni first hand. In this
case the innocent victim was Swedish maniac
I had a nasty experience recently. The guy below is a swindler.
Johannes, for the health of the 'whisky community' I would like you to start a column in conjunction with fakes listing person to
contact regarding experiences of dealings with suspected and/or confirmed dubious persons or websites. References such as the suggested one below may very well serve its purpose. *******************************************************
In my case he accepted payment for four bottles and delivered three. The missing onwe was of course the most expensive one. He
promised, via email, to ship the missing one separately, but did not and does not answer on email or other means of communication.
The stuff was paid for via PayPal but, and this is outrageous, PayPal refuses to get involved as the goods were not purchased at
Ebay. Hence, the conclusion is that when trying to secure non-Ebay purchases PayPal is a nonsense and meaningless 'partner'.
This is a warning regarding whisky purchase from the webpage of
MONDOWHISKY/Italy or via EBAY from its owner SERGIO BORRONI.
Before you place an order contact ulf@buxrud.se for information.
*******************************************************
Well, Ulf - all I can say is: too bad I didn't publish my Malt Mafia article sooner...
We won't make that mistake twice, so here's Luca's very useful tip for people who find themselves in similar situations;
'Hi Ulf, If you have paid via PayPal but using a credit card, you can easily do a chargeback.
Just call VISA/Mastercard/American Express or whatever your card is, and they will get the money back for you.
It also happened to me (bought two bottles on eBay from a guy in Holland, a certain Guillaume Dol although I don't know if that's his
true name, who never shipped them and then vanished), and PayPal did almost nothing. I called VISA, and in a few days I had my
money back. Of course PayPal was a bit pissed off, as they were forced by my chargeback to take the whole loss, and if they wanted to recover it they would have to pursue the seller...'
Useful information, isn't it? In response, Ulf added;
'An Italian whisky acquaintance is barking up the tree on my behalf.
As a reaction on several of his efforts to locate and contact SERGIO BORRONI he received an email with the address nevila alivodaj
[rossoferraricorsa@yahoo.it] containing the following text: 'Ciao sono in vacanza fino al 20 settembre, non sono in Italia al mio
rientro, sistemiamo tutto ciao e grazie' (...) My purchase consisted of four items from the RMS series, including one Glenlochy. That's
the one which was excluded from shipment. The transaction occured in end of August. Another, however minor, complaint is that
two of the original boxes were defined as 'mint condition'. They were not. Also, the payment was channelled through PayPal. I need to underline that PayPal does not assist in resolving matters like this.'
Worthwile warnings, Ulf!
These, in turn, inspired Luca to share some more useful tips against fraudsters;
Before resorting to a chargeback against PayPal, do one important thing: remove all your money from your PayPal account. In some
cases, people who have filed a chargeback hava had their PayPal accounts frozen so they had no longer any access to their funds.
This is because PayPal considers a chargeback as an offence against them, and sometimes (especially in the US, whereas in Europe
the law is more on the side of the consumer) they try to steal your money from the account as a revenge. So, first make sure your
PayPal balance is ZERO, then do the chargeback. PayPal (...) say their payment method is the safest, while they don't check much of
the seriousness of the sellers and are not willing to take any actions against them if they misbehave. Sure, it's tough to chase a bad
seller and get his money back... but hey, PayPal is taking big percentages from all transactions so let's make them sweat their commission!
When I filed my complaint to PayPal against the Dutch seller who never sent the two bottles (a Springbank 21 and a Brora Platinum),
they said "hey, we can't refund you anything because the seller has no money left on his account! We know you have been
defrauded but we can't do anything!". So I resorted to chargeback... PayPal wrote to me saying "Why did you resort to chargeback?
It is a violation of the user agreement! For this time you are forgiven, but please ask for our assistance in recovering funds next time".
My answer was something on the line of: "I HAVE asked your help, idiots, but you have washed your hands about the matter. Since I
relied on PayPal to have a SAFE transaction (as advertised on your homepage) I consider it perfectly fair that I get my money back
from VISA and you take the whole damage, as you should be responsbile for the safety of the transaction. If the loss is tough on
you, please make some more efforts (more than the NOTHING you have made so far) to trace the seller and get the money back from him". Needless to say, I still have my account, and PayPal did not try to do any revenge on me.
By the way, for Johannes, I have just read your article... very funny and brilliant! Just one note, though: I did not know you were an
anti-Berlusconi activist! ;-) Well, if one day we will meet in person, I have lots of stories to tell you about the other side, about the
opposition: even Mr. Prodi and his friends are not that clean... and they are incompetent to boot! The Italian politics scene is a
complete disaster, both at the right AND at the left. But somehow only the (undeniable) bad things about Berlusconi reach out the news in Europe, while nobody talks of the other side.'
Point taken, Luca... And thanks for these very useful tips for those of us who buy bottles on-line.
Meanwhile, I'm waiting on some more information from a few 'sources, so it looks like the rest of the 'Malt Mafia' story will have to wait
until a third instalment. However, there's one more intriguing snippet of information from Luca I'd like to share already;
'Regarding the 'identity' issue: The usage of a yahoo account sure doesn't leave much hope, does it?
The text means "On holiday until next September 20th"...
By the way, the syntax of the message is suspiciously wrong. Looks like this guy can't even write Italian.
What? Does that mean that 'Sergio Borroni' could also be a fake identity, perhaps? So, the plot thickens.... Sweet drams,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And perhaps he's not even Italian? Luc mentioned that Sergio Borroni seems to be a common name in Italy.
As Luca points out, the use of a yahoo account means that there really could be anybody behind it...
More in the next and final 'Malt Mafia' E-pistle.
E-pistle #16/21 - Silent Distillery Profile: Braes of Glenlivet / Braeval
Submitted on 12/12/2005 by Michel van Meersbergen, Holland
Creating a 'silent distillery profile' for the Braes of Glenlivet Distillery turned
Braes of Glenlivet Distillery (The hillside in the valley where the river Livet flows) was built in 1973 by Chivas Brothers (Seagram Co
Ltd) and was used primarily for creating blending material. It was built to look like a traditional distillery, complete with pagoda, the
inside however was built along the latest insights in distillery management. No malting floors or storage capacity, all aspects of
production done on a single level floor and a small workforce, one person if necessary made it a very efficient plant. A clean, mean machine so to speak.
Braes of Glenlivet started with 3 stills, two more were added in 1975 and another one in 1978. Until 1995 all remains quiet, tankers
driving up and down to Keith delivering the spirit for maturing in Chivas' bonded warehouses, lorries driving up and down delivering
malted barley from various sources, a peaceful scene. It was however, less peaceful at the legal department at Seagram's. Seagram,
claiming exclusive rights for the name of their flagship distillery Glenlivet were not happy with various companies using '-Glenlivet' as an
addition to their distillery names. To set a good example Seagram changed the name of Braes of Glenlivet in Braeval. What sacrifice Chivas made, a change of name for a non-branded distillery. The marketeer's nightmare!
In 1997 Braeval once more showed its innovative character. Computers were installed to fully operate and monitor the distillery. From
now on, the before mentioned single person could manage the whole distillery process from his armchair. Mashing, cleaning, charging
and distilling were just a mouse click away. Pernod Ricard took over Seagram in 2001 and thus became owner of Braeval. The change
of ownership turned out to be disastrous for Braeval. Due to over-production the distillery was mothballed in October 2002, although
'over-production' might be a more diplomatic word for 'over-capacity'. Keep in mind Pernod now had two distilleries, the other being
Allt-A-Bhainne, that were producing almost exclusively for blends, with Allt-A-Bhainne being specialized in Chivas material only.
Braeval, also delivering to blenders outside the Pernod Ricard Group, might have shown up in the books as unnecessary ballast or even as a source of internal competition. This is of course, speculation
Well… This about wraps up the story of Braeval. It has the questionable honour to be one of the few recently closed distilleries that
actually produced a high quality product, which deserved to be bottled as an single malt. Even more questionable is the fact that
Braeval's sister distillery Allt-A-Bhainne, build in 1975 and closed a few months after Braeval, was put in production again in may 2005.
A peek at the Matrix learns that the average quality of Allt-A-Bhainne is most definite below par. Why Pernod have chosen to re-open
Allt-A-Bhainne instead of Braeval remains a mystery. Rumours have it that Braeval might go into production again in the near future. Time will tell… Braeval Technical data: Barley: Unknown Wash stills: 2 (Plain shaped, steam heated) Spirit stills: 4 (Milton Ball shaped, steam heated)
Operational: 1974 - 2002
Region: Speyside
Neighbours: Knockandhu, Tomintoul
Address: Chapeltown, Ballindalloch, Banffshire AB37 9JS
Last Known Owner: Pernod-Ricard S.A.
out quite difficult. Not very much happened during its relative short period
of being operative, add to that the fact it was never released as a single
malt and to make things worse, even independent bottlings are scarce.
Little is known simply because there's not very much to know about in the
first place. The most juicy bit is the fact that it claims to be the most highly
located distillery in Scotland (a whopping 355 meters above sea level).
The presented profile is therefore rather short and technical.
Malting Source: Various
Water Source: Preenie and Kate's Well (distilling), The Pitilie Burn (cooling water for condensers?)
Yeast Strain: Unknown
Mash tun: Stainless steel with a capacity of 8.4 tonnes (type unknown, probably Lauter)
Washbacks: 15 (Stainless steel with a total capacity of 660.000 litres)
Barrel type: Bourbon, Sherry and Refill
Annual output: 4.000.000 litres
Capacity: 22.000 litres
Lyne arm: Slightly ascending
Condensers: Internally sited, ca. 8 feet tall, unknown internal construction
Capacity: 10.000 litres
Lyne arm: Slightly ascending
Condensers: Internally sited, ca. 5 feet tall, (ca. twice the diameter of wash still condensers), unknown internal construction
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #16/22 - A Funky Brigade
Submitted on 14/12/2005 by Craig Daniels, Australia
With so many top scorers in the line-up most attention went to the big winners.
Any malt maniac can develop affection for whiskies that are by no means perfect, but truly memorable.
I love the
Malt Maniacs Awards and I think the methodology is the most robust
of any awards process that I've come across. I also agree with Johannes that
while 108 medal winners seems generous, that I was probably one of the hardest
markers and I awarded medals to 80 of them, (with 19 out of the 30 that missed
out scoring either 78 or 79, so very close to recommendable) so while the hit rate
was high I feel it was justified. So I was tough and yet only 11 of my samples were
found wanting, so the entries were on the whole very good and occasionally great.
While the scores tell one story, a quick reconnaissance over my tasting notes
reveals some beauties that would otherwise be highly recommendable whiskies and
the ones I've chosen were all good whiskies but they had a slight weirdness that
qualified them for the Funky Brigade. If you only look at the raw scores, some
worthy whiskies will escape deserved attention and connoisseurs will miss out
on chasing some nearly great, yet brilliant whiskies - hence this E-pistle.
Sometimes you can fall madly in love with a whisky that is interesting, yet has obvious imperfections and some of my most memorable
encounters of the
The Funky Brigade - Interesting, intriguing yet excellent whiskies
Clynelish 1971/2005 (45.7%, M&H Cask Selection, 228 Bottles) Caol Ila 12yo 1992/2005 (46%, Whisky Galore)
Compass Box Eleuthera (46%, Compass Box, K5073, Bottled +/- 2005) Bunnahabhain 12yo (40%, OB, bottled 2005) Bruichladdich 3D "Moine Mhor' (50%, OB)
Glencadam 15 (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2005)
Glengoyne 32yo 1972/2005 (48.7%, OB, White Rioja C#985, 328 Bottles) Caol Ila 1995/2005 Extra Strength (50%, Wilson & Morgan) Ledaig 30yo 1974/2005 (48.7%, Signatory Vintage, Cask #3223)
There were another four whiskies that met the Funky Brigade Criteria, but they had already won Awards, hence they have had all the
oxygen of publicity they need to be known to the connoisseur searching for intrigue and interesting nuances along with excellence. The Award winning Funky Four were the Isle of Jura 5yo 1999/2004
(60.6%, OB for The Whisky Exchange Cask # 19) which won the Pressure Cooker Award, the Macallan "Coilltean" 1992/2004 (55% Samaroli, new American oak, cask # 8518) which won the Gentle Giant Award, the
Carsebridge 25yo 1979/2005 (56.4%, Duncan Taylor, cask #32901) which won the Lowlands Award of Excellence (and deservedly so) and the Ben Nevis 34yo 1970/2005 'Single Blend' (50.3%, Adelphi, Cask #4640, Ben Nevis malt &
grain) which won the Multiple Personality Award. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Score 84 - "Lemon & Grapefruit Cheesecake" - Upon reflection I thought this had a classic lowland nose, with lemon cheesecake,
grapefruit, straw, cream and then some lemon and grapefruit citrus zest. The palate is tart and slightly bitter, again not inconsistent
with a lowland profile, but with a steelier spine more akin to a highland. The finish is faintly metallic with a hint of bitter herbs and
citrus pith, slightly drying wood. Overall the package is both fresh and clean, while being slightly hard and bitter, yet this slightly tart
bitterness provides freshness in the finish. The malt markers are citrus pith, chilled metal and grapefruit. This was an interesting hybrid whisky - the aroma profile suggested Lowland, but the robust spine suggested Highland origins.
Still I doubt that I would've guessed Clynelish.
Score 85 - "Bauernsuppe Islay"
- This was one of the most interesting noses of any of the malts in the Awards. It was pure Islay but totally soupy - a veritable bauernsuppe or beef bourbignon - the most brothy or soupy nose of all 114, yet incredibly nice with it.
The nose has smoked meat, ointment, sweet honey malt along with a hint of spirit and metal. There's also some old cigarette ash and
then a whole stack of organics - boiled bacon and cabbage, then belly bacon and white beans, along with some supporting herbs like
rocket or savoury: I'd love to eat this one. The palate is sweet, oily, unctuous and ferny & the finish has smoke, nuts, charcoal,
bitter herbs and cream - it's undisputedly an Islay and a cracker at that!! The malt markers are ointment, smoked meat, cold fireplaces, bacon and ferns. My guesses were Caol Ila and Laphroaig.
Score 86 - "Peanut Meal, Bitter Lemon and Tar" - This was always a solid silver from the very first nose; early on there was lots of
peat, tar and creosote, so the Islay character was evident and then when the unguent/ointment kicked in I figured it had to be an
Islay. There were some other things going on with bacon & eggs, then peanut meal (which screams Caol Ila to me) and then some
citrus, cream and bitter lemon. The finish had lots of cream, lemon tar and bacon - with a hint of metal. The latter bits suggested
that it might not be an Islay, but as Johannes never warns me that there were any vatted (blended) malts in the samples it's not
altogether surprising that I thought it was an Islay. Still it is a lovely whisky and the bitter lemon really compliments the peanut meal and tar.
Score 84 - "Smoked Meat with Sour cherries & Cream" - Funnily enough I think this one is funky when I know what it is, so it
shouldn't come as a surprise that I feel the same way when it is masked or blind. The nose has some sour cherry, sweet wood and
smoked meat (pastrami & proscuitto) with tropical fruit from American oak sherry wood. The palate is sweet, with the maraschino
cherries carrying over from the nose, quite a lot of woody phenols, more roast beef or bacon and nice creamy wood. There's evidence
of sherrywood in the finish with tobacco, leather and a hint of metal. Lots of interesting things going on and the overall impression is
of an older whisky - the wood is very good for a commercial 12yo. A must for any budget minded lover of left field malts.
Score 87 - "Tar, lemon and linen"
- Obvious peat early with some citrus and lemon essence, then a flaxen, gauze and linen note with some overly dry wood in the background. There's also cream and creosote, tennis shoe soles and egg & bacon pie. The palate is
big and oily with tar & rubber and buttery with burning leaves in the back palate. The finish has tar, grapefruit, alcoholic bitters and is
very long and peaty - more tar in the aftertaste. Many of the markers said Ardbeg to me, but with some un-Ardbeg notes. The
gauze, linen and buttery notes are reminiscent of Bruichladdich, but the rest is much more like Ardbeg. It could've been a vatting of Ardbeg with Glenglassaugh or Glen Elgin. Wouldn't mind trying one of those.
Score 86 - "Dry oloroso and vinegar toffee" - Another solid Silver from the outset, but unusually the palate and finish scored higher
than the nose, maybe because of the relatively low proof. There's lots of refined sherry wood early in the nose with sour cherries and
then some toffee, but the toffee has an unusual (funky) hint of malt vinegar, balsamic and mushroom soy. The palate is pretty much
straightforward sherry with almonds and other nuts, then hazelnut skins with raisins, fruitcake and a hint of dry oloroso. The back
palate is creamily woody with a hint of metal. The finish is long and pleasantly warming. Could've been Glenfarclas except for the
vinegar toffee notes. This is another one where the tasting notes suggest that there is some much older material in the mix. I'd be very surprised if all the malt in the mix was only 15 years old. Definitely worth hunting.
Score 88 - "Mint toffee & Whipped Cream" - Exquisite & incredibly refined nose with mint toffee, caramel, choc-mint ice cream, dry
mint and whipped cream. The palate has upfront sour fruit (cherries and cranberries), then mint toffee which lasts through the back
palate into the finish, which becomes creamier. The aftertaste has long sour sherry, bit of leather and lots of sour fruit and creamy
mint. Incredibly consistent package - yet the persistence of the mint and the presence of both icecream and whipped cream qualify
for the Funky Brigade. Funnily enough I remember 'old' bottles of the Glengoyne 12 released around 1994 that had that distinctive mix
of the two creams and sour fruit, but with more honey than mint - the mint must come from the long time in wood.
Score 88 - "Popcorn Islay"
- This was almost whimpy early on, but warmed to its task after about 10 minutes. Early, the nose was
a bit flat and watery, with a slight hint of cream, then a curious hint of BBQ hotplate, citrus and rainwater/tonic water and a growing
aroma of fresh buttered popcorn. Lots of lemon/tar notes, then peat smoke and ointment, hint of rubber, peanut toffee, more
popcorn and white rubber. The palate was typically Islay with smoke, burning leaves, tar and iodine & carbolic, plus cream, butter &
creosol. The finish is long and very smoky with persistent dry white rubbery tail. The white rubber and lemon said Ardbeg, but the
popcorn, peanut and butter/cream hints said Caol Ila - I was pretty confident that it was from one of these.
Score 88 - "Deep Sherry and Cedar Shavings"
- Can a whisky be funky and admirable at the same time? The nose had an incredible depth of sherry and sour cherries, then lots of creamy cedar and pencil shavings, toffee, caramel and dark chocolate. While
the nose seems to lack integration of sherry and wood, the nose becomes increasingly impressive over time, went from scoring 86-92
within 10 minutes. The palate has evident spirit then chocolate covered cherries, then a nice sweet creamy note like strawberries and
cream with dry sour sherry in the back palate. The finish evinced a sherried nuttiness, some bitter metal, leather and was long and
warming. This a wild roller coaster of a nosing experience yet the palate and finish, while competent and acceptable, never quite lived
up to the expectations raised by the nose. By no means a seamless package yet intriguing and delightful nonetheless. Funnily
enough, my tasting notes don't reveal any mention of peat and I was always under the impression that Ledaig was always peated. This would be great Masterclass material.
E-pistle #16/23 - 'Twins' Pandora
Submitted on 02/01/2006 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Well, I guess it's about time to report on the 'Pandora' on-line blind tasting that
took place in December. We had actually planned to have this pandora session
before we started the sampling for the Malt Maniacs Awards 2005 but with some
of the packages arriving a mere two weeks before the deadline there just wasn't
enough time. So, we picked a weekend in December for this pandora challenge.
And what a devious challenge it was...
Eight of the maniacs received a package with four 60ml (blind) samples.
There were four sets of two identical packages, but the maniacs didn't know
which of the other seven maniacs was their 'twin'. Their task was to find out.
Furthermore, they were expected to come up with five guesses regarding the
identity (i.e. the distillery) where the sample was distilled. An insanely difficult
task, especially since the maniacs didn't have any clues whatsoever about the
(number of) distilleries that were included in the package.
The maniacs didn't know it at the time, but I had selected samples from ten distilleries.
The pandora packages contained samples from Ardbeg, Balvenie, Caol Ila, Glenfiddich, Glenmorangie, Glen Spey, Laphroaig, Linkwood,
Macallan and Mortlach. Those of you that have mastered the fine art of counting will have figured out that this means that some
distilleries were featured more than once in the line-up and they are right. Yes, when I put up a challenge I mean business...
Before the actual 'live' part of this pandora challenge, the maniacs were asked to submit their tasting notes for their first dram (you
can get 2/3 decent helpings out of a 60ml bottle). Just to give you an idea of the nerve-wrecking tension of the maniacs at the
beginning of the weekend I'll publish their notes here - can you figure out who was who's twin and where their whiskies came from? Remember that, unlike the maniacs, you already know which distilleries were involved...
============================== PRELIMINARY NOTES ========================= Davin's Pandora #1
– Second palest in colour, malty, medium abv 50%? Rich, creamy nose, sweet, watery palate.
Ho-cheng's Pandora #1 – Color: Light yellow. Legs going down quick, quite thin.
Klaus' Pandora #1 - gold colour.
Krishna's Pandora #1 - Light amber colour, looks like a bourbon cask or an exhausted sherry cask. Luc's Pandora #1
- No clue whatsoever, not even a wild guess about the distillery ;-) Olivier's Pandora #1 - colour: yellow/white wine. Peter's Blind #1 - Pale gold, not cask Strength
Serge's Pandora #1 - Colour: pale straw. - - - Davin's Pandora #2 - (Darkest) orange-yellow. Sherried, medium abv; 50% or so. Closed nose, a bit bitter. Ho-cheng's Pandora #2 – Color: Brown orange. Fine legs going down slow. 40%. Klaus' Pandora #2 - amber colour. Krishna's Pandora #2 - Dark amber colour, looks like a sherry cask stuff. Luc's Pandora #2 - Must be a Farclie, and I guess about 15yo. Olivier's Pandora #2
- colour: darker of the 4: dark straw but not amber. Peter's Pandora #2 - Full gold with orange tints. Serge's Pandora #2 - Colour: amber with orange hues. - - - Davin's Pandora #3 - Orange-yellow. Bourbon cask methinks. Table strength – 40%abv. Ho-cheng's Pandora #3 – Color: Light yellow, very light. Thick and quick legs, very thin. 40%. Klaus' Pandora #3 - Pale gold, seems to be overproof. Krishna's Pandora #3
- Darker in colour than others. Luc's Pandora #3 - Mmm, I guess a Rosebank at C/S. Olivier's Pandora #3 - colour: straight yellow. Peter's Pandora #3
- gold color. Serge's Pandora #3 - Colour: pale white wine.
- - - Davin's Pandora #4 - White wine. Smokey. Table strength – 40% abv. Ho-cheng's Pandora #4
– Color: Brown golden. Not very clear legs, 46%. Klaus' Pandora #4
- Pale gold colour. Krishna's Pandora #4 - Colour like white wine. Luc's Pandora #4 - Mmm, like smelling the sea. (The North Sea that is...). Caol Ila at 46%. Olivier's Pandora #4 - colour: yellow, clearer of the 4 samples. Peter's Pandora #4 - pale gold color. Serge's Pandora #4 - Colour: gold.
=============================================================================
Nose: Rich, creamy malt, Organics, farm smells, some dried grain, a hint of flowers, malty.
Taste: Sweet, watery, nice and spicy, grass, coins, lots of heat, milk chocolate, bitter in middle, medium-long finish.
Conclusion: 84 points
– Nice sipping whisky. A bit oily, which I like. Palate outshines the nose. It's a Speysider.
Initial nose was Balvenieish, but the oiliness cannot be Balvenie. Some white pepper on the palate is quite distinctive.
Nose: Nutty. Grassy. Malty sweet. No peat. Seems to have some caramel/artificial flavor? Tropical fruit at end. Meaty.
Taste: Medium Body. Nutty and creaming. Finish short and bitter. Quite like a Springbank, but not the one I like.
Conclusion: 72 points - too simple. I don't like the finish at all. Especially some artificial feel. Young, 12yo?
Nose: Cooked fruits, caramel, flowers. There is an aroma of cooked fruits and flowers, a little bit sweet and musty.
Taste: There is something spicy or citrussy which inflicts this feeling but is neither sweet, salty, sour or bitter.
Conclusion: 72 points - I have troubles with this malt. Needs more than 10 minutes to unfold.
Nose: Refreshing, gentle smoke, camphor? Mild organics.
Taste: Sweet, grainy, medium bodied mouth feel, metallic - that cold spoon feeling, did I get peat?
Conclusion: 82 points - Appears to be in the range of 43%-46%. I like the nose better than the palate.
Nose: Starts fresh & sweet, very malty, gristy with some sour notes underneath, mineral, oakwood, pretty dull.
Taste: Rather weak, and then something dirty hits me, some sulphur, not nice, and very sour on the palate.
Conclusion: 70 points - not my whisky, a little too sour, kinda baby-puke in style even. Not my kind.
In the nose I also got toasted bread, limezest, butter, green banana-peal, and those sournotes disturb me.
Nose: light but expressive grain, dust, simple grass, not very complex. The nose makes me think of a mid 70's score.
Taste: powerfum rich mid palate, some heather, light faint sulfurs. Chocolate. Makes me think of sherry. Refill type.
Conclusion: 82 points - I'd go for a light refill sherry cask, speysider, not very old (10/15yo) at around 43%.
Nose: Malty sweet and honey. Also get on nose floral, strawberry fruit and oak.
Taste: Salty and malty. Taste has a sour tang to it.
Conclusion: 86 points - Guesses - Clynelish OB 14yo, second choice Old Pultney OB 12yo.
Nose: Very sulphury at first, almost rotten eggs. Very yeasty, with mashed potatoes, wet grains, burning matchsticks.
Taste: Rather weak but very sweet; sugarish. Violet & lavender sweets, overripe fruits, infused herbal tea.
Conclusion: 65 points
- The nose is a little weird, I must say. Notes of olive oil, cod oil, paint, roasted coffee beans.
The taste is not especially disjointed but hard to enjoy. Unexpectedly long finish with some Alka-Seltzer & lemon skin.
Hard to enjoy, even if sort of interesting. Tobermory?
Nose: First nose closed, a bit grassy. Warms up to dark fruits. Some fruity esters but also some farmy grass smells.
Taste: Sweet then bitterness then spicy. Cigar box, some wood tannins. Short finish. Nice sherry, sultanas, quite hot.
Conclusion: 83 points – Nice creamy nose with hints of gunpowder (which I like). Signatory Mortlach.
Nose: Not that sherried at the first impression. Creaming. Even cereal. A little bit wood feel. Very light raisin.
Taste: Dark chocolate, bitter. Medium Body. Medium finish. Not too much fruity feel. 18yo?
Conclusion: 82 points
- More like Highland style. Quite nice, but not very typical sherry cask.
Nose: Raisins with toffee and a touch of dusty cardboard. Fruity, woody, musty, then citrus and spice.
Taste: Minty, bitter orange, caramel, spicy, cafe au lait. Lasts not very long, pleasant.
Conclusion: 85 points - after the first sip the nose changes: fresh citrus/mint or ginger notes move into the forground.
Comments: I have no idea about the distillery. Possibly Speyside or Lowlands. Glenfarclas 12y OB? Glen Rothes?
Nose: Smoky, heather, vegetables, organics and spicy aromas.
Taste: Metallic, licorice, sherry and fruits, very leafy, a definite sherry cask with smoky finish.
Conclusion: 84 points
- Looks a Speysider with smoky finish. Range 43%- 46%. Ardmore?
Nose: Creamy nose, some orange marmelade on toast, butter pancakes, croissants, "speculoos" & "peperkoek".
Taste: Light start, sweet oloroso, pancakes with orange zest, but then bitter, woody notes shine through. Ah too bad.
Conclusion: 79 points - nose is promising, taste is too woody and influenced by some bad sherry casks.
The nose had a nice oloroso touch and that typical Glenfarclas etheric undertone.
The finish was medium long, but getting too woody with a slitght sulphury touch.
Nose: Fresh mushrooms, forest, humus, wet dust (mould?) at first, then comes the classic grain/malt/biscuity aromas.
Taste: Quite dry, monolithic, dry biscuits flavours, toasted bread, cereals. Medium complexity. Not powerful. Feels young.
Conclusion: 78 points - Light Highland style (40%?), Glenmo finish something? Classic mid/high 70's rating.
Traces of sherry in the finish. Some kind of winey finish? I get sulfurs at the second taste, but no wood or tannins.
Nose: Butterscotch and citrus. Nose also has sherry, oak, spicy citrus and musty.
Taste: Initial richness goes to bitter. It doesn't have the sweetness to carry it through the wood.
Conclusion: 77 points
- the wood beats the whisky up real good! Guess is a Macallan Fine Oak 25 - 30 year old.
Nose: A little closed at first nosing, with a little sulphur and wax. Hints of dry sherry.
Taste: Sort of weak but quite some oomph. First flavours are quite weird; chemical orange juice, vanilla and caramel.
Conclusion: 78 points
- There seems to be some sherry but it's quite discreet. Refill? Quite disjointed, I'm afraid.
The nose goes on with some burnt caramel, dried flowers, cocoa and tealeaves. Distant whiffs of smoke. Rather austere.
The palate gets a little drying but there's also a little lemon. Medium long finish, with some icing sugar and caramel.
Nose: Rich and creamy, dried grass, vegetal and leafy. Brown sugar, vanilla.
Taste: Quite sweet. Pepper & hot spices, just a hint of grassy bitterness. A nice warm middle. Tannins. Medium finish.
Conclusion: 79 points
– The bitterness spoils it. Nice mouth feel and OK nose. A bit like a young Knockando.
Nose: Very grassy, even like leaves. Some cherry/berry nose. Candy sweet. Meaty.
Taste: Light body. Mint. Medium finish. Young, 12yo?
Conclusion: 75 points
- Quite familiar, like a Tomintoul? Not bad, but I don't usual look for this style of malt..
Nose: Floral, flowers, grass, musty & earthy (first 10 min.). Then lilac and elder blossoms and berries take over.
Taste: Sweet, caramel, citrus fruits, dark chocolate. Tangerines; a pleasant bitter note with orange peel and espresso.
Conclusion: 88 points - The smell is fresh and flowery with grass notes and then there are old books.
The features in the nose do not harmonize very well. Fortunately the musty, earthy aromas retreat.
Nose: Leafy organics, fruity and sherried, very mild smoke. No peat.
Taste: Sweet tannins, coconut, more leafy organics on palate. May be in the range of 45%-50%.
Conclusion: 86 points
- Good long finish, best of the three so far.
Nose: At first slightly peated, metallic, malty, plastic, wet stone, gets very malty, and develops some farmy notes.
Taste: Bold and sharp, malty sweet, but the alcohol has quite some control. Hot, quite peppery & sticky finish.
Conclusion: 83 points - the nose is ok, but it's slightly too hot for my "delicate" palate.
The nose was quite nice (but I got some manure), goatcheese with some candle wax and hay notes.
Nose: Apples, pears, not really sweet but fruity. Fresh grain, sweet malt. Quite aromatic/easy. Some dust.
Taste: Palate feels simple, mid length but quite warming. Less dry than previous two. Short but elegant finish.
Conclusion:
75 points - not lemony enough to be a Lowlander. ABV around 43%. Dalwhinnie? A light Speysider?
The nose eventually develops cereals aromas that become dominants. Aromas are deceptive, taste is neutral.
Nose: Funky and malty. Nose also grassy-ferny, Speyside thing going on, a sweaty armpit sourness.
Taste: Very sugared and sweet. Cookie dough sweet with some smoke. Long, spicy finish.
Conclusion: 84 points
- the palate doesn't match the nose! Best guess: Highland Park 1975 Scott's Selection.
Nose: Very grainy & smoky, mineral after a while. Notes of gunflint, matchsticks, coal. Freshly cut grass, wet hay.
Mouth: Sweet and full-bodied attack, probably very young. Some smoke, developing on lemon seeds. Something acrid.
Conclusion: 80 points - rather sharp but not exactly unbalanced. Probably high-strength. Long finish on lemon zest.
Concentrated lemon juice on the palate with something sugarish in the background. Gets bitter with time, though.
Nose: Licorice, sweet smoke, ashes. Rich Islay peat with a hint of sweetness. Medicine, antiseptic, hints of farminess.
Taste: Ashes in water, a bit sweet, slowly some burn emerges, dirty. Develops a nice rich sweet licorice. Astringency.
Conclusion: 86 points – Caol Ila; seems a bit simple on first tasting.
Nose: Peaty, medium level. Island style, not very Islay. Seaweed. Meaty. Some sherry influence. Tropical fruit.
Taste: Peaty bitter. Malty sweet. Robust. Medium body. Medium finish. Not that much sea influence. 12yo?
Conclusion: 80 points - Talisker at the first impression but more like a Bowmore to me.
Nose: Peat, creamy, nuts. Very interesting whipped cream with peat and almonds or hazelnut aroma.
Taste: Islay tar, smoke peat, grass, cream. After a few seconds I can detect that hazelnut or almond cream again.
Conclusion: 92 points - description of the nose sounds strange but this smells very good. Delicious.
After the first sip the smoke almost covers the other aspects. The taste shows the Islay heritage.
I think this is Caol Ila although in most Caol Ila malts I find grassy notes dominant (after the peat).
Nose: Peat and smoke masks everything else, spices, bit of menthols.
Taste: Sweet and syrupy, mild peppers, get some leafy feeling, may be some organics.
Conclusion: 81 points - the finish is a disappointment. The nose scores a lot over palate.
The stuff begins big but dies with a whimper. A weak Islay or a low strength Brora.
Nose: At first a peat blast, seaweed, oysterjuice, zilty with a sweet vanilla undertone, very clean and pure.
Taste: Peaty but rather weak, salted butter, metallic, mineral, pure but fairly simple. Medium finish, fading away.
Conclusion:
84 points - OK, nose is clean & pure, but misses the punch. The finish leaves some bitter notes behind.
Nose: Feels very young, peat, dry smoke. Medicinal peat. Not boring, not heavy, but not really complex.
Taste: Almost easy peat. Light alcohol <= 43%. Not complex. Carbon, charcoal. Light finish, quite short & simple.
Conclusion:
82 points - G&M?. No Islay traits. Perhaps a young Longrow, a peated light Benriach, Arran...?
Nose: Smoke.
Taste: Peat and tar. Palate has creosote and baked fruit as well.
Conclusion: 84 points - my guess is Ardbeg 10 yo, not the OB, second guess Caol iIa.
Nose: Starts very waxy and resinous. Whiffs of smoke. Beautiful notes of argan and olive oil, toasted bread, marzipan.
Taste: a bit of old bottle effect, lots of wax, something metallic? A bit thin at first sip but soon to grow much bolder.
Conclusion: 86 points - an old Clynelish? A different profile, that may come from an old bottle. I do like it.
The nose gets smokier with time (campfire) but not peaty at all. Very nice, even if a little simple.
I've had some very old blends that tasted similar. Herbal tea, marzipan, something papery & slightly lemony.
Long finish, getting rather bitter and drying (lemon seeds).
And these were the preliminary notes that were submitted by the maniacs.
In fact, this Pandora challenge turned out to be so difficult that some maniacs were not confident they would be able to solve the
enigma with just the two primary senses of a malthead: taste and smell. It wasn't long before a few of the 'judges' (or lab rats)
started comparing the colour of their samples to try and find their twin. In all my deviousness I had of course tried to make the four
different flights as similar as possible, not just in style but in colour as well. Nevertheless, some maniacs trusted their eyes more than
their nose and tongue. Unfortunately, this also meant that the on-line debate about the bouquet and palate of the blinds I had hoped
for didn't really take off. I'm partly to blame for this session running off the tracks as well, though. I had to be in the woods to
amputate a bunch of trees who were damaged during a snow storm. When I returned I found a mailbox filled with the history of a
discussion going quite different than I had imagined. I had actually planned to make a full transcript of the maniacal discussions over
the weekend, but I imagine a full page of excited rambling about the colours of the 'blind' samples (well, in this case not so blind, apparently) wouldn't be the most interesting reading material. So, no 'full' pandora transcript this time.
However, I'll offer just a few snippets of the discussions during the weekend to give you a general idea of the unique blend of paranoia
and excitement that coloured this pandora session. The session lasted from Friday 18:00 GMT until Sunday 18:00 GMT but because of
the different timezones maniacs like Peter and Ho-cheng had to chime in at 'unusual' hours from the perspective of the Euro-maniacs.
So, do you already have an idea of who's who's twin? Or what sample came from where?
Probably not... If this experiment proved anything it is that everybody has their own vocabulary.
When you're sitting together in a room it's much easier to arrive at a certain consensus by gradually 'zooming in' on a particular trait.
For example, if one person offers that a malt is fruity in the nose, a second person might add that he smells apples, with a third person
perhaps being able to suggest a variety like Granny Smith or Golden Delicious - or maybe follow the trail to similar aroma's like cider,
apple pie or dried apples. With the eight tasters of the panel spread all across the globe (not to mention many different time zones) it turned out to be much more difficult to reach some kind of consensus than in a 'real live' tasting.
Davin:
Dear Evil Bastard, I'm finally home from work and about to re-open the samples. Ho-cheng: Good morning, <...> Davin:
Ok, looks like it is down to Klaus and Peter to be my twin. Olivier:
I bet you my shirt that Johannes plotted this VERY carefully. Perhaps we should look on maltmadness what he's got open at
the moment... I think that, since Serge, you, Luc and myself taste often together, we have also developped a common vocabulary
and tasting presentation that is quite similar, to the difference of someone like Krishna or Klaus for ex. So let's be careful. I would
suggest that we leave the flavours aside and comments on more objective elements like tannins, ABV,... Obviously, #2 is the most
sherried for everyone, I didn't get much tannin (wood) and found the alc not high (40%). Who share this point? Klaus, Krishna? Davin:
Well the tannins on number two are very slight and certainly dominated by the sherry/sulphur/gunpowder. To me the sherry is
right over top of everything else. I am having trouble finding any difference in abv among the first three and I wonder if they are all
table strength. I'm am just getting over a cold so maybe i can't feel the alcohol in my mouth but my nose seems to be working just fine. I have a 40% Glen Keith in the other hand so number 2 is no more than 43%, probably 40%.
Klaus: Davin, look at the colours. No 3 is pale as white wine in my batch. Equal in colour to No4. If the colours do not match then I
am out, no matter how good the tasting profiles go together. No. 1 is also a big problem for me if we go together. Davin:
Yes Klaus, I think you and I have different samples. I think I am just using a different process to eliminate possible twins.
Right now I'd say I am twinned with Peter or Olivier, or maybe Krishna if he has his colours mixed up. I thought Peter, as I though Olivier had eliminated me, but if not, i'll say Olivier is my first choice right now. Serge:
Alright, Maniacs, I have little time, alas – some guests to entertain tonight – but I sort of feel my 'twin' is Luc, although he didn't comment on the colours. Luc, can you check them – or is that forbidden, Johannes? Luc:
Hehe, same thoughts here....Serge is my twin I think.... Serge: Average ratings for all 4 samples: Luc: 77, Serge: 77. Errr.... Klaus:
I have checked all notes, rated the similarities on a scale from -5 to 5 and this are my conclusions: <...> Davin:
I'm at work so this is theoretical. Olivier:
Davin I think we could also be potential twins. I do not have any excel here, perhaps you should do a very simple chart where
you could summerize for the pandoras: ABV, colour (lightest, darkest, sherry (none, light, heavy), rating, basic flavor profile (malty, fruity, sherry, organic). This could help everyone? Davin:
OK, here is an xl based on the website notes. I'm off to make dinner but will return soon. Klaus: Thx, that helped a lot. Got to go to bed now.. Will be back in 10 hours or so. <...> Olivier: Hi Everyone, These are my thoughts:
In conclusion, it's either Klaus or Krishna! My question to you two: do you agree? Klaus: Hmm, Olivier? The plank palate meets the master wine maker. Minor or even major discrepancies in the tasting notes could
easily appear. Let us first check on the colours: sample 1 (medium), sample 2 (amber/darkest), sample 3+4 (white wine, both almost
equal hue). In the second tasting I discovered a taste(Johannes castrated my first remark, I tasted nothing, only a numb feeling on
the tongue), some toffee, a hint of sherry and a little bit sour, not the profile I like. On the nosing side rotten fruits and hints of bad,
old wood emerged under the flowery notes. Still not the best similarity. No 3 misses the bitter note in your description which I found.
in the finish. Maybe this will vanish in my second tasting. I will inform you. No. 4 was very creamy. I did not find that descriptor in
anyones note. I placed a watchglass over the empty whisky glass and when my darling Marlou visited me the next day she confirmed
that it smelled creamy ( and smoky) even after 1 day. I am quite sure that I tasted this malt before (just a sample). I plowed through
my tasting notes but could not find it. Maybe it is a Brora or a Longrow, Olivier, - you could be my twin, but let me check Peter's and Ho-Cheng's comments first before we go into deeper negotiations. Olivier:
Klaus, Which # correspond those notes? Davin: My twin is either Olivier or Peter. Peter - when you check in let me know what you think.
Peter: Ok, I'm in! Davin:
Hey Peter, Welcome aboard. Phase two is identifying the distilleries. Any clues? Peter: OK, here are my 'distillery decisions'. Serge
: Now, we could do something quite easy. Davin
: That's easier: 4 - 1 - 3 - 2 Olivier: Oh boy, now I'm confused! I'll have to work on the again. Luc
: Euh, my n°2 is the darkest of the 4.....too, but I'm pretty sure Serge is my twin....or could it be Klaus...... <...> Serge
: As for the colour matches, let's get even sneakier than Johannes (ha!) and just compare all our "colorimetries".
Luc: Hi Serge, #4 is the palest in color of the four I have, although 1, 3 and 4 are very pale in color. I don't detect that waxiness,
but yeah, perhaps a slight old bottle effect, but then from the one you would detect from lets say an old Longrow, old Glen Garioch or soo....for me it smells very "sea".... Olivier
: I bet you my shirt that Johannes plotted this VERY carefully. Perhaps we should look on maltmadness what he's got open at
the moment... I think that, since Serge, you, Luc and myself taste often together, we have also developped a common vocabulary
and tasting presentation that is quite similar, to the difference of someone like Krishna or Klaus for ex. So let's be careful. I would
suggest that we leave the flavours aside and comments on more objective elements like tannins, ABV,... Obviously, #2 is the most
sherried for everyone, I didn't get much tannin (wood) and found the alc not high (40%). Who share this point? Klaus, Krishna? Luc: Yes, I agree, my #2 is the most sherried one too... Ho-cheng
: I'm back! From comparing the color, I've rule out Krishna and Davin out at the first. (The darkest color is #2, then #4, #1
and #3 are about the same.) I've compare with Klaus, though we found #1 and #2 are quite the same, as well as #3, #4 is quite
different and his #4 is about the same color with #3. Thus, Klaus can't be my twin. I've also discuss with Olivier. We both agree the
feeling are not quite match. We've rule out each other at this moment. By comparing the rest three, (Luc, Peter, Serge) I found Luc
is most like to be my twin. I quite agree with his notes on #1, #2, #4. Has question on #3. I've also rule out Peter at this moment.
#4 color seems ligher than #3 for Peter, and I don't found too much similar for most of the samples. I am not sure about Serge.
Though Luc and Serge found each other quite match. I only found familar feel on #2. Has questions on the rest of them. But not really that sure the differences. So Luc, Maybe we are the perfect match. ^_^ Serge
: Did the sneaky Dutch woodchopper think he'd defeat a bunch of genuine Malt Maniacs like us? Davin
: Of course you know this means the next Pandora will have the secret goal of seeing if we can detect the caramel Johannes
adds to make them all that lovely G&M gold. I already knew Johannes was a bastard, I just didn't think he was so sneaky!! ;-) Ho-cheng: I have to cry. Krishna
: Hello all, Sorry I was out on some urgent officioal work and just opened mail. Time now is 6.15 p.m. Mial box over flowing
with matters. Have gone thro only a couple of mails. It looks like the pandorists are trying to match his twin by colour combination. If
it hepls here is my colour profile, from lightest to darkest - 4, 1, 3, and 2. No . 4 is definitely peated and smoky. The nose is far better
than palate. It starts witha bang and dies with a whimper as I have altready pointed in my first notes. Score 82 and could be in the
range of 40- 43% Repeted nose - I got some fountain pen ink smell, some vegetables. No.3 is the best among the lot. Nose leafy
organics, on second nose I got some sugars, mild oakwood, nutty and deinitely oily. the palate is syrupy, sweets and spicy. I can get
into specifics. Score 86 No 2 Second nose- besides whhat I have already written. Lots of vegetables, a sherried malt. Smoke and
heather. Some what floral, spicy aromas. Could be in 43-46% range. Good body better finish than P-1 Score 84. No 1 most refreshing
nose of the four. gentle smoke, some caphors or menthol?. Appears to be grainy. Metallic, that cold spoon feeling! Nose is better than
palate. score 80 (reduced from 82). Well, I will be reading the mails in between. I can not dring the stuff here in the internet cafe. I have to join again after my next tasting. I hope my twin finds me out. Cheerzzz.... <...>
Klaus: My colours are 4 - 3 - 1 - 2. Damned! #1 seems to have gotten lighter. Now almost equal to 3. Luc: Klaus and I now feel we are twins..... Olivier
: Héhé, Two minutes begore opening your message I just figured out that Luc is my twin! #1: second darkest, dominant flavour grain, sherry and very light peat, about 43%, 10 to 12yo, probably OB, 78 points (new rating), distilleries: Mortlach, Longmorn, Royal Lochnaggar, Aberfeldy, Blair Athol. Serge:
BLASTED!!!!! The 'colours' did NOT work!!! <...>
Have fun in the woods while your minions are home sweating malt alcohol. We'll beat your system and foil your nefarious plans!
Hahaha! To number one I add slight peat and very slow legs. slight camphor. Krishna or Olivier is my twin for #1. To number two I'll
reduce abv to 43%. The sherry really dominates and it is nice. Fat legs. The darkest of the bunch. Krishna is my twin here, or
maybe Olivier, Klaus or Peter. To number three all the stuff Olivier gets. Warming and Glenfiddich-like apples and pears. Olivier is my twin for #3. I'm setting number 4 aside for now.
Just got up! review the all four note very quickly.
The interesting I found is also Klaus and Peter seems most possible my twin.
I'll do some serious study on the note after some coffee.
Number one - No cooked fruits, no mustiness. Ok, I can get the strawberry. MJ says Knockando is berryish what do you think Peter?
Number two - got the butterscotch and the bitterness. Can imagine raisins, but it's more sherry. Some sherry sulphur. I'll go with a
lower abv. Number three - Yeah, Peter, I can agree with the funkiness and the sweetness. Maybe not cookie dough, but something like it. Number four - No creaminess, no nuts so Peter, drop me a line. I think we are twins.
Ho -Cheng: 8 (only sample 1 has a negative rating)
Peter 4 (sample 3 has a negetive rating)
Luc 2 (sample 3 gets -4, all others a 2)
Krishna 1 (but sample 3 is dark in his batch while mine is almost white wine colour)
Olivier and Serge: 0 (2x minus similarities, 2x plus)
Davin (-5 two times, you are definetily not my twin
This makes me think that Ho-Cheng or Peter could be my twin. One final word. If you do not detect peat in my tasting notes then don't take this too serious. I have an extreme tolerance to peat and smoke.
Krishna's spoon and my coins sound similar and unusual, but on other malts we differ.
Standardizing colours is virtually impossible unless everyone has identical physical samples (such as a pantone chart) in front of them
and is looking at them using a standard light source and background. You must check the work of Josef Albers then come and visit me
and see my dining room where the walls are different colours (very different) but to the human eye all look the same, even where the edges meet.
I'm stuck in Boston Airport on my way home and it looks like I'll have some time in front of me as there is a HUGE snow storm outside.
Fortunately I could grab a computer in the lounge, in fact the only one working, so I have a few fellows looking enviously at my
position, especially at my four samples bottles in front of me! So, yes, I think Johannes is an evil bastard, as I was waiting to see
everyones note on #4, stupidely thinking that he didn't give a peated malt to everyone, but of course he did! Damn!
Olivier Pandora #1: Sorry Johannes, but I would stay at 79 points after retasting a couple times. There is surely some grain/malt and
light sherry influence (light sulfurs), but nothing to get too excited with. Davin has similar comments, but Klaus, Krishna and Peter could also be my twin for #1> I think that I would rule out Luc, Serge, and H-C.
Olivier Pandora #2: looks like this is everyone's darkest in colour also, so no clues there... I find the sherry influence a bit cheap and
simple. I would increase my rating to 81 points on this one. I share similar comments with Peter, Krishna, Klaus, and not with Luc, Serge, H-C and Davin (especially if he hinks it's qt 50%).
Olivier Pandora #3: on this one, after tasting it again, I would increase my rating to 83 points (sorry for the changes, but I couldn't
really taste them seriously last week), I think I would also estimate the ABV higher than 43%, maybe 46-48%. It is a very clean malt,
fruity, perhaps a Clynelish, Lochside style ? and it is groing on me. I share my comments with Klaus and Krishna, and mostly disagree with Serge, Davin, Luc, H-C and Peter (this is no HP). Interesting!
Olivier Pandora #4: After retasting it, I could agree to go also to a moe straightforward Islay style (Caol Ila for ex, young). I confirm
my rating of 83 points. I find similarities with Krishna, Luc, Peter, Klaus and Davin, and, beside Klaus (but that's Ok Klausy boy), similar ratings. My comments are quite different of Serge, Ho-Cheng.
Holding good, hips, but I will have to stop before getting lynched. Going for the Glenfiddich 12yo in the lounge.
Otherwise I 'll have no more samples left. Can't do anything before I get a reaction from the others.
'In the second tasting I discovered a taste (Johannes castrated my first remark, I tasted nothing, only a numb feeling on the
tongue), some toffee, a hint of sherry and a little bit sour, not the profile I like. On the nosing side rotten fruits and hints of bad, old wood emerged under the flowery notes.'
If this is #2, I totally agree with you. I get this humus, mould character. Sherry also. this could be your rot. Do not forget that I did many wine tasting in the past 2 weeks, and that my sense of tannins/wood could be lower
now. I also intially mentioned Longrow for the #4. I really have to let the computer go, will continue tomorrow, whenever I arrive.
I'm ready for phase two. And Olivier - let me know if you get your plane and when you'll be able to dram a bit more.
After careful consideration and reading all the 425 emails, I believe I am either a match with Davin or Klaus.
I would put Davin as my first choice for most matching descriptors. What is phase II?
Pandora #1 - Guesses - Clynleish OB 14 yo, second choice Old Pultney OB 12 yo.
Pandora #2 - Guess is a Macallan Fine Oak 25 - 30 year old.
Pandora #3 - Best guess Highland Park 1975 Scott's Selection.
Pandora #4 - Guess is Ardbeg 10 yo, not the OB, second guess Caol iIa.
Each taster ranks his malts by colour, from palest to darkest.
My 'colours'; from palest to darkest: 3 - 1 - 4 - 2
Btw, Luc and I now consider we're not twins.
If #2 is not your darkest, you have to rule me out Davin! and btw, 4 is the clearer for me.
My distillery choices are :
#1 Still no clue what so ever
#2 Glenfarclas for sure
#3 Rosebank C/S
#4 Caol Ila (although this is not really sure.....)
Serge ? What do you think ? That is if you are my twin....
I can put them on an excel sheet and see if any light comes out if you all send me your series from lightest to darkest.
Johannes, maybe you won't like that but I don't think it was written in the rules that we can't do it. Anyway, so there seem to be
many tricks and traps in our Pandora flights (why do you think The Flying Dutchman didn't select any of his fellow compatriots as
tasters? He didn't want them to come by and cut his evil throat!) So, he managed to put some doubt again... Luc, can we check our feelings again? Especially #4, do you get kind of a waxiness, marzipan or 'old bottle effect' or not at all?
But I detect some wood too in there, and some sulphury notes and my guess is ABV 43%.....
Pretty confusing.....
HA! - except if he played a bit with caramel, that is... But is he THAT sneaky?
Just after I finish my last e-mail I found Luc color about #4, the PALEST of the 4? You can't be my twin.
I still rule out Davin and Krishna because of the #3 color. Mine is very pale yellow.
Also rule out Klaus, Luc, Peter, beacuse of #4 color. Mine is darker then #3, not lighter.
Thus, Only Olivier and Serge left. I'll study these tow again., could be Serge.
Could this be an effect of the light source? With the exception of #2 all samples are rather pale.
And finally: I announce that I have found my long lost twin brother. It is Luc!
We have an absolute color match and quite similar experiences on the samples.
This is my colour ranking, from darkest to palest: 2 - 1 - 3 - 4 . I must say that 1 is only very slightly darker than 3.
After reading all emails, that makes Luc my only possible choice and not Davin or Krishna or Klaus as initially thought.?!?!?! I didn't really look at Luc's notes, as he was so sure to be Serge's twin. This is in very short words my conclusion:
#2: darkest, dominant flavour sherry, sulfurs, grain, about 40 - 43%, 10 - 12yo, probably OB, 80 points (new rating), distilleries: Macallan, Glen Grant, Aberlour, Glenfarclas, Royal Brackla.
#3: third darkest, dominant flavour fruit (pears, apples), sweet grain, about 46% highest of the four, 12 to 18yo, could be indy or OB, 83 points, distilleries: Rosebank, Tomintoul, Clynelish, Lochside, Balvenie.
#4: palest, dominant flavour charcoal, wood fire, smoke peat, about 43 - 46%, 12yo or younger, OB/indy, 83 points, distilleries: Caol Ila, Longrow, Benriach, Ardbeg, Bowmore (very young).
It seems we came to a first, obvious conclusion: Johannes is a genuine sneaky bastard indeed.
We're making good progress, don't we? I can imagine him reading all these e-mails while rolling on the floor (sort of).
But our revenge will be sweet... Very sweet...
And this probably is as good a point as any to make the final 'snip'... The first pair of twins Serge: Twin: Ho-cheng. Sneaky bastard of the year: Johannes.
The discussions went on and on and on while the confusion and frustrations reached peak levels.
I suppose you don't need to suffer quite as much as the maniacs, so I'll skip to the part where the maniacs submitted their final
guesses. I've paired them up and added my comments with the correct (green) and incorrect (red) answers.
1) Mortlach 13yo 1988/2001 (43%, Signatory Vintage, Butt #2638, D. 31/05/88, B. 28/06/01, 948 Bottles)
2) Mortlach 16yo Flora & Fauna (43%, Flora & Fauna, Bottled +/- 2001)
3) Macallan 1988/2000 'As We Get It' (54.9%, Kirsch Import)
4) Ardbeg 21yo 1974/1996 (40%, Sestante for Giorgio d'Ambrosio)
#1: 65 points; Tobermory, Glen Scotia, Scapa, St-Magadlene, Glenkinchie. It was: Mortlach 13yo C#2638
#2: 78 points; Glenfarclas, Aberlour, Linkwood, Mortlach, Macallan. It was: Mortlach 16yo (43%, Flora & Fauna)
#3: 80 points; Clynelish, Rosebank, Bladnoch, St-Magdalene, Highland Park. It was: Macallan 1988 'As We Get It'
#4: 86 points; Ledaig, Brora, Caol Ila, Bowmore, Ardmore. It was: Ardbeg 21yo 1974/1996 (40%, Sestante)
Ho-cheng
: OK, final! Just some wild guesses. My twin: Serge. It was indeed Serge! Very good, Ho-cheng.
#1: Score: 70. Springbank, Glen Scotia, Tobermory, Rosebank, Loch Lomond - It was: Mortlach 13yo C#2638
#2: Score: 82. Glenfarclas, Glenmorangie, Glencadam, Aberlour, Edradour - It was: Mortlach 16yo (43%, F&F)
#3: Score: 78. Tomintoul, Tullibardine, Auchroisk, Benriach, Clynelish - It was: Macallan 1988 'As We Get It' (Kirsch)
#4: Score: 80. Bowmore, Talisker, Bunnahabhain, Scapa, Brora - It was: Ardbeg 21yo 1974 (40%, Sestante)
Serge and Ho-cheng correctly identified eachother as Pandora twins. Interestingly enough, Serge and Ho-cheng's guesses for dram #1
were quite similar; all relatively gentle 'coastal' or Lowland distilleries. Their first guesses for dram #2 were identical but #3 inspired
very different guesses. They didn't recognise #4 as an Ardbeg (although they both felt it could be Bowmore or Brora), but after trying that one myself I can't really blame them. That Ardbeg has been diluted and vatted almost beyond recognition.
- - -
The second pair was
(Davin & Krishna) who received these samples; Davin: OK, I am pretty much convinced Krishna is my twin.
1) Glen Spey (43%, Flora & Fauna)
2) Mortlach 1990/2004 (46%, Wilson & Morgan, Sherry)
3) Glenfiddich 15yo Cask Strength (51%, OB)
4) Ardbeg 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, McGibbons Provenance, Autumn/Winter)
#1: Score: 84. Macallan, Mortlach, Balmenach, Balvenie, Dalmore - Alas - it was a Glen Spey 12yo (43%, F&F)
#2: Score: 86. Mortlach, Aberlour, Glenrothes, -farclas, -dronach - Yes. it was: Mortlach 1990/2004 (46%, W&M)
#3: Score: 79. Knockando, Glen Spey, Aberfeldy, Dalmore, Tomintoul - It was: Glenfiddich 15yo C/S (51%, OB)
#4: Score: 85. Caol Ila, Ardbeg, Ledaig - It was: Ardbeg 10yo 1990/2000 (43%, McGibbons, Autumn/Winter)
Krishna
: From what I have already reported I think OLIVIER is my twin and the scores are as below;
#1 - 82, I have absolutely no idea about this malt - It was: Glen Spey 12yo (43%, Flora & Fauna)
#2 - 83, A definte Speysider - Glenfarclas, Glenrothes. Port Ellen for Johannes's Googly? It was: Mortlach W&M
#3 - 84, Appears to be another Speysider, could be a Lowlander too. It was: Glenfiddich 15yo C/S (51%, OB)
#4 - 84, My intial score was 82. Caol Ila, Ardbeg or even a Brora for googly. Yes, it was an Ardbeg!
Davin found out that Krishna was his twin, but Krishna wasn't so lucky. Well, as you can read in one of his posts he was severely
'handicapped' during this session. Obviously there's no shame in not identifying a rare malt like that first Glen Spey and given the fact that I've hidden five different Mortlachs between the 16 Pandora malts Davin's spotting this one was quite impressive. Even more interesting was the fact that the guesses for these Mortlachs often included Glenfarclas. Could Mortlach be a poor man's 'Farclas?
Davin and Krishna missed #3 but they both correctly identified #4 as an Ardbeg - although their first guess in both cases was Caol Ila.
I can certainly understand that; I remember this young Ardbeg as relatively 'clean' where older Ardbegs often have a 'dirty' side.
- - -
Pair #3 was formed by (Olivier & Peter) who received; Olivier:
My twin: Davin, Krishna could also be possible, but there is a lack of communication.
1) Mortlach 13yo 1988/2001 (43%, Signatory Vintage, Butt #4270, D. 23/11/88, B. 11/12/01, 647 Bottles)
2) Mortlach 12yo 1989/2002 (43%, Coopers Choice, Sherry)
3) Balvenie 15yo 1985/2002 Single Barrel (50.4%, OB, Cask #286)
4) Laphroaig 13yo 1988/2001 (46%, Murray McDavid, MM2108)
#1: 78 points, Mortlach, Longmorn, Royal Lochnagar, Aberfeldy, Blair Athol. It was: Mortlach 13yo SigV #4270)
#2: 80 points, Macallan, Aberlour, Glendronach, G'Grant, Linkwood. It was: Mortlach 12yo 1989 (Coopers Choice)
#3: 83 points, Rosebank, Tomintoul, Lochside, Lochside, Balvenie. It was: Balvenie 15yo (50.4%, OB, C#286)
#4: 83 points, Longrow, Benriach, Caol Ila, Ardbeg, Bowmore. It was: Laphroaig 13yo 1988 (46%, MmcD)
Peter: My twin: Davin. No Peter, I'm afraid I matched you with Olivier. Oddly enough Olivier picked Davin too.
#1: 86 points. Clynelish, Old Pulteny - It actually was the Mortlach 13yo 1988/2001 (SigV, #4270)
#2: 77 points. Macallan, Mortlach - It was: Mortlach 12yo 1989/2002 (Coopers Choice)
#3: 84 points. Highland Park - It was: Balvenie 15yo 1985 Single Barrel (50.4%, OB, Cask #286)
#4: 84 points. Caol Ila, Ardbeg - It was: Laphroaig 13yo 1988/2001 (46%, MmcD, MM2108)
The package for Olivier & Peter contained two Mortlachs, just like Serge & Ho-cheng's. Olivier got the first one right and Peter the second. Hats off to Olivier for correctly identifying #3 as a Balvenie. The 10yo