That's it for now - back to recovering some articles that got
lost after some draconian anti-virus measures I had to take
to protect my PC. Join the mailinglist if you want to know
when a fresh batch of E-pistles is added to MM#17.

Sweet drams,

Johannes

My trusted old 'workhorse' PC has managed to survive the
most recent viral infection, but at some point it will certainly
break down. That's why I've decided to wrap up the current
MM website as well as I can before the end of this year and
start working on a brand new website 'on top' of this one.
Don't be alarmed - I'll try to make the transition as smooth
as possible and all the stuff that's on-line at the moment
(over 50 Megabytes and counting...) will still be available.
But as some of you know I get 'itchy' every now and then,
feeling an overwhelming urge to revamp the MM website.
Well, it seems it's that time of the decade again...

And before I forget: make sure to check out Olivier's
E-pistle on corks and other seals if you happen to own
a whisky collection. You may have to do some work...

PS: I discovered that parts of MM looks like sh*t in FireFox.
Some of the text isn't aligned properly and the nifty mouse
over effects I've used work in IExplorer but not in FireFox.
This is especially an issue with the interactive map in the
distillery data section - it's not interactive in FireFox.
 
I'm so sorry about that; I hope to fix it in Malt Maniacs 2.0.
And that's not the only thing I plan to 'fix'. Right now, new
information on this site is published on many different pages.
Some of the new information is announced on the main page
or in my Liquid Log, but I'll try to tweak the structure of the
website so that you can find most of the new information on
MM on a single webpage. That should make for a smoother
browing experience on Malt Madness / Malt Maniacs in 2007.
Feel free to contact me if you have ideas or suggestions.

Since this is our first issue of 2006, I suppose this would also
be the opportune moment to warn you about some impending
changes to Malt Madness / Malt Maniacs. Since I published the
first entry of my Liquid Log in december 1996 this website has
been growing and growing and growing. In fact, it has grown
so huge that I can't export it 'intactly' to another PC anymore.

Well, it's about time we published a fresh issue of MM...
It's been five months since the first E-pistles of MM#16 were
published and a lot has happened since then, including a trip
to Alsace in France to fill the Malt Maniacs Awards samples.
Due to the awards madness I've had little time to update Malt
Maniacs but most whisky events are covered in my Liquid Log.

E-pistle #17/01 - The Colour of Whisky
Submitted on 02/01/2006 by Michel van Meersbergen , Holland

Or: 'Our Adventures with E150-a'...
A lot has been said about E150-a, better known
as spirit caramel. About its usage to adjust colour
to bring various batches within the same visual
standard year-in, year-out. About the fact it will
not affect the taste at all. About the purists who
say caramel destroys the taste completely so all
coloured whiskies should be avoided at any cost.
Average Joe can't be bothered and because he
represents about 90% of the whisky market the
conglomerates will continue to use caramel with
legitimate commercial reasons: 'Costumers are
very attached to their brands and expect them
to be the same for years and years and years.'
How right they are. The purist camp will not go
with that, saying: 'Caramel, or better E150-a is
not generated by distilling or wood maturation
and is therefore a non-natural thus a destructive
element in whisky.' How right they are.

The maniacs however are not that decisive and more cautious before coming out and spreading their opinions.
That's why we took up the challenge and created 'The Big Caramel Experiment'. Maniacs Klaus, Thomas, Serge, Charlie, Alexander and me, as well as malt sponsor for this experiment Dirk van Staden of 'Liquid Gold' have challenged their tastebuds in an attempt to clear up those hazy skies around the subjects on caramel. In this experiment we want to find out what caramel exactly does to whisky. Is it, as the chemists say, 'organoleptically inert' - not detectable by nose and taste? Does it ruin your precious dram of let's say: an Arbeg 31yo OB Manager's Choice for France? Is there a threshold for the use of caramel?
 

Liquid Caramel

Let's start with E150-a itself. As the code suggests it's a generic colourant.
E150 is available in four different versions ranging from E150-a to E150-d. Each is created for specific purposes. E150-c is the best known, it's what gives your Coke or Pepsi its colour. E150-a, important for us, is quite special because it has to do its work in an extreme environment: a liquid which contains a minimum of 40% alcohol and on top of that it has to be light-proof for a longer period of time. You can't have your whisky separating or losing colour after a few weeks on the shelves in your shop. It's made by controlled heat treatment of sugar, with or without the presence of alkalis or acids.

Another 'special feature of E150-a: it is not obtainable for mortals like us.
Fortunately Diageo PLC was very happy to provide us with a 200ml bottle of E150-a. E150-a is a highly viscous liquid, it took several days to settle down in the bottle. The colour is almost opaque black. Against the light a thin film of E150-a will show as a deep, brownish red colour. The smell reminded me of roasted raisins, ground coffee and burnt bread. A minute quantity of E150-a is enough to give a one litre bottle of water the looks of a 'Dark Sherry' maturation, so our 200ml could be used to colour a small loch!
 

The Test

Now for the test - in itself quite a simple one.
Three different liquids, of which two are coloured (one medium and one heavy), should be put in a certain sequence.
From not coloured to heavy coloured or the opposite way, from heavy coloured to not coloured. This has to be done three times for the nose and three times for the taste, so any lucky guesses will be smoothed out in a greater total. All nosing and tasting is done blindfolded and an assistant is to give the different coloured samples (of the same liquid) in random order. For the colouring we had to dillute one part of E150-a with four parts of water to create a more workable fluid. To make life a bit harder the taster gets one chance and one chance only to put an at random presented sample on the right spot in the sequence.

The liquids for colouring are plain water, a Lowland malt, a Highland malt, a Campbeltown malt, an Islay malt and a blend of the former four malts. I think it's obvious that the selected malts have to come from refill casks so we can be as safe as possible to have malts that have a preserved distillery character. The honours for the Lowlands are taken by a Rosebank 1990/2003 (46%, Helen Arthur, cask #486). The highlands are represented by a Clynelish 13yo 1990/2004 (43%, Van Wees 'Ultimate', cask #12733). Campbeltown by Springbank 10yo 1993/2004 (50%, DL OMC, cask #628) and Islay by Bowmore 11yo 1992/2003 (46%, SigV UC, cask #4229). With this line-up we think we have a solid, general coverage of Scottish malts. In the tradition of the Malt Maniacs points are given in this test. 3 points if the arrangement was put in correct order. 1 point if only one sample was given the right place in the sequence. For 5 sessions that makes a maximum of 30 points for each taster.

Klaus has calculated an expected average score, it is shown at the bottom of the outcomes from the sampled clusters.
'There are 6 different combinations of neat (1), medium (2) and heavy (3) caramelized samples (123, 132, 213, 231, 312 and 321). Therefore the chance to guess a bullseye is 1/6 (=1/2 point). The chance to get the position of one sample right can be calculated as follows. 1/3 (3 different samples for the first position) + 1/2 (2 different samples for the second position) +0 (no choice for the last position) - 1/6 (for the bullseye combination which has to be subtracted) = 2/3 (2/3 points). For a series of 5 runs we get an average score of  5 x (1/2 + 2/3)= 25/6 = 4.167.'

Due to excitement Alexander forgot to read these lines and renosed and retasted the samples over and over before putting them into a sequence. Even with this foul play he got one sequence false! Good for him I'd say… It means however that the scores from Alexander are not included in the results of the experiment. Luckily for all of us Alexander was the only maniac to present extensive tasting notes of the different coloured samples. You will read them at the beginning of each malt cluster.
 

1st Cluster: Neat and coloured springwater
 
First let's try to find out what E150-a does with the smell and taste of water.
Every taster has coloured his own samples to the same specifications used for the malts.
This will also give some information about intensity of colouring and the amount needed to reach a certain level of colouring.
The following are the results from nosing and tasting springwater:

            For nosing:   For tasting:   SubTotal:
Charlie       13 pts        15 pts        28 pts
Michel        13 pts        13 pts        26 pts
Klaus          7 pts         8 pts        15 pts
Serge         13 pts        11 pts        24 pts
Thomas        11 pts        15 pts        26 pts
Expected    4.17 pts      4.17 pts      8.33 pts
 
Total score: 119/150 pts (Expected: 41.67/150 pts)

Comments from several tasters:

Serge: 'The influence of caramel on water is totally obvious on the nose, and very easily detectable. For the taste it's almost the same. Very easy to detect caramel – just a little harder to make a difference between light and heavy concentration.'

Klaus: 'My results are slightly above average. The samples performed differently but I was not able to nail it down. The main reason is almost certainly that my sensory equipment is not so sensitive. A cigarette every now and then might do no harm, but I am a heavy smoker. Another reason to stop smoking!'

Thomas: 'This was almost too easy. Except for the first sequence when I mixed up sample 2 and 3 I had a perfect score. There was no way to miss the smell of burned sugar in the nose and while tasting the water the extremely bitter finish (sounds funny to use that word in connection with water) gave away the coloured samples.'

Charlie: 'The dark coloured sample becomes more obvious/bitter after ca. 10 minutes while the medium coloured sample is quite difficult to detect by nose and mouth. All this is spite of my scores…'

So, obviously big influences on water by the caramel. The key word is bitterness.
Especially in the finish I found sharp notes as well, it reminded me of overly oaked spirit.
 

2nd Cluster: Neat and coloured Lowland (Rosebank)
 
Now that there is a concept about the smell and taste of E150-a the test continues with the first malt.
A light-hearted Lowlander, delicate and easily approachable. Surely caramel should be easily detectable…
Alexander made the following notes: 'Nose: (1-neat) Herbal, Citrus, Lemongrass, A bit sour, Fat make-up powder.
(2-medium colour) Dead, Like the first sample,but seems to be covered by a blanket, Citrus, The herbal part isn't there anymore, Fat powder is still there, but the Lemongrass is gone. No sour note too. (3-dark colour) Sorry, but I can smell the caramel, Full, Burnt, Bit raisiny, Oat. Taste: (1-neat) Strong Alcohol, Slight bitterness, Most complex version, Fresh. (2-medium colour) Bitter, More vivid, Warm. (3-dark colour) Bitter, Burnt toast, lacks complexity.'
The following are the results from nosing and tasting Rosebank:

            For nosing:   For tasting:   SubTotal:
Charlie        6 pts         4 pts        10 pts
Michel         6 pts         9 pts        15 pts
Klaus          7 pts         2 pts         9 pts
Serge          0 pts         0 pts         0 pts
Thomas         6 pts         4 pts        10 pts
Expected    4.17 pts      4.17 pts      8.33 pts
 
Total score: 43/150 pts (Expected: 41.67/150 pts)

Comments from several tasters:

Alexander: 'The more caramel, the more dead the nose was. It flattens the nose. Sample 1 was the fullest and the sharpest. The raisins I occasionally taste turns out to be E150 and not something coming from sherrycasks...SHIT !'

Klaus: 'Unfortunately I did not write down my impressions right after the test. I only remember that it was a fine and delicate lowland malt (maybe c/s) where the influence of caramel should be obvious. Could it be that the samples with caramel tasted fuller, more dark fruits, less stingy, - I don't remember exactly. My nosing results slightly above average. The tasting results below par, but I finished the sample with 3 sips.'

Thomas: 'Although sure to detect the same differences with the same additional aromas I still failed to score better. But after reading the results I detected that obviously I was on the heavy caramelized samples' trail for a change. Why could I find those 4 out of 5 times but couldn't tell the clean sample from the medium one? Even at the risk of tainting the scientific value of our test I decided to to some additional tests. I asked Anke to hand me the glasses with samples 1 and 3. I had no problem at all telling those two. Four times I sniffed and four times I was right. Hmmm... let's try the same again only this time with samples 2 and 3. No problem again. Not a single wrong guess in a few runs. Now for the „tough" one. Would I be able to find the clean one between sample 1 and 2? The first try....wrong! I did it again – and again I picked the wrong one!! Now I opened my eyes and sniffed at them alternately when it finally hit me. I had mistaken the fruitiness in the whisky for sweetness caused by caramel while actually sample 2 was more damped and muted. On the other hand sample 3's added bitterness seemingly had prevented me from making the same mistake with this one. Now that I knew what to look for I went without any more wrong answers through five more runs with samples 1 and 2. I had learned something!'

Serge: 'Now, there's clearly a difference with caramel, but I thought the heavily caramelized version was the neat one (4 times out of 5). That's weird! In fact the caramel sort of took some sweetness off! The results for tasting are at complete random. The caramel's influence was almost undetectable for me.'

Okay, a minor case of mayhem caused by the caramel. No-one has difficulties detecting caramel.
To decide if it's the medium coloured or the heavy coloured is a different case altogether. As with the springwater a very distinct sharpness in the finish made it fairly easy to detect it as 'heavy coloured'.
 

3rd Cluster: Neat and coloured Highland (Clynelish)
 
A more 'sturdy' malt for this session. Would it be powerful enough to withstand the overwhelming caramel?
Alexander made the following notes: 'Nose: (1-neat) Flowery, Perfume, Maximum depth. Strongest Alcohols, Fresh, Sour. (2-medium colour) Chocolate, More complex, Some herbs, Livelier, Perfumed. (3-dark colour) Warm, Flat, A lot of dark chocolate. Dead. The caramel from the previous samples killes al lot of those tiny tastes. Taste: (1-neat) Sweet, Light, Tarry, Most complex version, Chocolate mousse. (2-medium colour) Stronger, Sweet but less burnt. Like Cognac, More complex, less bitter. (3-dark colour) Bitter, Flat, Thick, Sweet.'  The following are the results from nosing and tasting Clynelish

            For nosing:   For tasting:   SubTotal:
Charlie       13 pts         8 pts        21 pts
Michel        10 pts        13 pts        23 pts
Klaus          9 pts         5 pts        14 pts
Serge          7 pts         0 pts         7 pts
Thomas         7 pts         6 pts        13 pts
Expected    4.17 pts      4.17 pts      8.33 pts
 
Total score: 78/150 pts (Expected: 41.67/150 pts

Comments from several tasters:

Serge: 'The caramel is more detectable in this Clynelish, which is a bit more neutral malt than the rather citrusy Rosebank. Nothing too spectacular, though. On taste: the caramel is heavily present now, it's just that again, I took the most caramelized one for the 'neat' version 5 times out of 5. Maybe I should have learnt how spirit caramel tastes before the session ;-).'

Thomas: 'Hey, am I getting better at this or what? While the score doesn't look much more impressive than my previous attempts for the first time I managed to detect all the clean samples with my nose! And with this whisky it wasn't difficult at all. Instead of fresh seaspray, salt and grassy notes the caramel had „managed" to absolutely kill the nose. It was totally bland, unimpressive and non-descriptive when colour was added. It didn't make that much difference how much caramel was in it: once it was spoiled it was gone. Now, why that same findings didn't hold true while tasting the samples again is beyond me. However, this was the most impressive tasting in this series so far!'

Klaus: 'For my sensory equipment it seemed as if the aroma intensity increased, if more caramel was added.  However the results from the blind tasting only showed the average results. If I remember, I liked the caramelized samples better than the neat one.'

Charlie: 'The neat sample is surprisingly bitter. Therefore I had difficulties identifying the coloured samples. No sooner did I think I was on the case with the nose, than the correct judgement of flavour eluded me! Overall, I was rarely able to judge the samples with complete confidence.'

Alexander: 'Whereas in Rosebank it was like a blanket, in Clynelish it changed the character a lot. E150 dulled it a bit and destroys the complexity of the whisky, mellows it out.'

Clynelish and caramel definitly don't go well together. Huge inbalances and more nastiness happening in the glass.
A case of putting things in sequence from 'not so good' to 'plain awful'. Or the other way around of course…
 

4th Cluster: Neat and coloured Campbeltown (Springbank)
 
The 4th cluster will see a much higher ABV, perhaps this will have some influence on the behaviour of E150a…
Note from Alexander: 'Nose: (1-neat) Flowery, beautiful depth, Salt, Tar, Very good, Unmistakeably a Springer (2-medium colour) Complex, very perfumy, Fresh, Mint, green notes. (3-dark colour) Clay, A bit flat but nice nevertheless. It's hard to cover up this great whisky. Taste: (1-neat) More organics, Natural sweetness, Farmy, This is a Springer! (2-medium colour) Sweet organics, More complex than previous sample, The alcohol is sharper, Sweet, Less bitter, Beautiful. (3-dark colour) Even with lots of lots of E150, this still is a great whisky. Tarry, Harsh, Warm, Bitter, Sweet & Strange finish, Organics, Cleans mouth.'
The following are the results from nosing and tasting Springbank:

            For nosing:   For tasting:   SubTotal:
Charlie        8 pts         8 pts        16 pts
Michel        13 pts        13 pts        26 pts
Klaus          9 pts         3 pts        12 pts
Serge          6 pts         3 pts         9 pts
Thomas         3 pts         6 pts         9 pts
Expected    4.17 pts      4.17 pts      8.33 pts
 
Total score: 72/150 pts (Expected: 41.67/150 pts)

Comments from several tasters:

Alexander: 'This is such a strong whisky, that the E150 has problems covering it all up. Still E150 changes the bitterness, adds harshness and covers up some tastes, but it can't push out all the tastes.'

Klaus: 'I am no big Springbank fan, but this one I liked very much. I enjoyed the neat sample most. The heavy caramelized sample showed some bitterness in the finish. The nosing results were slightly above average, the tasting results below par.'

Serge: 'Again, some results almost at random… I got the neat version  the three last times; but couldn't really make a difference between the lightly and heavily caramelized versions.'

Thomas: 'Right from the start I knew this one was going to be much more difficult than the previous Clynelish cluster. Somehow the caramel aromas were way closer to the Springbank character than with other whiskies. I really had a hard time to tell any differences. It was as if my nose was already tired and though I thought I'd be able to finally tell the different samples apart I obviously wasn't able to. A new theory crept up my mind. What if caramel works differently with every whisky?'

Mixed results and comments now. To me it was almost too obvious. Differences were minute but oh so clear!
 

5th Cluster: Neat and coloured Islay (Bowmore)
 
Bring in the peat. Will E150-a finally see its defeat? A very interesting thing happened when I prepared the Bowmore samples. Altough I used the same amount of caramel Bowmore coloured much darker. I have no explaination for this strange behaviour. Alexander's notes say this: 'Nose: (1-neat) Added organic element that must be covered up in the other samples. Still mild peat, more balanced, Fishy Islay (2-medium colour) More perfume lifted by sharper alcohol to carry it, sea, less peat ? Bitter, Mild Islay. (3-dark colour) Dead, Peat, Sea, Perfume, Sweet, Not bad. Taste: (1-neat) Sweet, Liquorice, Cleanest taste, Most balanced, Syrupy finish, Nicest finish, Still not the most complex around. Could have been a Caol Ila at some points. (2-medium colour) Deeper and more complex. Sweet, Peat, Sweet again, Warming, Improved finish. (3-dark colour) Flat, Peat, No complexity whatsoever, Licquorice, Ruined finish.
The following are the results from nosing and tasting Bowmore.'

            For nosing:   For tasting:   SubTotal:
Charlie        8 pts         3 pts        11 pts
Michel         5 pts         6 pts        11 pts
Klaus          6 pts         5 pts        11 pts
Serge          3 pts         9 pts        12 pts
Thomas         5 pts         6 pts        11 pts
Expected    4.17 pts      4.17 pts      8.33 pts
 
Total score: 56/150 pts (Expected: 41.67/150 pts)

Comments from several tasters:

Klaus: 'This was the worst malt. All 3 samples showed a disgusting bitterness in the finish. The results were almost what you could expect when you just guessed.'

Thomas: 'Well, if you look at the first results you'd have to say I had no idea if there was a difference or not. But all the time I had the feeling I could tell the caramelized whiskies from the clean sample. My „assistant" Anke took a blind sniff as well and she, too, had the feeling that it would be impossible to NOT notice a difference. So what went wrong? The first thing I did was to tell Anke to pick one of the clusters without telling me which one it was and to hand  me one of the glasses so I could take a guess.  First impressions were smoke, a little bit sweetish . With it came a hint of something slightly burned – almost with a Lagavulin touch. I liked it! So my guess went with the only Islay the test had to offer, the Bowmore, which was right although the sweetness made me consider Clynelish as well for a little while. That wasn't too hard but but it proved that my nose was okay that day which was what I wanted to find out. As I learned later on Anke had picked the heavily caramelized sample which explains the „burned" aromas. I have to admit that at that point I kind of liked the added dimension. It made it a bit sweeter and rounder. At least that's what I thought at that point. But that still doesn't explain what had happened. My nose was fine, I was sure to smell and taste differences and yet the results were so off. My misgivings even before I started were that I didn't know what to „look" for: I might detect something and erroneously take it for caramel. If that were the case here there should at least be a pattern, but nothing like that. Very frustrating in a way. At that point I was scratching my head....'

Serge: 'Most funnily, I could find 'a difference' again four times out of five, but I took the heavily caramelized version for the neat one again. Decidedly! On taste: things were a bit more obvious in this series, as I got it correct three times.'

Charlie: 'I found all these samples unusually bitter, which confused me, and made me feel my results were pretty random. When I saw the results, it confirmed my suspicion that phenols serve to cover caramel well.'

Mayhem shifts to havoc! This was really strange.
All the samples were very different from each other but almost no-one was able to come up with the correct sequence.
This was the sequence Dirk and I enjoyed the most. Almost impossible to 'put your finger on'.
 

6th Cluster: Neat and coloured Blend
 
For this part of the experiment a vatting had to be made from the four malts provided. The reason for this cluster is a line from Charlie. He heard from blenders that caramel is a very important ingredient to bond different spirits together. I found this too interesting to ignore. In their own words, this is what the panel found out:

Thomas: 'After creating the  vatted .. err... blended malt I first tried the clean sample. What a weird mix that was! Very imbalanced with all kinds of aromas that didn't work together very well: heather, tar, fishing net, pine, paint and dishwater. The palate was a little bit better when grassy notes were duelling with some herbal tea aromas. The finish, however, spoiled any pleasure again: flashes of plastic and used sneakers. Pretty disgusting! That came quite unexpected to me since I more or less liked all the whiskies when I tried them seperately. So they are probably right when they say, blending is an art! Okay, now let's add some caramel to our creation. And I have to admit it actually improved my product by adding something liqueur-ish to the malt. Nose: Tia Maria, a bit musty, sandalwood, furniture polish and cough medicine. Not too shabby! On the palate: memories of years long gone by: Jägermeister! Really weird!! The finish, however, couldn't hold the interesting level. Despite some polished leather it was too bitter overall to still be pleasurable. But what about the some more colour? In my opinion this took it over the hill: sherry and smoke in the nose, very syrupy and overall dominated by the spirit caramel. Even worse: it seemed one-dimensional, sweetish at first, bitter in the end. Not much development at all.'

Serge: 'Malt Vatting (Rosebank, Bowmore, Springbank, Clynelish) + 1 drop of water. Colour: white wine. Nose: fresh, clean and a bit spirity. Gets quite yeasty, on mashed potatoes and yoghurt. Some green apple and pear. I really smell the mash. Mouth: sweet and green at the same time. Rather grassy, with some peat from Bowmore. Notes of apple juice. Lacks complexity but it's easily drinkable. 78 points. Malt Vatting (Rosebank, Bowmore, Springbank, Clynelish) + 1 drop of caramel solution. Colour: straw. Nose: again, yeasty and spirity, but with a little less 'green apple notes' and more fruits such as apricot and plum. Markedly 'rounder'. Some whiffs of liquorice I didn't get in the 'neat' version. Mouth: no doubt it's sweeter and rounder, with some fruit jam, apricot pie, caramel (ha-ha!). I think it actually is better, even if perhaps a bit bitter and drying. 79 points. Malt Vatting (Rosebank, Bowmore, Springbank, Clynelish) + 4 drops of caramel solution. Colour: orange/amber. Nose: extremely marked by the caramel, almost like a sherried whisky. Bold notes of crystallised fruits, wine (???). Also more fragrant and more on cooked fruits. Interestingly, I find it quite better! Mouth: round, creamy, sweet… The texture seems different. More notes of dried fruits and caramel, milk chocolate, light toffee. Also more liquorice. The profile has changed, no doubt. The whisky didn't get sweeter at all, but most certainly rounder, with much more liquorice and a nice creaminess. And I liked it better, imagine! 83 points.'

Klaus: 'The neat sample was very stingy, strong alcohol influence, everything very sharp with a lot of edges. The sample with just 1 drop of caramel was a lot better. Every nuance seemed to have been integrated. I don't know why, but this dram was considerably better. The full coloured malt had gone over the top. The caramel influence was detectable. Sour and burnt nuances were detectable, dark bread. In the taste category the differences were not that large. The neat sample tasted sweet with citrus notes, then a sour impression and finally creamy bitter chocolate. The sample with 1 drop caramel was a pixel better. The unpleasant sour note in the middle was missing. Additionally everything seemed to be rounder. With the heavy coloured sample I found that the sweet notes at the start had turned a little bit dull. I think here the caramel had done too much. I think that caramel cuts some of the edges and integrates them. The neat blend sample had the most nuances, but the lightly coloured blend was friendlier and definitely more delicious.'

Charlie took his chance and made air-tight notes according to industrial standards:
'I nosed and tasted 'straight', then added one third as much water, to bring down the ABV to approx. 30%.

Sample A (no caramel)
Nose (straight): Mellow to start, then developing some nose prickle. Sweet biscuits.
Then a charred aroma takes over (from the Bowmore?); trace of vaporous acetone; mossy in the development.
Flavour (straight): Hot (especially swallowing). Light sweetness, then light acidity. Centre palate delivery; dries in finish.
Nose (dilute): More estery (vinyl); now some fruity notes (boiled sweets  - pear drops, acid drops).
A musty, mossy note behind, also a faint artificial scent (Bowmore FWP?)
Flavour: (dilute): Considerably sweeter, with a peppery engagement on the tongue; still warming to swallow.
Light acidity; dries in the medium length finish. Pleasant.
Development: Nose more fragrant, delicate. 'Natural' compared with the other samples. Flavour same as above.
Noses/tastes much better at reduced strength. The best of the three.

Sample B (one drop of caramel in 15ml)
Nose (straight): Sweet vanilla sponge cake; softer and not nearly so aggressive; possible trace of coffee grounds.
Not as complex as A; other aromas difficult to isolate.
Flavour (straight): Sweet and smooth; less acidity; acceptable level of bitterness in the finish;
Warming; lingering bitterness in aftertaste.
Nose (dilute): Estery, acetone notes increase; traces of very dark (i.e. bitter) chocolate. Less complex than A.
Flavour (dilute): Pleasant soft mouthfeel; sweetness greatly enhanced, now also a trace of saltiness;
Dries in the medium-length finfish, but not bitter. Warming.
Development: Back to sponge cake, now possibly Madeira cake i.e. joined by Maraschino cherries.
Flavour same. An acceptable dram.

Sample C (four drops of caramel in 15ml)
Nose (Straight): Vanilla toffee, with moss/damp earth behind.
Dried fruits or constituted raisins/sultanas; trace of sweet tobacco.
Flavour (straight): Mouth-filling; dry overall with some salt; lingering bitter aftertaste after a long finish.
Nose (dilute): Nose very tightly integrated; hint of treacle toffee; soon distinct coffee grounds dominate the entire aroma.
Flavour (dilute): Pleasantly sweet to start, with a good mouth-feel. Bitter finish and lingering bitter aftertaste.
Development: Develops towards coated cardboard; little aroma. Same flavour. This amount of caramel at this strength (ca. 30% Vol), clearly has the effect of binding in any other aromas and subsuming them to the aroma/flavour of bitter coffee.'

Thank you Charlie! I think we can draw some sort of a conclusion: caramel is important in blends.
All the tasters agree that the coloured samples are better than the neat ones!
 

Overall conclusions

Time to come up with some overall conclusions.
I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the test. Especially the blending part openend my eyes and made me think the other way around: not as a malt-consumer, but as a malt-producer. It's so obvious you need caramel to bond different casks together it's beyond belief. I can only imagine the same goes for different casks from the same distillery. Caramel breaks up the 'tension' from a single cask and makes it approachable for another... If I had 10.000 casks in my warehouse of which only 1.000 would make it as 'fitting the distillery profile' and a drop of caramel would bring 8.000 casks into that profile I know what I would do... with the greatest care that is... That does not mean I have great objections against the colouring of a single cask and bottle it as such. Caramel does have influences on a malt and can destroy it completely. My final thought is about the producers. Only days ago I had a little chat with a person from the the same certain company that provided us the spirit caramel. He kept on raving that caramel has no influence on whisky. He did nosing and tastings and was not able to detect any differences. I suggested it was alright to say that he actually did notice differences, even then he denied... Isn't it about time for them to come out of the closet and tell the world how and why they use caramel? Credibility is also a very powerful PR tool...'

And now some conclusions from the other tasters;
 

Alexander: 'E150 ruins the finish ! Conclusion: E150 has the ability to cover up a lot of specifical characteristics, which is nice if you are a blender looking to put out the same product you did last year. It also allows you to use a wide palet of whiskies, because most characteristics will be masked by the caramel. And gives you a nice dark colour. Luckily this Springbank showed us that caramel can't kill it all. Which shows us again what a good whisky Springbank can be.  There is a difference how caramel reacts with (regional) characteristics, since caramel behaved differently in a lowlander and an Islay whisky. Especially in the Bowmore is ruined the finish. In the Rosebank (and in a lesser manner the Clynelish) it covered up most traits... When I stand in the corner of the whiskyproducers I surely can understand the use of caramel. When owning a lot of mediocre casks at best, caramal can be the cement between the bricks (when used with care). It allows to build a tasteprofile very easily, allowing you to use multiple sources. And gives a nice colour too ! At the same time it can cover up flaws and tones down the character of most whiskies that would be too outspoken for most consumers anyway. Since they make up 95% of all whiskyconsumers you should use E150 in blends. Another story for the use of E150 in Singles. What kind of consumers are they? I would say they are more aware of what they drink and when they would know how whisky can taste like without the caramel, I would hope they would look past the colour of a whisky... But I don't know. I understand the use of caramel in the big sellers like Highland park 12, Laphroaig 10 etc. since they do perform a crossover function to pull consumers from the blend to the HIFI world of Single Malt Whisky. Still the true whisky for the specialist are the single casks, non chillfiltered, not coloured...and not reduced ;-)'
 

Klaus: 'For me caramel has only marginal influence on the malt.
They are within the range of batch variations. I think they can only be detected in a head to head tasting. I am curious what my fellow researchers, with maybe sharper sensory equipment, will find out. The most astonishing thing for me was, that a drop of caramel can sometimes improve a malt. The effect is marginal but detectable. For caramel in springwater there is a very strong indication that small amounts of caramel can be detected by nosing and tasting. The results for the malts were not that clear. I would say that the influence of caramel in the Rosebank and Bowmore  is questionable because the results were very near to ones which could be expected. On the other hand Springbank and Clynelish achieved overall scores which were almost two times higher than expected.  Unfortunately I cannot express the probability in numbers that this result comes from just by chance. But I think that it indicates that the influence of caramel can be detected here. To conclude with: I think our little experiment clearly shows that something happens, when caramel comes into play. But we were not able to nail it down with certainty.  Therefore I want to encourage everybody, to make his own experiment. Buy a bottle of E150-c (that is not much different from spirit caramel E150-a)  for 1 euro in a supermarket and voilà you can colour a whole cask of whisky.'
 

Thomas: 'As much as I would like to say it, caramel can NOT be detected in every case! I do believe, however, that it DOES influence whisky although I do not have scientific proof for it (and certainly my scores don't support this statement..). In my opinion there's three basic findings in this:

a) Caramel does not work the same with every whisky but it depends on how it interacts with the character of that specific malt. Some malts might show characteristics that have similarities with caramel in the first place.  For example, I could imagine it to be very difficult to find it in Lagavulin. Some whiskies will seriously suffer, others might actually profit from the addition (making them warmer, more rounded)

b) There is obviously a certain level necessary for caramel to be detected.

Once this level is reached it doesn't make that much of a difference if you add some more IMO.
c) I think your nose has to be „educated" to tell the difference. You have to know what to look for and I believe the more often you have the opportunity to test different samples like we did  the better you'll become at this.

As I said before spirit caramel might actually improve what's in the glass (or bottle) like the blend I mixed.
So would there be any harm in adding colour to your product? Despite my findings I say yes. Not only might it kill the characteristics altogether but caramel in most cases will lead to a standardized taste and lessens the individual aspects of the malts. If I were to sell whisky would I use caramel? Is my whisky of good quality and sells well enough, then definitely not. Am I stuck with an inferior product that's gathering dusts on the shelves I might be desperate enough to do it. Why should I? But think about it: you invest all your knowledge and money to produce an individual  new spirit, then you select casks which seem promising and wait for 10 years ore more to get something special. Then you go on and add caramel and what might you achieve: the equivalent of what MacDonald's is to food for drinks. Doesn't make sense in my book.'
 

Charlie: 'For me this was a fascinating, and somewhat humiliating, exercise.
But then, I am constantly humiliated in blind tastings! Here are my general thoughts:

a) Spirit caramel is not 'organoleptically inert'. This is perfectly clear when you add it to water.
However, when added to whisky it behaves in a different (and even a beneficial) way.

b) As one would guess, stronger flavoured whiskies disguise or overcome the aroma/flavour of caramel – but not in nearly as predictable a way as I had formerly thought. I found it remarkably difficult to rate the samples with confidence. My notes are litered with 'maybe' rather than 'probably' – and few 'certainly'.

c) The claim that it 'binds' flavours in a blend is proved, for me. It becomes increasingly difficult to separate out and identify aromas and flavours – which is, after all, the role of the blender, to increase the 'integrated flavour complex' - and the overall effect is generally pleasant. UNTIL too much caramel is added when that flavour becomes bitter [It ocurrs to me that maybe this is lost when the beldn is married for a while?]. I will never again be able to taste industrial Scotch with the same gusto!  But since we are assured that only small amounts are used in decent blends...no problem.

d) For me there is stil the sadness that, when single malt whisky is tinted, you 1) cannot hazard a guess as to what kind of casks (U.S. or Euro; first fill or refill) have been used in the mix, and 2) have some of the aromatic and flavour complexities 'smoothed off'. But this is a minor complaint, compared with the overall enjoyment of the whisky.

e) Single cask bottlings should definitely not be tinted – but mostly, they aren't!
 

All this experimenting was not enough for Serge…
'My baffled conclusions: no doubt caramel does change a malt's profile.
I'd say it might make a mundane one creamier and rounder, but I still have
to check what would happen with a great one. Oh, yes, why not try that
now? Let's see what I could do…  Okay, now that I have my bullet-proof
jacket, let's try the great Ardbeg 1972/2004 Manager's Choice for France
with and without caramel (with apologies to all the Ardbeg fans!)
Nose: ah yes, the caramelised one definitely has much more coffee notes,
with much more dried fruits, sultanas and chocolate. But get this: it isn't
any worse than the 'naked' original version! Just a little less 'ultra-clean'
and more 'sherried' (whatever that means from now on in my book).
There's also more 'jammy' notes, such as marmalade and quince jelly.
On the palate, the caramel's effect is very obvious too, with mainly some
heavy notes of liquorice that sort of overwhelm the great lemony notes
the 'original' had. It also got more dryness, with more burnt rubber…
But on the whole, the malt resisted the caramel like a champ and perhaps
it lost two points, max. Overall conclusions: caramel does change a whisky's
profile, obviously. It does so with even a small amount. On the other hand,
it might help some MOTR whisky getting better, while the great ones might
loose a bit of freshness and subtlety. The main effect isn't to make the whisky
sweeter, but rather to add some coffeeish, sherry-like notes to the spirit.
It also brings more liquorice, and makes the palate a bit creamier.
Okay, now you can shoot at me, I'm ready!'
 

As a matter of fact, we're all ready to be shot at, dear reader! We'll all await the inevitable fallout!
What? You're now sipping that wonderful sherry matured malt… and feel no need to shoot us? Are you sure it's sherried. Are you??
This is dedicated to all the distillers who realise E150a, used in small amounts, isn't that bad!

Dramming happily ever after!

Michel & the Coloured Gang
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/02 - On-line Whisky Tastings
Submitted on 10/01/2006 by Robert Karlsson, Sweden

I'm sure many of you have heard about tasting events taking place online.
Perhaps the malt maniacs even were the pioneers in 2001 with the Laphroaig JOLT (Joint On-Line Tasting).
Personally I believe physically meeting people in relation to a tasting is probably more than half the fun of it.
So, how rewarding can this really be? And how does it really work? Eager to find out I took part in an online tasting event arranged by a Swedish whisky forum, aptly named www.whiskyforum.se. 
My first...

Preparations

Several topics where suggested and discussed at the forum and finally the theme was decided to be simply "Signatory CS Oval Decanters". The six 70cl bottles were bought online and split into 3cl-bottles and then offered to the forum members. 22 packages of six 3cl bottles were dispatched via real hands-on mail, difficult otherwise! Jenz Rönnow, the creator of the forum had prepared and built a small custom web-based chatroom for this event and instructions how to reach the site along with information about all the bottlings were sent via the other slightly speedier kind of mail.

I myself prepared at home with pouring 1.5cl of each in six identical glasses. This was not the case for many of the other participants which then couldn't compare them, and that is a bad bad thing. And also, more importantly, they had to leave the safety of the computer screen to wash them between rounds, vital whisky drinking time being lost there.
So get these glasses bought if you haven't already!

The event

About ten people "showed up" at the chat room and every whisky was analyzed for 20 minutes each. Color, nose, taste and after taste in that order, as usual. Quite engaging conversations and findings at times I must say. Perhaps the strength of the whiskies had some part in that. Everything was done in writing in the chat room and the text scrolled down as time went by... a nifty feature was that if you lost connection and got back all text remained on the screen so nothing was lost.

This custom made chat room could be replaced with any available technology though. Such as Microsoft Netmeeting, IRC or why not a simple group conversation in MSN Messenger? From what I've heard some people has also done tastings like these via mail where your impressions are simply mailed to every attendee. The technology is hardly the limiting factor here one can conclude.

After we had sampled and analyzed all six whiskies a voting was held where a voting window appeared and a 0-100 score could be given to the different bottlings. As the tasting was half-blind we did not know at this time what was in each glass. After the voting was done the results where shown and the details revealed. Also interesting to guess what was in each, I don't think anyone nailed them all.

The whiskies

So what did we try?
Here are the different bottlings in the order we ranked them with the average scores (and mine in brackets), best first:

Highland Park 19yo 1985/2005 (51,8%, SigV, Oak Cask #2910, 256 Bottles) - 86pts (90)
Caol Ila 25yo 1989/2005 (58,2%, SigV, Hogshead #05/116, 244 Bottles) - 85.5pts (87)
Glenlivet 28yo 1976/2005 (57,5%, SigV, Refill Butt #4310, 384 Bottles - 85pts (87)
Blair Athol 28yo 1975/2005 (57,4%, SigV, Sherry Cask #6374, 218 Bottles) - 84pts (88)
Bowmore 23yo 1982/2005 (50,9%, Sigv, Bourbon Cask #1316, 152 Bottles) - 82pts (77)
Longmorn 15yo 1989/2005 (55,3%, SigV, Hogshead #15911, 262 Bottles) - 76pts (79)

The Highland Park was a clear winner to me as it delivered a fresh maritime yet fruity nose and palate. A real beaut of a dram. It seems as if few things can go wrong from this distillery. The Blair Athol also stood out with it's intense bitter chocolaty nose especially. The Highland Park bottle is now bought and is staring longingly at me from the shelf, or is it the other way around?

Conclusion

I enjoyed this event greatly. Of course, I enjoy most whisky events greatly! But I was nevertheless pleasantly surprised to see how well everything worked out, of course all thanks to the boss Jenz. As Sweden is a geographically large country this form of tasting works well as you cannot always meet for real so to speak. Having 3cl bottles is quite an optimal amount as it can be split between two people or the remainings saved for another rainier day, especially true since it was cask strength this time. The only possible drawback with a tasting such as this is the cost as postage costs all over the place and packaging will increase the price somewhat. As this event was not arranged with a profit in mind this problem did not occur here though.

A thing that could be made differently was to make the voting two-part where you first score them and second also try to identify them. As it was now you'd know which whisky was which already after the scoring was concluded.

I look forward to attend the next online tasting and can definitely recommend people to start arranging and attending events like this. It's needless to say especially useful for people who live outside cities or don't know too many whisky freaks around their area of residence.

Robert Karlsson
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/03 - Brora (Old Clynelish) Distillery Profile
Submitted 31/01/2006 by Serge Valentin, France

Operational: 1968/1969-1983
Region: Northern Highlands
Neighbours : Clynelish
Address: Brora, Sutherland, KW9 6LR
Owner: Diageo

The old, well reputed Clynelish Distillery, active since 1819, had seen quite
some changes during the 20th Century. Success, change of owners, periods
of closure, success again after its reopening in 1945 – it was much sought
after by blenders - and finally the installation of new equipment in the 1960's.
The two stills had been converted from direct coal heating to internal steam
heating in 1961 and the steam engine and water wheel were replaced with
electric power in 1965, which is also the year when the floor maltings were used
for the last time. In 1966, the boiler itself was converted from coal to oil burning.
But the demand for the excellent Clynelish malt was very high at the time, so the owners, S.M.D. (Scottish Malt Distillers, a subsidiary of the D.C.L.) decided to build a second, modern distillery in 1967 to keep up with the demand, the six stills being copied from the 'old' ones. The old Clynelish Distillery was subsequently closed in May 1968, and the new distillery, now christened 'Clynelish' so that it can benefit from the name's huge reputation, starts producing one month later, in June 1968. That could have been the end of the old Clynelish Distillery.

Yet, the summer of 1968 is very dry on Islay and Port Ellen runs out of water.
As a result, it is feared that the 'yield' of all D.C.L. distilleries on Islay would fall
short of the target by no less than 40,000 proof gallons. That would have been
a big problem as Johnnie Walker's sales are growing fast, and Johnnie Walker
has a lot of Islay malts in it's 'recipes'. D.C.L. starts to wonder whether it would
be possible to produce a heavily peated malt at other distilleries on the mainland,
such as Clynelish. Some voices within D.C.L. suggest, in October 1968, that the
shortfall in the production could be reduced by installing new production facilities
on Islay. Yet, it is decided that before considering any increase in facilities on the
island, the possibility of producing an Islay type malt on the mainland, where the
costs would be lower, should be examined.

From November 1968 on, D.C.L. discusses the peat level of the whisky to be
produced and some trials are being made at Port Dundas, while some are looking
for an available distillery. Extended kilning finally produces a satisfactory result and
the old Clynelish distillery is chosen, with plans to start mashing in January 1969.
An additional spirit vat is installed and the required labour force is engaged.
Mashing finally starts on December 28, 1968, using malt made at Ord Maltings...
The first sample distilled in 1969 is pleasing but experiments with various peating
levels are still made, whilst the new and the old distilleries work in tandem.
The distilleries are referred to as 'Clynelish I' for the new one, and 'Clynelish II'
for the old one. In May 1969, the output is finally regarded as indistinguishable
from the output of the Islay distilleries. Later on, D.C.L. starts to look for a new
name and decides on 'Brora' at a board meeting of December 2, 1969.

From that moment up to 1973, Brora produces an extraordinary, heavily peated Islay-style malt.
This heavily peated malt whisky was produced for blending purposes. Yet, by July 1973 DCL had increased its production of Islay whiskies and there is no need to produce an Islay type whisky at Brora Distillery anymore. The peat content of Brora malt is gradually reduced and the product slowly returns to that of a normal Highland distillery, although some heavily peated batches are still being distilled from time to time until the end of the 1970's.

Late 1974 or early 1975: Brora is closed for rebuilding of the mash-house.
It starts distilling again in April, mainly a regular Highlands malt – sometimes
quite peaty – up to March '83 (uncertain), when it's officially mothballed by
SMD/DCL, together with several other distilleries. The last batches are very
similar to a 'new' Clynelish, although I feel Brora still had 'something more'.

The Scotch Malt Whisky Society has issued the very first bottling of a
Brora in 1989 (#61.1) and many independent bottlers have done the same
in the 1990's. Gordon & MacPhail marketed some beautiful heavily peated
1972's from 1992 on, which started to catch some aficionados' attention,
and then the first, legendary official Rare Malts were launched in 1995,
and started 'the legend'. The peated malts got then trendier and trendier
globally, and the rest, as they say, is history!

In 2002, almost twenty years after the distillery's closure, Diageo launches
the very first official bottling of Brora with an own label, a beautiful 30yo…
The series continues with a new 30yo every year, but that shouldn't last for very long, alas. Today, part of the old distillery is used as a warehouse for the new one, but most of the equipment is still standing, although some buildings still contain asbestos and hence can't be used 'just like that'.

Brora is probably gone forever…

Serge Valentin
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/04 - An Interview with Hamish Scott
Submitted on 15/01/2006 by Bert Bruyneel, Belgium

Hello everybody, my name is Bert Bruyneel. I am a 30yo Belgian whisky-addict-lunatic, the founding president of the Wee Dram Whisky Society (www.weedram.be) and Master of the Still of the Lindores Whisky Society (www.lindores.be). I started my whisky 'career' in 1995 when tasting a Jack Daniels Single barrel together in the bar of a friend of mine after closing-time. It totally went out of control after I went to Islay for the first time in 1999. Those days, I was proud having a collection of 25 open bottles of single malt (!!!). I got to know Ardbeg while visiting it. I think this explains my passion and interest for Ardbeg.

I already had done some research whether the purifier at the Ardbeg distillery had been closed during the years 1973 - 1977, but I didn't find any breakthrough there until I met Serge Valentin at Whisky Live Paris. Mr. Valentin introduced me to Iain Henderson (former Laphroaig distillery manager and Ardbeg distillery manager in the years just before 1997). Mr. Henderson told me that Hamish Scott was the man who could answer my questions. I should try to find Hamish, the former still man and Ardbeg Distillery Manager.

So I tried, and it finally was the local Islay newspaper 'the Ileach' that brought me in direct contact with Hamish Scott. I got to know Hamish, and soon, he agreed to answer some questions I had about Ardbeg for quite a while … I hope you 'll all enjoy my interview with Hamish Scott:

Q: Dear Hamish, Hereafter you'll find some questions I'm having for some time about Ardbeg. I would be very grateful if you would like to give an answer on these, it would make my whisky-life a bit clearer !!!
From when to when have you been working at the Ardbeg distillery and in what positions?
I was appointed Manager in Sept 1964. 
Promoted to General Manager in 1970 on death of Managing Director, and remained General Manager until July 1977.

Q: What was the origin/source of the barley used in the time you worked at Ardbeg ? 
We bought Scottish, English and Australian barley.

Q: What is according to you the impact of the source/origin of the barley in making Ardbeg ? 
None.

Q: What would be the difference between own maltings and Port Ellen maltings ?
Malt supplied from the maltings would possibly have the advantage of consistent Phenol levels and higher extracts, but would essentially make little difference on the end product with the exception of the phenol levels.

Q: What made Ardbeg so special during the early 70's ? 
We were self sufficient in our malt production, and I had managed to ensure sufficient peat supplies.  We had also changed from underfeed coal fired  to steam coils which give much greater control and therefore a better quality of spirit.  The casks used for our own stock were normally first fill  and stored in one of the older warehouses.

Q: With how many waters was the wort made in your days ?
In my days, we did 4 waters, now just 3.

Q: What was the heat of the different waters, how long did they last in the mashtun, how were they drained ? 
You are taxing my memory now, I shall come back to you on this, but the spout temp when mixed with grist should be 148° F  Mainly through the bottom although we did drain a proportion through outlets on the side of the Mash Tun,  There is no sign of them now (drains)

Q: When have they installed the computer-directed stainless steel mashtun ?
The mash Tun is virtually the same with the addition of a stainless steel top and lightning mixers.

Q: Would this computer-directed stainless steel mashtun have made quality better or worse ? 
I would think there would be little difference if any.

Q: How long have the washbacks been the same ?
The Wash Backs are normally made of Oregon Pine, and should last for years. I know that a few had to be replaced because of carelessness, during the silent season the Backs were left dry and therefore shrank, and required renewal,  this would be in the 80's.

Q: .What yeast was used in your time ?
Initially we used a mixture of Brewers yeast and Distillers , however I was not fond of the brewers yeast and very soon used only distillers, the quality was always fairly consistant and gave better results.

Q: How long was the wash in the washback?
Normally max 48 hrs.

Q: Now it is 55 hours, but Malcolm Rennie told me a heavily peated whisky needs at least 75 hours in the washback for good fermenting, what is your opinion?
Load of rubbish, the unfortunate thing today is that a great many in the trade have not had a proper apprenticeship and lack experience in a variety of situations, I was fortunate in that I worked in the Grain Distilleries as well as different malt distilleries and gained a lot of different experience, and was able to apply my own methods at Ardbeg.

Q: When was the last year the stills were heated with coal ?
If memory serves me it would be 1970.

Q: When did they install the current wash and spirit still ?  
I would have to do some research I cannot remember.

Q: What is the exact function of soap in the was still ?  Is it just to avoid to much foaming or is there more? 
You are correct, there should be no need these days, with the fine control of steam coils.
However it was quite different when  the Wash Still was hand fired with coal.

Q: What is, according to you, the function of the purifier ?
To give that little bit extra reflux and therefore purity.

Q: Is it true the purifier was closed in the period from 1973 - 1977 ?
No.

Q: Iain Henderson told me in Paris (thanks Serge for the introduction) that the purifier had been closed during 1995 – 1996, or all the time that he was the Ardbeg distillery manager, because it was leaking.
How was the purifier cut off in the production process?
Removed or closed, or ....?
The purifier was not cut off in my time as Manager - it would be open all the time no point in closing it.

Q: Could you tell us what they changed to the purifier to be able to run production quicker, and when they started doing this ?
These changes if they were made were not in my time. All that would be needed to run faster is to turn up the steam, however the quality goes down.

Q: At what strength did Ardbeg fill a cask in your time
And what would be the influence of going in cask diluted to 63,5%, as nowadays ?
I stil work in the old measurements, we casked at 11 over proof.

Q: You told me the best warehouse has been demolished. Why was that warehouse better than the others ?
Due to there not having concrete floors.
The best would tend to be ash floors, which allowed any moisture from the ground to seep through.

Q: What got different starting from 1977, because all the legendary Ardbegs were distilled before 1977?   
A long story,  virtually the floor maltings were phased out and malt was brought in from Fife, which had very little peating, and the new Manager was not interested in quality so just rushed the distillation process, with the resultant loss in quality.  I am glad to see that Stuart has returned to producing quality spirit.  The spirit was so bad that the workmen who normally were given two free drams per day would not drink it.  This practice (giving 2 free drams) has stopped for some time now for health and safety purposes.

Thanks very much. I owe you BIG TIME, and next time I'll be on Islay: I will for sure come to your B&B.
I'm dying to share some drams with you and to talk to you in real-time !!!

So, this is the long-expected interview with Hamish Scott. I again wish to thank Hamish for his kindness of considering some of his time for doing my interview. I wish Hamish al the best in the further recovery of the knee problems he has been having lately.

Cheers,

Bert (bert.bruyneel@lindores.be)
 

(Editorial note: Hamish' B&B can be found at www.islay.com/caladh-sona/default.htm. After reading the article, Lex Kraaijeveld wrote: 'We spent a few nights at Hamish Scott's B&B:there two years ago and I'd thoroughly recommend it. Warm welcome, great breakfasts (after breakfast on day 1 you tell Rhona what you'd like in terms of fresh or smoked fish tomorrow) and a story or two from Hamish. More of a plug here: http://www.celticmalts.com/journal-a37.htm)
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/05 - Caperdonich Distillery Profile
Submitted on 21/01/2006 by Lawrence Graham, Canada

Operational: 1898-2002 (but silent from 1902 to 1965)
Region: Speyside
Neighbors: Glen Grant
Address: Rothes, Morayshire, AB38 7BS
Last Owner: As of December 2001, Chivas Bros Ltd. / Pernod Ricard.

The name Caperdonich (Capper-don-ick or kapperDOHnich) means
'the secret well' and this distillery is most commonly known as Glen
Grant Number 2 (until 1965) and Customs & Excise insisted that the
make be piped over the road to Glen Grant Number 1 which was
located directly across the street. This pipe became famous as
the 'whisky pipe' and the locals were not adverse to drilling holes
in the pipe to liberate some spirit.

Caperdonich was originally built by Major Grant in 1898.
It came into existence due to increasing demand, however its early
production life was short lived because in 1902 Caperdonich was shut down.
Much of the equipment was transferred to Glen Grant as spares. I have read that the stills at Caperdonich were the same as those at Glen Grant, as was the water source and the supplier of malt yet Caperdonich never attained the quality of Glen Grant. The collapse of the firm of Pattisons of Leith contributed to a general slow down in the industry and during this period the number of operating distilleries in Scotland fell from a high of 191 to a low of 132 in 1908.

In 1965, after a very lengthy silent period of nearly 65 years, Caperdonich was rebuilt by the Glenlivet & Glen Grant Distillers Ltd and was soon producing whisky once again and in its first year produced 350,000 gallons of spirit. This reopening coincided with a general expansion of capacity in the industry. Soon after, in 1967, the distillery was expanded by the installation of two new steam heated pot stills, a modern tun room and the latest technology which allowed the distillery to be operated by a staff of only two. About a third of the malt required by produced at Glen Grant and the remainder was brought in thus no barley or peat was on site. In 1977 the distillery was taken over by Seagram's of Canada Limited. In its short operating life Caperdonich never developed the reputation as a quality malt and was destined to be hidden away in the various blends of Chivas Regal, Queen Anne, Something Special and Passport.

Caperdonich was never bottled as a single malt and it was only offered to the market by the independents of Gordon & MacPhail, the Scotch Malt Whisky Society and Cadenheads. Through my research into the history of Caperdonich I read again and again of unflattering descriptions of the whisky but I firmly believe that any Scottish distillery is or was capable of producing whiskies that would score over 90 points. In the case of Caperdonich this is evidenced by 3 casks as reviewed by Jim Murray in his 2006 Whisky Bible; Members Legacy 1967 Aged 36 years cask no. 4945 95 points, Members Legacy 1967 Aged 36 years cask no. 4947 96 points and Douglas Laing Platinum Old and Rare Caperdonich Aged 36 years 96 points. To quote the author in regard to the Platinum Old and Rare Caperdonich…… "Awesome. So there we have it. A distillery that can't live day to day because its general spirit is so average can, in the right conditions, offer one of the greatest whisky experiences on Earth. Such is the beauty and tragedy of whisky."

Lawrence
 

Sources: The Scottish Whisky Distilleries by Misako Udo, The Scotch Whisky Industry Record by H Charles Craig, The Making of Scotch Whisky by Hume & Moss and Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2000.
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/06 - Ask an Anorak: Flocculation
Submitted on 23/01/2006 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

Just a very short but informative discussion this time, kicked off by yodeling American maniac Mark Adams.
He was wondering about the 'flaky bits' found in some bottles and glasses of whisky. Dandruff? Weinstein?
No, apparently it's called 'flocculation' - and yes, I know it somehow sounds dirty...
Find out more about it in this short but fun-filled E-pistle...

Mark : Cheers all. Some of you know that I occasionally pop in to the Bladnoch web forum and read and chat a bit. I have been reading there today, having been absent for quite some time. Anyway, the following quote was submitted by one of the forum members, supposedly a verbatim email response from Gordon & MacPhail's. I was pleasantly surprised to respond to the inquiry so frankly, and wonder what you all make of this.

"Thank you for your e-mail regarding your bottle of CC Balmenach 1974, the white flakes you have encountered are calcium oxalate. This compound forms naturally in scotch malt whiskies from the combination of traces of calcium (from the water used in the production process) and oxalate, which derives from the maturation casks.   It is a harmless substance which will remain in solution indefinitely, however sometimes, particularly in bottles of some age, this substance does precipitate out to form particles.  It can be more prevalent in sherry matured and cask strength whiskies (many bottlers now state on their Cask Strength bottlings that a sediment may form in storage). This in some ways can be compared to the sediment formed by fine wine and can be decanted from the bottle if required. I hope that this answers your question. Kind regards, Ewen Mackintosh"

Luca : I know what you refer to: I found them in Talisker Distillers Edition and some Springbanks.
Once on the Whiskymag forum we jokingly called these white specks "dandruff"....

Lawrence: Flocculation strikes again........

Davin: Hi Mark and Maniacal All,
Yes, as far as I know this is correct.  Preventing this is one of the main reasons for chill filtration.  They don't affect the flavour of the whisky but they do increase number of bottles returned to the store with something wrong with them.  In wine they are called 'diamonds.'  My recollection when visitng Gordon and MacPhail's bottling line with Serge, Krishna, Craig and Johannes was that they used coarse filters(and did not change the filter between malts) and used tap water for dilution to table strength.

Klaus: Sounds a little bit weird for my ears.
Why should you find such salts  (Ca + oxalacid(?) in whiskies? I think for wines this is ok and Olivier can sure shine light on it but malts? Don't they use demineralized water to bring it to bottling strength? New made spirit surely has no Ca-ions ("therre  is no salt in whisky"). Where does calcium come from in bottles with high ABV? All from the cask? Questions after questions. Btw. when I Googled for calcium oxalate I found that the stones in kidney are formed by this material

Serge: Hi Maniacs of the World, Just got these 'flocculations' in some malts too.
I think casks (ex-wine, especially) can contain lots of minerals, Klaus. Awful large
amounts, in fact, especially when the casks have been used several times by the
wine industry. We call that 'Wiestein' here. It can be 20cms thick in very old, huge
casks that have been used for many years. I have such a 'Winestone' on my desk.
As for the water they use in Scotland, it's not always demineralised, I think.
(Although probably deionised - or is it the other way around?)  Btw, William Shatner
just sold one of his kidney stones for USD 25,000 at an auction for charity. Amazing!

Lawrence : It is called 'flocculation' (stop laughing).
There are two types, the first is caused by cold temperatures and is reversable.
The industry has dealt with this by chill filtering. The second is known as 'irreversible floc'.
This shows itself as very small hair like crystals of calcium oxalate, which slowly form and
settle in the whisky when natural low mg/l concentrations of oxalic acid in the whisky react with similarrly low concentrations of calcium ions. Irreversable floc formation is eliminated by ensuring that final calcium concentrations are kept to a minimum by demineralizing the water in the final reduction. (The above was stolen, almost word for word, from Whisky, Technology, Production and Marketing by Inge Russell.)

Now you know...

Johannes: So, now we've learned a new word on MM: flocculation....
And if we use the word as an adjective we finally have a shorthand description for 'a whisky that has strange, non-wooden bits in it'. From now on, we'll call that a 'flocculent' whisky.....

And that's it for this short and sweet E-pistle...
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/07 - Distilled Reflections on 2005
Submitted on 01/02/2006 by Michel van Meersbergen, Holland

2005 turned out to be an action packed year indeed. Nailing it down to 'just whisky' it seems even more packed.
I will limit myself to the absolute highlights and lard it with the occasional anecdote.
In no particular order:

- Meeting Johannes and Alexander. A great afternoon in the Cadenhead Shop followed by an evenly great evening at Johannes' place. To bad we had to run for the last train. Taste wise I had the most interesting journey back home, the Talisker 20yo 1982/2002 (62%, OB, Sherry, 9000bts) still playing cowboys and indians in my mouth.

- The Ardbeg Vertical with 'Het Genietschap'. Some of us might feel blasé about an Ardbeg tasting, I'm not amongst them. Great afternoon and evening which ended in a salmon smoking frenzy at 00:30 in the back yard. The Ardbeg 1980/2004 'Kildalton' (57.6%, OB ) took honours for being the evening's favourite.

- Whisky Fair at Limburg . No introduction needed. I wrote quite a few pages about this excellent festival! The Ardbeg 26yo 1974/2000 (50%, Kingsbury 'Celtic Label', D 30/08/'74 - B 09/'00, bourbon, 278bts) still stands as my favourite 'till this day!

- The far after midnight h2h Laphroaig 17yo 1987 with Scotsman Chris. Laphroaig 17yo 1987/2004 (55.2%, OB for Feis Ile '04, B 05/'04, cask #4299, 250bts) against Laphroaig 17yo 1987/2004 (51.9%, JWWW 'Auld Distillers', 180bts). It took us 4 drams of each to decide Jack Wieber had released a beast. We rounded of with The Ardbeg 1976/2004 (51.4%, OB for Feis Ile '04, D 24/11/'76 - B 05/05'04, cask #2398, sherry, 504bts). It didn't stood a chance...

- A midsummer's afternoon power dram session with Govert van Bodegom. Lots of old Highland Park and Longmorn. That day I turned into a James Grant Green Dumpy believer and grew a soft spot for Longmorn as well. Highland Park 18yo 1960/1978 (43%, OB, Jams Grant dumpy, 75cl). made me realise my live will never be the same.

- The Laphroaig vertical with Erik Vanfrachem. A sunny Sunday afternoon in the countryside, 20 Laphroaig's and 2 Glen Flagler's to bring some harmony. Laphroaig 17yo 1987/2004 (54.6%, DL for The Whisky Store,  D 02/'87 - B 07/'04, 247bts was my favourite after two 'other Laphroaig's' from 1987. The Glen Flagler 23yo 1972/1996 (52.6%, SigV dumpy, D 10/11/'72 - B 26/06/'96, cask #228442 was more about emotions than having excellent whisky.

- The second coming to Islay . With my girlfriend this time! This is not to please her... that week was one of the most happy moments in my life. Walking the Rhinns, starring over Loch Gruinart, enjoying the gannet's and their bomb dive fishing techniques and err... visiting the distilleries! Especially Bruichladdich was great. We had a taste of 'our' cask Port Charlotte 1yo 2004/2005 WIP (ca. 63%, cask #912, Distilled 15/07/'04 - Sample drawn @ 30/08/'05), to bad we have to share this with some 25 other people... A try of Trestaraigh (84.5%, Distilled 08/'05) and Octomore 3yo (+/-60%, not bottled yet) together with Jim McEwan and the tour hosted by the unmitigated sexy and charming Mary made it all perfect!  I'm quite allergic to PR machines but If you think whisky is about people (amongst other things of course) Bruichladdich is a 'must do'...

- Joining the Malt Maniacs . An emotional moment. I was very happy that morning when I found the announcement from Johannes. I cracked open the Brora 26yo 1977/2003 (54.9%, DL Platinum, 228bts) to celebrate the same evening. Should have opened another bottle. Minor disappointment in this DL Platinum. You just can't have it all...

- The caramel experiment. Read all about it somewhere else in this issue of MM17. Great times while lessons being learned. I'll never forget the moment I met Charlie at the Limburg Fair to hand over his sample kit and had to explain a bit more about the tasting manual. Charlie proofed to be one of those rare 'every inch a gentleman' calibre type of person. He was very patient while I was suffering from a terrible night (some might say: hangover)

- Het Genietschap 17-12-2005 . 3:30 in the morning, a hefty discussion about sherry and bourbon wood. Positions are taken with a Laphroaig 30yo OB and a Signatory Laphroaig 30yo 1966/1996 from bourbon wood. We went thru Hell and got back with the Rosebank 8yo 1983/1992 (43%, Bristol Brandy Company) Another plea for this lost distillery...

Me thinks this is as far as I allow sentiments to go!
I can only hope 2006 will be as great as last year. Tomorrow I'm leaving for Belgium to attend to Luc's nifty Lindores Festival. I know this is going to be listed as a highlight for 2006!! Let's encounter some beautiful whiskies drunk by some beautiful people!

Cheers!

Michel van Meersbergen
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #17/08 - Ardbeggeddon 2006
Submitted on 07/02/2006 by Davin de Kergommeaux , Canada

Ardbeggeddon, the 7th annual Vegas gathering of the PLOWED Society,
lived up to its reputation of great drams, great company and great fun.
In true PLOWED tradition an all-you-can-drink buffet of nearly 300 of the
finest single malts was the centre of attention, but the main attraction was
the camaraderie of some of the most knowledgeable drammers in the world.

PLOWED was founded in 1993, one of the first, and certainly the best
known of internet-based single malt dramming groups.  Always irreverent,
back in those early days before the single malt craze really took off, the
Indiana-based PLOWEDsters amused themselves with their whiskies by
giving them whimsical names like "the bubbly malt."  Their web site soon
became a focal point for other whisky reprobates and before long,
PLOWED had gone e-national in the USA.

Their official website www.single-malt.com claims they now have
chapters in seven countries; their unofficial, but much more up-to-date
website, www.smwhisky.com doesn't keep track of such things.

It all started in 1997...
Ringleader (all Ringleaders and no 'minions' - www.smwhisky.com/RLeader.htm)
Marty "S'tan" Kari began promoting the idea of a mass dramming session in Las Vegas
to coincide with his only time out of the office, the annual Consumer Electronics Show.
There was lots of talk, but no action until the year 2000 rolled around and all the world
was talking of Armageddon.  In a malt-inspired eureka moment Marty and several
co-conspirators hit on the name Ardbeggeddon for their proposed dramathon.
Who could resist Ardbeggeddon right after Y2K?  Certainly not a serious, if
somewhat irreverent drammer.  And so, in January 2000 Ardbeggeddon, the
annual Olympic-size free-style dramming event of the world, was born.

Back in 1999, Boston's Dave Russo was hesitating on whether to attend that first
Ardbeggeddon or A1 as it is affectionately called now.  Fortunately, fellow Easterner,
Tim Bachelder, would have none of it.  "If you miss this you'll regret it for the rest of
your life."  Tim told Dave who finally gave in, and made the trek to Las Vegas in
January 2000.  He has not missed an event since.  It was Dave who introduced the
ritual of Lipping the Local Barley, a rite of malt blood-brotherhood that sees a very
outstanding bottle passed from one Ringleader to the next, each taking a healthy swig.
At this year's Ardbeggeddon, held January 6 to 10, 2006, Dave introduced a twist
sending a 45yo Springbank OB on the ritual round.

An excellent dram, that 45yo Springbank; the wrinkled elegance of a centagenarian
combined with the delicate fragility of a silent starlet.  On the nose it was mild with
the pineyness of age, followed by a curmudgeonly smokiness.  Austere but hugely
complex, the nose was rounded out with sour fruit and sour sherry.  The palate
was surprisingly devoid of wood for such an old-timer.  Instead there were pears,
sweet fruit and some sherry notes intertwined with a growing medicinal smokiness.
A slight waxiness buffered the palate, which ended with nice hints of peat smoke.
Springbank 45yo (40.1%, OB, Limited Edition Series) - 92 points

The PLOWED have done several of their own bottlings of outstanding malts, the first of which being their now virtually unobtainable vanity Springbank.  While this bottling did not appear at A7, many other Springbanks did, including three cask strength Whiskyfair bottlings Rodger Howard brought with him from Germany. The first, Springbank 35yo 1970/2005 (59.5%. The Whisky Fair, d June 1970, b Nov 2005, bourbon hogshead #1841, 120 bottles) scored 89 points - it may have suffered a little from following the 45yo.  It was piney on the nose and just slightly grassy.  The grassiness soon turned into burned grass.  The palate was just amazing, with hints of sweet, dried coconut, pine pitch, lots of heat and pepper in the middle.  There was that whole coastal Springbank feel, finished off with pink grapefruit.  An amazing malt that probably would have scored higher in a different flight.
On the other hand it completely blew away another 35yo distillery mate - Springbank 35yo 1968/2003 (46%, Berry Brothers), which scored a mere 76 points.

Rodger's next, Whiskyfair Springbank, at 36yo, was fruity on the nose with hints of apricots and bananas.  It had the austerity of age, something you feel more than smell.  The palate, on the other hand was sweeter and fruitier than the 35yo, and quite complex combining peppery notes with a grassy maltiness.  It was dry, but with an odd slipperiness on the tongue.  By the middle, hints of woodiness and flowers had appeared. Springbank 36yo 1969/2005 (45.6%, The Whisky Fair, d Feb 1969, b Feb 2005, bourbon hogshead #402, 197 bottles) - 88 points.  I have to admit my scores for these two went up and down, and I had to take my time to finally settle on the ratings.

At first Rodger's 37yo Springer (47.5%, TWF) was a puzzle.
The nose began with the meatiness of a rich Mortlach palate
but then branched out in several directions.  Talk about
complexity; talk about development.  This is another malt to
take your time with because behind the meatiness is a plethora
of subtle essences.  Rich caramels, grassy esters, celery and
smoked meat synthesize into a promise of greatness on the
palate.  And when you take that first sip, slowly aspirated onto
the tip of the tongue, you get something deliciously petrolic,
then pickles, but only briefly as the heat and spiciness take
over.  Sweet spices, but not Christmas spices.
Springbank 37yo 1968/2005 (47.5%, The Whisky Fair,
d Mar 1968, b June 2005, bourbon hogshead #488, 216
bottles) 93 points.

PLOWED are renowned for their free-style dramming having raised it to the level of an art.
Here's how it works:  Everyone brings their best bottles and sets them out on display.  A pool table was unable to comfortably contain all the contributions this year, so yes; there was more than occasional overflow onto other flat surfaces.  In any case the bottles are set out in a sort of organized way – peaty at one end, non-peaty at the other and the drammers "just have at 'em" as Ringleader, Tom Borschel says.  Regardless of who brought them, bottles are opened at will by whoever wants to taste them and drammers taste in whatever order they prefer.  Little clusters quickly develop when someone finds something spectacular and soon groups of happy drammers are discussing the merits of a malt while analyzing its nose and palate. 

It's unstructured - unplanned, like real-life learning and everyone feels free to join in and add his comments, or not.  It's no wonder the PLOWED are such educated drammers.  They go straight to the good stuff and then help each other sort it out.  And there's more good stuff than even the hard-core can get through in a four-day weekend.  Control freaks and classroom learners beware; there are no structured flights here, just helpful suggestions from well