A short story about a 20 year old Clynelish

 I'm doing a tasting of this sample of 20 year old Clynelish, er, Lynch Isle:

Distilled in 2000 and bottled by North Star Spirits in 2020, the whisky spent its life in a sherry butt, then a Portuguese brandy butt. Seems like a whole lotta effort to murder a Clynelish, but I'll keep an open mind, especially since I know squat about Portuguese brandy. That's Randy's realm.

It does have a nice medium gold color to it, once it fills the bottom half of the Glencairn bowl.

Lots of cocoa, raw walnuts, raw Brazil nuts and very dry sherry on the nose. Some hot driveway gravel, a bit of brine, some white flour--

Fuck.

I just.

I just knocked the glass off the table, spilling all the whisky onto the floor.

20 year old Clynelish. At least the living room will smell nice for a while.

I mean, I'm not the kind of person who'd get on his hands and knees to suck it out of the carpet.

Whisky PSA: Check yo samples before you wreck yo samples!

Achtung! And embrace the terrible title! This is a public service announcement for those who have a liquor sample collection.

I started my whisky sample stash about six years ago.  Less than two years into the bottle accumulation, I upgraded bottle caps.

The standard caps have a plastic ribbing and a foam or paper liner. When one first starts saving whisky samples, these seem perfectly okay. One may even choose to use electrical tape around the bottle neck to make sure the cap doesn't open.

When I upgraded caps, I switched to those with phenolic ribbing and the little polycone seal. These provide something much closer to an airtight fit. These are more expensive than the standard caps.

The thing is, though, I chose to use the better caps only on samples going forward. A year later, I decided to order a slew of extra caps to switch out the old ones. Then life happened, and I never did the big switchout.

I'm here to tell you that by not switching out the caps, I enabled a number of samples to spoil. The standard cap's cheap liner falls off within a couple of years, often adhering to the glass neck or crumbling into the whisky itself if the liquid is right up to the edge.

Even more troubling, the cap itself gradually buckles upwards. (You can actually see and feel this, as the top of the cap starts to get curved instead of flat.) Thanks to the buckling plastic and flimsy liner, the seal breaks and air comes in. Over five years, some of my samples experienced 1/3 to 2/3s evaporation. They're left with what I recently called a "swirling murk" throughout the liquid. The whisky loses most of its smell, while the palate goes flat, watery and nearly tasteless except for a really weird bitterness.

Luckily I lost only a half dozen samples to this issue. But all of them had caps that buckled on the top. This weekend, I replaced another fourteen caps on samples that showed no evaporation nor murk. Meanwhile, the little historical archive I started six years ago is probably mostly ruined. Can't bear to look at it right now.

If you have a whisky/brandy/rum/etc sample bottle collection going back more than three years, then I encourage you to check your bottle caps. If you've been using the standard tops, I recommend any option with a better seal. Swap out the old caps with better ones. Dump any sample that has experienced evaporation of 1/3 the bottle, or greater. I mean, you can sip it first to check its quality but then you've lowered its fill level and also contributed some bacteria to the mix.

In conclusion — never a great way to begin a conclusion — keep your samples sealed the best way you can. The extra ten or twenty cents per cap is worth it. (One method to buy extras is to add a bunch of additional caps to your next bottle order. I don't think Amazon sells the caps by themselves.)

ALSO, drink your whisky.

Thank you. This has been a Diving for Pearls public service announcement.

Whisky Fail! Dailuaine 10 year old 1999 Prime Malt

Uh, oh......

Distillery: Dailuaine

Ownership: Diageo
Independent Bottler: Gordon Bonding
Range: Prime Malt

Region: Speyside (Central)

Age: minimum 10 years
Distillation year: 1999

Maturation: ex-bourbon casks

Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Chillfiltered? ???
Caramel Colored? Probably not

It appears to be nearly opaque.  It smells and tastes like bitter asparagus piss.  It neither smelled nor tasted like bitter asparagus piss when I enjoyed it three years ago.  But this Dailuaine fell to the same fate, alas more violently, as the Teaninich sample that was (partially) filled on the same day.  Three years in a less than half full sample bottle can completely oxygenate, oxidize, exterminize, eradicize, and annihilize a whisky.  So treat your samples well, people!  Stop making me mutilize my whisky in order to save yours!

Availability - A few bottles remain on random shelves throughout the US
Pricing - Less than $40, usually
Rating - Sample fail!

Whisky Fail! Teaninich 10 year old 1998 Prime Malt

Yep, a Saturday post!

Teaninich (which I keep misspelling) is now one of Diageo's monstrous malt-for-blends-only distilleries.  When Diageo announced its 2012 dreams of completing a £1billion distillery expansion, one of the main projects was a new £50 million distillery at the Teaninich site.  Two years later Diageo shelved majority of their big plans, but (according to Malt Whisky Yearbook 2016) they did wind up adding six new stills to Teaninich, thus doubling its production capacity.  So now it distills nearly 10 million liters of alcohol per year.  Which is a lot.  Yet, other than the old 10yo Flora & Fauna bottling, there still isn't an official single malt.  There aren't even any Special Releases of the stuff.

So, once again, it's up to the indies to reveal a distillery's secrets.  Today's subject, a Prime Malt release from Gordon Bonding (which had a connection with Duncan Taylor once upon a time) is one such indie bottling, and one of the rare Teaninichs to be sold in the US.  I enjoyed the whisky when Florin shared his bottle with me three years ago.  I also poured a sample to take home and review.  Again, that was three years ago.  I had planned on making this the first review of this week's "The Other Ts", but something went wrong.

Distillery: Teaninich

Ownership: Diageo

Region: North Highlands

Type: Single Malt Whisky
Age: minimum 10 years
Distillation year: 1998

Maturation: ex-bourbon casks

Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Chillfiltered? ???
Caramel Colored? Probably not

The color is light amber.  Though it's also slightly opaque thanks to some cloudiness.  It has a nice pilsner nose, free of oak.  In fact, it's very beer-y (minus any hops).  A little bit of lemon zest.  Dandelion flowers.  Some slight metal and dusty notes.  At first sip, the palate is full of hay, vanilla, and roasted coffee beans.  Second sip, whisky wash.  Third sip, chlorophyll (leaves and lettuces).  Fourth sip, capital 'A' Acrid.  Broccoli.  No fifth sip because I don't like where this is heading.  It finishes very vegetal.  Peas, green beans, kale, and broccoli.  And metal.

For three years this whisky sat half empty in a sample bottle, where it died.  Totally bummed about this.  The nose is probably pretty close to the original thing.  But I can tell you with confidence my sample's palate and finish were ruined.

Sometimes samples go wrong, and rather than just tossing aside this experience I thought I'd share it with you.  So if you have a sample collection, look through your bottles and make sure they're more than half full lest oxygen wreak havoc on your little lovelies.  This has been a public service announcement.

Availability - A few bottles remain on random shelves throughout the US
Pricing - Less than $40, usually
Rating - Sample fail!

A week of wut? Teemu's Mystery Spirit sample

Earlier this year I had the distinct pleasure of completing a sample swap with Finland's own Mr. Whisky Science himself: Teemu S.  If you haven't gone to Whisky Science yet, you should leave this post right now and go there.  You will learn something there.  Comparatively, this blog don't learn you nothing good.

Anyway, when I received my parcel I discovered what I thought was an error......there were too many bottles.  Oh shoot, had I accidentally requested a higher number than I had thought?  And the extra one had no label.  Turns out, the extra sample was purposeful.

MK's email: What is the 7th mystery dram???
Teemu's email: For me to know and for you to find out.. I'll tell after you have tasted it.

Of course, just then Southern California was hit with a 90-95ºF heat wave.  But I couldn't wait, a week later I tried it and send him my notes.

MK's email: The nose is full of bourbony goodness. Vanilla and butterscotch. Minty menthol, anise, and ripe banana. Hints of charred meat, butter, and buttermilk pancakes. My empty glass has a maple syrup thing going on. The palate is less sweet than the nose leads on. A little woody and salty, but still some corn syrup and creamed corn. A little bit of spice, menthol, and (maybe?) sweet basil. Pretty lengthy finish. Sea salt, caramel, and slightly dusty.  I'm going to go with my nose and say it's bourbon. The nose reminds me of my favorite old-style bourbon by the defunct National Distillers. If it's a current bourbon, I'd be pretty excited.

Yes, sadly, I email my notes in a similar fashion to the way I post them on this site.  But how close was I?  This was good stuff, especially the nose!  Teemu responded quickly:

Teemu's email: Your notes are spot on, very much a "sugarfree heavyhitting spicy bourbon"
It is actually a great old rum.
Albion Velier 1994/2011 casks 7100-7103, distilled in a wooden coffey still in Demerara.
Very much a whisky drinker's rum.
This is "a light young version" of Albion ;)

Well, shoot.  When I drank the second half of the sample, four months later, I found a little more molasses in the nose and palate, but it was never a sugar bomb.  Judge me as you'd like, but I liked this Albion better than the majority of whiskies (and definitely better than any bourbon) I've tried this calendar year.

There's a good reason why a number of prominent whisky bloggers are now reviewing non-whisky aged spirits (or malternatives).  Okay, two good reasons.  Firstly, whisky prices have ascended quickly while the quality has at best remained the same.  Secondly, the universe of hedonistic pleasure gleaned from spirits doesn't end at whisk(e)y.  In fact, there's a lot of sensory overlap between aged rums, brandies, mezcals, and whiskies.  Many of us have been ruined by the goopy sweet bestseller rums, the Korbels and Martels of the brandy shelves, and J. Cuervo.  Had we written off whisky after only drinking Dewar's White and Johnnie Red, then we wouldn't currently be in the middle of our personal whisky voyages.

That's just something I'll ponder for now.  While I doubt there will be any non-whisky reviews this year, I cannot say I'll never go that route...

Hello, Loch Dhu and Cu Dhub. Goodbye, 2014.

With the appearance of Mathilda, the sweet little elfin Kravitz queen, in my life, 2014 has been a year unlike any other.  When people ask me what it's like being a father, I tell them that I am learning so much about myself.  And I leave it at that.  You newer parents out there know that the things you learn about yourself aren't always wonderful, shiny, and glorious.  We hold within us the potential of great loving kindness, but we are also capable of a bunch of other shit.

I will publicly opine further on fatherhood in 2015, but no further at the moment.  It's time to move forward to the review I've anticipated the most this year.*  Yes, I've reviewed Laphroaigs 25, 30, and 40.  I've reviewed two different Talisker 25s.  One official Brora.  A 35 year old Calvados.  Two Karuizawas.  A 1975 Glendronach.  Four Kilkerrans, a trio of Littlemills, a pair of dusty Old Taylors, and one George T. Stagg (twice).  But this.  This is bigger.

Loch Dhu and Cu Dhub are the two black whiskies, loaded to gills with the industrial colloid e150a (caramel colorant), though Diageo claimed Dhu's blackness was from double-charred casks (tee hee, Diageo funny).  Loch Dhu is well despised yet well collected, meanwhile the vitriol and excitement for Cu Dubh seems to be more restrained.  The Dhu seems to be the Plan 9 From Outer Space of whiskies**, while The Dhub is Dino de Laurentiis's King Kong.  Or is it The Terror of Tiny Town?  I'm hoping for at least a Myra Breckenridge, featuring Rex Reed as an aspiring transexual.

LOCH DHU

Distillery: Mannochmore
Ownership: Diageo

Age: minimum 10 years

Maturation: mystery oak

Region: Speyside (Lossie)

Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Chillfiltered? Yes
Caramel Colored? holy moley

(Thank you to the great Andy Smith for the sample of The Black Lake)

CU DUBH
Distillery: The Speyside Distillery, proud producers of Drumguish

Ownership: Speyside Distillers Limited

Age: NAS

Maturation: mystery oak

Region: Speyside (indeed)

Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Chillfiltered? Probably
Caramel Colored? Quite

(This sample was purchased from Master of Malt)

THE COLORS!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- Soy sauce

-- Cu Dhub -- A reddish black tea

THE NOSES!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- Burnt prunes. Burnt raisins. But mostly, burnt caramel (that's the first thing Kristen noticed too).  Then Worcestershire sauce intermingling with Kikkoman's regular soy sauce.  Fresh celery, carpet, shredded wheat nuggets, and old library books.  It's somewhat fungal, like foot fungus.

-- Cu Dhub -- Ooh, very cabbagey.  Farty fart farty.  Pencil graphite meets imitation vanilla extract meets brown sugar meets styrofoam.  Lots of sour milk and warm Coca Cola.

THE PALATES!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- Burnt coffee, and lots of it.  Cardboard, or like licking a whisky label.  Horseradish and dirt.  It's so chemically, like someone tried to make a diet salty coffee soda syrup then gave up, added new make, and called it whisky.  Bitterness.  Sadness.

-- Cu Dhub -- So much caramel.  Weird sweetness, maybe aspartame?  A cardboard box holding burnt prunes, ground black pepper, and overripe bananas.  And the sour milk.

THE FINISHES!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- It's still coffee-ish, but with ammonia.  Acrid boiled collard greens.

-- Cu Dhub -- Rotting veg, burnt grass, Jersey City.  Longer than a goddamn car alarm.

THE VERDICTS!!!
These are sincerely broken things.  I mean, you smell 'em and you drink 'em and you wonder if steeping your kitchen garbage bag in hot water would produce a better result.

Color - I guess Dhu-Dhu wins because it's blacker.
Nose - Cu Dhub's nose is awful awful awful.  Loch Dhu's is actually fascinating, like it's some sort of failed herbal liqueur.
Palate - Meanwhile Cu Dhub is sort of drinkable.  I might even pick it over Cutty, if I was blindfolded.  But crap it all, Loch Dhu earns its reputation in the mouth.  I can't believe someone bottled and sold this.
Finish - Here things only get worse for both of them.  Loch Dhu is slightly worse due to the aggressiveness of the chemicals.

Neither of these whiskies made me concerned about my wellbeing, so they don't make my bottom 5.  But they're damn close.  These sorts of levels of e150a would be an interesting free experiment, especially if they don't turn out to be carcinogenic.

If you're looking to obtain a bottle of either of these, why?  I'm not even going to assist you in your search.  Either you're looking to "invest" in whiskies or you have masochistic tendencies that would be better served by indulging in the BDSM scene.

And with that, HAPPY NEW YEAR!

LOCH DHU

Availability - Unhappy hunting!

Pricing - One million dollars. Or $200-$400.

Rating - 45

CU DHUB

Availability - It's around, sorta

Pricing - $30-$60

Rating - 47

* - Since writing this review, I have discovered that Serge did this same taste off exactly 10 years ago.  Ha, so much for originality...
** - And I have also just discovered that Tim Read already made the Plan 9 reference years ago.  That's neat.

Florin's Mystery Spirit

The mystery man (Florin (a prince)), strikes again!  Last October, he made me go WTF (Whisky to Find!) about Speyburn 10 year and Balvenie 15 Single Barrel.  Then this past February he handed me the above Mystery Spirit sample.  It could be any distilled spirit.  Two ounces of the unknown.  Soon after, he gave a sample of the Mystery Spirit to MAO of Minnesota's Accurate Observations.

Today, MAO and I are posting our educated guesses about the identity of what was handed to us.  Please note, I will be revealing what the spirit is, as my buffoonery was made obvious first.  This is only because I was very thirsty this week.  (Here's MAO's post!.)

My method was to split the bottle into two halves.  Two nights, two levels of oxidation.  I also had various other beverages on hand to cross check.

First half of the sample...
From my email to Florin:

NOSE At first, it's like a very pretty Glenfiddich.  But then some heavy candy esters(?) bubble up never to fade away.  It's very sugary with some floral foundation powder.  After a half hour it's all caramel, rock candy, and Twinkies.
 
PALATE Lots of candy here too.  I like it a lot but I can't see through it.  It's rich but soft; sweet but it doesn't hurt my teeth.

So what is it?  It's not scotch whisky, unless there's been a massive rum barrel finish to it.  But at the same time it's not like any rum I've had -- and I did try three rums along side it.  I don't think it's bourbon but there's definitely some oak involved.  If there was such a thing, I'd say it was an armangnac liqueur finished in bourbon barrels.  Heresy!  But it's softer and sweeter than the armangnac's [sic] I've tried, so I'm going to say that my first guess would be cognac.

I can't believe I threw in that stupid apostrophe.  Blame parent brain on that.  Anyway, my guess was wrong.  He told me I wasn't even on the right continent.  A hint could have been read into that statement, but I missed it.

Second half of my sample...
...which I drank the next day, seemed much different than the first half.  Was it oxidation from sitting in a less-than-half full bottle or was it my imagination?  From my next email to Florin:

NOSE

Maraschino cherries, marshmallow, musky melons, something malty (too many Ms)

PALATE

I get some cherry stuff and... Rye, there's something like rye in here.  But it's light on the rye element, and it's kind of fruity.  

Honestly, due the dual personalities of the nose and palate, I can't say for certain what this is.  Unless it's some extra light 40% ABV Canadian rye, I don't think it's all rye, due to the nose.  I'm going to go with a bourbon.

And I'll double down on this delusion.  I'll say it may be one of Four Roses's.  A blend of their recipes.  It's very light in texture and heat, so maybe their Yellow Label.  40% ABV.

First, the good news.  I was correct about the ABV.  I was right about the continent, and the country.  And I was wrong about everything else.

Okay, MAO, don't read further for fear of spoilers...

Unless you got this one right on the first try...

Damn it...












The Mystery Spirit was Laird's 7 1/2 year old apple brandy.

Yup, apple brandy.

Here's what hurts.  I love Calvados.  It's my favorite brandy.  And, behind only Whisk(e)y and The Mistress, it's my third favorite spirit.  The young stuff (less than 10 years) is often full of rich apple and pear notes, and I mean baskets of the eau de vie from which it came.  After that (up to 18 years), the oak and spice moves in but the fruit still lingers on.  Then at some point in the much older stuff, the fruit returns in a more baked or cooked fashion.

But I found not a hint of apple in this American apple brandy.  There were a couple of other fruits in there and a lot of sugar.  The spicy rye and other whiskey notes must have been from the oak.

The differences between Calvados and this version of apple brandy are in the apples themselves and the oak.  The Norman farmers use the varieties that grow in the Calvados region.  Meanwhile, Laird's uses American apple varieties, and probably those grown in the Northeast.  Calvados is aged in very large (often refill) casks made of lightly toasted French oak.  Laird's uses American white oak and, from what I can tell, it's charred, not toasted.  So, perhaps, the maturation and wood integration happens quicker with their brandy than its relative in France.  And those American oak characteristics have a large presence which may be more familiar to bourbon and rye fans than French brandy fans.

Or, I'm just searching for excuses for my swing-and-a-miss.

I'm actually working on a half bottle of Clear Creek's 8 year old apple brandy, but they aged theirs in French Limousin oak.  Their brandy has actual apple notes in the nose, and faint hint in the finish.  Similar to Laird's brandy, I like the nose better than the palate.  The Clear Creek version is twice the price of Laird's, and though it's better I don't think it's that much better.  All of that being said, the Laird's 7.5 year old brandy is very enjoyable and has more life to it than most blended whiskies and single malts at its price range ($25-$30 for a 750mL).

Have you tried this version of Laird's apple brandy?  Or have you had their younger BIB version?  Or the 12 year old?  Let me know what you think below.

Some Single Malt Ramblings for the weekend

Just a few items that were floating around my head:

1.  Last Monday, Jordan at Chemistry of the Cocktail had a killer post about the importance of long fermentation in whisky production.  Science is one of Jordan's fortes, so yes the post is science-y.  But it underscores a mutual concern: the speeding up of whisky production does have an effect on the final product.  Denying it only serves the purpose of protecting the brand through misdirection or naïveté.  Maturation has changed, barley varieties have changed, yeast has likely changed, and barrels are getting dumped earlier and earlier.  These changes to the product are not being done in the name of progress, they're being done for revenue.  Anyway, that's my hot air.  Jordan's post has actual fact-based observations and studies about fermentation effects.

2.  My Annoying Opinions unleashed his latest opinion piece last Wednesday.  As he is apt to do, MAO ventures out into delicate territory.  This time he explores the blurry lines between whisky blogging and brand marketing.  As usual, he is right on.  The resulting comment section is quite something.  Some big names in the whisky blogging community respond to MAO's questions.  Sometimes the comments are very thought-provoking, and sometimes the comments are very disappointing.  Good stuff.

3.  A little update on that weird Suntory Royal SR blend I'd found.  In my post I said that making a mizuwari out of it was okay.  I was wrong, it's really not okay.  The sink drank the drink.

4.  Two weeks ago, I posted a rave review of two Old Taylor bourbons that had been bottled in the 1980s.  I'd noted then that the 1985 bottling had oxidized very quickly.  Well, the 1987 bottling (which I'd given the higher grade) has now oxidized very quickly as well, nearly silencing the palate and adding a subtle soapiness to the finish.  I'm beginning to wonder if this quick oxidation is something that happens often to dusty bourbons once they're opened.  Dusty scotch whisky doesn't thin out like this.

5.  I added a Diving for Pearls Facebook Page follow button on the right side of the blog.  If you're reading this (and thank you for doing so!), then you already have your method of getting here -- by boat, train, Twitter, Google+, Feedly, blogger links, searches, etc.  Facebook is another method.  If I find fun stuff to share on FB then that will join my links to the posts.

6.  I've got a fever and the only prescription is more 'Fiddich.  'Fiddich Fever burns hot this week.  All of three bottlings worth.

Something Weird: Suntory Royal SR Japanese blended whisky (early '80s)

At some point this year, my selection of open whisky bottles turned into Kravitz's Cabinet of Curiosities.  While I do enjoy having an occasional oddball bottle to share, there are too many of these open right now.  I lugged a box of them to a whisky friend's house last week and felt like I should have donned a top hat and commenced carnival barking.

From the Cabinet of Curiosities, I present The Bearded Lady.

Yes, that's a champagne cork in its whisky hole.

I found this sitting by itself on the shelf at a local liquor store, selling for $25.99:

As you can see, the immediate appeal is the rockin' bottle.  The bigger appeal for me was that it's a Japanese whisky that's been out of US circulation since the first Reagan administration.  After completing the sale, the woman behind the counter said that her husband would call in to get it restocked.  I said, good luck with that.

As I drove home with the bottle wedged upright behind my seat, I suddenly noticed that my car smelled like whisky.  As in, a lot of whisky.  As in, I-probably-don't-want-to-get-pulled-over-by-the-fuzz a lot of whisky.  When I got home and lifted the bottle, vapors of warm malt oozed forth.  I noticed when I had bought the whisky that the fill level was a little low (see pic above) but What The Hell?  There were little whisky bubbles forming around the closure.  Yet with its intricate rope-bound top, it was still technically sealed.

Normally, I don't open a bottle immediately upon purchase, but this year has been anything but normal.  And this bottle never qualified as run-of-the-mill itself.  So I twisted open the rope-sealing thing and noticed that the T-shaped top was basically resting on the bottle, providing no actual sealant.  I pulled it off to reveal this:

The cork had been almost entirely eaten away.  There were some crumbs around the bottle neck, but nothing appeared to be inside the bottle.  It had become part of the whisky.  And then I drank it.  And I was reminded of the time that Homer Simpson was told that he'd just drunk a sample of dish detergent and he responded with a shrug, "Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?"

---

The Details, or lack thereof:

There's an almost total absence of information about Suntory Royal SR online.  There are some auction and collection photos.  Nonjatta has a post regarding a different blend called Suntory Old, as does The Coopered Tot.  Here's Peter Lawford pimping a bottle in 1978:

Source

But that's about it.  Pete Lawford's bottle shows a measurement in quarts, mine has metric.  Thus my bottle is post-1978 and probably post-1980 when metric measurements became used for US booze.  The listing of proof rather than ABV, the paper seal, and the lack of government warnings shows it to be from the early 1980s.

Regarding the ingredients, the label only says "Distillery at Yamazaki, Near Kyoto, Japan".  Could this be a blended malt?  That technical nomenclature didn't exist 30 years ago.  Did Japanese whisky companies use the term "Pure Malt" back then, or was any sort of blend just called a "blend"?  I know that Suntory currently has a grain facility called Chita, but I've been unable to find out when it was built.  If anyone knows, please share!  If Chita wasn't built at the time, and if there is grain whisky in the SR, could it have been distilled at Yamazaki too?  I honestly don't know.

---

So how is it?  How does this partially-oxidized, possibly cork-enhanced, mystery Japanese blend, bottled back when Brezhnev and Suzuki were neighbors, actually perform?  Here it goes...

Brand: Suntory Royal
Ownership: Suntory Whisky
Distilleries: Yamazaki, maybe Chita?

Age: ???

Maturation: ???, my guess is a blend of ex-bourbon, ex-sherry, and Mizunara casks

Country: Japan

Alcohol by Volume: 43.4%

NEAT
The color is a medium gold with a reddish tint.  The nose starts with watermelon candy, cherry candy, and tropical fruit candy.  Not the actual fruits, but the manufactured flavors.  Then an Abba-Zaba but with more vanilla.  Sherry takes a while to show.  As do some mothballs.  It still has bit of an ethyl nip even with time and oxidation.  Something papery lingers throughout.  Finally, there's an occasional rotten strawberry note that peeks out then vanishes quickly.  The palate goes from paper → tobacco → malt → bitterness.  Also a piece of tart citrus-flavored saltwater taffy (if that's a thing).  It gets very sweet over time.  And then there's that occasional bizzaro note that makes the drinker's face purse up; somehow it's both synthetic and rotten at the same time.  Luckily, it remains in the background.  Some moldy sherry appears in the finish, as does some tartness, the nose's fruit candies, and something like smoky paper.  After a while it gets cloying like a really sweet liqueur.

WITH WATER
The nose starts with a cross between orange oil and locker room.  Then caramel, vague raisins and prunes.  The watermelon candy and mothballs are still here.  And maybe some of that moldy sherry?  The palate has hints of sherry, some bitterness, some brown sugar, malt, and vanilla.  The texture is nice and thick.  But then there's that synthetic-yet-rotting note.  The finish ends up tart and bitter, mostly modulated, but not always pleasant.  Prunes, vanilla, and caramel.  And a little plastic.

Well, I'm still here.  And I've tried a bit of this stuff.  No calls to Poison Control.  Are those odd notes due to the cork?  My guess is, probably.  What's impressive is that even with untold years of oxidation, the whisky is still very flavorful.  Without those rotten synthetic thingies, this could be a solid B-grade whisky.  I don't think water does it any favors, but it makes an acceptable mizuwari [Correction: mizuwari bad].  All things considered, this could have been much worse.

One final thought.  A dusty hunting tip.  Before you buy a dusty bottle of booze, take as good of a look at it as the store owner will let you.  Check out the seal, the information on the label, and the fill level.  Even though that old whisk(e)y you've found is cheap, it's still something that becomes yours.  It'll be in your cabinet and, eventually, in your mouth.  If you can smell whisky from across the counter, and that scent isn't coming from the cashier, then maybe you should just buy a lottery scratch-off ticket and call it a day.

Availability - Happy hunting

Pricing - ???, I found mine for $25.99 but who knows what it sells for elsewhere?

Rating - 75, though it could be an 84 had it been a normal bottle ... (score dropped to 71 in a 2nd review, then down to 69 in a 3rd review)

Whisky Fail: The Blind Taste Test

The task was simple yet complex, as many simple tasks can be to a person that thinks too bloody much about every simple task.

Florin sent me two 2oz. samples. One was Balvenie 15 year old Single Barrel, the other was an unknown "Mystery Officially Bottled Single Malt".  My test was twofold.  First, I had to tell him which sample bottle held the Balvenie 15.  Then, I needed to determine the mystery malt held in the other bottle.

The samples arrived in early March.  I didn't engage the test until late July.  Why so long?  Maybe a little intimidation, maybe a little extra Balvenie training, maybe also a little Vizzini-style battle of wits over which bottle contained the Balvenie.

...the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only
slightly less well known is...

Of course the battle of wits was with myself, per usual, so there would be no answer, per usual.

After my extra Balvenie training, I was reminded how much I enjoyed the Single Barrel the previous times I'd sampled it.  Tried it thrice, liked it thrice.  Then I figured I was ready, so I proceeded.

Here were my notes:

Sample #1
Color - Light gold / amber
Nose - Roses, American oak, light phenolics?, big cereal grains, caramel, Purple Stuff, oats, dried grass, and butterscotch
Palate - Solid sweet malt, vanilla, a little spice, a little caramel, and shortbread cookies
Finish - Gets much sweeter and saltier, lots of grains again

Sample #2
Color - Rosy gold
Nose - Putty, plaster, band-aids, cherry cough syrup, floral perfume, paper, strong caramel, and smoky Werthers candies
Palate - Mix of refill sherry and American oak?, it's got some alcohol heat, baked fruit bread
Finish - Slams on the brakes here, though it gets sweeter. There's some orange zest in there too.

Sample 1 was full of bold malty/graininess and presented a welcoming easy palate; meanwhile Sample 2, while good, had some odd industrial thing going on, plus there was that feeling of mixed casks I was getting.

The following response is taken directly from my email to Florin:

I would bet 95% of my foolishness that Sample #1 is Balvenie 15yr SB. 

The 5% of doubt is that sample #1 has a very strong cereal note on the nose that I don't remember being in the previous 15yr SBs I'd tried.  But that's the charm of the separate single barrel releases. If I'm right on this one, then I'm going to run out and get a bottle from a local shop that still has the 15yrs at their old price.

Also in the "5% of doubt" was that curious phenolic note, but again there's that charm of single barrel releases.

For Sample 2, my thought process was Bowmore 12 meets Springbank 10, yet neither.  So something between them, with negligible phenols.  I went with Bunnahabhain 12.

Okay, maybe too much confidence, Vizzini.

Florin's reply was that the non-Balvenie sample was an OB from Speyside, and not Glenfarclas nor one of the more exotic distilleries.

And I was thinking, "Uh oh, I've spent so much whisky time far from Speyside, so I'm in uncharted territories now."  I tried Sample 2 again.  With some air the industrial notes vanished, replaced by lots of fruit.  There was still a lot of oak going on, though.  For my guess I went with Glenlivet 18, with Glenfiddich 15 as my backup.

Nope, on either account.

Crap, I had no idea what Sample 2 was.  When Florin asked how I'd rate them, I said 3.5 to 4 stars for sample #1 and 3 stars for sample #2, whatever it was.

Florin then responded with the results.

Sample 1 was not Balvenie Single Barrel.

Oh, The Fail did not end there.

Sample 1, the "3.5 to 4 star" malt was Speyburn 10 year old (old label).  Yes, the very whisky I had rated 1.5 stars last October.  Sample 2, the shifting less-desirable mystery malt was Balvenie 15 year old Single Barrel.

So, not only had I pooped on a surprisingly decent whisky in a previous report, BUT I had also made plans to run out and buy a bottle of the Balvenie since I was so charmed by Sample 1.  I guess I was going to save some money.

From Florin's response:

First, I was quite disappointed in the Balvenie 15yo SB when I opened it - I didn't recognize any of the amazing notes of pure clear floral honey that I knew from another such bottle.  I found it quite muddled, hot, and frankly boring.  Those were $60 not well spent! 

Second, when shortly thereafter I opened the bottle of Speyburn 10yo, I was surprised at how good it was, and at how it reminded me of the Balvenie 15yo SB that I knew from the past.  It out-Balvenie 15yo Single Barreled the Balvenie 15yo SB!  Was that me, or would you agree?  I had to know!  It sounds like you agree (95% confidence is all we ask for in Statistics)!

I did (and do) agree.

Another lesson here: I feel like I need to provide a disclaimer when I review a whisky via a mini bottle.  Though there's a definite risk in all purchased samples, most minis have very poor seals.  And frankly we don't know how they are stored, especially if they are of the $0.99 sort.  Again, even well-sealed purchased samples have the potential for problems (see my Hakushu issue here and here).  Yet, I'm finding a higher percentage of issues with minis, from the Bastard's Share lost on a Glenfarclas 105 to the weird stuff floating in a Bruichladdich.  As fun as it is to collect minis, some doubt is arising about their test quality.

But let me not shift all the focus to minis.  I flubbed this test.  I did potentially discover a great cheap malt and was reminded about the "charms" of single barrel releases.  When trying whiskies without the benefit of labels, names, or ages we are left to our senses and pure objective judgement.

Or is it so pure?  Could I have rated Sample 1 higher because I thought it was Balvenie Single Barrel, a whisky I already thought I enjoyed?  Is Speyburn 10 really that much better than the stuff I had in the mini last year?  Luckily, a follow-up wouldn't be too expensive.

Stay tuned for reports on Balvenie 15 year old Single Barrel and Speyburn 10 year old (old label), as I try them with the blindfold off.

Single Malt Revision: Eating crow and drinking The Hakushu 12 year old

Happy 2013 to all!  I hope everyone had a pleasant extended well-earned break from the normal work week.  I am starting this year with a complete recant of a report from last year.

Last April, I panned The Hakushu 12 year old.  The whisky I'd sampled was shockingly ugly, full of notes of cheesy-beefy-flatulence and a kitchen gas leak.  I say "shockingly" because The Hakushu 12 had received raves from a number of folks I respect.  In fact the word on the whisky street was so positive that I going to buy a whole bottle of it blindly; I even price-shopped it for two months.  But the Master of Malt sample of Hakushu that I tried convinced me of the opposite, the whisky was disappointing.

But, as I ended my report, I wrote:  "I wouldn't mind giving it another spin someday......just in case."

In the late fall, I tried it again at a OC Scotch Club event.  And it was......really good.  This round of whisky came not from a sample bottle but directly from a newly opened 750mL.  President Bob of the OC Scotch Club awesomely allowed me to steal away with a 1 ounce sample of my own.

On New Year's Eve, the sampled was consumed.

Distillery: Hakushu
Producer: Suntory Whisky
Age: 12 years
Maturation: mainly Bourbon Hogsheads
Country: Japan
Alcohol by Volume: 43%

NEAT --
The color is a bright light gold.  The nose leads with doused kindling, soil, dried apricots, and light sweet wine.  There's a cleaning solvent note in there, but in a good way!  After a few minutes, a subtle green leafy note arises, possibly spinach.  The palate is a peated confection: vanillins, brown sugar, and sweet cherries.  It's very creamy, vanilla ice creamy in fact.  There are some ashes and a touch of salt.  It finishes first sweet, then peat.  Peat ashes again.  Sugared fruit, a little salt.  It's extensive and warm considering its low-ish ABV.

WITH WATER --
The nose loses its prettiness, gaining weight and malt spirit.  Some cocoa, tree bark, and vegetal peat too.  Some of the infamous gassy edge starts to peek through.  The palate becomes simpler.  Vanilla, malt, mild peat, notebook paper, and fruit cocktail juice.  It finishes briefly, with that fruit cocktail juice character, a little peat and vanilla following.

I recommend this neat.  Period.  Keep the water out, please.

This is the quality I had hoped for, originally.  The odd sample probably kept me from buying a bottle.  The Hakushu has gotten much more difficult to find since then.  My scathing review likely resulted in a worldwide recall by Suntory.  ;-)

Anyway, Hakushu, my apologies.  I was led astray.  Thou art good.

May this new year bring many more happy discoveries, especially in places we'd never expect to find them.

Availability - Some liquor specialists

Pricing - $50-$60

Rating - 86

A post-Valentine's Day Post (aka Whisky Fail!)

I'd like to address a couple of factual errors I've made.  I thought it appropriate to do now since Valentine's Day is the holiday wherein one confesses to one's grievous errors and promises to do better in the year that follows.

Or maybe that's Yom Kippur.

Anyway, two whisky items to recount:

1. Glenkinchie 12 year - I had originally stated that most of the Lowland distilleries distill their spirit three times, as opposed to the usual Scotch single malt procedure of double distillation.  In fact (according to this year's official Malt Whisky Yearbook), Auchentoshan is the only Lowland distillery that consistently practices triple distillation.  The original 19th-century Lowland distillery style was to use triple distillation to get that soft light texture and palate, but since then other techniques have been discovered (like extra long fermentation times) that give the spirit a very similar character.  While other distilleries (like Springbank and BenRiach) are experimenting with triple distillation products, Auchentoshan is the only Lowlander that does it consistently.
2. Springbank 10 years old 100 proof - After delving into the relevant tangent of the difference between UK and US alcohol proofing, and explaining that this whisky's 100 proof equalled 57% ABV, I discovered that the US bottling of this whisky is at 50% ABV (which is 100 US proof).  The UK bottling is still 57% ABV, thus 100 UK proof.  Why'd they change the whisky for the American market?  I don't know.  Perhaps to prevent confusion about "proof".  (Though Glenfarclas has not changed the bottling strength of its "105" whisky for the American market.)  So, how did I make this Springbank discovery?  I looked at the new 10yr 100 Proof US bottle I'd purchased......a month after I'd purchased it.  The original report that I did, and linked to above, is for the 57% ABV UK bottling.  I will be doing a report on the American release in the near future.  The great news is that the American release is also fully scrumptious.

I have updated these reports appropriately.