Wednesday, May 14, 2025
That one time I went to Kentucky
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
The burden of single cask single malt, and also Ardmore 13 year old 2006 SMWS 66.161
I've already tried today's whisky, and my tasting notes lie here in front of me. Despite ending its maturation in a brief first-fill charred ex-red wine barrique finish, this Ardmore isn't as much of a flop as I had anticipated. But it did leave me thinking about its need to exist.
SMWS has released scores of hogshead-matured Ardmores (see the two I reviewed just this week). I can't imagine this whisky was superb when it was pulled from its first cask, a hoggie, after 12 years, before it was primed and prettied in its second vessel. Though the wine cask finish didn't mangle the whisky, why did this even need to be released as a single cask single malt at all? Because, despite fads and pandemics and tariffs and Brexits, the single malt marketplace is still humming along. Single cask single malt has become one of the most expensive spirits in history. And those single casks keep selling out. But does single cask single malt always represent scotch whisky in its finest form? It's certainly close to being scotch whisky in its most unadulterated state, but does that mean it drinks or smells best in that form?
When drinking casually (as in, no notes!), I now reach for small(-ish) batch official bottlings and dusty blends. My nose and palate have confirmed those whiskies are no less complex, satisfying and reliable than single casks, in fact they're often more so. I gain more respect for the blending craft with each passing year, and I'm beginning to believe that many mediocre-to-decent single casks could have been better utilized in a high-quality blend, vatting or small batch single malt. I'm not saying 1 + 2 = 4. Rather, 1 + 2 may in fact equal 3, though it takes tremendous skill to get there.
I stopped reviewing current bestselling blended whiskies some time ago due to the grim quality I've found in many of them. This isn't intended as a dig at individual blenders, nor do I think it's due to some sort of corporate conspiracy beyond general capitalism. Taking even a cursory look at the demand for single malt whisky, one can surmise the supply of good malt available to blenders is at one of its lowest points in the history of the craft. If the good stuff sells better and higher on its own, then that's how it will be offered. And blenders can't create the same art with fewer quality options for their palates and palettes.
I won't tell you that all old blends are amazing. There have always been plenty of stinkers. But many of the blends from the '40s through the '80s were fabulous. Even my open 1970s J&B Rare has become the best highball scotch I've ever had. The flavors, the facets, the maltiness in previous decades' blends leads me to believe that during eras of small, or nonexistent, demand for single malts, whisky companies had better options for their blenders.
That brings me back to today's whisky. Was this Ardmore malt (and its drinkers) best served by depositing its hogshead's contents into a potentially hyperactive cask for a short period of time? Or would it have been better as a pivotal element in an upscale Teacher's blend, or a Compass Box vatting? I don't know. Not too long ago, I would have chosen the single cask because Purity. But now, I'd lean towards the latter.
Distillery: Ardmore (SMWS 66)Ownership: Beam Suntory
Region: Highlands (Eastern)
Independent Bottler: Scotch Malt Whisky Society
Age: 13 years (6 March 2006 - 2019)
Maturation: ~12 years in a hogshead then ~1 year in a first-fill charred ex-red wine barrique
Outturn: 295
Alcohol by Volume: 58.1%
Chillfiltered? No
Caramel Colorant? No
(from a bottle split)
NEAT
None of the suggest meaty notes appear in the nose, instead there's cocoa, fabric, marshmallow fluff, cherry jam and jalapeños. The peat appears in the form of chocolate-dipped moss. The palate begins with a fizzy combination of cherry-flavored Tylenol, mint leaves and Dr. Brown's cream soda. Hints of herbal bitterness and blackberry jam float beneath. Cherries, tart and sweet, lead the finish, followed by salt and burlap.
DILUTED TO ~46%abv, or 1½ tsp of water per 30mL whisky
The nose shows considerable improvement. It's more herbal, vegetal and nutty. It's even slightly earthy. Cocoa, butterscotch, marzipan and raspberry jam appear here and there. The palate remains sweet and berried (a joke!?), with raspberries in whipped cream, but some sea salt, pepper and bitterness provide additional angles. It finishes with a cherry/ginger syrup, a pinch of salt and squeeze of lemon.
WORDS WORDS WORDS
Despite my fears, this was not worse than 66.32. In fact, with a little added water, this Ardmore was very approachable. Though the spirit does seem hindered, tragedy is avoided. It is not "strangely sweet, gloopy" (what an odd way to pitch your whisky) despite SMWS's label notes.
Before finishing this sample I looked at the remaining whisky in my glass and wondered what the point of this whisky was. And that triggered all those paragraphs above. I'm thankful to have had just 60mL of this whisky rather 750mL. Had I a full bottle I'd immediately initiate some foolish vattings, attempting to find a better whisky.
Availability - Sold out
Pricing - was £61 one year ago
Rating - 80 with water
Monday, September 7, 2020
Five weeks, Sixteen Ben Nevises
There comes a time in a whisky blogger's bloggery when the blogger must binge on a favorite distillery's whisky until the very spelling of the distillery's name makes him vomit. I mean, that's the whole point of these public displays. As per Aristotle's thoughts on tragedies we're purging societal poisons via the spectacle.
Right, (95%) guys?
Okay then. Ben Nevis.
Though I execute my tasting sessions with an unhealthy level of mindfulness, the actual write-ups are often quite rushed because this parent's free time is very limited, resulting in missing words, mixed metaphors and daft intros. I intend to treat each post in this Ben Nevis series as a chapter or part of an ongoing exploration, so the introductions may be minimal or will only reference the preceding reviews, culminating in something possibly quackers in the final week as a celebration of my younger daughter's birthday.
This page will be HQ. Below, I will link to each whisky after its review, hopefully in a timely manner, so whatever poor soul who chooses to journey with me can return here for reference purposes.
Here's another fine mess I've gotten me into:
1. Glencoe 8 year old Blended Malt
2. Ben Nevis 8 year old 2009 Single Cask Nation, first fill sherry butt, cask 92
3. Ben Nevis 15 year old 2003 Blackadder Raw Cask, bourbon hogshead, cask 383
4. Ben Nevis 16 year old 1998 Cadenhead Authentic Collection, bourbon barrel
5. Ben Nevis 18 year old 2001 Old Particular for K&L, refill hogshead
6. Ben Nevis 19 year old 1999 Valinch & Mallet, bourbon hogshead, cask 18-1901
7. Ben Nevis 23 year old 1996 Single Cask Nation, 2nd fill bourbon hogshead, cask 1839
8. Ben Nevis 20 year old 1996 Single Cask Nation, refill Oloroso puncheon, cask 2011
9. Ben Nevis 20 year old 1997 Exclusive Malts, refill sherry hogshead, cask 38
10. Ben Nevis 21 year old 1996 Whisky Doris, refill sherry butt, cask 2028
11. Ben Nevis 23 year old 1996 Single Malts of Scotland, sherry butt, cask 1479
12. Ben Nevis 22 year old 1991 Signatory, sherry butt, cask 2382
13. Ben Nevis 23 year old 1991 Signatory, sherry butt, cask 2914
14. Ben Nevis 24 year old 1991 Signatory, sherry butt, cask 3834
15. Ben Nevis 25 year old 1991 Signatory, sherry butt, cask 2915
16. Ben Nevis 26 year old 1991 Signatory, sherry butt, cask 2377
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Loch Dhu, part deux
Yes, I previously reviewed this, one of the world's most reviled whiskies, but I had another sample from possibly the same bottle. And we've all gotten a little older in the five years since. I'd also tried another regrettable whisky this week so I thought, "What the hell."
For those who have never see Loch Dhu, it is black like crude oil. It's similarly, terrifyingly viscous, as it still sticks to the sides of the sample bottle four days later. I don't know why this product was created, with its Coca-Cola (or higher) levels of e150a. Mannochmore distillery produces some very good single malt. Why did United Distillers choose to do it wrong?
LOCH DHU
Ownership: United Distillers (proto-Diageo)
Region: Speyside (Lossie)
Chillfiltered? Yes
Caramel Colored? Dhu
NOTES
It has a bold nose for its low strength, made up of coffee grounds, caramel candy, prune juice, Worcestershire sauce, mold and burnt garlic. There are burnt raisins, burnt celery, burnt cardboard on the palate. And all those burnt bitter things float in a sour vinegar puddle. The finish is very bitter and very sour, but also has mellow chocolatey side to it.
WORDS WORDS WORDS
This is nowhere near as horrifying as its reputation, and better than I'd remembered it to be. I'm not saying it's good whisky. It's shit. But there are foul strata, and Loch Dhu does not rest on the bottom layer. Its nose is plenty strange, and not exactly what one would describe as alluring. But it's sniffable, and sort of interesting. The palate is bad, approaching one's lowest expectations, yet the finish's chocolate note approaches appealing.
While the whisky isn't the worst, it's still among the most regrettable of whisky ideas. I wish it had served as a lesson to the SWA that e150a should be banned with the rest of the additives. But no one learned anything. So enjoy all your orange Diageo whiskies!
Availability - Secondary market
Pricing - ???
Rating - 55
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Invitation to a Bourbon Taste Off!
Mathilda is like her father in many ways. Like, too many ways. Moody? Check. Hypochondriac? Check. Obsessed with the potty? Check. One of the less terrifying similarities is the habit of collecting random things, and then forgetting about them. All her coat pockets are full of wood chips, twigs and smooth rocks.
Speaking of wood chips: Bourbon!
I have five versions of Elijah Craig Small Batch. Who knows why. Okay, there's a reason for the fifth bottle. This very occasion. And what occasion is this?
And YOU are invited. Really.
Okay, up to 16 of yous.
Here are the ECs:
From left to right:
--12 year old, bottled ca. 2001, distilled at the old distillery, before the fire.
--12 year old Small Batch with the red 12 on the front label.
--12 year old Small Batch with the age statement moved to the back label.
--Small Batch, no age statement, previous bottle/label style
--Small Batch, no age statement, current bottle/label style
They're from all over the place: Shibuya, Tokyo; Buena Park; Long Beach; Newcastle, Indiana; and Westerville, Ohio.
Rather than blab about some showy bottle in honor of Mathilda's 5th birthday, I'd rather do something slightly more interactive this year. And I have these five bottles. I mean, I like Elijah Craig, but.
So, The Taste Off.
Email me at divingforpearlsblog at gmail dot com if you would like to partake. (For you, my friend, it's free.) Here are the important things:
--We're doing this blindly, including me.
--I will post the results in late June, with an engaging narrative that either springs forth organically from everyone's experience, or is awkwardly shoehorned in.
--Your name will not be used in the post, so no one has to enter a witness relocation program after he enjoys the current small batch more than the pre-fire 12yo. Except for me. (recycled joke!)
If you're among the first 16 confirmed for the experience, I'll email you additional information. So......are you in?
Monday, April 1, 2019
The Crown Royale -- 4 Crowns, 1 Noggin
You ask, "No Northern Harvest Rye?" No, no artsy-fartsy crap. Jim Murray's Weird Payoff will get its own post someday. Maybe.
It's Crown Royal vs. Crown Royal Black vs. Crown Royal Regal Apple vs. Crown Royal Vanilla. I received Black, Apple and Vanilla as Secret Santa gifts last year, then I bought the 200mL of Fin De Luxe myself. May that put your mind at ease about the sourcing of these Canadians.
Before I continue, two clarifications:
- As one of the most popular whisky brands in the world, Crown has been enjoyed by millions of people for multiple generations. Hell, it sells more cases than Jameson. So this is not an April fool's joke. It's a legit Taste Off.
- I will grade Regal Apple and Vanilla as whiskies. If the major whisky industries insist on flooding their markets with artificially-flavored products with the word "whisky" attached, then these drinks should be judged as whiskies.
NEAT
Crown Royal (Fin De Luxe), 40%abv
Nose - Sugary and floral with a mild acetone note. Sawdust, vanilla and apples, with hints of malt and rye.
Palate - Grainy Irish whiskey + Johnnie Walker Red + pears. It gets very sweet after a while, all sugar and apples and flowers.
Finish - Warm, short and cloying.
Crown Royal Black, 45%abv
Nose - Sturdier and bolder than the classic Crown. Rye and orange peel. Vanilla bean, cinnamon and clove with a hint of glue.
Palate - Again, burlier and bigger. More American oak, but also more rye. Some good bitterness and dark dried fruits.
Finish - Simple. Sweeter than the palate. Has some of the dried fruits.
Crown Royal Regal Apple, 35%abv
Nose - Oh. Need to sniff from at least 3 inches away, because gross. Spoiled spiced cider, Children's Cherry Tylenol and nail polish remover. Or as I like to call it, Sunday night.
Palate - Chemicals. Cologne. Not apples. Watermelon candy. Candy canes. Children's medicine.
Finish - Aspartame and acetone and candy canes.
Crown Royal Vanilla, 35%abv
Nose - Nilla wafers, bottom shelf Irish whiskey, cinnamon, cherry pie and simple syrup.
Palate - Cream soda, confectioner's sugar and honey.
Finish - Same as palate. Brutal sweetness, but not full of chemicals.
Then...
ON THE ROCKS
Crown Royal (Fin De Luxe)
Vanilla and apples – how curious. There's also a honey note, but it's not too sweet. Just a slight bitterness.
Crown Royal Black
Its strengths have been neutralized. It's just vanilla and banana pudding. It's better when neat.
Crown Royal Regal Apple
I can still smell the chemical spill. The palate is less stomach churning. Perhaps there's some apple candy, but no whisky can be found. Tooth-rottingly aspartame sweet.
Crown Royal Vanilla
It smells like dog's breath. How does that happen? Then the palate goes all wrong. It's not vanilla. Something woody and not food.
CONCLUSIONS
Crown Royal (Fin De Luxe) - I was surprised to find this a full step better than modern day Canadian Club and Black Velvet and Seagram's. It works quite well on the rocks as notes of vanilla and apples come naturally(?) from the whisky. I'm going to keep what's left of my bottle for summer highballs, but I doubt I'll ever buy this again.
Rating - 71
Crown Royal Black - With its shocking 45%abv and use of new American oak, this comes across as actual whisky. It tops all standard Canadian blends I've had. And most standard Irish blends too. But in the $30 price range there are still many bourbons, a few ryes and and an occasional scotch with which it can't compete. Again, I'll keep the rest of my bottle, but I won't be pouring it onto ice.
Rating - 78
Crown Royal Regal Apple - This made me physically ill. Just looking at the bottle photo makes me nauseous. Sub-calvados, sub-applejack, sub-schnapps, sub-apple pucker, sub-Malort Regal Apple is bound to ruin many a cocktail. And everything else. Recommended!
Rating - 36
Crown Royal Vanilla - You know, it wasn't horrible before I put it on ice. I could see how it would work in dessert cocktails. And it was digestible. But if anyone is going to sip this, I'd assume they'd be doing so with it on the rocks, and that's when it goes wrong. Very wrong. But unlike Regal Ipecac, Vanilla can be used for things.
Rating - 59
Friday, January 18, 2019
Single Malt Scotch in America: Prices Begin to Stabilize
First off, there's The Spreadsheet or The Price List or The Sleep Deprivation. There are now 225 whiskies on the sheet. And there are at least 225 stories to be found within it. Today I will spare you, and tell only a few tales, including the one in the post's title.
Here's where The Spreadsheet's numbers come from:
I use Wine Searcher's Average Wine Price system, selecting only US retailers. Their site has an explanation behind how they arrive at their averages. To summarize, their averages don't include auctions; all prices are adjusted to 750mL bottles; the highest and lowest 20% prices are removed in order to correct for pricing errors and grievous retailer choices. Aside from the ability to view pricing history, Wine Searcher's big draw (for data and consumer purposes) is their large data set. For instance, if you search for Johnnie Walker Black Label or Talisker 10 they'll actually stop their listings at 500 because they have so many retailers in their system. Please note, this is not an advertisement for Wine Searcher. Their Average Wine Price history requires a paid subscription and I've been known to mooch off of other people's accounts from time to time.
My spreadsheet has gotten so extensive that I encourage you to check out my shared Google Doc at this link. It should be easer to follow and scroll through than it is here.
About the spreadsheet:
I'm using a methodology similar to the last time around. There are 225 whiskies (99% of which are official bottlings) listed in total and, thanks to spreadsheets, I have data back to 2007 for 115 of them. Each time I assemble one of these annual posts I include more whiskies. This year I added only those that had at least three years of US pricing history. Whiskies with ten or fewer retailer listings were retired in 2019, but were kept on the list for historic pricing purposes. They received a blank gray field for their efforts. Whiskies with fewer than 20 listings are marked "scarce" in the notes column. Don't be too surprised if all the "scarce" whiskies are retired next year, like the entire old Benriach range was this year.
Because directly comparing a 12-year price change percentage with a 3-year price change percentage with an 8-year price change percentage is crap math, I'm using the same metric as I did during previous years to measure the increases: Multiple of Inflation (or MOI). MOI takes the total price change and divides it by the US's inflation (CPI) rate over the related period of time (12, 8, 6 or 3 years).
The color-coding is based on the MOI, as follows:
Dark blue = price actually decreased, thus a negative MOI
Light blue = price increased between 0 and the actual rate of inflation
Green = price increased between 1 and 2 times the rate of inflation
Light pink = price increased between 2 and 5 times the rate of inflation
Fire Truck Red = price increased between 5 and 10 times the rate of inflation
Black = price increased more than 10 times the rate of inflation
Unlike last year, I'm ditching the MOI in my charts because I'm approaching the information from a different angle this year. Weighted calculations were laboriously factored into my formulas to correct for the different time spans involved in the averages.
If this is your first time seeing The Spreadsheet, I encourage you to pour yourself something delicious and then click over to the spreadsheet and dig in.
Now, for some pictures to go with the words.
THE STORIES!
The Rise and Pause of the NAS
Here's the headcount of the whiskies from the spreadsheet:Yes, those tall black bars are NAS single malts. It is now the largest age category. The infection has set in. Nearly every official range has at least one single malt without an age statement. Some brands have multiple NASes. Some are made entirely of NAS whisky. And the prices?
There's a lot going on in this chart, especially the right side of it. But look over at the left side. The average price of the 52 NASes is higher than than the average 8-10 year old whisky, higher than the average 11-13 year old whisky. Let that soak in a bit...
...
...Okay, that's enough time, because something interesting has happened to the NAS category:
On the surface, it appears as if the average price has barely moved over the past three years. But within these numbers is another story.
Out 52 NAS whiskies, 21 dropped in price between 2016 and 2019, while another 15 rose in price less than 5% during that time. Leaving out the two Dalmore NASes, this category actually averaged a drop of more than half a percent over the past three years.
You'll see more low or negative numbers for NASes further down this post. I think we will need at least one more year of data before it can be determined if the category is truly trending down in price. But it's fair to say that it has at least plateaued, and that plateau is only being held up by a few pricier outliers.
Luxury is expensive
40 year old whisky has become irrelevant. A $5,000 whisky is superfluous for 99.9% of the whisky drinking public. 99.9% of us are ignored in its production, release and marketing. It wasn't always like this, but it's come to this because 40 year old whisky's price increases have been operating on a different plane than all other single malts.
EDRINGTON DRUGS
I guess the Internet Way to write about this is to toss up a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and say "Macallan gonna macallan".
And that is valid. But I'ma write a little more about Edrington.
The Main Story
But you didn't come here to read all that. Or did you???
![]() |
| click to embiggen |
Monday, January 14, 2019
Scotch Whisky Exports in 2017, or The rowboat still pulls the steamship
That means there are no new data for whisky consumption in the UK, nor annual production levels by SWA members, nor the age of whisky sitting in warehouses. Is this information being withheld on purpose? I don't know. But those data points certainly clashed with nearly every press release squawking about the burgeoning Scotch market.
Those narratives aside, the most noticeable change in the SWA publications was the categories. No longer was it Malt and Blends, but Single Malt and Blended Whiskies. I almost gave up writing this post entirely because I thought my big data sheet was rendered useless. But it wasn't. I just had to rethink the comparisons. Blended malts and bulk malt had been removed, and what was left was a more familiar, relatable subject: The Single Malt. And therein breathed the solution to today's post.
Since the great peak of the Scotch Whisky export market in 2011, volume sales have had a bumpy ride year to year:
2012: -5.2%
2013: +2.6%
2014: -3.0%
2015: -2.8%
2016: +4.0%
2017: +1.6%
Even with those last two gains, export volume in 2017 was still 0.4% under 2013 levels, and 3.1% beneath 2011's totals.
Meanwhile, the value of Scotch Whisky exports was 3.3% above 2011's amount. As mentioned in previous years' posts, value can increase while volume decreases when the value per unit rises. In this case, it's GBP (Great British Pounds) per liter. Thus the price of exported whisky went up enough to offset drops in actual whisky being sold.
But it's not that simple. Three other factors have had a considerable effect on the Scotch Whisky export market's monetary gains: inflation, exports to the United States and single malt sales. Bring out the charts!
![]() |
| click to embiggen |
This chart does a number of things. First, it puts all that volume growth into some perspective. It also shows what looks like stratospheric increases in value and GBP/liter. Scotch whisky appears to be a booming business. But those gains aren't quite what they appear to be.
This graph shows the monetary gains from the previous chart adjusted for inflation, starting with 1980 (the beginning of my data set). What one sees is an industry that has struggled to out perform the UK's inflation. In fact, the GBP/liter price in 2017 is still lower than the adjusted 1980 amount. It wasn't until 2011 that export value jumped ahead of inflation, but that was largely due to the peak volume sales mentioned above. Annual value sales were trending back to the 0% mark until the solid gains made in 2017.
I'm going to zoom to look at the past decade:
As referenced in previous years, volume sales have been anything but flourishing. And for a few years the reported annual value was also slumping. Yet there's been a 55% gain in value sales over this 10 year period. Again, this seems like business has been awesome.
But this shows again that the industry was in danger of underperforming the UK's inflation rate. Adjusting for inflation tempers all value gains, but as one can see from these charts, there have been actual increases in sales. One of the drivers behind the boosts is Scotch Whisky's highest valued export market, the Occasionally-United States of America.
Even as the whole market's sales (in value) dropped after 2011, whisky exports to the United States continued to rise.
Between 2008 and 2017, the value of Scotch exports to the US increased by nearly 150%, while the non-US export market saw gains of 28%. When adjusted for inflation, the US gains were still 116%. The non-US gains vanished, turning into a loss of 3%.
The United States is the largest export market in terms of value not volume, which means there's a higher than normal GBP/liter rate for its Scotch. That substantial rate is due to the fact that US is the biggest recipient of single malt whisky in the world, with totals larger than the second and third largest single malt markets combined.
And if one is still searching for some sort of Scotch Whisky Boom, one may find it in single malt sales.
While sales of blended whisky have plateaued (at best), single malt exports have zoomed in terms of volume and value over the past decade. And, unlike almost all other indicators in the Scotch Whisky export market, it shows no signs of letting up:
With these massive gains in single malt exports, why haven't Scotch exports blasted off as a whole? Well, single malt whisky still makes up a tiny portion of the market when it comes to volume.
But, as can be noted from the charge above, it is no longer an insignificant part of Scotch's value. Though it makes up only 10% of the volume, it will likely cross the 30% marker in terms of value by 2019.
On the flip side, blended whisky has been bleeding value market share:
And it's not just value. Blended whiskies' annual volume sales total in 2017 was still beneath that of 2008. But blends are such a behemoth that their declines always weigh down the entire market. Single malt sales are the rowboat pulling the steamship in Buster Keaton's The Navigator.
![]() |
| (pic source) |
Of course this chart doesn't show the actual prices of single malts and blends, but it does show the difference in how the exports are valued.
Single malts are more luxurious (price-wise) and have the reputation of being well-aged premium spirits, but their names are less familiar, appearing as various Glens and/or cryptic Gaelic phrases. Are consumers leaving blends for single malts (and other whiskies)? Or are new drinkers going directly to single malts, skipping over blended whisky entirely? Are they seduced by the high prices or the connotation and mystique of the term "single malt"? Or are blends dropping in quality due to the demand for their most valued ingredient, malt whisky?
Whatever the cause, people (especially Americans) are spending a lot of money on single malt whisky. As blended whisky sales struggle and the Scotch export market barely keeps above the inflation rate, this continuing ascent of single malt sales has the been the key to Scotch's financial success in the past, present, and, possibly, the future.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
A Full Volume Highland Park Rant, also a Highland Park Full Volume Review
In six years they have released at least 30 separate new bottlings. Some are named after "warriors" (real-ish), kings (real), Valhalla deities (totally real), ships, monsters, "keystones", voyages, valkyries (for you Wagner fans out there), distillery founders, dark things, light things, hot things, cold things and loud things.
Really.
Do some of them taste good? Probably. Do I care? It is difficult to do so.
I'm not sure why they went this direction. Perhaps the managers of their sibling distillery, Macallan, whispered to HP's upper management, "You won't believe what people will pay for this shit." But that doesn't explain some of the cheap releases. Nor the unfocused branding. Perhaps the marketing staff have been snorting new make. Which would explain a lot.
From this disarray comes "Full Volume". It has an double-digit age statement, a good ABV and has been aged completely in ex-bourbon barrels, all good things. It has bizarre packaging — apparently a requirement for the current regime — a fake amp complete with a Spinal Tap reference (hint: it goes to 11). But the "Full Volume" name makes no sense. Despite having a burlier alcohol content of 47.2%, that ain't cask strength, nor is it new make strength, nor barreling strength. I guess "A Smidgen Higher Volume" would have been a crappy whisky name. But so is Dragon Legend.
Chillfilltered? Yes, because Odin told them to
Colorant added? Unknown
(Thanks to My Annoying Opinions for the sample!)
NEAT
The nose reveals soft earthy smoke, dried barley, green grapes, plum wine, green apple Jolly Ranchers, actual green apples and a hint of steel wool dust. The palate leads with brisket, charred vegetables, oregano and grapefruity IPA. Later, there are notes of lemon and black pepper. It finishes with dry smoke, ash, dried herbs and a nice bitterness.
DILUTED TO ~43%abv
The nose is somehow both dirtier and fruitier. More smoke and metal. More candy. A little bit o' barley. The palate is similar to the neat version. Maybe a little sweeter with more pepper and a menthol-like zing. The finish picks up some sweet citrus and mint. Cigarette ash.
WORDS WORDS WORDS
Not a ton of complexity, but otherwise it's great stuff. Full Volume gave the distillery a chance to show off the great characteristics often found only in bourbon cask independent bottlings of their malt, and they succeeded. There's even a happy lack of vanilla!
So there's no reason why it needed to be drowned in marketing and packaging diarrhea. I mean, it's a 17 year old Highland Park with an actual vintage and good strength. Geeks geek about this geekery.
If you're a fan of indie bourbon cask HP, and you're willing to set aside your cynicism, and you're willing to pay three figures, this whisky might just be playing your tune. 👀
Availability - Europe and US retailers
Pricing - $90-$120
Monday, November 27, 2017
What is Japanese whisky? And does it matter?
![]() |
| another brilliant D4P photo masterwork, feel free to steal it! |
Now I'm going to try to simplify the situation via an outline.
Here are the current types of Japanese whisky producers and their products:
- Japanese non-distiller producers (NDPs), similar to American NDPs, bottling whisky that was distilled in Japan by another company.
- Japanese NDPs bottling whisky that is a combination of Japanese and Scotch whisky, or entirely Scotch whisky, and
- labelling it "Japanese Whisky", or
- not labelling it "Japanese Whisky".
- Young distilleries
- bottling their own distillate
- bottling their distillate blended with Scotch whisky,
- labelling it "Japanese Whisky", or
- not labelling it "Japanese Whisky".
- Well-established distilleries
- bottling their own distillate
- bottling their distillate blended with Scotch whisky,
- labelling it "Japanese Whisky", or ← conjecture?
- not labelling it "Japanese Whisky".
Though the Scotch Whisky Association can be a complete pain in the ass, and occasionally suspect in its intentions, it has attempted to iron out what Scotch whisky is through strict regulations. Because Japan doesn't have a similar organization, chaos can break out when their industry goes through a major transitional period, as it is doing now.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Returning next week...
Monday, August 28, 2017
Jilted Lovers on the Rebound?
Did Whisky free us to explore other relationships, knowing full well we'll always come back because no matter how exciting these new experiences are, nothing compares 2 U, Whisky?
I enjoy brandy. I've liked Calvados for a long time. But having once spent over $40 for a bottle of it, I shan't do that again. And though I've had some good armagnacs, I prefer cognac. With few exceptions, long-aged armagnac reads (to me) like "Wow, this is almost as good as single malt scotch!" Actually, unaged brandies from around the world appeal to me more than most brown brandies.
Same thing with rum. A good clear rum spirit registers so much brighter and enjoyable than its aged siblings. That's not to say I don't like brown rums. I've had a number of very good ones (Hampden and Caroni!). But the new pricing of decent rum makes me think, "I can just buy whisky."
Some whisky bloggers publicly shit on gin. Not I. Gin is cool, in general. There's another unaged spirit I adore even more, and I've hinted about it plenty during this blog's life.
I waste your time with this subject matter right now because I've been playing tourist at some aged-spirits social media groups. Some of these groups spawned like Athena, violently and fully formed. Others existed long before my fellow Whisky Rejected joined up. Though I like (and occasionally love) the booze they discuss, I feel no interest in engaging or arguing about the nerdy stuff. I've also noticed the gradual creep of Here's More Shit I Just Bought And Must Show The World posts beloved by the whisk(e)y world.
To get back to the starting metaphor...... As your pal from the Whisky Relationship era of your life, I must ask about your new partners:
"Are you happy?"
"Is this progress?"
"Yeah, I know whisky is a trollop (you can thank his/her parents for that), but did you really have to dip your wick that quick just because everyone else was?"
"Whisky is never coming back. It's not your fault. Actually, it is your fault, but that's another story. I forgot, what was I going to ask you?"
This subject came to mind on Thursday as I was pouring a few birthday beverages. I was enjoying a blended whisky, a highly hyped rum and an old armagnac. And I liked the whisky blend the best. It was thicker, more complex and (most importantly!) a better drinking experience than the other two spirits. (Here's my old review of the stuff, I'm sticking to it after three years.)Before opening the armagnac, I knew there could be some issues with it, but I was prepared to engage fully with it even if problems arose. The rum was monolithic, but good. Yet it made me think of a cheaper rum that's of at least equal quality.
I realized this moderate cognitive dissonance wasn't because Whisky is inherently better than Brandy or Rum. And my three drinks were not perfect examples of their genres, as if there could be a good single stand-in for any of these three broad categories.
But still, I can't bring myself to review the rum and brandy. So I have decided to bring in two guest reviewers to report on their experiences with these spirits, this week. Stay tuned...
Friday, August 4, 2017
Killing Whisky History, A Very Special Episode
Friday, March 17, 2017
Scotch Market in Flux, Part 3: Single Malt Prices in the USA
The price list has grown longer and wider this year. So though there are words above and below the spreadsheet, I know you're here for the spreadsheet.
As I write every year, here's some background on the data below:
I am using Wine Searcher's Average Wine Price system, selecting only US retailers. Their site has an explanation behind how they arrive at averages. To summarize, they do not include auctions; all prices are adjusted to 750mL bottles; they remove the highest and lowest 20% prices in order to correct for pricing errors or egregious retailer choices. Aside from the ability to scroll through pricing history, Wine Searcher's big draw for data purposes is their retailer count. For instance, if you search for Johnnie Walker Black Label they'll actually stop their listings at 500 retailers. Their system has over
I encourage you to check out my shared Google Doc at this link. It may be easer to follow, scroll through and filter(?) than it is here.
Three paragraphs about my methodology:
I'm using a similar methodology as last year. There are 179 whiskies listed in total. Thanks to my spreadsheet, I have data back to 2007 (the first year of the so-called whisky boom) for 116 of them. Last year I added a bunch of additional single malts. At that point Winesearcher only had data as far back as 2011, which just happened to be the most successful of the "boom" years. There are 39 of those malts in the list. This year, I've updated the list with 24 more malts. Winesearcher only has January data as far back as 2013. So I've added an additional column with all the 2013 prices. (Also, RIP Benromach 21, Benromach 25, Clynelish DE, Glengoyne 17, Strathisla 12 and Scapa 16. There are too few retailers selling those malts, so the average prices are no longer reliable. Expect the RIP list add another 12 more malts next year.)
Because directly comparing a 10-year price change percentage with a 6-year price change percentage with a 4-year price change percentage is crap math, I'm using the same metric as I did last year to measure the increases: Multiple of Inflation (or MOI). MOI takes the total price change and divides it by the US's inflation (CPI) rate over the related period of time (10, 6 or 4 years). For the whiskies that start with the Jan2007 data, the inflation was 17.1% (or $1 in Jan2007 was worth $1.171 in Jan2017). For the whiskies whose data starts with 2011, the inflation was 8% (or $1 in Jan2011 would be worth $1.08 in Jan2017). For the whiskies whose data starts with 2013, the inflation was 4.2% (or $1 in Jan2013 was worth $1.042 in Jan2017).
The color-coding is based on the MOI, as follows:
Dark blue = price actually decreased, thus a negative MOI
Light blue = price increased between 0 and the actual rate of inflation
Green = price increased between 1 and 2 times the rate of inflation
Light pink = price increased between 2 and 5 times the rate of inflation
Fire Truck Red = price increased between 5 and 10 times the rate of inflation
Black = price increased more than 10 times the rate of inflation
ANALYSIS
There are going to be fewer charts than last year, as I try to do my best to avoid comparing apples to Ledaigs. Let's take a quick look at the price increase between January 2016 and January 2017.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflated 1.5% in 2016. When finding the average of the 179 whiskies from the above spreadsheet, one finds the average single malt had a price increase of 4.35% in 2016. In 2015, whisky prices increased 8 times the rate of the CPI. In 2016, these single malts increased slightly less than 3 times the CPI. While prices increased slower, they still increased considerably faster than the country's consumer goods and services. On the other hand, that percentage increase is considerably less than the 14% increase in price/liter of Scotch whisky exports to the United States.
But as I've found in years past, whisky age categories don't see their prices change at the same rates, so there is no "average" whisky. So here's how each age statement group's prices went up in 2016.
![]() |
| Note: this is the only chart to use percentages |
Actually, just for kicks. Here's another chart of the age statement categories by whisky count:
Yeah, let that NAS count sink in for a moment. Then consider the fact that number does not include all of the NAS bottlings that have come out over the past three years. NAS will probably be the largest category in the spreadsheet within the next two years.
Anyway, back to rising whisky prices.
Let's take that Average Price Increase idea and see what has happened over the past 10 years, using the MOI metric.
What shocks me is how incredibly tidy these numbers turned out. As each category increases in age, its prices escalate at a greater rate.
Again this does not mean 8 to 10 year old whiskies barely went up in price over the past ten years. It means they went up in price at almost the same rate as the US consumer price index during the same time period. General price inflation was up more than 17% during the past 10 years, so the price of the average 8-10yo common single malt in the US has gone up somewhere between 18% and 20% during that time period.
As a whisky consumer (though barely a consumer at this point), I think it's reasonable for a popular single malt's price to go up slightly faster than inflation. There was a great increase in demand for single malts in the United States during over the past ten years. That's why I don't sweat the price increases in the green range in the spreadsheet. It's when single malts start doubling, tripling or quadrupling the rate of inflation that a certain nerd starts writing a post called "What Was the Scotch Whisky Boom?"
When it comes to 25+ year old single malts, the industry seems to have moved as a whole to create and expand an ultra-ultra-luxury whisky market. They're still searching for the ceiling.
Younger, cheaper single malts are going up in price, but at a gradual rate. The rise in teenage whisky prices seemed to have calmed down in 2016. But long-aged whisky has moved into another solar system, a place where a single malt twice as old can cost 20 to 30 times as much.
Remember, the influence of importers, distributors and retailers on these prices cannot be overstated. The price per liter (in GBP) of exported Scotch went up 2% in 2015, about 4 times US inflation, while these single malts' prices rose 4%, or 8 times inflation. In 2016, that price per liter (in GBP) went up nearly 9 times US inflation (before the pound dropped) in the first half 2016 alone, but our single malts' prices rose under 3 times inflation for the year. As I've referenced, inflation will cause price changes, as will swings in exchange rates.
The price still goes up in Scotch whisky's most lucrative market because American humans keep buying expensive booze. The best some of us can hope for in the near future is a plateau to form on the line graph. In the meantime, you don't have to buy that one whisky bottle over there, but the fact is, someone else will. Are you okay with that?








































