Single Malt Report: Sullivan's Cove Australian Single Malt

Now that considerably dark clouds of discontent regarding the scotch whisky industry have set in...

Now that Bourbon whiskey market is likely about to go down the same path (see this, then this)...

I've decided that right now is the best time to take a little (figurative) whisky voyage away from the United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Japan, and Canada and towards a few of the countries newer to the whisky world.

First stop: Australia.

Australia (specifically Tasmania) actually has quite a buzzing, burgeoning whisky industry.  Companies like Lark and Sullivan's Cove lead the way in size and media coverage.  Meanwhile Bakery Hill, Belgrove, Hellyers Road, Limeburners, Nant, Old Hobart, and Timboon are growing, cranking out more whisky every year.  Though the distilleries follow most of the classic Scotch/Irish distilling methods, they're using local barley and water.  And they've been experimenting with the maturation process.  For instance, Bill Lark has been aging much of his whisky in former port pipes split up into smaller barrels.  Also, the local peat is made up of different vegetation than that of Scottish peat, so when any of these companies smoke-dry their malt, the phenolics are unique.

The one on the right is the Sullivan's Cove.
Maybe we'll explore the bottle on the left this summer?

Thanks to two of Kristen's coworkers (Chris for purchasing and Connor for couriering), I have a bottle of Sullivan's Cove Double Cask.  As mentioned above, Sullivan's Cove is one of the major players in the Australian whisky industry.  And, as of very recently, some of their single malts have been showing up at American specialty liquor retailers.  AND, for some good P.R., Jim Murray raved about their Single Casks in this year's Whisky Bible.

As for the Double Cask, there's some ex-bourbon American white oak cask-matured whisky in here, along with French oak casks that had previously held port.  According to their site, they turn it out in small batches: one French oak cask to two American oak casks.  It is married together for four months, then is bottled at 40% ABV, non-chillfiltered and uncolored.  But how does it taste?

Distillery: Tasmania Distillery
Brand: Sullivan's Cove

Type: Single Malt
Region: Tasmania, Australia

Age: at least 10 years old
Maturation: 1/3 ex-port French oak casks + 2/3 ex-bourbon American white oak

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? No

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

NEAT
Color - Amber
Nose - Fresh out of the bottle there's a subtle smoke (somewhere between wood and vegetal), then there's some fudgy chocolate.  Lots of fresh bananas.  Notes of sugary oak, sweat, varnish, and baked goods bounce around.
Palate - Kit Kats!  Lots of 'em.  Plummy dessert wine spilled onto notebook paper.  Some cracked pepper floating in urine (What? Don't act like you haven't drunk your own pee.  And someone else's.  In college.  For $12.)  A little bitterness arrives after a while.
Finish - Decent length for 40% ABV.  Malt and red wine.  Very tannic.  Floral notes meet vanilla notes.  Some bitterness shows up after a while.

WITH WATER
Okay, water really does not help matters.  Here are my notes anyway:
Nose - Toilets overdue for a cleaning (use your imagination).  Glade Plug-In floral scent.  Some French oak.  Sugary dried fruits and perfume.
Palate - Goes quiet, though the texture is pleasantly soft.  All caramel and vanilla.
Finish - Bitterness increases.

I'm almost halfway into this bottle and I'm still having a difficult time figuring it out.  There are some notes that don't seem to jive, like a homemade blend that's not quite right (see any of my posts on my own failed blending attempts).  It makes me curious about their Bourbon Single Cask, as perhaps that lets the spirit run free?  But the Double Cask isn't bad for a starter malt.

BUT due to the expense behind relatively small distilleries producing whisky in a country enforcing considerable taxes/tariffs, Australian whisky is very expensive.  Lark's whiskies run $150-$250 for 9 to 11 year-olds.  This Sullivan's Cove Double Cask is usually $90.  Had it been in the $20-$30 range, I would recommend it as an intriguing alternative to the Glens 'Livet, 'Fiddich, and 'Morangie.  At $40, I'd say it was borderline.  But at $90, Double Cask leaves me without much to say.  At that price range it is up against some of the most spectacular spirits ever designed by humans.  It can't compete, and I'm not sure it is meant to.  Perhaps the Single Casks (priced near $150) can flex their muscle some more.

If you buy the Double Cask, then you're supporting a growing whisky industry.  But that industry would flourish much more if their government (which has let its wine industry avoid certain excises, thus all the cheap Yellow Tail) gave their spirits industry some tax help so that the whisky companies can lower their prices.  And I mean, right now.  The whisky industry is in a state of explosive growth, growth that may not last forever.  Catching this comet would benefit Australian exports.

My rating below ignores these financials.  So, digging through the two previous paragraphs, the important whisky point is that Sullivan's Cove makes for a challenging starter malt.  In fact, the way I like to serve it best is as follows:

5 shakes of Angostura bitters
2 fl oz of whisky
2 fl oz of club soda
Several ice cubes

This allows cinnamon and nutmeg notes to emerge, along with a mouthful of vanilla.  It's a refreshing Spring weekend drink.

(And yes, I did consume the Vegemite from the first picture.  It tasted like yeasty creamed barbecued bird feathers.  Never has something that looked so much like chocolate not been chocolate.  It could lead a man to drink his pee whisky.)

Availability - A couple dozen liquor specialists (US)
Pricing - $80-$100 (US)
Rating - 76

The Irish Are Coming

With many thanks to Sku of Recent Eats, I am now addicted to checking for TTB's (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau) newest registered COLAs (Certificates of Label Approval).  Here's the site: https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/publicSearchColasBasic.do.

It's all public info, so there are no secrets.  But what can be found on the site are approvals for labels of new liquor products before those bottles ever hit the shelves.  Seriously.  Have at it.

Here are some recent discoveries of the Irish sort:
1.) Redbreast 21 year old.  Yup.  Sku found it and tweeted it.  I exclaimed, "WOO HOO!"  May I naively hope they keep it under $100?
2.) Tullamore Dew Cask Strength.  56% ABV.  Looks like it starts out in bourbon casks, then spends its last 2 years in sherry casks.  What most interesting is that it appears to be a blend.....
3.) Power's John's Lane Single Pot Still.  This one made me squeal.  Like a pig Like a Belieber Like a grown-ass man.  Whiskycast scooped the news first on Mark's April 28th episode.  Interestingly, though John Ryan from Irish Distillers said that this SPS will have no age statement, there was COLA registered last September for the 12 year old version.  Perhaps the demand was anticipated to be too large to for the actual amount of 12yr available?  Either way, I'm pretty geeked about this one.
4.) Power's Gold Label.  As per the same Whiskycast episode, the whole Power's range is getting refreshed.  My favorite go-to whiskey is getting a new label, and (via a COLA from last month) it's getting bumped from 40% to 43.2% ABV.  I will drink it.

If this post seems just like a bunch of Irish whiskey industry cheerleading......well......I'm cheering for the whiskey.  I have a soft spot in my liver for Irish whiskey.  Thus more variety and new experiences are good things.  And maybe I'll be able to bring some of you over to my side someday...

Single Malt Report: Laphroaig Triple Wood

I was going to save this report for later this month, but after reading Oliver Klimek's recent excellent post on wood usage, I figured the Laphroaig Triple Wood would (sorry) be one example of the whisky's industry's current mania over oak.

The Triple Wood (which has its own site) is essentially Laphroaig Quarter Cask with additional maturation time in oloroso sherry butts.  In more detail, per the video with John Campbell on the official site, the distillery takes their usual single malt that's been aging in refill bourbon barrels for 5-13 years, then ages it for an additional 9 months in 125-liter quarter casks, then ages it for 9 months in first fill oloroso butts, THEN ages it again for 21-24 months in refill sherry butts.  So, according to that video, it's a quadruple maturation.  Quadruple Wood doesn't have the same ring, does it?

Triple Wood started out as a Duty Free-only release for a year or two, then entered the larger markets around 2009.  It is priced higher than the Quarter Cask, likely due the additional maturation expense.  Or because Laphroaig is trying to market it as a more premium whisky.

My notes below come from two tastings.  The first is from the enormous Laphroaig Vertical I attended in December.  The second tasting was done here at home last month as I lined up my 30mL sample with a dram of the Quarter Cask.

Distillery: Laphroaig

Owner: Beam, Inc.
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay

Age: 8 to 16 years
Maturation: refill bourbon barrels --> quarter casks --> refill oloroso sherry butts --> first fill sherry butts (see above)

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Possibly

Alcohol by Volume: 48%

NEAT
Color - Very bright gold
Nose - At first it's Frosted Flakes and overripe stone fruits sitting on a peat pillow.  Then there's a bunch of nondescript dried fruits and mango.  After a while cinnamon, sweet lemons, and rotting apples arrive.  The sherry has shorn off all the spirit's rough edges.
Palate - A much softer entry than the Quarter Cask, sweeter too.  Smoked dried cherries, chocolate, lavender flowers, and creme brulee.  In the far back hides sooty tobacco and a slight bitterness.
Finish - The peat strengthens here as does the bitter note.  Beyond that there's some vanilla, peated molasses, along with some farminess.  It's more tannic than the Quarter Cask, and has a snuffed cigarette note.  The sweetness carries the longest.

W/WATER
Nose - It dries out a bit.  Only a little sherry left, and the American oak takes over.  There's also some grass, hay, and soil, along with lemon rind.
Palate - Goes quiet.  There's still lots of soot & soil, though it is creamy soot & soil.
Finish - Remains lengthy with the peat soot and bitterness hanging on.

As per the notes above, with a quadruple maturation, this is one of the increasing number of modern malts with tons of woodwork.  But it's debatable why Laphroaig needs all this woodwork since its malt is so strong on its own.  Here, the whisky is beginning to stray away from the Laphroaig character.  The oceanside peat, seaweed, iodine, band-aids are gone.  As a result it's probably the most approachable of the Laphroaig line, for those who aren't big Laphroaig fans.  So perhaps that's the reason for the four maturation rounds.

But it still tastes and smells great, and that cannot be completely discounted.  I would be more than happy to drink this again (note the 48% ABV!).  As mentioned above it does carry a premium ($10-$15) above the Quarter Cask, so one is trading cash for the extra fruits and sherry.

For me, a Laphroaig fan, it sits a full step below the Quarter Cask because I love that whisky's bold intensity, its ramping up of the Laphroaig character.  I also would prefer both the regular Laphroaig 10yo and the 10yo cask strength over the Triple Wood.  But again, that's my palate.  Ultimately, the Triple Wood is a decent whisky that delivers the Laphroaig spirit cloaked in a series of barrels.

Availability - most liquor specialists
Pricing - $60-$75
Rating - 86

The Single Malt Report returns with a Kilchoman Taste Off!!!

Sometimes, after a couple of drinks, I attempt to make a Top Distilleries list.  You know, a Top Five or Top Ten.  There's no data to back up the lists, just a half-crocked subjective brainstorm.  Kilchoman always makes the Top Ten and often makes the big Five.  While its whisky is very very young, it is also very very good.  Anthony Wills and John MacLellan have found a way to design a malt that is ready to go when it is less than a handful of years old.  That's fantastic for their business and fantastic for us drinkers.

I'm a big fan of their Summer 2010 release.  Their Machir Bay is as good as you've heard, maybe better.  And last year's K&L Exclusive 100% Islay Single Sherry Cask is killer.  So far they were three for three in my glass.  I had to try to more!  So I assembled three different Kilchomans from three different sources and dug in.

As you can see, I assembled these guys from a number of sources.  And I'm going to list these in the reverse order from which they appear above.  They'll be in order of their age, oak influence, and (not so coincidentally) color.

Kilchoman 3 year old Inaugural 100% Islay -- 30mL sample from Whiskysamples
Kilchoman Spring 2010 -- 30mL sample from Florin
Kilchoman 2007 -- 20mL sample from the Whiskybase shop

Distillery: Kilchoman

Bottling: Inaugural 100% Islay
Barley Varietal: Optic

Age: at least three years (bottled 2011)

Maturation: former Buffalo Trace bourbon barrels

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 50%
Limited Bottling: 11,300+

Kilchoman has been gradually releasing 100% Islay bottlings, which contain Optic barley grown on a local Islay farm.  The peating levels, 10-20ppm, differ from their non 100% Islay releases.  The barley from their regular releases comes from the Port Ellen maltings with the Ardbeg specs, approximately 50ppm.  Thus one feels less of the peat hammer on the Kichoman 100% Islay whiskies and more of the malt spirit.

NEAT
The color is very light, almost clear.

The nose starts with peated snickerdoodle cookies, boldly so.  It's very spirity with just a hint of charred oak.  Way in the back, there's some lemon zest, brown sugar, and toast.

Cinnamon leads in the palate, followed by marshmallows.  A strong barley element with little oak.  Almost reminds me of a higher peated version of 'Laddie Bere.  But it's the malted grain that speaks the loudest, with the peat staying more subtle than that of the other two Kilchomans here.

It finishes boldly at first.  Then fades.  Then returns.  All barley spirit.

WITH WATER
The nose holds fresh cherries, cinnamon red hots, and dusty peat.

The palate and finish are earthy with some dried grass and cracked pepper.  The spirit remains spicy and the ethyl stays strong, but it does become easier drinkin'.

This is a very young whisky.  In fact it's the only Kilchoman I've had that has tasted very young.  One of the most admirable aspects of the Kilchoman single malts is that they taste and nose considerably older than their age.  This one doesn't.  This is a zesty punchy spirit that pushes the oak into the background.  Happily, the spirit is good.

Availability - Several US retailers, though it's getting harder to find
Pricing - $90-$100 in the US, similar price internationally without shipping rate
Rating - 80

Distillery: Kilchoman

Bottling: Spring 2010

Age: more than three years

Maturation: 3 years in former Buffalo Trace bourbon barrels, then 3-1/2 months in former oloroso sherry casks

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Limited Bottling: 8,500+

In 2010 and 2011, Kilchoman started rolling out their releases with each season.  I tried the Summer 2010 and LOVED it.  So I was excited to try the previous release.  The malt is heavily peated (~50ppm), the spirit ages for its first three years in former Buffalo Trace barrels, and then is finished off in (possibly first-fill) oloroso sherry casks.  This finish is nowhere nearly as aggressive as other sherry finished whiskies (I'm talking about you, Lasanta), instead it's more of a seasoning.

NEAT
The color is a medium amber

The nose leads with those peat-laced cinnamon sugar cookies, then lemon cake, a little bit of dried grass and grain, followed by white and green fruits (green grapes and pears).

Here comes the peat in the palate, deeply sooty.  Ripe apples, smoked dried fruit, a little granulated sugar.  The texture is light though the alcohol punch feels stronger than 46%.

It finishes a little dry.  Ashes, toast, black pepper, and some of those cookies from the nose.

WITH WATER
Candied apples arise in the nose.  There's also some sap, menthol, and honey roasted nuts.  The peat recedes into a farmy note.

The peat is much softer in the palate now.  The texture thickens and some peppery spice kicks up.

The finish is peat, sugar, spice, and nuts.

This one swam relatively well, though I prefer it neatly.  The oak, though more apparent than in the 100% Islay, remained quite restrained.  This one would taste and smell familiar to the fans of the Machir Bay releases.  It's younger than those whiskies, but you can sense the roots taking shape.

Availability - less than a dozen retailers worldwide
Pricing - around $70 in the US, similar price internationally without shipping rate
Rating - 86

Distillery: Kilchoman

Bottling: 2007
Special Release: Whisky Import Nederland

Age: five years (Nov 2007 - Nov 2012)

Maturation: first fill sherry hogshead

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 58.4%
Cask: 456/2007

Now, we jump to something big.  This one is older, cask strength, and full-on sherried.  The other Kilchoman sherry cask I've tried, the K&L exclusive from last year, was darned scrumptious.  This one is also on the tough-to-find side of things, but I thought it would represent the sherry single casks well, as there are a number of single sherry casks out there to be found, released in every country.

NEAT
The color is dark gold.

The first thing I find in the nose is, *sniff*, charred nose hair.  Just kidding.  Maybe.  Roasted peat, dark dried fruit, cinnamon and molasses arrive in a group.  Then there's a scotchy butterscotch and a hint of chlorine.  Vanilla beans (wrong oak!), caramel sauce, walnuts, honey, and a tiny bit of (good) sulfur.

The palate leads with toffee and butterscotch.  A brief hammy moment is suddenly covered by an enormous smoke cloud.  Gorgeous sherry highlights mingle with peat very well and for a moment it's like a big Lagavulin 16.  Though it is barely five years old.

It finishes on hay, burnt toast, and a candied peat that lingers on and on.  It's a beach bonfire that's just been snuffed.

WITH WATER
The nose is still very dense, though it's a bit farty.  There's still toasty peat, honeys and sugars, and dried apricots.

The palate and finish are full of very vegetal peat, salty meat, and soot (think Ardbeg 10's chimney sweep).

My goodness, do this neat.  A little water is fine, but if you're dropping this sort of cash you'll want the whisky where it shines.  Let it roar, big and beautiful.  That's two for two with Kilchoman's single sherry casks, for me.  Add the Machir Bay into the equation and we're seeing this baby malt playing very well with oak.  That's a good sign so far.  What's it going to be like when it hits eight years old next year...?

Availability - Netherlands :-\
Pricing - $100-$130 before shipping
Rating - 91

Why We Blog

Yesterday, David Driscoll -- one of my favorite spirits bloggers, K&L Wines spirits buyer, and Single Cask saint -- posted an entry entitled "The Future of Internet Whisky Blogging".  David isn't one to curtail his feelings and opinions, which is bold when one is doing business with the very companies one's critiquing.  He's been known to ruffle feathers and state unpopular opinions, so the K&L Spirits Journal can sometimes be a bracing read.

"The Future of Internet Whisky Blogging" ruffled my feathers gave me indigestion.  David was stating an opinion I not only didn't share, but I felt as if I was being called out.  Rather than using this site as a gripe machine, I decided to email him directly with my dissent.  He responded promptly via email, then posted a follow-up entry on the subject.

In the original post, David postulated that there are too many whisky blogs, with too much repetition, thus creating a staleness which was endangering the usefulness of whisky blogs.  He questioned the intent of whisky bloggers in general, issuing a challenge that we all must change or risk irrelevance.

Before continuing, I urge you to read the post here.  It's important to see the entire picture.

---

Here is my response (with links) :

Dear David,

I want to start by saying I have an enormous amount of respect for you.  The Single Cask work you and DO’G have done is incredibly generous.  In person, you are warm, brilliant, and honest.  Your blog entries are tremendous; in fact I am quite jealous of your well-written, educational, and candid posts.  But I disagree on a major theme in your recent post about whisky blogging.

Here’s the first paragraph that caught my attention:

Do we really need this much information about whisky, however? Is it filling a need? Why do so many people feel compelled to start a weblog about alcohol and share those opinions with the world? Most of it is pure ego, which is why I was ready to give it up a while back. My ego got me into this game and it was making me write things to boost its self-absorbed nature. Sure, K&L didn't have anyone writing about spirits so it did serve the customer base a purpose, but that wasn't what motivated me to do it. I wanted to create a reputation for myself and that seemed like a good way to do it. Anyone who writes a blog about whisky is in the same boat. Anyone who tells you they're not is lying.I'm not saying that blogs written by egoists aren't useful (because I think this blog can be useful at times), but I am saying that the rise of the ego is beginning to replace actual news and journalism. It's not much different than the twenty-hour news cycle – one hour of actual news, twenty-three hours of people talking about that one hour.

Let me introduce myself.  I am Michael Kravitz.  My blog Diving for Pearls is amongst that blur of names on Sku’s blog list.  I am a whisky blogger by accident.  My site was originally started in 2007 to keep my friends and family up to date when I was moving back to LA from the East Coast.  I posted mostly about personal stuff, film (my educational background), music (not my educational background), travel, and maybe a little bit about baseball.  Those posts drifted to a stop in 2008.

I restarted the blog in 2011 to chronicle my (then) new career as a full-time writer.  That career didn’t go as planned, so instead of complaining every day I went back to posting about the stuff I enjoyed (music, movies, sports, etc.).  The newest addition was The Single Malt Report.  I’ve loved whisk(e)y for some time and thought it would be a hoot to do little reviews once a week.  Somehow, through the miracle of Google algorithms, people started finding my site.  Many more people than I’d ever expected.  And they were coming for the whisky.

This was an unexpected joy.  People were reading my stuff!  So the whisky posts took over.  As a number of things went sour in my offline life, it was comforting to have folks from around the world regularly tuning in to read my generally unprofessional whisky musings.

Soon, the whisky blogging started to become more personal.  I started talking to readers, bloggers, and other malt geeks who were trying to break through the cold separation of the online life.  On Twitter some of these folks started a hashtag #WhiskyFabric.  On Facebook, the Whisky Bloggers group began.  We realize we all have so much to learn, so we share whisky news, knowledge, and samples.  Sometimes we talk about our families and work.  I’ve even gotten to meet people (in person) I would never have known had I not whisky blogged on Diving for Pearls.

Though I’d like to speak for everyone I’ve met, I shouldn’t, so I’ll speak for myself.  I’m not in it to build my brand.  I’m in it for the communication, people, and sensory exploration.  I know you truck on bigger roads than I do.  So perhaps you see things I don’t.  If some currency has evolved via Reputation, then that means there is a whisky blogging Scene.  I suppose I haven’t been invited to the Scene, which is okay with me.  I’ve found that most Scenes bring with them a sense of decay since the members of the Scene aren’t actually contributing anything.  Instead it’s a bunch of preening, rehashing, or oneupsmanship.

I can tell by your post you’re reaching a level of whisky-blog-reading burnout.  In the current whisky blogging world, there is certainly repetition in subject matter.  That’s one of the reasons I’ve resisted commenting on the big news stories.  People with better insight and deeper knowledge often beat me to it with better content.  And yes, sometimes there seems to be a bit of a glut in the number of sites.  I’ve stopped reading about half of my usual blog roll, specifically those blogs that seem to be industry-cuddle-happy.

But I still go to my usual blog haunts (your site is one of them) with the same joy as I had two years ago.  The Internet is an endless lifeless ocean, but great sites run by great people provide little islands of recreation.  Since I enjoy those little respites throughout my day, I will try to continue to run my own island to the best of my ability while working a 60-hour-a-week desk job.

Finally, per your paragraph:

Back in 2009, you couldn't be up to date with the whisky scene unless you were reading the whisky blogs. Nowadays, I'm not sure there's much more they can offer besides breaking news. The blogs have always been there to help educate newer consumers about the alcohol they're drinking, but there's so much information out there now that everything just seems like a rehash. We're recycling stories, travelogues, ideas, opinions, and rants like Lady Gaga recycles old Madonna schticks. There's nothing underground or cool about a whisky blog anymore because there's nothing underground about whisky. Whisky is the hottest thing out there. It's being pushed and sold at max capacity. It's so cool we can't get enough of it. You can't stay relevant, however, by following the current trend. You stay relevant by spotting the next one before it arrives.

What we can try to offer is the human experience.  Corporations can’t do this, no matter how much they pay for marketing.  Personal experience is relevant, chasing trends is not.  If a blogger does the latter, I promise you he’ll lose to someone doing the former.  And if many bloggers are really shedding their voices to grab for trends, then The Scene has begun and Whisky Blogging is indeed in decay. 

But I don’t see this in the blogs I read and I’m doing my best to keep my voice.  I have nothing to gain by building a whisky blogging reputation, so I’m not trying to.  You can call me a liar for MANY other things, but not for this.

Please continue sharing your voice on your spirits blog.  Reputation or no reputation, you’ve established something great there.

Yours,

Michael Kravitz

---

And if you think that was long, you should have seen the first draft.  Okay, no you shouldn't.

If any of y'all think any element of my letter is untrue or exaggeration, please let me know.  I've been to known to get a little dramatic when arguing my side, and thus in the process choosing passion over facts.

---

David and I then traded a couple emails and with my permission he included my entire letter in his follow-up post, "Lighting a Fire".  I encourage you to read it, because (ignoring my letter) there's important stuff in there.

Ultimately, David and I agree.  If we whisky bloggers are abandoning the things we enjoy and instead writing what we think we're supposed to write, if we are chasing leads, if building our own brands becomes more important than who we actually are, then we have no future.  People, their lives, and their experiences are what's important.

I realize there are a lot of high-falutin' things in this post -- from the self-important title, to the posts referencing other posts referencing letters referencing posts -- but I'm only going there because I like whisky blogs.  I don't think we are in a state of decay, but I also want to make sure we never get to that point.

Thank you, David, for lighting a fire.

Edinburgh, 2002

Early morning during the first week of November, 2002.

See those red phone booths?  That's where I'd called my parents the evening before.  I was illuminated on a 1/3 of a bottle of absinthe, more lucid than sober consciousness allows, aware of the texture of every sound that entered my ears or left my mouth.

Down the street a bit, to the right in the haze, was a little grocery.  I'd stop by, once or twice, each day to pick up a can of beans, a bottle of water, and two small fresh crispy croissants.

Around the church, in the background on the left, there were a bunch of flyers advertising the night tours of Edinburgh's underground, emphasizing the crypts.

Further down the street was a potato jacket restaurant.  I'd order a potato and have them fill it with beans and cheese and chicken, or maybe a little curry instead.

Past the church, a Tesco.  Past the Tesco and over the bridge to the left was a place called, by locals, Dodgy Pizza.  It was open all night.

The day before was lovely.  Though the rain hadn't paused for my entire stay, I went out hiking near, around, and up Arthur's Seat.  Hours of mist and mud.  A little blood on my hands from rock scrapes.  I came back in the late afternoon, shaved off my adventure beard and took a hot shower in the tiny hostel bathroom.  Then I walked to Tesco and bought a bottle of Le Fee Absinthe.  I brought it back for my drinking buddies.

One of the best parts of hostel life is the international drinking crews that form randomly.  That night, a South African, a Pakistani Glaswegian, and I drank the green contents of the bottle.  THEN we went out drinking.

While they grabbed cigarettes, I placed the slightly enthused call to my folks.  Afterwards, we three then went down to the lower streets to the pubs.  There were pints.  There was a place that called itself a heavy metal bar.  It wasn't a heavy metal bar.  I had no issue with their music; I stood on tables, shouting the lyrics to The Yardbirds and The Who songs.  But we made a point to tell everyone in the building that this was not a heavy metal bar.  We were escorted out of the establishment.

We went to a couple other pubs.  There were pints.  Lots of footie on the screens.  We ascended back to High Street.  Each of us finished an entire Dodgy Pizza before finding our(?) bunks in the pitch black hostel dorm rooms.

I slept for a couple hours in my clothes.  Upon waking, I slid out of bed, crept out of the room, then up the stairs and outside.  Morning awoke before me, but not by much.  The rain never slept.  The restaurants and cigarette shops were putting out their sidewalk boards.

I realized I'd forgotten to take pictures during my travels.  Or maybe I'd chosen not to.  My disposable camera had at least 20 photos left in it.  Edinburgh was beautiful, even my $6.99 cardboard Fuji could see it.

Whisky with Florin - Part Four: The Glenphroaig

(continued from Part Three, here)

THE GLENPHROAIG

FV: Here are the tasting notes. Let me remind you that this uses a different bottle of the Glenlivet Nadurra than your sample (that was batch 0112R, b 01/12, 55.0%) - but I'm happy to send you the new version too! [Ed.: Received, sampled, and noted below!]

GlenPhroaig 10yo Double Malt, 55.5% (batch #2)
--2/3 Glenlivet Nadurra 16yo batch 0410J b. 04/10, 54.3%
--1/3 Laphroaig 10yo Cask Strength batch 1 b. 02/09, 57.8%.

Color: light amber.

Nose: warm and inviting, Belgian chocolate bakery, confectioner's sugar, freshly cooked bitter orange marmalade. Some nutmeg and cardamom. Much spicier than my earlier batch that used the 01/12 Glenlivet Nadurra! The smoke is well integrated, no peat reek here!

Body: supple but firm and mouth coating - elegant. (For some reason the body is important to me, it really makes or breaks a whisky.) This is so good at cask strength I don't want to add water!

Taste: the spicy bitter orange chocolate theme continues on the palate. More peat, but well coated in salty, mouthwatering sweet malt. This is peat candy, the high street version of salt water taffy.

Finish: lingers on forever, satisfying; continues to evoke the peat and bitter orange from the nose and palate.

With water: why would I want to do that?!?

Comments: wow, this is good! The blend retains all the high points of the Laphroaig CS, but with its aggro side polished off. No licking ashtrays here! This is the Chopin of whisky, cannons hidden beneath flowers and all that. I would have never thought of calling a Laphroaig-based whisky "elegant", yet that's the word that comes to mind. Surprisingly, it's really well balanced! The other intriguing aspect is how different this blend is from my first batch using a different bottle of the Glenlivet Nadurra, the 01/12. I really liked that one too, but it did not have the spice and bitter orange notes of this version. In Compass Box terms, if that was the Oak Cross, this is the Spice Tree. Unfortunately it's long gone, so I rely on memory here…

MK: It's funny you mentioned peat candy, I caught a hint of a peated whisky cocktail (with simple syrup and bitters) in the nose. As opposed to the bitter oranges in your batch, I caught lemons and apples (fully peat-infused)...but that was just Batch 1...

Ah, let's just get to the full notes:

BATCH 1:
Color: light amber with yellow and green highlights
(I've spotted this same tint in official Laphroaigs)

Nose: Peated whisky cocktail (malt, simple syrup, bitters), brine, nougat, bourbon(?), vanilla, peated apples, white oak infused with peat smoke. Complete peat integration.

Palate: Ashes then flowers. Cannons beneath flowers indeed! Maple syrup, then lemon lime soda. Cayenne pepper and peat moss. Very rich but not a bruiser. 

Finish: Lemony peat (or peaty lemons?), sooty fire place, and brown sugar. Those peated apples again. The strength of the Laphroaig CS carries the day. 

BATCH 2:
Color: Light gold with those green highlights

Nose: Candied and toasty peat, orange rind, bran muffins, apples and lemons, a little band-aid TCP note, a floral hint, and cinnamon custard.

Palate: Wood smoke floats above apple juice and fresh lemonade.  Brown sugar in front, malt in the middle, peated tropical fruits at the end.

Finish: Substantial again! Barbecue-smoked ripe apples, peated pineapple. Lemon sour candies infused with peppery spice.

Both batches are stellar stuff.  These vattings create a new single whisky from two very different elements.  I think someone needs to start up his own blending establishment. :)  How long do you let the elements marry? Do you give it a little shake once in a while or just let it settle? I'm taking notes here...

FV: I'm never too rigorous or serious about the blending. The result might improve over a few days, but I never have that much patience. I might try something new in sample bottles or in the glass, and if I like it I will ramp it up to a regular size bottle. At that level the bottle does indeed last longer and therefore it blends better in time. Shaking occurs naturally every time I pour. :) But once again, no lab coats here, this is just for fun. And I've never said "ooh, I really like this whisky, I wonder how it would taste mixed in with some Highland Park!", it was always about fixing or rescuing something I wasn't totally happy with.

MK: Do you have any home blends in mind for the future? Or do you think your next one will be born out of necessity like the GlenPhroaig?

FV: Here are a couple nice blends that I blundered into recently. I added some Laphroaig to a bottle of Springbank 10yo which was heavy on sherry and overly sweet for my taste. That made it much more interesting, a home-made Longrow of sorts. It certainly did not last long, in a few days it was gone!

By now you are probably thinking that I just add Laphroaig to everything, which is probably not a great general strategy. But here is an interesting combination: the other night I was drinking a 19yo Glendronach, single cask, cask strength. One of their sherry bombs, with the texture of balsamic vinegar, and tasting like pure dark chocolate. It feels more like an ingredient really, rather than a finished whisky you want to drink! So I poured some over a glass of Speyburn 10yo. The Speyburn tamed the attack of the Glendronach, without diluting the strength. The result was much more balanced and enjoyable, and it reminded me of the Glenfarclas 105, one of the best ex-sherry whiskies out there.

MK: I remember trying that Springbank 10yr and wondering why they were sweetening up their great malt.  The Laphroaig addition sounds like a good fix.  Do you have any advice for those of us floundering with our own blend experiments? Some Dos and Don'ts perhaps?

FV: Blending whisky is like cooking. Once you get a feel for it you don’t really need recipes, the ingredients speak to you and tell you what they need. Peated whiskies like Laphroaig seem to be good additions, especially in small quantities, but the base whisky needs to have a good backbone – medium/thick body, or a lot of personality, or at least high strength. I would not mix bad whiskies hoping to get something good, the original ingredients must have at least something going for them. You need to have a few open bottles to work with, you need enough colors on your palette if you want. And the best ingredients to work with are those that are not too processed already. You want prime colors: all-out peaty whiskies, like Laphroaig; all-bourbon cask whisky, like most 10yo and 12yo out there, or of course, single casks. The older distillery bottlings often already have a proportion of sherry casks blended in, in order to taste more expensive, so I wouldn’t use these, unless I want to fix them. But what do I know? Go out there, play with your whiskies, and let us all know what you found!

I just want to add here that I’m grateful for your very engaging and entertaining blog, and I’ve enjoyed very much this dialogue! Thank you Michael!

MK: Thank you, Florin. I'm indebted to you and all the great generous whisky folks out there who have shared, educated, traded with, and drank with me. Without you all I would still be sipping vodka on the rocks. Okay maybe that's a little severe.  But you all have helped enrich my life with all things related to the sensory splendor of aged distilled spirits. And to my readers, I can't thank you all enough!  You inspire me to raise my standards every day.  Happy Friday!