Big Ol' Bourbon: George T. Stagg (2013 release)

The annual Buffalo Trace Antique Collection drop has turned into a complete circus within the last two years.  Once upon a time, I found a bottle of Thomas H. Handy Rye just sitting on a major liquor retailer's shelf......at its original price......in Los Angeles.  That ain't happening again.  But for all the running and the stealing and hurting and the pushing, the BTAC contains some genuinely excellent whiskies.  Though I haven't been too excited by Eagle Rare 17yo, the Sazerac 18yo rye is usually good, William L. Weller is probably better than the current versions of Pappy, and Handy is f***ing dandy.  Then there is George T. Stagg (Sr., not Jr.).

I think that most of Stagg's notoriety comes from its massive alcohol content, topping 70% in nine out of twelve years.  The 2007 version sits at the apex with a 72.4% ABV.  Staggy's ABV number was so important to some people that this year's 64.1% ABV sounded like a letdown.  Even though the damned release sold out instantly and has topped $450 in some secondary markets, I heard this same comment at three whisk(e)y events: "This year's Stagg sucks."  Each time I inquired, "Oh cool, you've had it?"  "Nah, I'm not opening mine," was the gist of each of the responses.  So these...people...were lucky enough to have an opportunity to buy a bottle, went ahead with it, then sh*t talked it without tasting it, and won't drink their own bottle.  Two things wrong with all of this.  Firstly, if you're hoping to flip your "sucks" bottle, you might not want to act like a snoot, instead you should be talking the stuff up.  Secondly, these people should probably just stop talking about whiskey altogether.

I have tried Stagg 2013.  I've also sampled 2012 and 2011.  They're all excellent.  Seriously, Stagg is my favorite non-dusty bourbon.  My sense memory says the 2013 does taste different than the previous two, but sadly I didn't have those previous versions on hand to compare and contrast.  You drink Stagg when you can.  And then you don't drive.

One month after first sampling Stagg 2013, I was given a Hanukkah surprise.  My own bottle of Stagg 2013.  It took a village to get this to me.

Here's how a person comes to have a bottle of George T. Stagg:

--My brother in-law's (in Colorado) father in-law (in Wisconsin) owns a large grocery store in the Badger State.  Despite his very good connections with distributors, he has to enter a lottery to get even a single bottle of BTAC.  So they generously entered the lottery to get a bottle of Stagg for my birthday.  In 2010.  In 2013 he won the Stagg lottery.
--He shipped it to my in-laws' home in Upstate New York so that I could open my Hanukkah present on Christmas morning.
--Open the box I did.  And there was much rejoicing.
--Because there was a lot of travel ahead of us, my in-laws said they would ship it to our place in California.  But in January their local UPS store said they could not ship alcohol to California.
--So, in early April they played booze mule and wedged the Stagg bottle into their luggage and checked it.  They, their luggage, and the bottle arrived in California safely.

At least eight people in four different states were involved in this.  That's what it took.

I held off opening it until the next time Andrew (my brother in-law) was in town.  Now that he and his wife, Leslie, are expecting a little son soon, it gave us an even better excuse to open it when they were here on July 4th.

Distillery: Buffalo Trace
Brand: George T. Stagg
Region: Kentucky, USA
Type: Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Distilled: 1997
Release: Fall 2013
Age: approx. 15 years old
Mashbill: Buffalo Trace #1 (lower-rye; about 8%)
Alcohol by volume: 64.1%

Here were my notes from the original tasting with the SCWC on November 24, 2013.  It was a crowded room, my palate may have been questionable as I tried it last.  After the bourbon an hour of air:
Nose -- Big and fresh, totally noseable. A little cask-strength-scotch-y. Figs, prunes, toffee, a little baking spice, and banana bread.
Palate -- Huge-er, almost medicinal. Band aids.  Rich, cakey, big corn and rye, big oak.

Now, for my bottle, I'm doing a little experiment within my controlled setting.  I'm going to line up one glass neat, one with a few drops of water, and one watered down to the usual Buffalo Trace 45% ABV level.  I'm going to try (and list) these lightest to strongest because Stagg neat is a palate-ender.

ABV LOWERED DOWN TO 45%
Nose -- Still quite strong.  Rose blossoms, clay, caramel sauce, and sweet corn.  Cardamom mixed with nutmeg.  Hints of leather, fudge, and barbecue sauce.  Caramel rules the glass.
Palate -- Texture is a little thin, but there's lots of flavor.  Very tannic, but some corny sweetness comes to the rescue.  Then cracked peppercorns and fruits in sugar syrup, like black cherries and dates.
Finish -- Moderate length. Hot pepper sauce. Tree bark. Caramel arises again.

WITH ONLY A FEW DROPS OF WATER
Nose -- Starts BIG, then tapers off.  Toasted whole wheat bread, carob, citron, corn syrup, sticky sugar, fresh banana.  Some beef notes.  Caramel sauce, again.
Palate -- Oh man, it's so rich at first blush.  Figs, dates, and currants (maybe) in a pool of liquid brown sugar.  A rye liqueur.  A spiced muffin (had one of those recently) with salty honey butter.
Finish -- Some pepper, some vanilla, lots of corn and sugar.  Lingers and lingers.  A brief note of the fruits.

NEAT
Nose -- There it is again, the scotch thing.  This time it's that big fruity character that I've sniffed in old bourbon cask malts.  Something along the lines of citronella and tropical fruit, but then that's met with apples, bananas, and golden raisins in caramel sauce.  Then along comes some perky spice (is that from the oak or rye?).  Roasted corn.  Mushrooms.  Clay.  Roses.
Palate -- It's a little hot, and not just ethyl but spice. If I sampled it blind, I'd probably think it was rye. Oooh, big medicinal burst.  Flashbacks to old-school Robotussin.  Toffees and caramels, both slightly salted.  Remarkably sugary sweet through all of the heat.  A light smoke from the barrel char, or the inside of my mouth.
Finish -- Sweet, spice, sweet, spice, tannins, sweet, medicine, orange rind, sweet, spice, sweet.

This swims pretty well, holding its nose up above the water the best.  But if you have an opportunity to drink Stagg, you've got to try it neat.  The rye, considering its small quality, is very expressive.  The corn and sugars are thunderous.  If you haven't tried barrel strength American whiskey before, then the oak may be too much.  But for me, at this size, it is part of the beast.

Is this better or worse than its high-ABV brethren?  Well, I think it's a little different.  As it apparently sat in a lower, somewhat cooler, warehouse position, a bit of medicinal phenols built up in the barrels.  I love that sort of stuff and it creates another level of complexity (oh, that word), but someone just looking for a face full of hot caramel may be unpleasantly surprised.  Quality-wise it's very similar to the other Staggs I've had, maybe 1 or 2 points of difference in either direction.

While the current secondary market prices on this whiskey are nutty, I'm happy with its actual MSRP ($79.99 or $89.99).  It's legitimately limited, it's aged, it's in demand, and it's very good.  A lot of retailers ignored the MSRP and just doubled the price because they could.  And people bought it.  Such is the market.  I just hope people open it and drink it with friends because that's the best way to appreciate whiskey.

Availability - To quote Edna Krabappel, "Ha!"
Pricing - MSRP was $79.99 or $89.99, it has been sold for up to $450
Rating - 92 (downgraded to 88 in December 2013)

Single Malt Report: Glen Scotia 20 year old 1992 Archives

Distillery: Glen Scotia

Independent Bottler: Archives

Age: 20 years (Feb 1992 - May 2012)

Maturation: Hogshead
Cask number: 08/71
Limited bottling: 80

Region: Campbeltown

Alcohol by Volume: 50.4%

Let's keep the shpiel short today.  I've never met an indie Glen Scotia I didn't like (even a port finished version!).  Both previous Archives bottlings I've tried were excellent (see here and here).  Let's see if the streaks continue...

Thank you to MAO for a good-sized sample of this Glen Scotia 20 year old 1992 from Archives...

NEAT
The color is light gold.  The nose has lots of fresh apple (skin and juice), the very beginnings of tropical fruit, and dried apricots.  But after some air, out comes the peat moss which then takes front stage.  Behind it a note of toasted grains develops, as do hints of pine and honey mustard.  The palate is oily in texture and taste.  Light brown sugar then peat moss then barley.  It's short at first, but after some air it expands... Plantains, honey, salt, cigar tobacco.  Then comes the industrial exhaust and what I can only imagine is the grit from Campbeltown roads.  It has a decent sized finish with a Springbank-like oily thing; then salt, pepper, lime zest, and a menthol glow.

Me likes.  Time to hydrate it down below 40%.

WITH WATER
In the nose, the peat goes manure-y.  In fact, it smells like the all natural plant food (read: bat guano) I bought last year.  That's followed by mint, citrus sour candies, caramel, rubber bands, and dirt.  The palate gets simpler.  Barley, sugar, peat, vanilla, and soil, along with a light tartness.  The finish mellows out too, though still lasts longer than I expected -- some cream, sugar, and the tart note.

CJ and Menno picked well again.

This Glen Scotia is for Springbank fans.  It takes the hint of grit from the official bottlings and expands on it.  It also develops many layers in the nose and palate missing from the OBs.  My nose notes are creepily similar to the official ones, but I found much different stuff in the palate.  MAO's review finds similar notes and conclusions.  And this marks the rare moment wherein he and I have the most positive reviews on a whisky.  Ruben from whiskynotes didn't care for it much and Serge was limited in his praise, though their notes seem to be of a much more imbalanced whisky.  Before you blindly pull the trigger on it, check out their reviews and the whiskybase listing because this is the biggest rave you'll read about this single malt.

Availability - Here's the link, they're out of samples though :(

Pricing - around $95 w/o shipping, depending on exchange rate

Rating - 88

Single Malt Report: Glen Scotia 16 year old and the surrounding weirdness

Yes, someone thought this design choice was a good idea.
Many someones, probably.  They all should probably end any further
involvement in decisions like this.  And they have!

In late 2012, the Loch Lomond Distillery Co. Ltd. announced a brand new range of Glen Scotia single malts.  These "Disco Cow" (thanks, Jordan!) design bottlings included 10, 12, 16, 18, and 21 year olds, were all 46% ABV, non-chillfiltered, and un-colored.  Thus some good technical decisions were made for the stuff inside the wacky bottles.

In March of this year, the Loch Lomond Distillery Co. Ltd. was taken over by the private equity firm, Exponent.  Exponent, which also owns Quorn (yes, that Quorn), is calling this Scotch whisky extremity, Loch Lomond Group.  Two of the leading officers in said Group are former Diageo executives.

I'll park my Diageo complaints at the door here.  Anything going forward would be an improvement over what preceded.  The former ownership of the Loch Lomond Distillery Co. Ltd. made a number of strange (a polite word) decisions with their assets.  Firstly, they demolished Littlemill Distillery, which would have likely been their best distillery had it been run well or at the very least could have produced a lot of light malt for blenders.  Then they made little to no effort to run the Glen Scotia distillery for the first seventeen years -- five years mothballed, one year run by Springbank, eleven years producing a trickle of spirit.  The one distillery they didn't handcuff was Loch Lomond, but they did very little to improve that distillery's low reputation.  When they did attempt to refresh their Glen Scotia and Inchmurrin (Loch Lomond) product lines, they presented them to the public in bottles designed for the blind.

Actual range. I'd love to see the designs that were rejected.

Anyway, as mentioned yesterday, Glen Scotia Distillery was mothballed from 1994 to May 1999.  From then until 2007, they were distilling about 13% of their actual capacity.  According to Malt Madness, the distillery then increased its output to all of 17% of its capacity through 2011.  So there's no whisky for a five year period, then not much for the next twelve.  (The Group's site says that production is up to 200,000 liters now, which is still less than 27% of capacity.)

How exactly are they going to fulfill a range of 10, 12, 16, 18, and 21 year old malts?  And what exactly is in those bottles right now?

--10 year old: Probably 10 year old whisky
--12 year old: Probably 12 year old whisky
--16 year old: There was no whisky being distilled 16 years before 2012 and there won't be 16 year old whisky until 2015.  So there was probably 18 year old whisky in the 16 at the start.  Right now, it's 20 year old stuff.
--18 year old: Similar to the 16, there's 20-ish year old whisky in its bottles, and there won't be 18 year old stuff until 2017.
--21 year old: There is likely some 21 year old whisky, but from 2015 to 2019 there won't be, again due to the distillery's closure.
--Glendronach has been handling their earlier closure well within their regular range, but they have a large supply of stock to do so.  Glen Scotia does not, thanks to the very low production levels from 1999 to 2011.

So, similar Ruben of whiskynotes's observation, I don't know how or what Glen Scotia is doing with such a broad product line.  If you know more information about what's going on over there or are finding errors in my math, please let me know!

I just hope the whisky is good.

Thank you to Daniel for donating his Master of Malt
sample for this scientific study!

Distillery: Glen Scotia (a very outdated site)
Ownership: Loch Lomond Group (via Exponent)
Region: Campbeltown
Type: Single Malt
Age: minimum 16 years, though it's likely 19+ at this point in time
Maturation: ex-Bourbon casks
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Chillfiltered? No
Colored? No

NEAT
The color is light gold.  The nose is pretty reserved, as if it was from a lower ABV whisky. The stuff that shows up isn't half bad, though.  Vanilla, caramel, salt water, whole wheat toast, and pine sap.  A lot of sap, actually, as the whisky oxidizes. There may be some toffee and cotton candy in there, but it's very subtle.  The palate has some sharpness to it.  Burnt malt, burnt paper, and a load of peat smoke are up front.  Then lightly vanilla-ed malt and sea salt.  It finishes with a piney peat that reminds me of Jura's peated stuff for some reason.  That's followed by a peppery zing that carries on for a good length.

This feels kinda closed.  Let's try it...

WITH WATER
The sap's still there in the nose, as is the vanilla and caramel.  Some nutty toffee slips in.  But something in there starts getting yeasty.  Meanwhile the peat goes farmy.  The palate doesn't open up much.  Lots of pepper, bitter herbs, and cinnamon.  It's lightly sweet and smoky.  In the finish, a methanol glow joins with the peat, which has gotten farmy as in the nose. A little sweetness carries over.

Well, there's nothing really wrong with the whisky.  But there's also nothing to cheer about.  The palate never really opens up, but doesn't tank either.  The farmy and sappy notes in the nose are interesting, but the same can be found in other single malts which do it better (e.g. Longrow and Tobermory).  There are times when it feels like the alcohol content is lower than advertised and the whisky is younger (rather than older) than what's labelled.  That's odd, but not bad.  I'd still take the old 12 over this new 16.

I would love to see Glen Scotia thrive.  But I have a feeling that its official bottlings are going to remain overlooked next to Springbank's brands, especially with Longrow and Kilkerran kicking all sorts of whisky ass right now.  I hope that the new Group has some good plans for this little Campbeltown distillery.  For now, I'll still say the independent bottlings are the way to go.  Let's see if tomorrow's IB proves me right or wrong.

Availability - Europe only

Pricing - $70 - $90 before shipping, so it will cost $100+ to get a bottle to The States

Rating - 80

Whisky Resources page updated

I finally got around to updating the Whisky Resources page.  I am no longer listing any blogs run by retailers.  And it was just wrong wrong wrong to have Whisky Advocate's blog link and not MAO's.  That has been remedied.  Maybe someday I'll get around to updating the Dram Quest.

Single Malt Report: Glen Scotia 12 year old (old label)

Glen Scotia often sits in the shadow of its Campbeltown neighbor Springbank.  Springbank and its brands get the glory and plaudits (often for good reason), meanwhile Glen Scotia Distillery stands just three blocks north with the same maximum production capacity and doesn't even get much coverage in published whisky books.

This quieter reputation has resulted in less demand for Glen Scotia than for its neighbor.  Since less demand often results in lower prices for similarly aged products, that's a good thing for those who like to seek out independent Glen Scotia bottlings.  I like Glen Scotia, or at least I've enjoyed the four indies I'd tried in 2012/2013.

I've chosen to approach Glen Scotia from three angles this week.  And by "chosen to approach", I mean these were the three samples I have.  Luckily one is from an earlier edition of their range, the second is from their new range, and the third is an independent bottling.  Three Scotias from three sources and three different sized samples.

Today, I'll start with the previous edition of the Glen Scotia 12 year old.  I would like to thank Florin (a prince) for a substantial sample of it.  Since I have misplaced my photo of the sample bottle, here is a quality photo of my daughter and I.

There's a little bit of history and trivia connected to this edition of Glen Scotia's 12 year old single malt.  After Loch Lomond Distillery Co. Ltd bought Glen Scotia distillery in 1994, they mothballed it, ending production but not demolishing the place.  Production restarted five years later in 1999 (by Springbank staff, for the first year).  In 2005 the company put this 12 year old onto the market, replacing the old 14 year bottling.  That 12 year old continued to be bottled and sold until 2012, when it was replaced in a new refurbished range.

But.  If you do the math, you'll see the "but".  Between some point in 1994 and May 5th, 1999, no spirit was distilled at Glen Scotia.  Thus the "12 year old" bottled between 2007 and early 2011 contained older whisky -- around 13 to 17 years old.  I wouldn't be too surprised if the updated 2012 version of the 12 year old contained the spirit first distilled after the mothballing.  But most of the bottles of the old 12 had older stuff in it.  If you can find the bottling code on your older Glen Scotia 12, you might be able to see if you're getting the older whisky.

Does it really matter if the whisky was older?  Psychologically, probably.  It's fun to know that, for a change, you're getting more than what's advertised.  But more than that?  It only matters if it tastes good.

Distillery: Glen Scotia (a very outdated site)
Ownership: Loch Lomond Distillery Co. Ltd.
Region: Campbeltown
Type: Single Malt
Age: minimum 12 years
Maturation: unknown, perhaps a mix of refill casks?
Alcohol by Volume: 43%

NEAT
The color is a bright gold.  There may have been a little caramel colorant involved because the nose shows the whisky to be very naked.  Very crisp and fresh, it holds lots of mellow malt, a soft florality (floralness?), and some lemon zest.  There's apple cider and sugar, and maybe some minor hints of oak pulp.  Underscoring all of this is an ocean breeze and old fashioned bandages.  Lots of malt in the palate too.  It's slightly buttery with hints of herbal bitterness and tobacco.  A light sweetness, maybe confectioner's sugar.  It's pretty simple, but at the end there's a curly-Q of smoke that adds dimension.  The finish is surprisingly strong.  Spirit, smoke, salt, and sugar.  It sounds simple but it's seriously solid.

(Normally I'd apologize for the alliteration, but I'm not going to apologize for the alliteration.)

WITH WATER
The nose becomes more citric and dusty.  There's some bruised apples, barley, cardamom, and cinnamon.  The palate becomes sweeter.  It's still holds some bitterness and smoke.  Now a faint rooty note floats up.  The finish is much quieter.  Some paper, smoke, and tartness.

This whisky is old school.  And by "old school", I don't mean the '70s.  I mean, 5 or 6 years ago.  I know this sounds overly simplistic, but it tastes like the sort of whisky that got me into whisky.  The oak is in the background and the barley is in the foreground.  I'm finding fewer and fewer whiskies like this every year.

Yeah, it's too thin and filtered to hold water, but when enjoyed neatly it works.  Spirit, smoke, salt, and sugar.  It's a pity this one never really caught on because it could have stood up well against many of the popular starter malts (Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, Glenmorangie, Glen Grant, etc.).

Its price started out around $40 in Europe, but today (in the US) it goes for $60-$70.  At $40, I'd happily recommend it.  At $60+, it's a bit much in my opinion, no matter how nostalgic it makes me feel.  But I may take a look for the bottling code before I pass this up altogether.

(Also, here's a positive review of it from Chemistry of the Cocktail.)

Availability - Still available at a dozen or so US retailers

Pricing - $60 - $70

Rating - 84

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.

Single Malt Report: Fettercairn 17 year old 1995 Exclusive Malts (K&L exclusive)

Here's an acronym for you: FLAB.  Yes, FLAB.  Going in, I expected BALF, but I got FLAB.

When I had read that the two K&L Davids (Driscoll and Othenin-Girard) were working on a deal with a third David (Stirk) to bring some more of his Exclusive Malts to the US, I was pretty stoked.  I enjoyed the first round of EMs that he'd brought earlier in 2013.  More sounded good.

The whiskies were announced.  There would be an Aberlour, a Bowmore, a peated "Island" (also known as Ledaig), and a Fettercairn.  The Aberlour and Bowmore from the original round of single casks were two of my favorites, so I looked forward to K&L's casks.  The Ledaig was to be all of 7 years old; and a baby Ledaig is always at least interesting.  Then, Fettercairn.  Fettercairn doesn't have the best of reputations and I personally find the current official versions of all of Whyte & Mackay's distilleries' single malts to be underwhelming at best.  So I didn't give that exclusive single cask a second look.  I anticipated Bowmore to be the best, then the bourbon cask Aberlour, then the baby Ledaig, with Old Fett bringing up the rear.  B A L F

But the Bowmore was so-so (or worse in some folks' opinions), with disappointingly weird aggressive oak.  The Aberlour was a little better, but had much of the same strange ultra-new oak stuff.  The little Ledaig was quite good, better than just interesting.  And the Fettercairn...?  Here's to the F in F L A B.

Distillery: Fettercairn

Independent Bottler: The Creative Whisky Co. Ltd.
Series: The Exclusive Malts
Retailer: K&L only

Age: 17 years (October 25, 1995 - 2013)

Maturation: "Oak Casks" (information!)
Cask number: 2800
Bottle #:  ??? of 243

Region: Eastern Highlands

Alcohol by Volume: 57.1%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No
Thanks to Florin for the sample!

NEAT

The color is just between light gold and amber.  The nose starts with vanillas, caramels, roses, and fresh stone fruits (white nectarines and white peaches).  Then comes butter, butterscotch, and ocean air.  After letting the whisky breathe a bit, out comes a burst of lemon zest.  The palate is syrupy and fizzy, with sweet golden raisins and lime juice.  It's very rich with fudge and toffee notes.  There's a spicy citrus thing that mixes with a little caramel and butterscotch.  After considerable air, the whisky develops a eucalyptus-flavored coffee (is that a thing?) note.  In the finish, the fudge becomes mocha.  The spicy citrus, caramel, golden raisins, and toffee remain.

WITH WATER

The nose mellows out quickly, even with just a few drops of water.  It's still ocean-ish.  The floral, vanilla, and caramel notes remain.  More citrus and fudge.  There might be some soap, but that also might be my expectation of Fettercairn malt.  The palate is mildly sweet, and noticeably tarter.  There's sweet cream, brown sugar, mocha, a hint of wood smoke, and something prune-ish.  Spicy citrus again in the finish, along with brown sugar and caramel.

First off, this is much better without water.  It has none of the alcohol heat issues that the Linkwood (reviewed here) had, even though the Fettercairn is four years younger.  Its richness stands up best neat.

I'm not sure what sort of cask this came from because I found all sorts of things going on with it.  I'm thinking it may have been a refill sherry cask made from American oak.  I realize that Driscoll says this is "unsherried" in this post, but in the same paragraph he compares it to their 10yo Faultline North Highland which was definitely lightly sherried (also confirmed by folks who bought it).  To make this even blurrier... At a tasting I attended last year, Stirk mentioned that sometimes he has no idea what oak his casks are made of when he's purchased them.  After bottling the whisky inside, he has opened a few and found different char levels on different staves in the same cask.  Maybe this is one of those casks with a variety of lineages.  It's a nice one, whatever its makeup.

In addition to the richness and entertaining interplay between the oak and spirit, this whisky is a pleasure to drink.  It sold out the quickest of the four K&L exclusive Exclusive Malts, so someone clearly knew it was a good thing.  I won't take Fettercairn for granted anymore, specifically the indie releases.  I wish I had purchased the F, not the B.

Availability - K&L Wines, but it's now sold out

Pricing - $89.99

Rating - 88