NOT Single Malt Report: North British 20yr 1991 Single Grain Whisky (Master of Malt)

On Tuesday I posted a report on the first of three single grain whiskys -- Cambus 18yr 1991 -- sampled on a March 10th Taste Off.  It was better than I had expected and gained a bit of character when water was added.  Now on to the next single grain whisky, also distilled in 1991:

Name blurred to protect the unreported.

Distillery: North British
Owner: 50% Diageo, 50% The Edrington Group

Independent Bottler: Master of Malt

Age: 20 years (January 1991 - October 2011)

Maturation: first fill bourbon

Type: Single Grain

Alcohol by Volume: 54.1%
Cask: 3228
Limited Release: 237 bottles

THE DISTILLERY

North British Distillery was established in Edinburgh in 1885 and began distilling in 1887.  Back then, it was squeezing out 1 million liters a year.  In 1917, a grain shortage caused by The Great War, brought distilling to a halt and North British was converted into an acetone factory.  It never actually produced any acetone, then went back to distilling grain whisky in 1920.  Its capacity was up to 9m liters/year.

Today it's the second largest distillery in Scotland, cranking out 65 million liters of alcohol.  Its ownership is split between Diageo and The Edrington Group.  It supplies the grain whisky for J&B, Chivas, Famous Grouse, and Cutty Sark.  That last one gave me pause before I bought this dram, as I've found Cutty to be point-blank hideous.  But that held three-year-old whisky.  This one was 20 years old and aged in a first fill bourbon cask by the bottler.

THE BOTTLER

I am a big Master of Malt fan and I have thus sung their praises a couple times on this site.  They are a very good online UK spirits retailer.  Their prices are always competitive and they have the AWESOME Drinks by the Dram option.  As you can see from some of my whisky pics, I purchase these samples from time to time (as finances allow).

A couple years ago, Master of Malt branched out into the independent bottling side of the business.  They release some anonymous whiskys under their own name, but also release some excellent single cask bottlings (with the distillery name) non-chillfiltered and coloring-free.  In 2011 they released a North British single grain single cask (#3225) bottling that sold out.  So they backed it up with a second release.  That's the one I've sampled below.

THE WHISKY

Was it going to taste like all the bad parts of Cutty, but soaked in bourbon?

Or was time and proper attention going to unlock something better?

NEAT:
Color -- Light gold, darker than an oaky white wine.
Nose -- Caramel (not the fake stuff), toffee, brown sugar, homemade vanilla frosting, vanilla extract
Palate -- Bourbon and candy!, sugary but not off-putting
Finish -- Ah the best part; extensive, warm, a mild sweetness

Sort of similar to the Cambus, but more bourbony.  Let's hydrate it a smidge.

WITH WATER (approx 42.7%)
Nose -- Flowers and granulated sugar, the inside of a candy store
Palate -- Perfumy, floral, tropical fruit, Japanese flower kiss candy
Finish -- Mellowed out, moderate, the candy sugars remain

Wow, that was one of the most abrupt transformations I've ever experienced when adding water to a whisky.  It went from a mild almost-bourbon to a Japanese candy store explosion.  While those characteristics aren't something I often seek in my whisky, they made the whisky more fun than most of the stuff I've sampled.

Another positive grain whisky experience.  Will there be more to follow next week????

Availability - Sold out, but available at Master of Malt if it returns

Pricing - was 58GBP (ex-VAT, w/shipping)

Rating - 83

Are you independent?

Seriously, are you?

And not in a capital-I political Independent sort of way.  A lot of people register as Independent when the political parties don't tilt far enough to the Left or Right for their desires.

But are your thoughts independent from political parties?  Are your choices independent from the one-dimensional shorthand labels of the extremes of the political spectrum: Left and Right?

Are your consumer choices free from brand slavery?  Do you buy only one company's computing products?  Do you go grocery shopping at the same store every time?  Are you buying the same bread every week?  Do you depend on consumerism to illuminate your life?

Do you fully understand the religious or scientific method by which you determine your existence?  If not, then why remain dependent on that structure?  Or why not dig further?

Are you dependent on family?  On your locality's power grid?  Are your decisions limited by a dependence on income?  Are you independent from monogamy?  From the opinions of others?

Are you dependent on sugar?  On caffeine?  On alcohol?  On television?  To what level and why?

Are you dependent on a strict structure to your day?  Do you depend on your morning run?  Are you independent from your cell phone?  Are you dependent on your online life?

Are you independent from your glasses?


*steps back from mirror*


*can't see a damn thing, puts glasses back on*


*realizes there's an audience*


Oh sh*t.  I mean, hello!  Happy Independence Day, Yanks!

More than two centuries ago, a group of folks made the decision to sever their ties with a system they had been dependent on.  While many of those same folks suffered or died from those choices, the group result was an earned independence and the creation of a new way of life.

On all Jewish holidays, we of that faith are asked to consider the bold actions of a small group of people from many centuries or millennia ago.  We examine how those past choices reflect on our present lives.  Are there things we could be doing differently?  Could our lives, as well as lives of others, be bettered through similar (parallel, no matter how small) commitments?  Then a little action is encouraged.

This part of my background has me pondering similar things on this American Independence Day.

Are there things you rely on to get up in the morning, get through your day, and sleep soundly at night?  Can you remove your dependence on one more of those things and still feel your heartbeat?  Or are there certain levels of servitude or reliance in which we choose to enlist because they paint us in a good light when we look in the mirror?  Are there certain things we submit to because they make us better souls?

Or has "independence" become an abstract noun?  And if so, how do we celebrate it today?

While we have our traditions -- barbecue, baseball, beer, and big fireworks (needed that 'B') -- maybe we should take a moment to consider which of our dependencies make us better people and which ones we should shed.

And then write a blog post.

NOT Single Malt Report: Single Grain Whisky! Cambus 18yr 1991 (Signatory Cask Strength)

Grain whisky is the silent giant within the Scotch industry.  Blended whiskies make up 90 to 93 percent of the scotch whisky produced.  The blends are in turn made up of 60 to 80 percent grain whisky.  By doing some quick math, one can see that there's considerably more grain whisky than malt whisky being distilled annually.

To quote my Terminology post:

GRAIN WHISKY is distilled from a non-malted grain (barley, wheat, and maize) in a large column still.  Because it is not malted (though malt is sometimes added in for fermentation needs later) it skips the first parts of the process and the grain goes straight to distillation.  Unlike malt whisky's batch distillation process, grain whisky is distilled continuously.

Like malt whisky, grain whisky is also aged in oak barrels for a minimum of three years.  The production of grain whisky is considerably cheaper than that of malt whisky and creates a product much lighter and (debatably) of a lower quality than its malted cousin.  Its flavor profile can fall anywhere between vodka and bourbon, depending on how it was aged.

Some sources say that Robert Stein created the first column still in 1826, but most sources agree that Aeneas Coffey perfected it later in the century.  Grain whisky distilleries are much more like factories than their malt distillery cousins, thus their production capacities are comparatively enormous.  For instance, Diageo's new Roseisle facility is has the largest capacity of any malt distillery, at 12.5 million liters per year.  As of 2008, Diageo's Cameronbridge grain facility can produce 100 million liters of spirit per year.

About 99.9% of all grain whisky production goes into blends.  That teeny remaining 00.1% (or possibly less) is bottled and released as a single grain whisky -- similar to a single malt whisky, but here it's only grain whisky from a single distillery.  In order to be chosen for single grain bottling, the whisky needs to have a substantial spirit character of its own and be matured well in an (usually ex-bourbon) oak cask.

---

I haven't been the biggest fan of the grain whisky I've tasted within cheap malts, but I didn't want to ignore an entire branch of The Whisky Tree.  So I sought out a few drams...

Names blurred to protect the unreported...

Distillery: Cambus
Owner: Diageo

Independent Bottler: Signatory

Age: 18 years (July 1991 - January 2010)

Maturation: Refill butt

Type: Single Grain

Alcohol by Volume: 55.4%
Cask: 55884
Limited Release: 507 bottles

Experiencing a Cambus whisky fulfilled two categories for me: 1.) It's a single grain whisky; and 2.) It's from a permanently closed distillery.

Cambus was built as a malt distillery in 1806 by John Moubray.  The pot stills were replaced by Stein stills in 1826, then by Coffey Stills in 1851.  John's grandson Robert brought Cambus into Distillers Company Ltd (DCL) in 1877.  DCL later became United Distillers.  United Distillers (now Diageo) closed the distillery during the whisky execution of 1993.  Located in the Midlands, the property has since been used by Diageo as a cooperage, cask filling, and maturation facility for their other brands.

While this particular dram was produced by a conglomerate, it was re-casked, matured, and bottled by my favorite indy company Signatory.  It was part of its Cask Strength releases a couple years ago.  I'm a big fan of this series and would have dozens of them in my collection if I could afford it.  Even the bottles are cool:

But does the whisky inside this bottle taste good???

NEAT:
Color -- Late harvest Sauvignon Blanc
Nose -- Vanilla, toffee, pencil shavings, grainy, lots of brown sugar/molasses
Palate -- Vanilla, prickly heat (from high ABV), a drying salty oceanic feel
Finish -- Extensive, salty, vanilla

Mild yet better than expected, let's try it again...

WITH WATER (approx. 43.7% ABV)
Nose -- Maple syrup, vanilla, milk chocolate
Palate -- Oakier now, actual wood pulp, sugary, subtler vanilla, very smooth like a 18yr single malt
Finish -- Moderate, more of those wood pulp notes

The answer:  Better than most of the blends I've had.  As per the notes, it got better with a spoon or two of water.  Though its texture was similar to a single malt of its age, it was a little shorter on characteristics, nose, and flavor.  I thought it was going to be very bourbony, but I'm happy it wasn't.  It's a pretty simple whisky, but it gave me hope for more single grains in my near future...

Availability - UK only and you'll need to do some searching
Pricing - 70-80GBP (ex-VAT, w/shipping)
Rating - 79

Stay tuned for more single grain whisky on Thursday!

Once more into the air travel fray...

Our return home has been delayed a day (so far) due weather issues between the 2 coasts. I'll limit my complaints because they're all First World problems. Many of my East Coast friends have been without power for some time and have no clear answer as to when their lives will return to normal (yet the PGA tournament held nearby continued without pause). My problems...I'm not even going to mention them because they're so bourgeois that I'm embarassed. I just want to get home tonight. C'mon United Airlines please make it happen, this douche needs to get back to his tomato plants.

Standings to return next Saturday

Weekend greetings to all!
I'm checking in from out of town to report that the standings list will return next weekend.  The members of the Top Twenty haven't changed.  And I'm at the beach.

Fear and the New Whisky World

The whisky world is changing right now.  As you're reading this, whiskies you enjoy are being eased off of the market, to be replaced by new products.  Or nothing at all.

Johnnie Walker

Not too long ago, I wrote a two-part post haranguing Diageo over a number of issues.  The impetus for that post was the removal of Johnnie Walker Green and Gold labels from the market, and their replacement with Gold Label Reserve and Platinum Label.  One of the theories behind this move was the need to corral as much malt whisky as possible.  Along with ruthless capitalism, this sudden desire to hold onto malt stock may have been the leading factor in their decision.  It's a risky move to pull a very familiar brand off the shelves, permanently.

Enter Macallan.

As of September THIS YEAR, Macallan will replace their 10, 12, and 15 year old single malts for no-age-statement color-based bottlings (UK first and then the world).  That's right.  No more Macallan 12.  No more 10 year Fine Oak (nor Sherry Oak).  No more 15 year Fine Oak.  And no more 17 year Fine Oak (a personal favorite).  They're being replaced by Gold, Sienna, and Ruby.

Seriously.

(Source)

The brand that has made its mint via specific age statements is now going without age statements.  It's an incredibly bold business decision.  Why are they doing this?

They claim a bit of inspiration came from their Travel Retail line, the no-age-statement 1824 Collection -- Select Oak, Whisky Maker's Edition, Estate Reserve, and Limited Release.  [On a side note, I purchased a bottle of the Select Oak on the way to our Italian honeymoon.  The whisky was okay, but not something I'd purchase again.  The honeymoon was great, let's do it again!]

According to Master of Malt, the 1824 Collection was a financial success.  According to thedrinksbusiness and World of Whiskies, it was a failure.  The reality is likely somewhere in between.  Though I don't think the 1824 Collection had too much bearing on their Gold-Sienna-Ruby decision, it was the only (non-Cask Strength) example of Macallan entering the no-age-statement approach to single malts.

No-age-statement (NAS) bottlings are bold in this whisky economy because drinkers worldwide have been trained to think that older is better.  That allows producers to charge exponentially higher prices for their older bottlings, even though the younger ones may actually be better and more exciting.  Oak management is complicated and sometimes whisky can get over-oaked or lose much of its spirit's character with too much time in a barrel.  And, of course, everyone's palate is different.  Some of us (ahem, me) like bolder, wilder, spirit-forward amber stuff, while others enjoy a smoother quiter experience.  Beauty is in the glass of the beholder.

So how is Macallan, who have made a fortune overcharging for their older age statement-ed products, going to get folks to buy Gold, Sienna, and Ruby (I'm still waiting to hear that those names are a joke.)?  Well, they're going to try to convince everyone that whisky COLOR determines quality.  The longer in the sherried wood, the darker it will be and thus the richer and better it will be.  And thus more value will be assigned to the darkest whisky.

Of course, that's just as true (read: false) as the age statement approach to whisky.  Yes, a long time in a sherry cask will give whisky a beautiful rosy mahagony hue.  But again, a lot of that has to do with time in the oak.  Unless Macallan announces that it's buying up all of the world's Pedro Ximenez dark sherry casks (instead of their usual oloroso casks), we're back to the time issue again.

And, as the very good Master of Malt article states, they're going to have to try to "educate" folks that the darker the whisky, the better it tastes.

The darker it looks, the better it tastes?  That's like saying the better looking a person is, the better he or she is in bed.  That's patently untrue.  Except in my case.

*cough*

I'm a terrible lover.

Tangento!

Yes, many years in a good sherry cask will get you a darker looking whisky.  But so will a few drops of caramel e150a.  Thus looks are deceiving.  And though occasionally we may be lured by color to buy a whisky for the first time, I doubt that many of us have gone back for a second bottle because it was maple syrup pretty.  We went back for a second bottle because the whisky inside smelled of the Earth's musk and tasted like old memories.

So why this sea change from Macallan?  Something sparked them into disrupting their massively successful business so.  Why are they pushing this particular whisky rock up a vertical cliff?  Because so far, this is all some pretty wobbly theory to be using to pull the world's second or third most familiar single malt from the shelves.

My guess, they're short on whisky.  They may not have enough whisky stock to guarantee that all of Macallan 12 is at least twelve years old.  By withdrawing age statements, they can use a mix of younger and older whiskies for Macallan Gold.  Or (guh) Macallan Ruby.  I can't prove this, yet.

But not only has the whisky market blossomed aggressively, the demand for whisk(e)y is starting to surpass the supply.  Careful management of supply is becoming very apparent industry wide.

Everyone else

Diageo, Pernod Ricard, William Grant & Sons all have been ramping up their malt production another 10-20 million liters to meet demand -- construction of new massive distilleries, expansion of current distilleries, and reopening of old distillies, all happening right now.

If you're a Rye Whiskey fan, this article and this article may leave you queasy.  There simply isn't enough rye.  Rittenhouse 100, going going gone.  Wild Turkey 101, going going gone.  Sazerac, getting shortages.

Bourbon fans?  In that second article, K&L Wines' brilliant buyer, David Driscoll, lists shortages on Black Maple Hill and Vintage 17.  Elijah Craig 18, no more.

Japanese Whisky?  Yamazaki 18, gone from the US.  Yamazaki 12, going to be harder to find, according to Driscoll.

So...what now?

How do we feel about a whisky world without Macallan 12, Johnnie Walker Green Label, Yamazaki 12, Elijah Craig 18, Rittenhouse 100 (and soon many others)?  What do we do?  Do we allow our purchasing and drinking choices be dictated by fear (occasionally stirred up by those who profit off that feeling)?

The whisky business is for optimists only.  The product isn't instant, producers have to believe that everything will be as it should be in at least a decade from now.  By filling barrels with distillate, they are planting a seed.

And as whisky buyers happily spoiled by seemingly infinite supply, we must not be afraid that the best things are now gone forever.  Though we are used to the instantaneous in our lives, we must accept that the brilliance of the whisky we love takes time to unfold.  Meanwhile things change.  And increase in price.  The expanding world has discovered whisky's brilliance.  It's no longer a Celtic secret.

More whisky is being made right now.  In countries all over the world, pot stills are steaming, experiments with casks are running, folks are making whiskies never before dreamed of.  With all of the advances in production, perhaps the best stuff has yet to be.

You, as a drinker, can choose to buy up all of the disappearing whisky, trying to grab a hold of what is now the (increasingly expensive) past.  You can seek out and hoard up all of those things, those amber lovlies, that brought you to this point.  Or you can buy what is prevalent and affordable now, waiting patiently for the miracles to come.

I'll do both.

Single Malt Report: Ardbeg Taste Off (part 3 of 3) - Ardbeg Corryvreckan

The final chapter in the Ardbeg Taste Off!

From Left to Right:
Ardbeg Ten (Part 1)
Ardbeg Uigeadail (Part 2)
Ardbeg Corryvreckan (Part 3)

Each glass held approximately 30mL (about 1 fl oz).  Each whisky was sampled neat.  First, after a 15 minute wait.  Then a second time, another 45 minutes later.

---

ARDBEG CORRYVRECKAN

Distillery: Ardbeg
Ownership: Glenmorangie Plc (Moet Hennessy)
Age: whiskys distilled in 1998 through 2000, along with some younger whisky
Maturation: French Oak casks (maybe some ex-bourbon too?)
Region: Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 57.1%

I attempted to report on this whisky back in early March.  The result was esoteric hyperbole.  While I still agree with every last word of that post, I'm going to try to describe this drink in more solid terms.

Churning on the West coast of Scotland, the Corryvreckan is the third-largest whirlpool in the world.  It has consumed ships, sailors, and a Norse king over the years.  It's a powerful natural phenomenon and a great Gaelic name (roughly "cauldron of the speckled seas) even though it sits far north of Islay, between Jura and Scarba.

Ardbeg first released Corryvreckan (the whisky) in 2008 for sale to their committee members.  Following that successful launch, they brought it out for the general public in late 2009.  It filled the gap in their range once held by the now-depleted Airigh Nam Beist bottling.

Bill Lumsden from Ardbeg has revealed distillation dates for some of the whisky within and much of the spirit had been aged in French Oak casks.  Other than that, they're keeping the recipe a mystery.

The vapors!  It's steaming up!

Like my Uigeadail dram, the Corryvreckan from this tasting came from a sample I purchased from Master of Malt.

(Tasting Tip: If you're doing a multi-whisky tasting and Corryvreckan is amongst the selection, try the Corry LAST.  It's a strong heavily-peated behemoth that does a number on the taste buds.)

Round 1 -- neat, 25+ minutes in the glass before tasting

The color is a light gold with a darker hue at its heart.  The nose begins with a strong aromatic peat.  Then tar, leather, and cognac-dipped cigars.  Underneath all that is an overripe fruit note along with vanilla ice cream and the inside of a toffee shop.  The palate?  It caramelizes the senses.  Smoldering peat meets burnt sugars.  Sweet cream & cinnamon & seaweed in a bonfire.  Dried fruit, mulled wine, hot rum.  A TCP Milk Dud cocktail.  It all barrels through the finish.  A big oceanic note meets rum.  Cinnamon candy mixes with honey-roasted band-aids.  The sweet and peat last equally long long long.

Notes:  Mmmmmmmm.

Round 2 -- neat, almost an hour after the first round

The nose holds a very nice oaky note (and I usually don't like generic oak notes).  There's also a nice brandy/cognac thing going on.  But mostly it's coffee grounds, fresh soil, molasses, the ocean, boat diesel (in a good way!), angel food cake on fire, and something deep & peppery that I can't quite name. The palate keeps its Big Peat push.  There's burnt wood, espresso with molasses, smoked caramel sauce, lemons with brown sugar, peat cookies with white pepper.  PEATNESS reigns supreme in the finish.  Underneath that runs the ocean, some citric sweets, and fruity sugary oak.  And it's as if it never ends...

Notes:  ... ... ...

I know I got a little obscure towards the end there, but things were getting really fine by the end of this Taste Off.  Can I recommend this?  Well, take a look at the nose notes.  If those sound good to you, then this whisky will treat you well.

To conclude:
Ardbeg Ten - A peated lemon cupcake.  Sweet & peat, nicely balanced.  Lowest price.
Ardbeg Uigeadail - A big bear of a smoky dessert malt.  A tremendous schnozzola.
Ardbeg Corryvreckan - The experience.  An industrial powerhouse.

Availability - Many liquor specialists
Pricing - Excellent at $70, probably shouldn't go for more than $90; but to what do I compare this?
Rating - 96