REAL:
Full screen, hi-definition, 360-degree panoramas of the Mars surface are now online.
They are beautiful.
NOT REAL:
Okay, the trailer -- with its Malick-style visuals, inspirational voice-over, and the best music from the Lord of the Rings soundtrack -- is real. But sadly, the son of Jor-El is not.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Single Malt Report #100: Glencadam 20 year old 1989 Cask Strength (Signatory)
Occasionally I reference the pivotal moments in my whisky fandom. One of my favorites occurred in May 2011.
Kristen and I were on holiday in London, loving life. Because we're museum geeks, I made sure that we went to the British Museum on our next to last day. But before we were to enter that grand display of human creation and achievement, I wanted to go to a whisky store. Just around the corner from the museum, in Bloomsbury, there's a shop that I remembered very vividly window-gawking during my previous London visit three years earlier. It's called Royal Mile Whiskies. And I didn't even need a map to find the shop that morning last May. I remembered that window that well.
Once inside, I was all OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! Quietly though, it's Britain and all. Somewhere in the universe there's a picture that my wife (sitting in the corner, as I have when she's gone clothes shopping) took of me, my hands clasped behind my back as I studied the shelves. Any level of calm I displayed was a success.
I spent most of my time eyeing the Signatory whiskies, as they were the only indie bottlers I knew of at that moment. The gent who worked at the shop was very helpful and very patient as I made dumbass comments about how f***ing ugly the Connoisseur's Choice labels were.
I tend to say stupid sh*t when I'm happy.
I first chose the Bowmore 16yr Signatory UCF 1994 which turned out to be one of my favorite all time whiskies. Then I went back and forth and back and forth over the Cask Strength bottlings. Should I have chosen the Clynelish? Probably. Should I have forked over 10-15GBP more for the Highland Park? Yes. But I went with the Glencadam.
Why? I have no idea. I had never heard of Glencadam before. Maybe I thought that was a good thing; you know, like something definitely unavailable in The States. Maybe I was intrigued by the idea that it was matured in a refill sherry butt -- which, I had no idea, has been a prevalent practice throughout whisky history.
But I went with it. It was my first cask strength bottle. And the only single cask-er I've ever had ...... so far. Royal Mile shipped the parcel very quickly and safely to our LA apartment. I opened the Bowmore that June. SOMEHOW, I waited until September 2nd to open the Glencadam.
When finished it two weeks ago, it had been a joy for all of its eleven months open. Sort of a special occasion booze. I decided early on that I'd do three sets of notes on the whisky as time and oxygen had their way with it. Beginning, middle, end.
After writing each set of notes, I never looked back on what I'd written, maintaining an uninfluenced study the best I could. I started this one week before my first Single Malt Report, so its open life stretched the length of time that I reported on the 99 other whiskies.
One question remains in my mind. Did the whisky change or did I?
Here are the three sets of notes with my comments at the time of the tasting.
#1 - Beginning
29 September 2011 (27 days old)
Color - Golden, goes cloudy with water, brings out the yellows
Nose - Floral, tiny bit of leather
Palate - Light peat, then some cream sherry, oak, hot apples or applesauce
Finish - Starts out quiet then fades up, tapioca, nilla wafers
Comments - Even with 4 teaspoons of water it's still sticky and thick on the glass
* * * * *
#2 - Middle
1 February 2012 (5 months old)
NEAT
Color - Light apple juice
Nose - Surprisingly bourbony, spicy zing, apple juice, sultanas?, vanilla, gingerbread cookies for a brief moment
Palate - Cigars, smooth texture, sweet, alcohol hot, toffee and caramel sauce
Finish - Excellent length, cigar smoke, tiny bit of sweetness, vanilla
WITH WATER (approx 37% ABV)
Color - Gets very cloudy!
Nose - expectedly everything has mellowed, very dry wine, a little vanilla, oak, sugars
Palate - Creamier, some sweet sherry, much sweeter now almost like candy, sweet cream, nutty at the start, then some spices
Finish - Medium length, chocolate followed by vanilla ice cream
Comments - must have been a much-used refill sherry cask, very little color from the oak
* * * * *
#3 - End
27 July 2012 (almost 11 months old)
NEAT
Color - Bold gold
Nose - fruity (prunes, dried apricots, apples, very ripe peaches), something vaguely gaseous but not off-putting though this grows with time
Palate - pecan pie (nuts, pastry, and brown sugar), almonds, almond extract, still packing some alcohol heat, sweet, tannin drying, barley sugar
Finish - Tannin drying, lovely heat, a little sherry, nutty and sweet
WITH WATER (approx 37% ABV)
Nose - perfumy, tropical fruit, very light, Juicy Fruit gum, a little oak
Palate - very mild, but fuller texture, mineraly, light sugar, some bitterness
Finish - mostly bitterness remaining, mingling with light sweetness
Comments - still VERY cloudy with water, sediment at the bottom of the glass
Firstly, peat??? Wut? According to Charlie Maclean's Whiskypedia, Glencadam uses unpeated malt. But my peat sensors were very sensitive last year, as I was still trying to warm up to phenolics. I remember saying, "Great, I bought two peated whiskies." Perhaps it had something to do with a newly opened cask strength bottle because that peat element was gone within a couple of months. Something cigar-ish remained in its place for a while. By the end, the smoke was gone entirely, possibly replaced by dry tannins.
Next, the bourbon notes? Per Whiskypedia, Glencadam itself ages their whiskies in ex-bourbon barrels. Could it have been re-casked from ex-bourbon to ex-sherry when sent to Signatory?
At the start, the nose and flavor were a bit muted. Or I was still new to the process. But about midway through the bottle it had gotten sugary sweet, especially with water. By the end, the fruits jumped out and the sweetness had tamed.
To answer the question: Did the whisky change or did I?
The answer is, yes. :)
I actually liked it best at the end. It was only 20% full for the last four months so some sort of oxidation had happened, but it didn't kill the whisky. It didn't take to water very well any more, but was very pleasant when neat.
And my nosing/tasting notes seem to have gained detail, clarity, and focus throughout time. By the end I was able to pinpoint the fruits and the nuts, which something I'm getting better at with my notes in general.
What will replace this in the Whisky Closet? I don't know, but it had better be good for a long time.
Kristen and I were on holiday in London, loving life. Because we're museum geeks, I made sure that we went to the British Museum on our next to last day. But before we were to enter that grand display of human creation and achievement, I wanted to go to a whisky store. Just around the corner from the museum, in Bloomsbury, there's a shop that I remembered very vividly window-gawking during my previous London visit three years earlier. It's called Royal Mile Whiskies. And I didn't even need a map to find the shop that morning last May. I remembered that window that well.
Once inside, I was all OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! Quietly though, it's Britain and all. Somewhere in the universe there's a picture that my wife (sitting in the corner, as I have when she's gone clothes shopping) took of me, my hands clasped behind my back as I studied the shelves. Any level of calm I displayed was a success.
I spent most of my time eyeing the Signatory whiskies, as they were the only indie bottlers I knew of at that moment. The gent who worked at the shop was very helpful and very patient as I made dumbass comments about how f***ing ugly the Connoisseur's Choice labels were.
I tend to say stupid sh*t when I'm happy.
I first chose the Bowmore 16yr Signatory UCF 1994 which turned out to be one of my favorite all time whiskies. Then I went back and forth and back and forth over the Cask Strength bottlings. Should I have chosen the Clynelish? Probably. Should I have forked over 10-15GBP more for the Highland Park? Yes. But I went with the Glencadam.
Why? I have no idea. I had never heard of Glencadam before. Maybe I thought that was a good thing; you know, like something definitely unavailable in The States. Maybe I was intrigued by the idea that it was matured in a refill sherry butt -- which, I had no idea, has been a prevalent practice throughout whisky history.
But I went with it. It was my first cask strength bottle. And the only single cask-er I've ever had ...... so far. Royal Mile shipped the parcel very quickly and safely to our LA apartment. I opened the Bowmore that June. SOMEHOW, I waited until September 2nd to open the Glencadam.
Independent Bottler: Signatory
Age: 20 years (September 1989 - April 2010)
Maturation: refill sherry butt
Type: Single Malt
Region: Eastern Highlands
Region: Eastern Highlands
Alcohol by Volume: 55.7%
Cask: 6019
Bottle #: 283 of 508
Chill filtration? No
Artificial colorant? No
Cask: 6019
Bottle #: 283 of 508
Chill filtration? No
Artificial colorant? No
When finished it two weeks ago, it had been a joy for all of its eleven months open. Sort of a special occasion booze. I decided early on that I'd do three sets of notes on the whisky as time and oxygen had their way with it. Beginning, middle, end.
After writing each set of notes, I never looked back on what I'd written, maintaining an uninfluenced study the best I could. I started this one week before my first Single Malt Report, so its open life stretched the length of time that I reported on the 99 other whiskies.
One question remains in my mind. Did the whisky change or did I?
Here are the three sets of notes with my comments at the time of the tasting.
#1 - Beginning
29 September 2011 (27 days old)
Color - Golden, goes cloudy with water, brings out the yellows
Nose - Floral, tiny bit of leather
Palate - Light peat, then some cream sherry, oak, hot apples or applesauce
Finish - Starts out quiet then fades up, tapioca, nilla wafers
Comments - Even with 4 teaspoons of water it's still sticky and thick on the glass
* * * * *
#2 - Middle
1 February 2012 (5 months old)
NEAT
Color - Light apple juice
Nose - Surprisingly bourbony, spicy zing, apple juice, sultanas?, vanilla, gingerbread cookies for a brief moment
Palate - Cigars, smooth texture, sweet, alcohol hot, toffee and caramel sauce
Finish - Excellent length, cigar smoke, tiny bit of sweetness, vanilla
WITH WATER (approx 37% ABV)
Color - Gets very cloudy!
Nose - expectedly everything has mellowed, very dry wine, a little vanilla, oak, sugars
Palate - Creamier, some sweet sherry, much sweeter now almost like candy, sweet cream, nutty at the start, then some spices
Finish - Medium length, chocolate followed by vanilla ice cream
Comments - must have been a much-used refill sherry cask, very little color from the oak
* * * * *
#3 - End
27 July 2012 (almost 11 months old)
NEAT
Color - Bold gold
Nose - fruity (prunes, dried apricots, apples, very ripe peaches), something vaguely gaseous but not off-putting though this grows with time
Palate - pecan pie (nuts, pastry, and brown sugar), almonds, almond extract, still packing some alcohol heat, sweet, tannin drying, barley sugar
Finish - Tannin drying, lovely heat, a little sherry, nutty and sweet
WITH WATER (approx 37% ABV)
Nose - perfumy, tropical fruit, very light, Juicy Fruit gum, a little oak
Palate - very mild, but fuller texture, mineraly, light sugar, some bitterness
Finish - mostly bitterness remaining, mingling with light sweetness
Comments - still VERY cloudy with water, sediment at the bottom of the glass
Firstly, peat??? Wut? According to Charlie Maclean's Whiskypedia, Glencadam uses unpeated malt. But my peat sensors were very sensitive last year, as I was still trying to warm up to phenolics. I remember saying, "Great, I bought two peated whiskies." Perhaps it had something to do with a newly opened cask strength bottle because that peat element was gone within a couple of months. Something cigar-ish remained in its place for a while. By the end, the smoke was gone entirely, possibly replaced by dry tannins.
Next, the bourbon notes? Per Whiskypedia, Glencadam itself ages their whiskies in ex-bourbon barrels. Could it have been re-casked from ex-bourbon to ex-sherry when sent to Signatory?
At the start, the nose and flavor were a bit muted. Or I was still new to the process. But about midway through the bottle it had gotten sugary sweet, especially with water. By the end, the fruits jumped out and the sweetness had tamed.
To answer the question: Did the whisky change or did I?
The answer is, yes. :)
I actually liked it best at the end. It was only 20% full for the last four months so some sort of oxidation had happened, but it didn't kill the whisky. It didn't take to water very well any more, but was very pleasant when neat.
And my nosing/tasting notes seem to have gained detail, clarity, and focus throughout time. By the end I was able to pinpoint the fruits and the nuts, which something I'm getting better at with my notes in general.
What will replace this in the Whisky Closet? I don't know, but it had better be good for a long time.
Availability - Unknown, all of the major UK shops appear to be sold out
Pricing - Was in the 45-50GBP range (w/o VAT, before shipping)
Rating - 88
Monday, August 6, 2012
One Hundred Whiskies --or-- Why have I been doing this?
When I had restarted Diving for Pearls last August 29th, my intent was to create daily content centered around the freelance writing career, baseball, film reviews, music, and books. As a bit of even lighter escapism, I had hoped to be able to write a few Single Malt Reports each month, maybe one a week at best.
Instead, over these 11 months, I have reported on 99 whiskies and delivered almost 140 drinking-related posts.
What happened? What changed? Have I become a raging alcoholic?
To answer the last question first: No. Having lower alcohol consumption than the average American (according to some studies), I may be drinking less than before this started. There's no intent to get blitzed. It's rare that I even get a good buzz on.
To be more specific, I've become a more selective drinker. My choice in beverages is an increasingly-bourgeois luxury that I cannot afford in large quantity. Moreover, I'm paranoid about my health, and I need to get out of bed early every AM to get to the gym.
But when I like something, I fixate on it. I study it, read about it, always hungering for more data. I can read about whisky for hours without taking a single sip. And whisky is the perfect alchemy, where science and mystery meet to create unique sensory experiences. How could I not obsess?
I chose not to delve into my writing career here because of the oceans of negativity that surrounded it. Writers love to complain and they love to complain of nothing more than their writing careers. This was not to be a daily bitch session. Diving for Pearls deserved better. Plus, I didn't want certain parties to happen upon my complaints until I had addressed them appropriately offline.
Film reviews take an immense amount of time for me because I don't want to post something subpar. The George Herman Hitchcock Project isn't dead, but (between the film viewing, reading, and the write-ups) one of those posts could easily take six hours.
My emotional investment in baseball wanes with each season, though my interest in football and basketball grows. And maybe I'll be able to talk a bunch of soccer smack when the 2014 World Cup comes along.
I still intend to write about more than whisky on this site, but I really enjoy studying these amber elixirs. There's reading, history, geography, the aforementioned science, and sometimes math involved in my whisky experience. And the beverage tastes pretty good too.
Last week, when I wrote about my whisky tasting process, I mentioned that I don't report on everything I taste. There's another 30-40 whiskies I've tried this year that I haven't reported on because I was enjoying them without probing much deeper.
Instead, over these 11 months, I have reported on 99 whiskies and delivered almost 140 drinking-related posts.
What happened? What changed? Have I become a raging alcoholic?
To answer the last question first: No. Having lower alcohol consumption than the average American (according to some studies), I may be drinking less than before this started. There's no intent to get blitzed. It's rare that I even get a good buzz on.
To be more specific, I've become a more selective drinker. My choice in beverages is an increasingly-bourgeois luxury that I cannot afford in large quantity. Moreover, I'm paranoid about my health, and I need to get out of bed early every AM to get to the gym.
But when I like something, I fixate on it. I study it, read about it, always hungering for more data. I can read about whisky for hours without taking a single sip. And whisky is the perfect alchemy, where science and mystery meet to create unique sensory experiences. How could I not obsess?
I chose not to delve into my writing career here because of the oceans of negativity that surrounded it. Writers love to complain and they love to complain of nothing more than their writing careers. This was not to be a daily bitch session. Diving for Pearls deserved better. Plus, I didn't want certain parties to happen upon my complaints until I had addressed them appropriately offline.
Film reviews take an immense amount of time for me because I don't want to post something subpar. The George Herman Hitchcock Project isn't dead, but (between the film viewing, reading, and the write-ups) one of those posts could easily take six hours.
My emotional investment in baseball wanes with each season, though my interest in football and basketball grows. And maybe I'll be able to talk a bunch of soccer smack when the 2014 World Cup comes along.
I still intend to write about more than whisky on this site, but I really enjoy studying these amber elixirs. There's reading, history, geography, the aforementioned science, and sometimes math involved in my whisky experience. And the beverage tastes pretty good too.
Last week, when I wrote about my whisky tasting process, I mentioned that I don't report on everything I taste. There's another 30-40 whiskies I've tried this year that I haven't reported on because I was enjoying them without probing much deeper.
For instance:
This is Green Spot and this is good.
My bottle- and sample-purchasing (already carefully controlled) will be curbed after August, possibly for the rest of the year. Happily, I have enough goodies on hand to do reports for the rest of 2012. Some REALLY good goodies. Plus I have the benefit of several local spirits groups that help me reach the whisky beyond my grasp.
2013 will likely be more of an American Whiskey year, as long as crop shortages and growing international demand don't push this national commodity's prices to Scotch levels. Perhaps rum and other distilled spirits may make an appearance.
Will I reach 200 reports? I hope so. This first block of 100 has been very educational. I have left all of my early whisky posts intact, even though some of them are wrong or naive. And I'd like to think I've become a better noser and taster, but that could be illusion and ego.
For report #100, I've picked a personal whisky, one that's been the subject of experiments as it's been in the Whisky Closet for some time. For report #101, I've chosen one of the newest members of the collection.
But before those posts, I would like to thank everyone who has stopped by the site. Especially those who have visited a second time! I aim to do a great job with each report. I look forward to discovering both my first 5-star and 0-star whiskies. When the time comes, I hope I can find the right words to do them justice.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Single Malt Report Standings as of August 4, 2012
Please note: These so-called standings refer to my individual Single Malt Report pages, not whisky on the Internet or searches as a whole. Just my silly stuff. Cheers!
(My methodology uses pageview counts from three different sources in an attempt to suss out which posts are spammer heavy and which ones are getting the real clicky traffic. Then I apply a very (not) sophisticated algorithm. And from that I get a Top Ten.)
SINGLE MALT REPORT STANDINGS AS OF 8/4/2012 (out of 89 posts / 99 whiskies):
#10 Millstone 8-year-old French Oak, Dutch Single Malt -1
#9 Lauder's Blended Scotch Whisky +1
Millstone and Lauder's flipped spots. I'm not noticing any trends in this case. Though #11 and #12 are closing in.
#8 The Macallan 12-year-old Single Malt NC
Mac 12 holds the eighth spot easily, gradually separating itself from #8 and #9.
#7 Powers Gold Label (Blended Irish Whiskey) NC
Powers stays strong. That's okay with me.
#6 J&B Rare Blended Scotch Whisky -2
The big surprise in the Top Ten. J&B gets knocked from its #4 spot which it's held since I started this tracker, and falls TWO places. It's still very close to Mac 18, so there may still be movement next time.
#5 The Macallan 18-year-old Single Malt +1
I was half right, half wrong in my predictions. Mac 18 did knock J&B back by August, but it did not surpass Chivas by any margin.
#4 Chivas Regal 12-year-old Blended Scotch Whisky +1
Chivas is back to a big click streak, zooming along, putting #5 and #6 behind it. But it's not so far ahead that it can't be caught this month.
#3 The Glenlivet 15-year-old French Oak Reserve Single Malt NC
This one's still pulling considerably more clicks than Grouse, but again, the distance is so far that it won't challenge the next spot until 2013.
#2 The Famous Grouse Blended Scotch Whisky NC
The Grouse page is secure.
#1 Glenfiddich 12-year-old Single Malt NC
Number one. Carve it in stone.
BIG MOVERS
UP
Oban 14-year-old makes the biggest leap, up 13 spots to #49
After being the big rookie last week, Glen Garioch 12-year-old jumps 11 places to 38th
Even after taking spambots into consideration, Ardbeg Corryvreckan hops 10 spots to 47th place
Its partner in crime, Ardbeg Uigeadail moves up 6 to land in 40th place
DOWN
The Glenrothes 1991 & 1994 post drops 8 places to #48. It has fallen 27 spots in two months because it has gotten 1 click in that entire time period.
Vegas 2012 edition (3 of 4) drops 5 spots to knock it out of the Top Fifty
Amrut Cask Strength 2010, Batch 2 falls 4 places to 41st
Johnnie Walker Black Label falls 4 places to 34th. It has fallen from 17th to 34th over the last two months as it has garnered two whole clicks in that time. I'm curious as to why that one hasn't even generated any image search results. The mysteries of Google......
NOTES FOR THIS WEEK, BAD PREDICTIONS FOR NEXT WEEK
As time moves along and the clicks add up, there's a lot less movement in the Top Thirty. All the large shifts happen in spots below that.
While there will be a challenge or two to the Top Ten, I don't foresee that happening this month. But there will be some musical chairs amongst the existing Ten in the meantime.
August and September should bring a handful of popular rookies into the mix, we'll see how they shake things up.
Thanks again for all the views! The standings should return in a couple of weeks.
(My methodology uses pageview counts from three different sources in an attempt to suss out which posts are spammer heavy and which ones are getting the real clicky traffic. Then I apply a very (not) sophisticated algorithm. And from that I get a Top Ten.)
SINGLE MALT REPORT STANDINGS AS OF 8/4/2012 (out of 89 posts / 99 whiskies):
#10 Millstone 8-year-old French Oak, Dutch Single Malt -1
#9 Lauder's Blended Scotch Whisky +1
Millstone and Lauder's flipped spots. I'm not noticing any trends in this case. Though #11 and #12 are closing in.
#8 The Macallan 12-year-old Single Malt NC
Mac 12 holds the eighth spot easily, gradually separating itself from #8 and #9.
#7 Powers Gold Label (Blended Irish Whiskey) NC
Powers stays strong. That's okay with me.
#6 J&B Rare Blended Scotch Whisky -2
The big surprise in the Top Ten. J&B gets knocked from its #4 spot which it's held since I started this tracker, and falls TWO places. It's still very close to Mac 18, so there may still be movement next time.
#5 The Macallan 18-year-old Single Malt +1
I was half right, half wrong in my predictions. Mac 18 did knock J&B back by August, but it did not surpass Chivas by any margin.
#4 Chivas Regal 12-year-old Blended Scotch Whisky +1
Chivas is back to a big click streak, zooming along, putting #5 and #6 behind it. But it's not so far ahead that it can't be caught this month.
#3 The Glenlivet 15-year-old French Oak Reserve Single Malt NC
This one's still pulling considerably more clicks than Grouse, but again, the distance is so far that it won't challenge the next spot until 2013.
#2 The Famous Grouse Blended Scotch Whisky NC
The Grouse page is secure.
#1 Glenfiddich 12-year-old Single Malt NC
Number one. Carve it in stone.
BIG MOVERS
UP
Oban 14-year-old makes the biggest leap, up 13 spots to #49
After being the big rookie last week, Glen Garioch 12-year-old jumps 11 places to 38th
Even after taking spambots into consideration, Ardbeg Corryvreckan hops 10 spots to 47th place
Its partner in crime, Ardbeg Uigeadail moves up 6 to land in 40th place
DOWN
The Glenrothes 1991 & 1994 post drops 8 places to #48. It has fallen 27 spots in two months because it has gotten 1 click in that entire time period.
Vegas 2012 edition (3 of 4) drops 5 spots to knock it out of the Top Fifty
Amrut Cask Strength 2010, Batch 2 falls 4 places to 41st
Johnnie Walker Black Label falls 4 places to 34th. It has fallen from 17th to 34th over the last two months as it has garnered two whole clicks in that time. I'm curious as to why that one hasn't even generated any image search results. The mysteries of Google......
NOTES FOR THIS WEEK, BAD PREDICTIONS FOR NEXT WEEK
As time moves along and the clicks add up, there's a lot less movement in the Top Thirty. All the large shifts happen in spots below that.
While there will be a challenge or two to the Top Ten, I don't foresee that happening this month. But there will be some musical chairs amongst the existing Ten in the meantime.
August and September should bring a handful of popular rookies into the mix, we'll see how they shake things up.
Thanks again for all the views! The standings should return in a couple of weeks.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Single Malt Report: Inchgower 29 year old 1982 Single Cask (Master of Malt)
Distillery: Inchgower
Owner: Diageo
Owner: Diageo
Independent Bottler: Master of Malt
Age: 29 years (June 1982 - November 2011)
Maturation: refill bourbon hogshead
Type: Single Malt
Region: Speyside (Banffshire)
Region: Speyside (Banffshire)
Alcohol by Volume: 53.9%
Limited Release: 190 bottles
We go from Tuesday's 4-year-old to Friday's 29-year-old. From Irish to Scotch. Single Malt to Single Malt. Indie bottler to Indie bottler.
Though these two malts are entirely different, they both brought a unique flavor and nose that took some time to figure out. Unfortunately, though I had an entire 750mL of Trader Joe's Irish Single Malt, I only had 30mL of this Inchgower to mull over. Thanks to its mysterious notes and advanced age, I enjoyed a very slow whisky experience.
Looking back, I'm not entirely sure why I bought this sample. It may have been because I knew nothing about the distillery and had never seen a bottling of it. Or it may have been because it was one of the cheapest old whisky samples they were selling. Its affordability was likely due to the fact that the seller and the bottler are the same company: Master of Malt.
Inchgower is a mid-sized distillery (and apparently a beautiful one) whose malt goes entirely into blends -- mostly Bell's but also some Johnnie Walker and White Horse. Diageo briefly released the single malt as a 14-year Flora & Fauna bottling, then again as two different limited Rare Malts at 22 and 27 years of age. It also appears as if Diageo doesn't sell many Inchgower casks off to other bottlers. There are one or two Connoisseur's Choice bottlings floating around out there right now, but that's about it. So this was a rare chance to try a malt that's normally created just for blends.
So here's what I found after sitting with this dram for over an hour:
NEAT
Color - Trumpet brass
Nose - Blueberry pie!, nice dry oak, raspberry bars, sweet balsamic reduction, apple juice, curried maple syrup
Texture - Very thick
Palate - Smoked sugar cookies, salted caramel tart, touch of milk chocolate, dry cheese, smoky cocoa
Finish - Pleasant sweet maltiness gets sweeter, apples, more of the fruit pie thing, and also more of the smoky cocoa
WITH WATER (6 drops) and a shortbread cookie on the side!
Nose - Apple juice, oak vanillins, barley, more sugar develops, ethyl has awakened, Fig Newtons, curried maple syrup, a feminine mustiness (I'll leave it at that)
Palate - light peat smoke and pungent (possibly smoked?) dried tropical fruit, musty, a little salt, dry cheese
Finish - more of that smoke and fruit, mildly sugary, a hint of the fruit pie element
The blueberry pie and raspberry bar notes were unusual. That note isn't strong but it's always there in the background. The mystery notes I could only describe as curried maple syrup and smoky cocoa. Unique (in my brief experience) but enjoyable. It was also priced very well for a single cask bottle at its age.
Here's where it gets crappy. It's sold out! That one and the 36-year they'd bottled. :( I hope Master of Malt can get pry another cask of Inchgower from the corporate claws of Diageo. This malt needs to be experienced.
Limited Release: 190 bottles
We go from Tuesday's 4-year-old to Friday's 29-year-old. From Irish to Scotch. Single Malt to Single Malt. Indie bottler to Indie bottler.
Though these two malts are entirely different, they both brought a unique flavor and nose that took some time to figure out. Unfortunately, though I had an entire 750mL of Trader Joe's Irish Single Malt, I only had 30mL of this Inchgower to mull over. Thanks to its mysterious notes and advanced age, I enjoyed a very slow whisky experience.
Looking back, I'm not entirely sure why I bought this sample. It may have been because I knew nothing about the distillery and had never seen a bottling of it. Or it may have been because it was one of the cheapest old whisky samples they were selling. Its affordability was likely due to the fact that the seller and the bottler are the same company: Master of Malt.
Inchgower is a mid-sized distillery (and apparently a beautiful one) whose malt goes entirely into blends -- mostly Bell's but also some Johnnie Walker and White Horse. Diageo briefly released the single malt as a 14-year Flora & Fauna bottling, then again as two different limited Rare Malts at 22 and 27 years of age. It also appears as if Diageo doesn't sell many Inchgower casks off to other bottlers. There are one or two Connoisseur's Choice bottlings floating around out there right now, but that's about it. So this was a rare chance to try a malt that's normally created just for blends.
So here's what I found after sitting with this dram for over an hour:
NEAT
Color - Trumpet brass
Nose - Blueberry pie!, nice dry oak, raspberry bars, sweet balsamic reduction, apple juice, curried maple syrup
Texture - Very thick
Palate - Smoked sugar cookies, salted caramel tart, touch of milk chocolate, dry cheese, smoky cocoa
Finish - Pleasant sweet maltiness gets sweeter, apples, more of the fruit pie thing, and also more of the smoky cocoa
WITH WATER (6 drops) and a shortbread cookie on the side!
Nose - Apple juice, oak vanillins, barley, more sugar develops, ethyl has awakened, Fig Newtons, curried maple syrup, a feminine mustiness (I'll leave it at that)
Palate - light peat smoke and pungent (possibly smoked?) dried tropical fruit, musty, a little salt, dry cheese
Finish - more of that smoke and fruit, mildly sugary, a hint of the fruit pie element
The blueberry pie and raspberry bar notes were unusual. That note isn't strong but it's always there in the background. The mystery notes I could only describe as curried maple syrup and smoky cocoa. Unique (in my brief experience) but enjoyable. It was also priced very well for a single cask bottle at its age.
Here's where it gets crappy. It's sold out! That one and the 36-year they'd bottled. :( I hope Master of Malt can get pry another cask of Inchgower from the corporate claws of Diageo. This malt needs to be experienced.
Availability - Master of Malt only, but sold out
Pricing - Was only 70GBP plus int'l shipping
Rating - 85
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Whisky Tasting Process. Part 2, The Experience
Yesterday, I typed about the various whisky-tasting settings I've experienced. Today, I'll dig into how I actually come up with the nosing/tasting notes for the Single Malt Reports.
As mentioned in the previous post: the more people + the busier the environment + the more sensory distractions = more difficult situation for tasting notes. That's not a bad thing. It allows me to enjoy some whisky, hang out with fellow anoraks, and eat some snacks. And, you know, crawl out of my cave.
But sometimes, I'm able to get enough notes together from external events and tastings to assemble some reports. In those cases, I tend to follow my own practices (described later in this post) and kind of disregard what I'm told to do.Because I'm a rebel Because whisky takes time and whisky tasting takes time. That necessary time is not always allowed for at organized events. But when I can create that space, I jot down my notes in extreme shorthand on my phone and then re-interpret them the next day into full thoughts in my whisky journal.
The good news about many events and organized tastings is that they often provide good nosing glassware. Bars do not.
I try to do reports from whiskies I try at bars, but only if I can find something other than a tumbler to put the whisky in. A tequila glass, a brandy snifter, a tulip shaped wine glass. A glass with a bulbous bottom that curves up and into a narrow rim directs the aromas and flavors to the nose and mouth, not letting them float out in all directions like a tumbler. That's why some whisky fans like the Glencairn glasses:
Bars, even major whisky bars, don't have 'em. Thus I keep an eye out for anything snifter-like. When it comes to whisky glass, think flower bud not flower blossom.
At home, I have the glasses. At home, I can control the distractions. At home, I can focus best on the whisky at hand. At home, I can produce a full report.
TASTING AT HOME
First off, the whisky pours:
Most of my reports come from whisky samples or minis that I've purchased. The samples (often from Master of Malt) are 30mL in size. That's approximately 1 fluid ounce. It's less than the good ol' American shot (1.5 fl oz). In the picture above, that's the size of the 30mL pour.
Sometimes I have 50mL minis. They're about 1.6 fluid ounces, which allows for more tasting and nosing. And then sometimes I have a 700-750mL bottle (yay!), which allows for more time, more thought, more tastings.
The best way to suss out the details of a whisky (for me) is to do a Taste Off. A Taste Off is simply a tasting organized around two or more related spirits. They can be from the same distillery (Ardbeg), have a similar finish (Sauternes), or be of a similar spirit (single grains). Comparing and contrasting allows for the subtleties and nuances of each pour to reveal themselves.
And it's really fun. Which is mostly the point. Lining these guys up and going back and forth through them makes for the best malt moments. (Apologies to two Malt Maniacs for stealing their favored terminology.) It's a bit of a multi-dimensional whisky voyage and always results in better notes.
For all tastings, I actually aim for a 1 fluid ounce pour. If I'm doing a Taste Off from different sized whisky sources, I still do the 1 fluid ounce pour. This isn't a lot of whisky so divining thorough notes gets quite challenging. In fact, if I have a stuffy nose or if there's too much distraction, then I don't even start, saving the tasting for another time.
Next, the time:
I mentioned earlier that "whisky takes time and whisky tasting takes time." The booze itself has sat in oak for years. Time allows for different chemical interactions between the spirit and the cask. More time in the barrel often results in a more complex liquid. So, whisky changes.
Many of the Malt Maniacs believe that it also changes in the bottle, though much more subtly than wine. No seal is perfect, thus oxygen creeps through over the years. Sometimes the bottle fill decreases over the decades as spirit continues to be lost to the angels.
Once that bottle is open, oxygen has easier path. Thus the whisky will change once I bust into my latest new bottle. The first sips will not taste exactly like the bottle's final pour. The more time between the first and last drams, the more change. The lower the whisky level within the bottle, the more oxygen gets in, oxidizing the odor and flavor compounds.
Most abruptly though, the whisky will change in the whisky glass once its poured. It's now out there naked to the world. But that's okay, in fact it's great! When you see long lists of descriptors in people's tasting notes, it's because they've taken their time with their drink and documented the liquid's evolution.
So, I pour then wait. I agree with Ralfy's theory of 1 minute per year of whisky age. 30 minutes for a 30-year, etc. Even with the young ones, I'll wait at least 15 minutes before starting to nose it.
I pour it and put on a whisky yarmulke or whiskippah!
This allows the aromas to build up inside the glass. I don't want to let them escape. Sometimes, with boozy booze, the alcohol steams up the sides.
When the wait has expired, it's sniffin' time.
Sniffin':
I don't have a particularly good nose, but it's a heck of a lot better than my tastebuds. In fact, we all have a better olfactory sense than taste sense. Its range is much more vast. (Here's a wikuhpeedeeuh link on olfaction.)
I spend a lot of time smelling the whisky. First some distance from the glass, then gradually closer. I don't dip my nose right in because the alcohol can burn and numb the olfactory bulb, essentially crippling the experience for the rest of the night.
Again, I take my time with this. Everything isn't revealed all at once. I usually don't taste it until I've figured out some of the nose.
Tasting:
Because it's just a one ounce pour, gotta take little sips. Enough to cover all of the taste buds. I tend to think the longer its in there, the better.
To make it not sexually graphic at all, the longer you stay at it before finishing off, the better it is.
Anyway, back to whisky. Often the first thing that I find is sweetness, everything else hits later. I enjoy the finish a lot because I can ponder it a bit.
I keep nosing and tasting -- taking my time -- until I'm about halfway through.
Water:
At this point, I decide if I'm going to add water. If the whisky is amazing as is, I may choose to let it go undisturbed. But most of the time, I add a little water.
Because I'm a nerd, I actually use a scale and calculator to figure out the ABV% I'm creating with the added water. If it's a high ABV whisky, then I try to get it down to 40-43%. If it has a lower ABV to start with, I'll drop it a little below 35%. It takes so little water to get it to this point, so it's added with caution.
I use either filtered water or spring water. The fewer additives in the agua, the better.
I give the newly-hydrated whisky a swirl, then give it 5-10 minutes to sit. Then I give it another swirl and commence smelling and sipping.
Descriptors:
Some people take issue with overly flowery tasting notes. Some people seem to delight in going over the top. I write what I experience. Sometimes it's brown sugar, sometimes it's childhood memories. I don't tone it down or ramp it up for anyone.
Other stuff:
Before I nose the whisky, I do an olfaction exercise that Adam Carmer of The Whisky Attic taught me. He's awesome, the method is unusual but it totally works, and it's copyrighted. You can Google around for more info, but I won't spill the method out of respect to a great guy and his successful business. He's doing a book on it right now, so I hope it gets published soon!
I recommend finding a white background and some excellent lighting when determining the color of whisky. But sometimes, it just looks gold. And that's okay.
I use moleskine journals and black ink for my notes. When I first started, last year, the handwriting was neat and careful. Now, it's sloppy. Part of it has to do with the inky pens. But mostly, I have to slow down. I may take an hour to taste two whiskies, but I rush through documenting the process and it's my loss.
I have heard that the taste buds are at their peak first thing in the morning. While I would love to do a Taste Off at 8am, I'll save that for a special occasion. For now, I prefer to do my tastings before dinner. If I do it after dinner, I'll wait an hour or two after the meal.
Since I always enjoy process and historical context, I study up on the distillery and/or bottler before the tasting. BUT I do not read anyone else's tasting notes, especially the official ones, beforehand. I don't want that sort of context to influence my experience.
Ultimately, when I'm doing a tasting at home, I make sure to take my time and not rush a good thing. That's what's most important to me.
For some excellent nosing and tasting tips, check out Whisky Magazine's (free) thorough seven-part nosing course. If you're a Ralfy fan, the Manxman dishes out an awesome (free) seven-part video tasting masterclass.
As mentioned in the previous post: the more people + the busier the environment + the more sensory distractions = more difficult situation for tasting notes. That's not a bad thing. It allows me to enjoy some whisky, hang out with fellow anoraks, and eat some snacks. And, you know, crawl out of my cave.
But sometimes, I'm able to get enough notes together from external events and tastings to assemble some reports. In those cases, I tend to follow my own practices (described later in this post) and kind of disregard what I'm told to do.
The good news about many events and organized tastings is that they often provide good nosing glassware. Bars do not.
I try to do reports from whiskies I try at bars, but only if I can find something other than a tumbler to put the whisky in. A tequila glass, a brandy snifter, a tulip shaped wine glass. A glass with a bulbous bottom that curves up and into a narrow rim directs the aromas and flavors to the nose and mouth, not letting them float out in all directions like a tumbler. That's why some whisky fans like the Glencairn glasses:
Bars, even major whisky bars, don't have 'em. Thus I keep an eye out for anything snifter-like. When it comes to whisky glass, think flower bud not flower blossom.
At home, I have the glasses. At home, I can control the distractions. At home, I can focus best on the whisky at hand. At home, I can produce a full report.
TASTING AT HOME
First off, the whisky pours:
Most of my reports come from whisky samples or minis that I've purchased. The samples (often from Master of Malt) are 30mL in size. That's approximately 1 fluid ounce. It's less than the good ol' American shot (1.5 fl oz). In the picture above, that's the size of the 30mL pour.
Sometimes I have 50mL minis. They're about 1.6 fluid ounces, which allows for more tasting and nosing. And then sometimes I have a 700-750mL bottle (yay!), which allows for more time, more thought, more tastings.
The best way to suss out the details of a whisky (for me) is to do a Taste Off. A Taste Off is simply a tasting organized around two or more related spirits. They can be from the same distillery (Ardbeg), have a similar finish (Sauternes), or be of a similar spirit (single grains). Comparing and contrasting allows for the subtleties and nuances of each pour to reveal themselves.
And it's really fun. Which is mostly the point. Lining these guys up and going back and forth through them makes for the best malt moments. (Apologies to two Malt Maniacs for stealing their favored terminology.) It's a bit of a multi-dimensional whisky voyage and always results in better notes.
For all tastings, I actually aim for a 1 fluid ounce pour. If I'm doing a Taste Off from different sized whisky sources, I still do the 1 fluid ounce pour. This isn't a lot of whisky so divining thorough notes gets quite challenging. In fact, if I have a stuffy nose or if there's too much distraction, then I don't even start, saving the tasting for another time.
![]() |
| I don't think Don is enjoying his whisky. That's because he's using a flat-sided tumbler |
Next, the time:
I mentioned earlier that "whisky takes time and whisky tasting takes time." The booze itself has sat in oak for years. Time allows for different chemical interactions between the spirit and the cask. More time in the barrel often results in a more complex liquid. So, whisky changes.
Many of the Malt Maniacs believe that it also changes in the bottle, though much more subtly than wine. No seal is perfect, thus oxygen creeps through over the years. Sometimes the bottle fill decreases over the decades as spirit continues to be lost to the angels.
Once that bottle is open, oxygen has easier path. Thus the whisky will change once I bust into my latest new bottle. The first sips will not taste exactly like the bottle's final pour. The more time between the first and last drams, the more change. The lower the whisky level within the bottle, the more oxygen gets in, oxidizing the odor and flavor compounds.
Most abruptly though, the whisky will change in the whisky glass once its poured. It's now out there naked to the world. But that's okay, in fact it's great! When you see long lists of descriptors in people's tasting notes, it's because they've taken their time with their drink and documented the liquid's evolution.
So, I pour then wait. I agree with Ralfy's theory of 1 minute per year of whisky age. 30 minutes for a 30-year, etc. Even with the young ones, I'll wait at least 15 minutes before starting to nose it.
I pour it and put on a whisky yarmulke or whiskippah!
This allows the aromas to build up inside the glass. I don't want to let them escape. Sometimes, with boozy booze, the alcohol steams up the sides.
When the wait has expired, it's sniffin' time.
Sniffin':
I don't have a particularly good nose, but it's a heck of a lot better than my tastebuds. In fact, we all have a better olfactory sense than taste sense. Its range is much more vast. (Here's a wikuhpeedeeuh link on olfaction.)
I spend a lot of time smelling the whisky. First some distance from the glass, then gradually closer. I don't dip my nose right in because the alcohol can burn and numb the olfactory bulb, essentially crippling the experience for the rest of the night.
Again, I take my time with this. Everything isn't revealed all at once. I usually don't taste it until I've figured out some of the nose.
Tasting:
Because it's just a one ounce pour, gotta take little sips. Enough to cover all of the taste buds. I tend to think the longer its in there, the better.
To make it not sexually graphic at all, the longer you stay at it before finishing off, the better it is.
Anyway, back to whisky. Often the first thing that I find is sweetness, everything else hits later. I enjoy the finish a lot because I can ponder it a bit.
I keep nosing and tasting -- taking my time -- until I'm about halfway through.
Water:
At this point, I decide if I'm going to add water. If the whisky is amazing as is, I may choose to let it go undisturbed. But most of the time, I add a little water.
Because I'm a nerd, I actually use a scale and calculator to figure out the ABV% I'm creating with the added water. If it's a high ABV whisky, then I try to get it down to 40-43%. If it has a lower ABV to start with, I'll drop it a little below 35%. It takes so little water to get it to this point, so it's added with caution.
I use either filtered water or spring water. The fewer additives in the agua, the better.
I give the newly-hydrated whisky a swirl, then give it 5-10 minutes to sit. Then I give it another swirl and commence smelling and sipping.
Descriptors:
Some people take issue with overly flowery tasting notes. Some people seem to delight in going over the top. I write what I experience. Sometimes it's brown sugar, sometimes it's childhood memories. I don't tone it down or ramp it up for anyone.
![]() |
| I won't even tone it down for the kitten's sake. Okay, maybe for the kitten. (Source) |
Other stuff:
Before I nose the whisky, I do an olfaction exercise that Adam Carmer of The Whisky Attic taught me. He's awesome, the method is unusual but it totally works, and it's copyrighted. You can Google around for more info, but I won't spill the method out of respect to a great guy and his successful business. He's doing a book on it right now, so I hope it gets published soon!
I recommend finding a white background and some excellent lighting when determining the color of whisky. But sometimes, it just looks gold. And that's okay.
I use moleskine journals and black ink for my notes. When I first started, last year, the handwriting was neat and careful. Now, it's sloppy. Part of it has to do with the inky pens. But mostly, I have to slow down. I may take an hour to taste two whiskies, but I rush through documenting the process and it's my loss.
I have heard that the taste buds are at their peak first thing in the morning. While I would love to do a Taste Off at 8am, I'll save that for a special occasion. For now, I prefer to do my tastings before dinner. If I do it after dinner, I'll wait an hour or two after the meal.
Since I always enjoy process and historical context, I study up on the distillery and/or bottler before the tasting. BUT I do not read anyone else's tasting notes, especially the official ones, beforehand. I don't want that sort of context to influence my experience.
Ultimately, when I'm doing a tasting at home, I make sure to take my time and not rush a good thing. That's what's most important to me.
For some excellent nosing and tasting tips, check out Whisky Magazine's (free) thorough seven-part nosing course. If you're a Ralfy fan, the Manxman dishes out an awesome (free) seven-part video tasting masterclass.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The Whisky Tasting Process. Part 1, The Setting
Two months back, Jordan at Chemistry of the Cocktail posted a great piece on his spirits tasting methods. It got me thinking about my own whisky tasting system. I am a man of rituals, but most of them become involuntary once I discover how well they suit me. So I wanted to step back and document how I experience my whiskies.
This isn't meant to be a How-To, but rather How-I-Do. If anyone has thoughts about his or her processes, please feel free to share. We may do things differently in the macro sense, yet have similarities in amongst the minutiae OR we may end up doing the same thing while taking different routes to get there.
In Part 1, I'll walk through the various drinking environs that I've experienced. The milieus, if we're feeling nerdy. (Also, please pardon the constant pronoun switcheroos.)
WHISKY PARTY or WHISKY SPECTACULAR
(Whiskyfest, Peetin' Meetin', Whisky Live, etc.)
Sounds great right? It is. At a price.
A festival provides the opportunity to try a dozen (or dozens!) of whiskies you haven't yet experienced. There's food and water (both important), 100+ people, social time, brand ambassadors, distributor reps, and free swag.
The financial requirement begins with the tickets. Often there are two types, regular and VIP (which gives you fancier booze and more time with industry folks). The prices can range from $75 to $500. You also must factor in travel and transport expenses. If it's out of town, then you'll need a place to stay. If it's in town, you'll need to get there and back, safely.
This can get expensive. BUT there's so much whisky! So you need to figure out the personal value of the experience (and the fab liquor) and see if the financial requirement is appropriate.
Because I'm on a limited budget, I tend to eye the well-regarded lower cost festivals. I also take into account that at a certain point I'm probably not going to appreciate the multitude of whiskies by Hour Three or Hour Four. Will I really be able to discern if the fifteenth sample was better than the sixteenth? No.
Thus, I try to develop a plan beforehand. If the event lists the whiskies present, that's even better. I don't always go after the most expensive bottlings, instead I sometimes prioritize the whiskies that I've always wanted to try or always wanted to buy. I have strong irrational bouts of window-shopping-whisky-lust, but I almost never buy blind. So a festival gives me a chance to bring my crazy whisky dreams to reality and suss out if they're worth the lust. Often, they're not. And I save money as well as valuable Whisky Cabinet space.
I never do Single Malt Reports from festival tastings. I quickly jot down some notes on my phone's notepad app, but that's it. The events provide too much sensory distraction to really dig into the drink. There's noise and smells and food and people -- usually all good things, so I enjoy them and leave the liquor analysis for another setting.
BRAND-SPONSORED FREE TASTINGS
(Raise the Macallan, JW Striding Man Society, etc.)
The atmosphere for these can vary. I went to a Johnnie Walker Black event that was structured like a corporate event at a hotel. Then there was a Raise the Macallan in a nightclub with thumping dance music and bright lights.
The brands are there to sell their products to you, but it's free and the booze is carefully limited. I recommend these mostly for the free drinks and to get a kick out of what they're willing to do to deliver the hard sell.
I don't do Single Malt Reports from these events either. Aside from all of the distractions, the brands tend to push through their products very quickly. While it's nice to compare items within a product line, a whisky needs time in the glass. Especially older whiskies. Thus I prefer to talk to folks and enjoy the free whisky without thinking too much about it.
BRAND-FOCUSED EVENTS
(Bowmore on a Boat, etc.)
These are similar to the previous setting, but are not free. The brand ambassador will walk the attendees through the product line in a smaller, sometimes swankier event space. I actually like some of these events more than the free ones because the attendance is smaller and those that do attend actually enjoy whisky. The attendees have plenty more opportunities to talk to the brand ambassador. Most of these guys/gals really know their stuff and are great to chat up. Plus the pours flow more liberally.
Because I have a little more control over the spacing between the drinks (and the amount!), I try to do a Report or two from the event. This is another case of me typing wildly on my phone or scribbling on a small notepad. But if the notes distract from experience, then I put them aside.
SOCIAL EVENTS
(LA Scotch Club, OC Scotch Club, etc.)
As you may notice, the setting audience gets smaller as we go.
Whisky clubs are a great way to meet fellow anoraks and to puzzle over drinks. A good event will take place in a relatively quiet public place, like a bar or restaurant, and have a series of related whiskies for comparison. This can cost anywhere from $10 to $50, depending on the bottle prices.
To me, this is still a difficult atmosphere to do a Report well. I want to be social and meet folks, and I am of the opinion that continually looking down and typing on my phone during a conversation is rude. I know that opinion isn't as common as it used to be, but I'm sticking to it.
BARS AND RESTAURANTS
Unless you know something I don't, this is a paid experience.
You buy your whisky, you sit with it, spend as much time as you'd like with it. There's still a social scene here, but (unless you're a hottie) it's one that you can control. There's always the challenge of a multitude of other scents: bathrooms, buffalo chicken wings, garlic mashed potatoes. Garlic mashed potatoes. Garlic mashed potatoes.
Garlic mashed potatoes.
Sorry, got lost there for a moment. Another prevalent obstruction is inconvenient glassware. Tumblers are amongst the worst vessels to appreciate liquor. So often one has to snoop around the available glasses and request the most bud-shaped glass available. (I'll talk more about glassware in Part 2.)
If I can get a decent glass, then I'll do a full Report. It's a fun (sorta exhibitionist-ly) public act of nerdry. I even bust out the official Whisky Journal and a tiny pen.
PRIVATE TASTING
An expert sits down with you (and friends/family if you so choose) and walks you through a selection of similar whiskies. These could be grouped by distillery, region, palate, nose, bottler, or price range.
These can also get a bit pricey, but if you have the time and cash, it's a great way to explore the whisky universe with someone who knows a lot more than you. Sort of a whisky consultancy.
I've been to only one of these and it was AWESOME. I recommend writing everything down, because after some hours and some cask strength experiences, things become difficult to sort out.
THE SLOW-WHISKY EXPERIENCE
(inspired by this blog post)
You sit at home with a glass of whisky and give it time and full attention. You make sure no one's cooking with onions or garlic or curry. Maybe you throw on some mellow tunes. You don't necessarily need to shut the door or close out your loved ones, but a lack of serious conversation is important. Halt the rush of information.
In general, how often do you give yourself that moment of calm? Not all sensory response is instant. There's always more to be seen and heard and smelled and tasted and felt with time, with lucidity.
You can choose to go without the music. Sink into something more quiet. Allow yourself zen.
In stillness comes clarity.
This isn't whisky yoga, it's more of an appreciation of one's being and the existence of the amazing bit of alchemy held in the glass.
To me, this is the best way to unlock a whisky. I may refer to my Taste Offs as exciting events, but they happen in quiet and with a considerable amount of time. I actually have to schedule them ahead of time to make sure that everything is set.
Now I don't often get those moments right, but when I do I find elements within a whisky that I've previously missed.
I'll expand upon the technical steps in my individual tasting process in Part 2, The Experience.
This isn't meant to be a How-To, but rather How-I-Do. If anyone has thoughts about his or her processes, please feel free to share. We may do things differently in the macro sense, yet have similarities in amongst the minutiae OR we may end up doing the same thing while taking different routes to get there.
In Part 1, I'll walk through the various drinking environs that I've experienced. The milieus, if we're feeling nerdy. (Also, please pardon the constant pronoun switcheroos.)
WHISKY PARTY or WHISKY SPECTACULAR
(Whiskyfest, Peetin' Meetin', Whisky Live, etc.)
Sounds great right? It is. At a price.
A festival provides the opportunity to try a dozen (or dozens!) of whiskies you haven't yet experienced. There's food and water (both important), 100+ people, social time, brand ambassadors, distributor reps, and free swag.
The financial requirement begins with the tickets. Often there are two types, regular and VIP (which gives you fancier booze and more time with industry folks). The prices can range from $75 to $500. You also must factor in travel and transport expenses. If it's out of town, then you'll need a place to stay. If it's in town, you'll need to get there and back, safely.
This can get expensive. BUT there's so much whisky! So you need to figure out the personal value of the experience (and the fab liquor) and see if the financial requirement is appropriate.
Because I'm on a limited budget, I tend to eye the well-regarded lower cost festivals. I also take into account that at a certain point I'm probably not going to appreciate the multitude of whiskies by Hour Three or Hour Four. Will I really be able to discern if the fifteenth sample was better than the sixteenth? No.
Thus, I try to develop a plan beforehand. If the event lists the whiskies present, that's even better. I don't always go after the most expensive bottlings, instead I sometimes prioritize the whiskies that I've always wanted to try or always wanted to buy. I have strong irrational bouts of window-shopping-whisky-lust, but I almost never buy blind. So a festival gives me a chance to bring my crazy whisky dreams to reality and suss out if they're worth the lust. Often, they're not. And I save money as well as valuable Whisky Cabinet space.
I never do Single Malt Reports from festival tastings. I quickly jot down some notes on my phone's notepad app, but that's it. The events provide too much sensory distraction to really dig into the drink. There's noise and smells and food and people -- usually all good things, so I enjoy them and leave the liquor analysis for another setting.
BRAND-SPONSORED FREE TASTINGS
(Raise the Macallan, JW Striding Man Society, etc.)
The atmosphere for these can vary. I went to a Johnnie Walker Black event that was structured like a corporate event at a hotel. Then there was a Raise the Macallan in a nightclub with thumping dance music and bright lights.
The brands are there to sell their products to you, but it's free and the booze is carefully limited. I recommend these mostly for the free drinks and to get a kick out of what they're willing to do to deliver the hard sell.
I don't do Single Malt Reports from these events either. Aside from all of the distractions, the brands tend to push through their products very quickly. While it's nice to compare items within a product line, a whisky needs time in the glass. Especially older whiskies. Thus I prefer to talk to folks and enjoy the free whisky without thinking too much about it.
BRAND-FOCUSED EVENTS
(Bowmore on a Boat, etc.)
These are similar to the previous setting, but are not free. The brand ambassador will walk the attendees through the product line in a smaller, sometimes swankier event space. I actually like some of these events more than the free ones because the attendance is smaller and those that do attend actually enjoy whisky. The attendees have plenty more opportunities to talk to the brand ambassador. Most of these guys/gals really know their stuff and are great to chat up. Plus the pours flow more liberally.
Because I have a little more control over the spacing between the drinks (and the amount!), I try to do a Report or two from the event. This is another case of me typing wildly on my phone or scribbling on a small notepad. But if the notes distract from experience, then I put them aside.
SOCIAL EVENTS
(LA Scotch Club, OC Scotch Club, etc.)
As you may notice, the setting audience gets smaller as we go.
Whisky clubs are a great way to meet fellow anoraks and to puzzle over drinks. A good event will take place in a relatively quiet public place, like a bar or restaurant, and have a series of related whiskies for comparison. This can cost anywhere from $10 to $50, depending on the bottle prices.
To me, this is still a difficult atmosphere to do a Report well. I want to be social and meet folks, and I am of the opinion that continually looking down and typing on my phone during a conversation is rude. I know that opinion isn't as common as it used to be, but I'm sticking to it.
BARS AND RESTAURANTS
Unless you know something I don't, this is a paid experience.
You buy your whisky, you sit with it, spend as much time as you'd like with it. There's still a social scene here, but (unless you're a hottie) it's one that you can control. There's always the challenge of a multitude of other scents: bathrooms, buffalo chicken wings, garlic mashed potatoes. Garlic mashed potatoes. Garlic mashed potatoes.
Garlic mashed potatoes.
Sorry, got lost there for a moment. Another prevalent obstruction is inconvenient glassware. Tumblers are amongst the worst vessels to appreciate liquor. So often one has to snoop around the available glasses and request the most bud-shaped glass available. (I'll talk more about glassware in Part 2.)
If I can get a decent glass, then I'll do a full Report. It's a fun (sorta exhibitionist-ly) public act of nerdry. I even bust out the official Whisky Journal and a tiny pen.
PRIVATE TASTING
An expert sits down with you (and friends/family if you so choose) and walks you through a selection of similar whiskies. These could be grouped by distillery, region, palate, nose, bottler, or price range.
These can also get a bit pricey, but if you have the time and cash, it's a great way to explore the whisky universe with someone who knows a lot more than you. Sort of a whisky consultancy.
I've been to only one of these and it was AWESOME. I recommend writing everything down, because after some hours and some cask strength experiences, things become difficult to sort out.
THE SLOW-WHISKY EXPERIENCE
(inspired by this blog post)
You sit at home with a glass of whisky and give it time and full attention. You make sure no one's cooking with onions or garlic or curry. Maybe you throw on some mellow tunes. You don't necessarily need to shut the door or close out your loved ones, but a lack of serious conversation is important. Halt the rush of information.
In general, how often do you give yourself that moment of calm? Not all sensory response is instant. There's always more to be seen and heard and smelled and tasted and felt with time, with lucidity.
You can choose to go without the music. Sink into something more quiet. Allow yourself zen.
In stillness comes clarity.
This isn't whisky yoga, it's more of an appreciation of one's being and the existence of the amazing bit of alchemy held in the glass.
To me, this is the best way to unlock a whisky. I may refer to my Taste Offs as exciting events, but they happen in quiet and with a considerable amount of time. I actually have to schedule them ahead of time to make sure that everything is set.
Now I don't often get those moments right, but when I do I find elements within a whisky that I've previously missed.
I'll expand upon the technical steps in my individual tasting process in Part 2, The Experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




