Peatin' Meetin' post #2 - The VIP Whiskys and a thought on sample sizes

So here's the scoop.  LASC had four glamourous (yes, with the extra 'u') single malts for the members.  We had to split them up amongst ourselves, so that resulted in .25oz pours for each of us.  Because these whiskys are seriously above my paygrade, I wanted to have some alone time with them in an atmosphere that would allow for better noising, notes, and memories.  So they all went into little glass Boston Round bottles and were transported home.  Okay, all but one of them.

I then spent that quality time with them on Sunday night.  Here are the results in tasting order, after which I ponder sample sizes:

#1
Bowmore 1982 Samaroli, 21 year old

Distillery: Bowmore

Independent Bottler: Samaroli (Coilltean Range)

Age: 21 years (1982-2004)

Maturation: likely refill casks
Casks: 1011 + 62 + 71

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 45.0%

This is the one that never made it home.  It went from glass to mouth right on site.  As a result, its notes are briefer than the other three.

Nose, Palate, and Finish - Lavender candy!  There are some tangerine and mango things going on as well, but it was mostly lavender candy.  No FWP (F***ing Who Pucked?, just kidding: French Whore Perfume), no PWF (Pretty Weird Finish), no soap.  Not much peat remains either.  Sweetness and softness.  And this was a rare instance (for me at least) of the nose and palate matching up.

This has to be your thing.  If the old Bowmore lavender note turns you off, then this ain't your dram.  I don't mind it much, but here it was very pretty.  On the whole, I'm cuckoo for independent Bowmores.  Aside from one stinkbomb, I've dug everyone I've tried; each one providing its own trip.  Each one topping the regular official range by some distance.  The indie Bowmores at Peatin' Meetin' were all very good, especially this one.

Availability - Maybe this Italian shop?
Pricing - $350-$400
Rating - 90

The next ones were stored promptly...

#2
Port Ellen 8th Release 1978, 29 years old (OB)

Before this, I'd had two Port Ellens from Scott's Selection, both of which were gorgeous.  They had both been aged in American oak and the result was some of the most graceful peated malt I've ever tried.  Those samples were more substantial than this one, but I believed PE's strengths would shine through.

Distillery: Port Ellen

Bottler: Official (Diageo), 8th Release

Age: 29 years (1978-2008)

Maturation: I'm guessing ex-bourbon refills
Limited Bottling: 5959 of 6618

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 55.3%

Color - Light gold (it looks darker in the pic because the bottle itself has a dark tint)
Nose - Chimneys on a November night in a small coastal Scottish town.  Fruity apple peat, leather armchair, moss, pencil lead, fruit tart crust, apple pie, pineapple juice cocktail, and white peaches.
Palate - The fluffiest of peat pillows. Makes a man want to hug his Port Ellen (and not just because it would have set him back an even grand). Vanilla bean, a multitude of sugars: brown, confectioner's, fruit, and on and on. Lots of sticky smoky residue.
Finish - A big round finale. The peat bites back along with tart fruits and black coffee.

Haven't had a bad Port Ellen, yet.  A bit more muscle in this OB's peat than in the Scott's bottlings.  It seems like a kitten at the start then goes for the throat like panther.  Oh man, I'm starting to go all J.Murray here.

Availability - High falutin' European shops
Pricing - $800-$1000 (yup)
Rating - 91

Next...

#3
Ardbeg Lord of the Isles (OB)

As per the GREAT Ardbeg Project:

The Lord of the Isles was originally bottled in 2001, and unofficially, it was released as an approximately 25 year old whisky, comprised of 1976 and 1977 casks. It is said to always contain casks from 1976 and 1977 so the whisky would be older as each bottling run was released. Much like the Ardbeg 17, the actual age of Lord of the Isles increases towards the end of its bottling life. Theoretically, the LOTI in 2007 was almost 30 years old.

Finally some all-old Arbeg in the house.  Bring it!

Distillery: Ardbeg

Bottler: Official (LVMH), possibly the 2007 bottling

Age: minimum 25 years, though up to 30 years

Maturation: 15% ex-sherry, 85% ex-bourbon casks
Limited Bottling: 5959 of 6618

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 55.3%

Color - Light gold
Nose - Buttercream frosting, citrus, piney peat, and fruit cocktail juice arrive first.  Then cherry bubblegum and rosewater after some time.
Palate - Ardbeg ash but in the midground rather than foreground. Ardbeg lemon, but more like lemon creme pie with some fresh berries. More of that piney peat floating in mild molasses.
Finish - Lots of tobacco and ashy earth rumble up creating a very extensive finish, specially for a 46%ABV malt.

As a whole, my favorite of these four.  Also the most compulsively drinkable.  While it did spend between 6-10 years sitting in the bottle, it showed no signs of oxidation.  It seems more rounded and modulated than the current malt, maybe it's because it has had more time to mature.  A pity about the price though.

Availability - Those same high falutin' European shops
Pricing - anywhere between $600 and $1300
Rating - 92

#4
Brora 1981 Old Malt Cask, 21 year old

My first Brora (1972 Connoisseur's Choice) was very drinkable, but mostly characterless, as if it had been a lightly peated Glenfiddich 12 (which would be a great idea, BTW).  The neck-fill on that bottle had been low, so we think that after 18 years with a lackluster seal, the contents of the bottle had oxidized.

Of these four VIP malts, I was looking forward to this Old Malt Cask Brora the most.  Old school peated Highland malt is my favorite style, thus I so want to love Brora.  But this one......this one smelled fishy from the start.


Distillery: Brora

Bottler: Douglas Laing (Old Malt Cask) 

Age: 21 years (June 1981 - October 2002)

Maturation: ex-sherry cask
Limited Bottling: 360

Region: Northern Highlands

Alcohol by Volume: 50.0%

Color - Light gold, again
Nose - CRAZY SULFUR. Wham! One sniff would make J.Murray shart in his chapeau (I'm classy). There's a swimming pool under the fog of struck matches. A little actual sherry under there too. Cinnamon syrup with smoked tropical fruits and apricots.  But mostly sulfur.
Palate - CRAZY SULFUR.  Struck match liquor.  Light peating.  Dirt and horseradish.
Finish - CRA---- you know the song. Slight bitterness, more of the dirt, like licking rocks.  The peat makes itself most noticeable here.

Far and away the most sulfurous whisky I've ever tried.  I don't mind a little sulfur in the mix since it brings to the malt another facet.  But this was booming with element 16.  I'm 0 for 2 with my Broras.  My search continues.

Availability - Other Brora OMCs can be found at aforementioned retailers
Pricing - low ball at $450, maxing out at $FirstBorn
Rating - 79 (probably 60 if you're sulfurphobic)

---

In the course of tasting these whiskys, it became apparent that it is very difficult to glean acceptable notes from a 7mL sample.  Nosing can still be done on some level, but the process of fully determining palate and finish requires (for me) at least 20mL.

At most public tastings given by distributors, clubs, or reps, a .25oz (7.5mL) pour is the fashion (or de rigueur if you're in that mode).  That quantity is enough to make a drinker respond, "yummy" or "gross" or "it's alright".  But to really dig in with that sort of pour, the taster needs to find a quiet corner of his bedroom, put on some quiet mid-century jazz, and clear his mind.  And even then he can only do so much.

Usually, I have a 30mL pour to work with.  Sometimes a 20mL.  If I'm lucky I have 50mL or 60mL.  I'd rather be thorough, so the bigger the better.  A larger dram equals more time; more time equals more thorough decoding.  I think I did okay with these samples above.  But, like statistics, the palate is better served by a larger sample.

Peatin' Meetin' post #1

I'm not sure how helpful this post is really going to be, but I feel like I need to list this in order to fully wrap my head around a busy night.  I sampled at least 17 whiskies on Saturday night and I'm still sorting through the experience.  So here's how I'm going to split it out:

Post #1 - This post with my notes on the whiskies that won't be in posts 2 and 3.
Post #2 - The VIP malts from the evening.  Rather than sipping them on location, I tucked my .25oz samples into separate bottles to try on Sunday night.  These will have (I hope) more extensive notes.
Post #3 - I escaped with .75 - 1.00oz samples of three whiskies.  These will get their own post next week.  I'm drying out for a few days before I even look at a whisky again.

So here's the list:

Ardbeg Ardbog, 52.1%ABV - On the nose: lightly winey, bricks of veggie peat, and seemingly more coastal than the 10 year.  Cigarettes, lemon, lightly bitter peat, and oranges in the palate.  Pretty good actually, just not $100 good.

Ardbeg Corryvrecken, 57.1%ABV - Because what I really needed was a nightcap.

Ardbeg Lord of the Isles - See post #2

Bowmore 1982 21yr Samaroli - See post #2

Bowmore 1989 21yr Silver Seal, 46%ABV - Dynamite! Wish I had taken some actual notes on this one.  Nary a hint of flowers or perfume.  Good peat, good barley, good oak.  Big and bold even after 21+ years.

Bowmore 2000 12yr Cadenheads, 59.6%ABV - This one was divisive.  Cough medicine, salty, some spicy herbs, but mostly very phenolic.  I loved it.

Bowmore 2001 11yr Maltbarn, 53.6%ABV - Tons of grapefruit and ginger. Very enjoyable. A contrast in characteristics from the preceding Cadenheads Bowmore.

Brora 1981 21yr Old Malt Cask - See post #2

Bruichladdich 6yr SMWS 23.62 - Let's just pretend you didn't see this one here.  (Logistics error)

Bunnahabhain 1997 14yr Van Wees, 54.2%ABV - This will also be in post #3.

Bunnahabhain Toiteach, 46%ABV - The young peaty Bunny.  People who like their peated Cruach-Mhona, didn't like this one.  And vice versa.  I like both, but prefer the Cruach due to its Ardbeggieness.

Campbeltown Loch (Blended Scotch) - Not half bad.  Piney, oily, some dried oregano, enough malt to be substantial.  I haven't found this blend for sale in California yet. I'd spring $30 for it, though it appears to be priced higher.

Clan Denny Islay (Blended Malt), 46%ABV - I liked it quite a bit.  There are a number of well-received vatted Islays on the market: Clan Denny, Cask Islay, Smokey Joe, Big Peat.  If the bottlers would only keep their prices in the $40 range, then they would win over the folks (like me) who are tired of seeing $50-$60 10 year old single malts.  But most of those vatted malts are heading into the $50 range as well.

Douglas XO (Blended Scotch) - Inoffensive.  Drinkable.  Low on the smoke.  Probably better than all of the famous entry level blends out tere.

Kilchoman 2007 4yr Single Cask Nation, 58.4%ABV - Another excellent single cask of baby Kilchoman.  Just enough American oak frames the Kilchoman malt rumble.

Lagavulin 1995 12yr Friends of Classic Malts, 48%ABV - A limited (by Diageo's standards) release of 100% ex-sherry Lagavulin.  Was the most popular of all the malts I was pouring.  The sherry oak shaves the edges off the Lag and makes it more approachable.  I'd still take the 12yr cask strength over it any day.

Laphroaig Cairdeas 2013 (9 month port pipe finish), 51.3%ABV - Pink Laphroaig!  I'm not a port-ed whisky fan, but with its strawberry shortcake and fresh raspberries, this most recent Cairdeas was very very tasty. I hope they keep the price low when it hits this coast......I can hope can't I?!

Laphroaig 20yr SMWS 29.104, 58.2%ABV - With 1000 thank yous to Tim Puett!  Definitely one of my top two malts of the night.  I've had four indie ex-sherry Laphroaigs this year and all of them have been fantastic.  The phenolics, grapes, and rich oak always merge into a single statement.  That statement is, of course, "I am delicious."

Ledaig 10yr, 46.3%ABV - My palate was largely vaporized by the time I got to this one, but it was very approachable.  It was good to see so many folks enjoying Ledaig.  I've reviewed it before, but I will study it further.

Ledaig 1997 16yr Blackadder Raw Cask - The other one of my top two malts of the night.  This will be in post #3.

Octomore 5.1, 59.5%ABV - Milk chocolate, a bit of malt still flexing through the noise, sugar cookies, salty peat.  I love enormous phenolics, but the three Octomores I've tried haven't knocked me over.  In fact, it's almost as if the peat is yelling so loud that I've tuned it out.  And their prices are a damned distraction.

Port Ellen 8th Release - See post #2

Apologies for the lack of pics.  I was pouring stuff all night.  And when I wasn't pouring, I was sipping.  Post #2 will be following in a day or two.  Now, I must hydrate.

Single Malt Report: Macallan 17 year Fine Oak vs. Macallan 17 year Fine Oak

The 2010 bottling of Macallan 17 year Fine Oak has sat at the top of my whisky rankings since the day I posted its report.  It's been a favorite of mine -- my first Tier 1! -- ever since I bought my first bottle in 2008.  It was my 30th birthday present to me.  I'd never spent more than $60 on a bottle of booze, and then here I was buying a whisky that was over $100!  And it was good, thankfully.  It lasted me all the way up until my bachelor's party a year and a half later.  I came up with an excuse to buy it again a few months after the first bottle was emptied.  That bottle lasted me up through that single malt report, about 14 months in total.

I always knew Macallan 17 Fine Oak would be the bottle I wanted to open to celebrate our first pregnancy.  So bottle number three was opened and shared in early April.  And it was emptied the night before our lives were upended with the knowledge of the fate of our child's life.

I keep a sample of every good bottle I open in my Archives.  I had one sample of that celebratory bottle.  Also, there just happened to be one extra sample of the previous bottle.  One bottled in 2012 and one bottled in 2010.  This allowed me to retire the recent bottle in style.

Distillery: Macallan
Brand: Fine Oak
Ownership: The Edrington Group
Age: minimum 17 years
Maturation: American oak bourbon casks, American oak sherry casks, Spanish oak sherry casks
Region: Speyside
Alcohol by Volume: 43%

When I'd opened the newer bottle in April, I was struck by how sherried it was.  Was my sherry sensitivity getting completely out of whack again?  My memory of the previous bottles was of very little sherry, and all the parts playing together in tune.  Was this new one really different?  Would Macallan up the European sherry oak quotient in the Fine Oak (a combination of maturations: ex-bourbon American oak, ex-sherry American oak, ex-sherry European oak) right before they were to phase out the Fine Oak series?  Or had my whisky compass gone crap?

Macallan 17 year Fine Oak (bottled 2010)

Nose -- Lots of malt cuddled by American oak.  Sherry (level 3, on a 1-10 scale).  Sea salt caramels along with a little bit of the Atlantic Ocean.  Fresh apricots and peaches.  A momentary Band-Aid note that evaporated and never returned.  With some time, more fruits show up: tangerine and lemon zest, apple juice.

Palate -- Sherry (level 2, on a 1-10 scale), sugar cookies, tobacco, and light bitterness.  Fudge, citrus, honey, and a salty savory note that comes and goes.  Vanilla custard with a sherry float.

Finish -- A sharp finale with a sherry tail.  Hoppy bitterness, Cointreau, a whisper of gin-like juniper.  A hint of the tobacco note.  Vanilla still carries the sherry.


Macallan 17 year Fine Oak (bottled 2012)

Nose -- Sherry (level 6), similar to the 12 year Sherry Oak, malt taking a backseat.  Less of the sea salt caramels, much more floral perfume.  Orange candies and molasses.  Time brings out butterscotch and fresh cherries.

Palate -- Fudgy sherry reminiscent of Glenfarclas at a similar age.  Caramels, toffee, and brown sugar swimming around.  Lots of old sugary grapes (see: sherry).  Hint of fresh mint and basil leaves, and a little honey.

Finish -- Toffee joins the sherry.  A little salt, cherry cordials, orange zest in honey, brown sugar.

The 2012 has a much softer, briefer finish.  Without the sherry, the finale would seem like a light 40% ABV malt.  There's just so much sherry in it, blanketing the American oak and malt.  Feels like it's just another Macallan Sherry Oak, appropriately falling between the 12 and 18.  As a result, Glengoyne and Old Pulteney at the same age outdo it in complexity and, well, taste.  All their parts come together to create single malts that are unique balanced whiskys.

So, for a change, my memory was right, the 2010 bottling really is much different.  The sherry and European oak are present, but uses an inside voice rather than a megaphone.  Thus the conversation has equal participants.  Since it lacks The Thrill Factor, it will get nudged down from the top (Yay Subjectivity!).  But it is still my favorite non-peated Scotch whisky that I've reviewed here......so far.

But it is time to retire this whisky as well and not just because Macallan has phased it out of most markets.  I'm not as excited by its current recipe.  And it carries the memories of a part of my life that is now over.  I hope someday Macallan gets bold and releases an ALL ex-bourbon American oak bottling to show off its great malt, but for now it looks like they're only interested in selling sherry and its amber, sienna, and ruby shades.

---

Macallan 17 year Fine Oak (bottled 2010)

Availability - Might be a few out there, you'll have to check the bottle code
Pricing - see below
Rating - 94

Macallan 17 year Fine Oak (bottled 2012)

Availability - Many US liquor specialists
Pricing - $120-$160 (yeesh, *facepalm*, the price has gone up)
Rating - 87

NOT Single Malt Report: The Big-Ass (and Last) Johnnie Walker Black post

So, here was my first Black Label post.

Then, my second post, comparing it to Chivas Regal 12 year.

Then, my third post, comparing it to Isle of Skye 8 year.

But that first post says it all really.  I've always been biased towards Johnnie Walker Black.  I've been drinking it for a while, have always found it versatile, can get it EVERYWHERE, and thus it comes with a sense of familiarity.

But today, I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Okay, maybe I'll praise Black Caesar a little bit.  But it will be the last time.

---

In this final JWBL Taste Off, I have an old one (which means I'm old, I guess), a current version, and its new stepbrother.

The costars, in their original shapes:

Now in the shape of Glencairn glasses:

What we've got here is, from left to right:
1.  Johnnie Walker Black Label, bottled in the late 1970s, sold Duty Free in a 1.2 liter bottle at 43.4% ABV
2.  Johnnie Walker Black Label, bottled in 2011, from a 50mL mini, at 40% ABV
3.  Johnnie Walker Double Black, likely bottled in 2012, from a Master of Malt sample, 40% ABV

Engage.

---

Johnnie Walker Black Label (bottled late 1970s) - 43.4% ABV

This bottle (with a great neck-fill line) has some history to it, so it received its own post three months ago.  I recommend giving the post a look, especially since it's mostly pictures.  To recap briefly:

As of last Christmas this whisky was the property of Robert and Wilma Perry, my wife's grandparents. It had previously belonged to one of Grandpa Bob's cousins. But for many years it sat in a cold Ohio basement. This past December, Grandpa Bob, who is currently kicking cancer's ass, gave the bottle of whisky to me.

Upon the bottle's opening, the contents inside made a sssssssss-thkkk sound.  Strong notes of library book dust and metal floated up to my nose.  I drank it aniwayyyy and iM stil alivvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Through trial and error I discovered the whisky needs ten to fifteen minutes of breathing time in the glass before it is to be approached.  I am direly serious about that 10-15 minutes.  Because, dude, some funk resides within.

NEAT
Color -- Maple syrup with maroon and mahogany highlights (or to be less flowery: dark brown with some dark red in it)

Nose -- Old sherry stank.  Think: old moldy casks of sherry sitting in a warm dunnage for over 100 years.  There's moss and mushrooms and soil.  Enormous fermented prunes.  Damp tobacco.  Lime rind, maple syrup, and molasses.  Digging beneath the sherry, one may find a butterscotch sundae with vanilla ice cream, plums, red & black licorice, and paint fumes.

Palate -- Earthy, salty, tangy, mildly bitter, hot, maybe even a little bit of industrial chemicals in there.  Beyond that: The Big Sherry that's almost metallic.  Prunes, milk chocolate, semi-sweet chocolate, chocolate mints, overripe plums, and the mothballs in my grandma's Brooklyn basement.  A vegetal peat holds court in the background.  The texture is very thick and buttery.

Finish -- That sherry funk sticks to the innards and doesn't leave for some time.  It has those plums and prunes, along with the chocolate mints, some fudge and a pinch of salt.  It gets sweeter and maltier than the palate.

W/WATER
Water doesn't make a damned dent in it.

I'll have some more comments below, but this is a big malty beast.  And, honestly, it's a bit challenging in its intensity.  More on this later...

---

Johnnie Walker Black Label (bottled in 2011) - 40%

This has been my go-to Scotch at bars since...well, since bars.  I've purchased its minis to take with me on trips or to include in Taste Offs.  I've had two bottles given to me as gifts.  But for all the praise I've lavished on Black Label, I have never purchased a 750mL bottle of it.  And now I never will.  This is the first of the Diageo brands I am discarding.

NEAT
Color -- Johnnie Walker (seriously, it's probably patented)

Nose -- Honey, apples, a mild cheese, vanilla, and black cherry soda.  Less smoke here than on the palate.  It's a little bready.  Maybe some clay.  After some time the mild sherry shows up with all of its dried fruits in tow.

Palate -- More peated than the last time I drank it.  There's a little sharpness and sourness to the grains. It's mildly sweet, think simple syrup and molasses.  Between the black pepper, peat, and smoke it's almost savory.

Finish -- Black pepper, whipped cream, more peat than smoke.  The bread note returns.  Some drying tannins kick in.

W/WATER
Nose -- Leather notes arise, along with a lot of caramel sauce.  The sherry quiets down.

Palate -- More savory and herbal.  Softer, very morish.  The sharpness and sourness are gone, leaving a pleasant sweetness.  Caramel and peat.  One of the few blends that improves with water.

Finish -- The same as when served neatly, though perhaps a little briefer and not as dry.

It's still my favorite blended scotch, though Bank Note will have no trouble wearing its crown.

---

Johnnie Walker Double Black (2012?) - 40%

Despite my enjoyment of JW's Black and Green Labels, I have had little to no interest in this new addition to the Johnnie Walker range.  I've even had retailers tell me it's less than exciting.  The official marketing of it spins a story of it being like Black, but with more smoke (likely due to a larger quantity of Caol Ila among the malts) and more barrel char.  Yet, I have a sense memory of Black Label having once been smokier -- or has my palate shifted?  Also, Serge Valentin and Dominic Roskrow have expressed their approval of it.  So maybe this could stand up to the old and new Black Label...

NEAT
Color -- Johnnie Walker (not doubly black)

Nose -- Candied balloon rubber.  Cotton candy peat.  Brown sugar and cinnamon.  Hint o' mint.  Less of the sherry, in fact not much oak.  Not much malt either?

Palate -- Lighter in texture and tone than JWBL.  Sweetness, sourness, and sharpness are all dialed down to focus on the light peating.  A little BBQ -- think bacon and burnt hay, maybe charred beef.  With time some more ash and sugar cubes seem to appear.  As the texture is thinner than JWBL, it feels like the easiest drinker of these three.

Finish -- The most muted of the three, as it fades quickly.  Some BBQ, some sugar, ash, and echoes of the peat.

W/WATER
Nose -- The barbecued meat finds its way to the nose, along with caramel.

Palate -- Salt and pepper.  Something like dried basil or thyme.  Otherwise pretty similar.

Finish -- More sweetness here, otherwise similar but even quieter.

It offends the least, but in this instance that's not a strength.  Makes me want to drink some Caol Ila instead.

---

COMMENTS:
The old Black Label does not resemble either of the two modern blends whatsoever.  This may be due to the following factors:

1.) Paxarette - Until it was banned in the 1980s by the SWA, a dense syrupy grape-must-laden Sherry called Paxarette was secretly (or not so-secretly) added to reused casks in order to spruce them up and add a stronger flavor element to the malt whisky within.  Also since American oak was cheaper and more prevalent than Spanish oak, Pax was added to ex-bourbon casks in order to quickly turn them into Sherry casks.  This may account for some of the complaints that sherry-aged whisky doesn't hold up as well as it used to.  Perhaps the Pax had helped.  But now it's banned while industrial caramel colorant is not.

2.) Old Bottle Effect (OBE), especially the dusty, metallic notes.  Plus all that rich sherry stank (really that's the only word I have for it after three months and one liter consumed) must be influenced by being locked up in a bottle for 30+ years.

3.) Now-defunct distilleries' malts in the mix.  Could Convalmore, Glen Albyn, Glen Mohr, Brora, Banff, Coleburn, Port Ellen, Glenesk, Dallas Dhu, Glenury Royal, Millburn, Glenlochy, North Port, Pittyvaich, St. Magdalene, Coleburn, or Rosebank malt be in there?  Man, even typing that list made me sad.

4.) A very different recipe.  This is so much maltier than any JW label -- save Green (R.I.P.).  And it's much more sherried too.  Old bottle effect aside, this was definitely highly sherried in its original creation.  More folks were drinking sherry back then, thus palates were more familiar with sherry, and sherry casks were more plentiful (also see factor #1).  I'm wondering if some of the grain whisky was casked in ex-sherries too.

[One more thing of note.  Examining the old bottle carefully, one will notice not a single mention of an age statement.  The original Black Label (first called "Old Highland Whisky") came with a guarantee of "Over 12 Years Old".  Sometime in the 1950s that guarantee was removed from the label.  It came back onto labels the 1980s.  I've gone through all of my whisky books and online resources, but I'm not sure if the removal of the age statement was due to the addition of younger whisky (any help here would be appreciated!).  But, if anything, this NAS Black Label has the texture, scent, and palate of something significantly more mature than the current 12 year old Black Label.]

Meanwhile, the two current blends are light and brisk compared to the old one.  The oldie puts up a fight with its metallics and mold.  While the current ones are ready to drink upon pouring as if they were engineered that way.  Like a true product.  The oldie is a roughie, not seeming like it's a conglomerate's carefully controlled property.  It may offend.  Today, most Diageo products are designed not to.

The thing is, even considering the above paragraph, I like the current Black Label product; sort of like how your healthy friends still crave McDonald's fries.  Both are mass marketed consumable goods designed to please.  And it works for me.

Meanwhile, Double Black is decent but there are better blends at better prices.  I can buy both Burn Stewart's Black Bottle (never mind, Black Bottle is hideous) and AD Rattray's Bank Note together for less expense than one bottle of Double Black.  What it does do, as I mentioned above, is make me want some Caol Ila single malt instead.

What strikes me as most odd is the pricing of Double Black higher than Black Label, sometimes at a $15 premium.  I haven't found a reasonable defense for it.  It's not richer, thicker, bolder, or more sophisticated.  There doesn't seem to be more malt, and if there was a higher malt content that would certainly be a marketing point.  It almost certainly has younger malt; if not, then they would be touting an age statement.

I guess Diageo wants it to seem more expensive......by making it more expensive.  And the box does have some more design detail to it.  The bottle IS blacker.  And there's the word "Double" in the name.  But......?

So that's it for Johnnie Walker and I.  Splitsville.  Double Black didn't tempt me.  My feelings about their other two newest labels have been previously posted here.  Red Label can be topped by most blends in its price range (excepting Dewars).  Gold Label went out with a whimper.  Green Label has been silenced.  And I'm not paying $200 for Blue Label when some of the best single malts in the world can be had for less than half that price.

It's been a good fifteen years, Black Label.  Now off with you.  Go steal the heart of yet another dictator in an "emerging market".

---

Johnnie Walker Black Label (late '70s)

Availability - My whisky cabinet

Pricing - ?

Rating - 87

Johnnie Walker Black Label (current)

Availability - Everywhere!

Pricing - $28-$40

Rating - 88


Johnnie Walker Double Black Label

Availability - Most liquor retailers

Pricing - $40-$50

Rating - 80

The Storm

After experiencing the loss of someone close to you, what follows is partially about healing, but also largely about learning and adapting.  Healing has a connotation of mending so that one can get back to the life before the injury.  But there is no full return.  After a loss, one learns many things about oneself -- feelings, thoughts, and ideas, but mostly feelings -- he or she would never have otherwise known.  Then after the learning, one takes the experience and merges it with the life going forward.

Some people experience pure grief.  Others postpone it so that they may forget about themselves and help those who suffer.  Some people go back to work in order to maintain some level of equilibrium.  Ultimately we all feel things at different speeds and in different colors.

Three months ago, I posted a short piece called "Awake" announcing on this blog that we were pregnant with our first child.  I have since regretted that post deeply, because I now have to write this follow-up.

We lost the pregnancy and our little boy with it.

It's been a difficult year, probably the most difficult one I've faced in my first three and a half decades.  My health has not been its best.  Our home has been (mostly figuratively) polluted by our neighbors.  My job has become insufferable.  I have spent over 500 hours on the road going to and from work over the past 9 months.  I've seen dozens of drunk drivers swerving all over the freeway first thing in the morning.  I have seen housepets with their eyes torn out and beheaded on a Tuesday, crushed by gardening equipment on a Wednesday, flailing to death after being run over by a truck on Thursday.

It's safe to say that I have retreated from society a bit.  I have gotten even worse at returning emails and calls, for I which I am very sorry because the only lightness I have found is in the people I have met.  From doctor's offices, to operating rooms, to supermarkets, to restaurants, to living rooms, the people in my life are the best part.  And I am thankful for them.

This blog, with all of its whisky posts, has been a welcome distraction.  If it ever becomes too much of a distraction, I will openly address it.  But for now, it allows me to fixate on something I enjoy.  The next two whisky reports (one this week, one next week) will be bittersweet because they were the pregnancy celebratory whiskies.  I will be retiring them from my life with those posts.

I feel very conflicted writing this post.  This blog was originally intended to be about my personal journeys, not just about one particular amber restorative.  Yet the 200+ whisky posts have brought an audience much wider than my local friends and family.  Thus many of you don't actually know me.  And here I am disclosing private things; wounds, scars, and all.  Come for the whisky, stay for the despair?  No, if you're here for the booze, thank you.  Just think of this as a bit of additional perspective to my thoughts on the next two whisky posts.

If you're here just to be here, thank you.  I still intend to post non-whisky things someday soon, but for now, this is all I can focus on.

Peatin' Meetin' 2013

I am not someone who goes to $500/ticket whisky extravaganzas.  I am secure enough to know those fall far outside of my financial means.  Nor do I go to $150/ticket whisky fetes, because often the peripheral travel, transport, and lodging expenses build up to that $500 price tag.

But I do go to Peatin' Meetin'.  I went last year, I'm going this year, and I look forward to next year's bash.  The concept is simple: peated whiskies and peated barbecue.  And the whisky, oh the whisky.  Gallons of it.  Stuff I've never tried, stuff I've wanted to try, stuff I can't try anywhere else.  Moreover the people who run it, my fellow LA Scotch Club members (led by Andy Smith), are great folks who know whisky and love whisky.

That's me on the left looking severely more beefcake than I have any right to be. (source)

This year is going to be the biggest Meetin' yet.  And it's not just due to the peated beer, peated side dishes, or the Peat Monster.  There are TON more exhibitors than last year:

Ardbeg, Arran, Balvenie, Bowmore, Bruichladdich, Bunnahabhain, Caol Ila, Chieftain's, Connemara, Douglas Laing, InBev, Impex, Kilchoman, Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Ledaig, Lost Spirits, Samaroli, Seven Grand, Single Cask Nation, Smokehead, and more.

(I had a great time last year when there were a handful of exhibitors, so this year proves to be CRAZY.)

There will even be a piper: Lorne Cousin of Glenfiddich fame, in fact.  And there will be two live bands present to tear it up.  A pair of modern additions for this year: a smartphone app and......um......shade.

I may even be found behind the tables pouring drams for other people.  Not the old "one for you, one for me", because that would be one short night.  This is the one whisky event I've been looking forward to all year and I want to remember (or at least document) it all.

This stash above was from last year's event and did not include the goodies the exhibitors brought.  This year will be BIGGER.  More malt, more peat.

As an attendee, the first word that should float through your mind (after "HOLY S***") is STRATEGY.  Seriously, you must make a game plan, then drink to it.  It is easy to overindulge quickly when presented with such a bounty.  But you don't want to be nuzzling the soil before Hour One is done.  Strategy.

Here's my post after last year's event (wherein I consistently misspell Peatin') providing a short rundown of each of my whisky choices.  While there were a couple bottles I wished I'd tried, I am comfortable in saying that 13 whiskies was not only enough to fully satisfy, but also surprise me, romance me, and introduce me to a distillery that has since become my favorite.  And I left in one piece.  And woke up the next morning without a killer hangover.  Some may say I didn't try hard enough.  No one will be able to say that this year.

Peatin' Meetin' V unveils itself on Saturday, June 29th at 5:30 at the UCLA (go Bruins!) Sunset Canyon Recreational Center.  Here's the link to the website for more information.  If you're in town, I hope to see you there!

Single Malt Report: Isle of Jura Superstition

Onto another Scottish Isle: Jura, Islay's northern neighbor.  The single distillery on Jura opened for production back in 1810.  After passing through at least four separate owners, it was then closed and dismantled in 1901.  Fifty-nine years later, Charles Mackinlay & Co rebuilt and expanded the distillery, then restarted production by 1963.  Through another handful of corporate buyouts and restructuring, the distillery came under the ownership of United Spirits (the largest alcoholic beverage company in India) in 2007.

There has been a real dearth of United Spirits whiskys on this blog for a mix of reasons.  Their Whyte & Mackay blend has yet to make to the US even after so many years.  Dalmore's zany pricing and agressive push into the ultra-luxury market leaves a worse aftertaste than does their current 12yr single malt.  It's difficult to find much Fettercairn in The States and no one yet has convinced me to shed my cash for even a sample of it.  And then there's Jura, a dram that's usually just okay.  I used to like their 10 year quite a bit, but my two most recent attempts at it brought me back to that "just okay" response.

I wanted to give one of their more interesting bottlings a chance here before much more time passes.  Why worry about time?  Well, guess who now holds the largest ownership in United Spirits?  Diageo.  But let's not let Diageo piddle on this parade yet.

Richard Paterson (Whyte & Mackay Master Blender and genuine whisky celeb) and his Jura team start with a dose of Jura's peated malt (which also makes up their Prophecy bottling) then add various older casks.  The peated (at a healthy 55ppm, though this amount is disputed) malt is likely young since no age is provided, though Jura is happy to let us know that it makes up 13% of the final Superstition product.  Superstitious!  Meanwhile the older whiskys are between 13 and 21 years old.  Superstitious! And Blackjack!

I jest in jest.  What it actually is is a lightly peated NAS whisky chillfiltered, colored, and bottled at 43%.  But as part of modern whisky marketing, it is given a character and a story.  And though that story references the superstitious nature of the Jura people, the Egyptian key of life is emblazoned on the front of the whisky bottle.

But is the whisky any good?

What a slinky bottle!

Distillery: Isle of Jura Distillery
Type: Single Malt
Ownership: United Spirits Ltd
Age: NAS peated malt mixed with 13 to 21 year old non-peated malt
Maturation: ex-Bourbon casks
Region: Isle of Jura, Scotland
Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Chillfiltered? Yes
Colored? Yes

Sampled neatly from a 30mL sample

Color -- Very rosy gold

Nose -- It's at its best towards the beginning of the glass: Cherry liqueur, cantaloupe, and veggie peat.  With time the veg note gets a bit astringent.  Not gassy, but quite sharp.  There's some milky coffee, dry sherry, and cranberries mixed in.  At its worst: chlorine meets pencil lead and sour milk.  Time does it no favors.

Palate -- More smoke than peat.  Butter and notebook paper, a little earthy.  It gets MUCH sweeter with time in the glass.  It reminds me of a blend but with more hoppy bitterness and malt sugar.  Seems very young.

Finish -- Vanilla smoke with bitter burnt coffee grounds.  Lightly sour, but very sweet.  That bitter note grows and grows.  The smoke lingers along with some cayenne pepper.

I'll lead with a positive thought.  I'm actually curious to try their straight-up peated whisky, Prophecy.  Its phenolic content measures higher than that of Ardbeg, Longrow, Lagavulin, and Laphroaig's regular whiskys.

But about this Superstition...  I'm not sure where those older casks are hiding because this tastes like a young blend.  Not a bad blend.   But when I tried it side-by-side with the five-year-old Bank Note (an actual blend, btw), the Note felt both fuller and subtler with better oak interaction.  And maltier too for that matter, but that could just be my tastebuds' interpretation.

The nose is like Ebby Calvin LaLoosh, sorta all over the place.  The finish has many of the elements that should appeal -- vanilla, earthiness, pepper -- but it just sweets-up and bitters-out big time.  Even the reddish color seems odd coming from ex-Bourbon casks.  Well, not that odd if the color is getting a chemical boost.

Wow, this turned out to be a much longer report than I'd thought, as my tasting notes were very brief on this one.  I'll depart by encouraging the curious to seek out a 50mL mini of Superstition rather than going in on a whole bottle blind.  Perhaps you'll discover the positive side as Ian Buxton has or maybe you'll side more with Andy Smith.  I'm with Andy on this one.

Availability - Some liquor specialists
Pricing - $40-$55
Rating - 72