Single Malt Report: Octomore 5.1 / 5_169

Continuing with the Octomore three-for-all:

Yesterday, I reviewed the third Octomore release and gave a little background on the Octomore whiskies themselves.

Today, let us take look at the fifth release, weighing in at 169ppm.  If you're keeping track of the numbers, this release has the highest peated malted barley of all the Octomores so far.  Also, even though there's a ".1" after the "5", I haven't seen any subreleases.  Like the rest of the regular releases, this is a five-year-old whisky.  It sells for $200 (wut?) and had a "limited" release of 18,000 of its monolithic bottles.

Unlike the 3.1 end-of-bottle sampling from yesterday, this one came right from the top.  Daniel generously waited to open his bottle of 5.1 for this Taste Off.  He did make a very good point that because of the bottle's unique opaque glass, no one can tell what the heck the fill level is nor where drinky level is during its life after opening.  The style is cool -- and I guess it's there to help soothe one's mind about the price tag -- but it's not as useful as plain old cheap glass.  It's a whisky bottle, damn it!

OCTOMORE 5.1 / 5_169

Distillery: Bruichladdich
Brand: Octomore

Ownership: Remy Cointreau

Region: Islay

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation: Bourbon barrels (likely re-fill)

Age: 5 years (bottled 2012)

Alcohol by Volume: 59.5%
PPM: 169
Limited release: 18,000 bottles

The color is the palest of the three.  The oak notes are the mildest as well which makes me think there are more refill casks in this batch than in batch 3.  The nose delivers a much sharper peat than the 3.1. One gets the smoke, the farmy veg, and fresh seaweed versions of peat notes.  A clean beach whiff.  Some fresh apricot and red hots candy.  Very spirity.  After some time opening up, the whisky releases a tiny bit of oak character in mild vanilla and caramel.  The palate starts out hot and needs some air.  It holds the farmy peat, but it's subtler than in the 3.1.  There's a sugary sweetness, that I believe comes from the spirit rather than the oak.  Lots of salty oceanic notes.  But still, most of the peat notes remain mild.  The finish gains a peppery spice.  More the of the salt and ocean.  A little vanilla and burnt wheat bread.  The peat gets mossier.

Where yesterday's 3.1 was loose and soft, likely from some oxidation, today's 5.1 is very tight, likely due to being from the start of the bottle.  I've been finding this top-of-the-bottle tightness from all of the young high strength whiskies I've owned.  I do think think the 3.1's larger oak presence also has a lot to do with its roundness, that's why I keep tying o-a-k in these paragraphs.

Still, the peat will not destroy your palate.  As Jordan mentioned in yesterday's comment section, Bruichladdich's tall stills may be responsible for softening and developing the phenols -- and actually Ralfy has a similar thought in his review of this 5.1, which I just caught this morning..

Like Kilchoman's products, Octomore is a young whisky that tastes and noses very well.  The financial quandary is this, you can buy 5-year-old Kilchoman single cask bottlings ($100, limited to 200-300 bottles each) twice over for the price of the regular 5-year-old Octomores ($200, limited to 18,000 bottltes each), and while a very small business runs Kilchoman, a large international corporation operates Bruichladdich.  Not sure if that influences your choices, but I think about that sort of stuff all the time.

Tomorrow, I'll review the Taste Off's concluding Octomore.  One that is not quite like the others...

Availability - Many specialty US liquor retailers

Pricing - $160-$220

Rating - 86

Single Malt Report: Octomore 3.1 / 3_152

Octomore 3.1 / 3_152.  Its name looks like a eight-limbed military robot prototype.  But it ain't no war machine, it's a peat machine.  Let's break down that name.  Octomore is named after a farm that sits on a hill above Port Charlotte on The Rhinns of Islay (the peninsula on the west coast).  In the early 1800s, a distillery was built on the farm that utilized their own barley for malt whisky.

Today, "Octomore" is being produced at the Bruichladdich distillery by the same folks who make the "Port Charlotte" whiskies.  This particular version of Octomore is the Third Edition, thus the "3".  Many of the editions have sub-editions, usually with different maturation techniques, thus the ".1" designation.  "3_152" says that this third edition has a phenol level of 152 parts per million.

The Octomores are the most heavily peated single malts in the world.  That's been their calling card.  The ppm levels for the six regular editions have ranged from 131 to 169.  Compare that to the standard Lagavulin and Laphroaig levels of 35-40ppm.  Ardbeg's malt has 55ppm and their own peat experiment, Supernova, reached 100ppm.  I've been told the key to Octomore's extra high peat levels is moisture.  Manipulating moisture levels in the peat and barley allows more smoke to be generated and phenols to be absorbed.  (By the way, if anyone knows that I've been given erroneous info on this last part, please let me know.)

To me, the Octomores are a stunt.  They are experiments.  But they are also VERY expensive whiskies, as in $200 for a five year old.  And it's not a single cask whisky.  There are 18,000 bottles released for each expression.  My feelings about the pricing have, in the past, influenced my opinion of the whisky itself.  Also, my previous three Octomore tries have been in circumstances that did not lend themselves to full appreciation of any sort of whisky.

Thanks to two different readers, I was able to look past the pricing issues, sit down with THREE different Octomores side-by-side in my dining room and suss them out.  Daniel, a professional DJ and a well-versed whisky man, brought over two of the Octomores.  Eric S., a very generous anorak from the Lone Star State, sent the third Octomore I brought to the table.

Daniel and I dug into the Octomore three-for-all...

courtesy of Daniel's camera

OCTOMORE 3.1 / 3_152

Distillery: Bruichladdich
Brand: Octomore

Ownership: Remy Cointreau

Region: Islay

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation: Bourbon barrels

Age: 5 years

Alcohol by Volume: 59.0%
PPM: 152
Limited release: 18,000 bottles

The color, a medium gold, is actually the darkest of the three, leading me to consider there's a large factor of first-fill or heavier-charred casks in the mix.  The nose is the most farmy of the three as well.  Quite some manure.  Ocean notes arise, but not of a clean clear ocean, rather something more like Long Beach: the waters of an industrial port.  There's a friendly back-and-forth between sugary lemon rinds and something meaty-savory.  Maybe some roasted nuts in there too.  A veggie peat note pops up at the end, reminiscent of bean sprouts.  Some very palatable peat on the palate, considering its levels.  Vanilla peat perhaps?  A little mild cheese, pleasantly bitter black tea, and a green herbal note as well.  Give it some time for some rich toasted oak and yeasty bread notes to appear.  The finish is mellow, but very long.  There's the vanilla and caramel from the oak, toasted peat from the malting floor, and a bright herbal-ness from the spirit.

Keep in mind, this sampling came from near the bottom of the 3.1's bottle.  It had been decanted into a smaller bottle, but there's a chance a little bit of oxidation was involved which may have made the ABV feel softer.  So that's my disclaimer.  Otherwise, this was darned good.

One thing I've noticed with all the Octomores I've tried is that despite their extreme PPMs, the drinker isn't cloaked in smoke nor blinded by iodine and medicinal sharpness.  You can actually experience more peat aggression in the official Laphroaig CSs or some Port Charlottes or The Corryvreckan.  It's almost as if there's so much peating going on with the Octomores that the drinker goes right through the peat wall and into the other side, finding a controlled, mossy, coastal, toasty Islay malt.  We'll see this happen with the next two Octomores as well...

Availability - Getting tough to find, maybe a dozen retailers around the world

Pricing - $170-$250 (still, unforgivable)

Rating - 88 (after further consideration, I've adjusted the rating from its original four stars)

A Very Very Dusty Whisky Monday Night: Ye Olde Scots

After Tuesday's and Wednesday's posts, I shall wrap up this week's little series about an epic Monday evening.  The blended Scotch Whisky:

Now a little bit of disclosure...

While I did drink the American whiskies at the event, I took these two pours to go.  I was facing an extended drive home.  Sobriety was something I held in higher esteem than immediate dusty dramming.  Having my two little samples bottles here also allowed me to focus on the whiskies in what has become my regular tasting nook.  Last night I put on some crackly Django Reinhardt in honor of when these whiskies were distilled, then some particularly silly Sinatra for when the booze was bottled.  It was a good evening.

---

In these two reviews, I'm going to be mentioning a "funk".  This is a funk similar to that of my dusty Johnnie Walker Black bottle, though the JW has a higher funk content.  What is the funk?  It's a dank, moist, dirty note that I think is a combination of old damp sherry casks, paxarette, and old bottle effect.  While it can be found on the palate, it hits bigger on the nose.  And so far, it's been specific to old Scotch whisky -- haven't found it yet in bourbons -- so it may have something to do with the malt itself.

I find it very difficult to compare dusty Scotch with contemporary Scotch.  The processes that lead to the liquid have changed so much.  Barley types have changed, as have the yeast strains.  Maltings were once small and localized, the barley more often dried by peat smoke.  The loss of direct-fired stills may have changed the texture; and I've heard some secondhand stories that this change in still heating has resulted in molecular changes as well.  More malt was used in the blends.  Subtract today's chillfiltration and e150a colorant, then replace it with the paxarette additive.  The cask structure was often different, since actual former European oak sherry casks were easier to come by in earlier decades.  Blend recipes have changed per expenses, palates, and available product.  Heck, many distilleries within the blends have vanished.  Then there's that funk.

Old and new, it's all whisky.  But things have changed, as Dylan once said.

First came the Ambassador:

I did have to doctor up this photo so these words were legible:
"Federal law forbids sale or re-use of this bottle"

Ambassador 25 year old blended Scotch whisky; bottled late 1940s to early 1950s, distilled in the 1920s.  86 proof, 4/5 quart bottle.

Ambassador appears to have been around as early as the 1900s.  The brand has since passed from hand to hand, from Bloch Brothers Distillers Ltd to Taylor & Ferguson Ltd to Royal Wine Corp.  There seemed to have been about a half dozen different importers as well.  Their last US hurrah was in the 1990s, and one can still find a handle of NAS Ambassador for $20 or so.  The 25yo was selling in the $60ish range during its final go 'round.  Fancy stuff!

But let's take a look at the label.  Check this out:

The red text says "Distilleries", then the black text reads Glen Scotia and Scapa.  Pretty awesome to have a blend actually name some of its components!

I found a couple of photos of Ambassador 25 bottles from the 1970s and only Scapa is named.  The aforementioned Bloch Brothers who blended Ambassador when this bottle was filled, also owned Glen Scotia and Scapa at the time.  By the '70s, they'd sold both distilleries and the blend.  It appears as if when Taylor & Ferguson took over the Ambassador brand, they were able to keep Scapa in the recipe, but not Glen Scotia.

How about the whisky itself...

The color was a deep gold.  The nose started with a piney peat, seaweed, pencil lead, and "the funk". Here it's a dank, metallic, chocolate, moldy sherried funk.  Fresh stone fruit notes brightened it all up.  Maybe some peach taffy too.  With some more breathing time toasted grains, caramel, figs, and oak pulp developed.  The texture was surprisingly a little thin.  The palate held more smoke than peat.  Think cigarette smoke and burnt wood.  Unsmoked tobacco too, actually.  Cocoa powder and baking chocolate bitterness.  Felt like there's quite a bit of mild grassy caramelly grain whisky in the recipe.  Lots of smoke remained in the finish, as did the bitter cocoa.  In fact, the tougher parts hung around the longest with just a little caramel in there to soften things up.

Then there was the Ballantine's:

Ballantine's 30 year old blended Scotch whisky; bottled around 1954-1964, distilled mid 1920s to early 1930s.  86 proof, 4/5 quart bottle.

Unlike the Ambassador brand, Ballantine's is still alive and well today.  It is the second bestselling blend in the world, following only Johnnie Walker.  It was founded by George Ballantine in the mid nineteenth century.  The Ballantine family sold it to Barclay & McKinlay in the 1910s.  They in turn sold it to Hiram Walker after the end of Prohibition.  Hiram Walker Gooderham & Worts was sold to Allied Lyons in 1987, which then became part of Allied Domecq a few years later.  Finally, in 2005 Ballantine's went to Pernod Ricard in the purchase of Allied Domecq.

The 30 year old blend entered the market in 1930 and it is still bottled today (with a slight price increase).  The distillers mentioned twice on this bottle's labels were located in Glasgow and Dumbarton.  Around the turn of the century there were at least seven distilleries in Glasgow, many of which produced grain whisky.  Today only one distillery exists on the outskirts of Glasgow, Auchentoshan.  As for Dumbarton, a number of Lowland distilleries once existed nearby.  In 1938, Dumbarton grain distillery was built by Hiram Walker, but its whisky would not have made it into this bottle.  So it's possible that many of the distilleries in this particular 30 year old's recipe no longer exist.  And if many of the components did come from Glasgow and Dumbarton, that means much of the whisky was from the Lowlands.  Of course, it's also possible that Ballantine's main offices were in Glasgow and Dumbarton......as they are today.  Let us now depart from speculation and commence with the drinking.

The color was darker than that of the Ambassador, with some red hues around the edges.  The nose was calmer.  Less peat in play, though it's still there.  The funk was quieter with less of a sherry character.  Some fresh apples, old rum, and early morning body odor in there.  Sweetened grapefruit juice, vanilla, maple syrup.  It got more sugary with time, more caramels and dessert wines.  The texture was thicker than the Ambassador's.  The palate was very straightforward.  Tangy peat, burnt wood, and LOTS of tart grapefruit.  The grapefruit kept going and going and going.  A little generic vanilla in the back.  Just a little sweetness, but mostly tart and tang.  The grapefruit continued into the finish, both the tart and the tang.  Then followed dark chocolate, smoked vanilla bean pods, peat smoke residue, and a restaurant's smoking section (remember those?).

---

It's difficult to quantify these oldies as I have very little frame of reference.  While the Ballantine's felt more substantial in the mouth, it actually became very one note (grapefruit!).  While the thinness and graininess of the Ambassador weren't points in its favor, it made for a more interesting drink.  The peating was more substantial, the fruit notes were nice, and I liked the bitterness.  Yet with its seemingly higher malt content, denser character, bold sherry wallop, and funkadelic fun, my '70s Johnnie Walker Black Label would be my selection over these two......if in some fantasy world I was offered the choice of the three bottles.  But I would never trade away this amazing opportunity to experience whiskey history.  Many thank yous to Chris and Michael of the Southern California Whiskey Club!

---

Ambassador 25 year old (bottled late '40s - early '50s)
Availability - ???
Pricing - ???
Rating - 84

Ballantine's 30 year old (bottled 1954-1964)
Availability - ???
Pricing - ???
Rating - 84

(Sources: http://www.whisky.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76, http://booze-blog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ambassador-deluxe-scotch.html, http://www.lionswhisky.com, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-03-19/features/0603190483_1_zeller-schwarze-katz-wine-cabernet, http://www.ballantines.com/, http://www.whisky.com/brands/ballantines.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gooderham_and_Worts_Distillery, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Domecq, http://www.maltwhiskyyearbook.com/)

A Very Very Dusty Whiskey Monday Night: Ye Olde Americans

Focusing on the middle four bottles today.  See yesterday's post for more photos!

These six lovely old bottles greeted the tasters upon our entrance into Seven Grand's back room.  To make sure everyone was comfortable with the authenticity of the bottles, Chris waited to open them until the tasting began.  It's difficult to open very old dusties without breaking the cork, so Chris also brought along coffee filters to strain out any crumbles that dropped into the whiskey.  He actually only had to use them twice.  I think the guy has opened his share of old bottles.

Three of the four American whiskies were quart-sized, as opposed to 750mL.  They all had reasonable neck/shoulder fill levels.  For lower proof whiskies (80-86 proof), low neck fills are more of a concern than they are for higher proofs, as the creeping oxygen will make quicker work of the weaker ones.  Just something to keep in mind for those of us eyeing the markets for an oldie.  It is of my personal estimation that none of these were negatively oxidized.  But they were definitely old.

I kept two Glencairns going at once, switching back and forth between glasses, seeing if a little breathing time changed the whiskies.  Because a couple of the whiskies required cork filtering, we had the opportunity to take our time (and/or socialize) if we chose to.

The first one up:

Old Sunny Brook 4 year old Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whisky; bottled in 1941 -- thus distilled in 1937 or earlier; 93 proof.  One quart.  Fill level - 3/4 up the shoulder.

Old Sunny Brook distillery was likely built in the early 1880s but went by a number of different names during its first half century (Associated Distilleries of Kentucky, Old Kentucky Distilling Company, Old Times Distilling Company, Willow Creek Distillery, etc.).  The Rosenfield family bought it in 1892, then in 1914 it became Sunny Brook Distillery.  The Rosenfields sold the distillery in 1933 to American Medicinal Spirits (which itself was owned by National Distillers), just in time for post-prohibition distilling to start.  Though National Distillers closed the distillery in 1975, bourbon under the brand's name was still being bottled long after that, distilled elsewhere.  In fact Beam, who bought National twenty-five years ago, may still be producing a blended whiskey under the Old Sunny Brook brand name.

(Sources: http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_distillery.php?did=DST357, http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1716)

What we had here was from the National Distillers era.

True to the back label's quip, the nose was indeed the most cheerful of all the whiskies sampled.  It started with hazelnuts, maple syrup, milk chocolate, dark cherries, walnuts, and vanilla beans.  With some air, notes of tree bark, chocolate eclairs, and peanut brittle emerged.  The palate was less expressive.  There were sugary candied notes, a little bit of the peanut brittle, some toffee, and a bit of alcohol bite.  Its finish was mild.  Toffee and ethyl burn.

I really enjoyed the nose.  Whether it's due to time, oxygen, storage, mashbill, or changes in production processes, the sniffer far exceeded that of any four year-old bourbon I've ever tried.  If oxidation did have any negative affect on the Sunny Brook, it would have been on the palate.  But perhaps that's how it tasted back in the day.

The second whiskey:

Old Hillsboro Reserve 5 year old Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; bottled in 1942 -- thus distilled in 1937 or earlier; 100 proof.  One quart.  Neck-fill low shoulder.

This was distilled by Bernheim Distillers Company (which was actually sold to Schenley Distilleries Inc in '37), but as you'll see in the picture below it is listed as Registered Distillery #1.  Bernheim Distillery was #9 in its region at this point.  But Warwick Distillery, formerly Old Times Distillery, was RD #1 in its region, and was bought by Bernheim in 1906.  Today, American distilleries use DSP (distilled spirits plant) numbers instead of RDs; Heaven Hill's Bernheim distillery is DSP #1.  I'm not sure how much that info helps, but on an interesting note take a look at the bottom of the front label.  This batch of Old Hillsboro was specifically bottled for an individual or family in North Hollywood, CA.  So we drank it close to home.

(Sources: http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_distillery.php?did=DST298, http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_distillery.php?did=DST405, http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1660, http://www.bourbondrinker.com/index.php?topic=1501.0)

The nose was strikingly similar to a contemporary mid-shelf wheated (or very low-rye) bourbon.  Caramel, vanilla, orange peel, and cinnamon were the main notes.  Only the hints of peanut butter and clay made it feel somewhat different.  The palate was bright yet light for a 50% ABV.  And it was chock full of corn and soft vanillin.  Its finish was very brief and oaky.

Though I don't have a lot of notes for the palate, I did enjoy it more than Old Sunny Brook's flavor.  Perhaps the softness was brought on by oxidation, as this bottle did have the lowest fill level.  But again, the smoothness may have been the style, as bourbon is usually made for drinking.

The third whiskey was a fun one:

G.R. Sharpe 4 year old Old Style Whiskey; bottled in 1917 -- thus bottled in 1913 or earlier; 100 proof.  One quart.  Neck-fill 3/4 up the shoulder.

Yeah, you're reading that right.  1913.  And it had one of the better fill levels on it too.

Chris did some research into this whiskey and found out its juice was from Elk Run Distillers (click here for a distillery photo from 1913).  My snooping turned up very little, other than the fact that Elk Run Distillers Co. was shortlived, 1906-1919.  You'll notice no mention of "Bourbon" on the bottle.  This may have been blended whiskey or bourbon.  Chris mentioned that as the reality of impending national prohibition was gaining steam, and as individual states went dry, many companies rushed to bottle as much whiskey as possible as long as it was legal to do so.  This very bottle may have been one of the results.

(Source: http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_vendor.php?vid=SDF18525)

Mothballs!  Mothballs on the nose.  Furniture stain, old lady perfume, definitely grandma's closet.  Some chlorine in there.  Maybe some slightly stinky cheese.  But with some air (like 20-30 minutes worth), a big rich caramel candy note bursts forth.  And also mothballs.  Mothballs again on the palate, followed by a lighter floral perfume than was on the nose.  A smidgen of caramel.  The finish held the light perfume and caramel.  A little bit of palatable bitterness.  No mothballs.

This one caused all sorts of negative exclamations, hyperbole, and outcries from much of the crowd.  All of which seemed very goofy to me.  I'm not sure why everyone was being so sensitive.  This is whiskey, damn it, and ancient stuff at that.  I enjoyed this one.  I even snuck a second pour.  This was different from the rest.  It felt old.  I'm thankful for the opportunity to have tried an American spirit distilled 100 years ago.

The fourth whiskey, and last of the Americans:

Old Forester Bourbon Bottled-in-Bond; distilled Spring 1952, bottled Fall 1957; 100 proof.  4/5 Quart.  High neck fill level.

Ah yes, the lava rocket sex toy.  The Fifties of The Future!

Before 1890, Brown-Forman was JTS Brown & Brother.  Their first brand, back in 1870, was Old Forester.  It's been theirs ever since.  Right around 1959, they lowered the proof of OF to 86 for a little while, so this was one of the last of the 100 proofs for a while.

(Source: http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1758)

The nose was full of maple syrup and black pepper.  Lots of warm baking spices too -- possibly from the rye content -- like cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves.  Also some walnut cookies and raisins in the mix.  There was more corn than rye on the palate.  A mild easy drinker, another one that seems contemporary.  The finish became much more fragrant and warm with the baking goodies returning.

When I reference the "contemporary" thing, I mean that I'd bet most folks would never know that this was distilled over sixty years ago if they weren't told so.  I count myself among those folks.  To me it would fit in with Old Forester's current range, though maybe a little better.  :)

---

As you'll note, I'm not dishing out ratings for any of these four.  The atmosphere was not suited for grading, it was suited for the group experience.  Of these four noses, I enjoyed the Old Sunny Brook best.  The palates were mostly even.  But overall, the G.R. Sharpe is the unforgettable one.

Next up, the two Scotch blends...

A Very Very Dusty Whisky Monday Night with the SCWC

Last night, I attended Southern California Whiskey Club's pre-1964 Whisk(e)y Tasting at Seven Grand.  I took a lot of photos because, seriously, when is this ever going to happen again?

I sort of have my hands full today, so I'll let the pics do most of the talking.

Chris, the host with the most.

Michael R., also the host with the most. Also loving life.

So much potential...

The full lineup, a little blurry. Let's look closer.

#1. Old Sunny Brook 4 year old Bourbon 93 proof
Distilled 1937 - Bottled in 1941

#2. Old Hillsboro Brand Bourbon 100 proof
Distilled 1937 - Bottled in 1942

#3. G.R. Sharpe Old Style Whiskey 100 proof
Distilled 1913 - Bottled in 1917

#4. Old Forester Bourbon 100 proof
Distilled 1952 - Bottled in 1957

#5. Ballantine's 30 year old Blended Scotch Whisky 86 proof
Distilled in the late 1920s to early 1930s
Bottled between 1954 - 1964

#6. Ambassador 25 year old Blended Scotch Whisky 86 proof
Distilled in the 1920s
Bottled late 1940s to early 1950s

Later this week, I'll talk about each of these six.  In the meantime, I will leave you to ponder the Old Forester bottle.  Could it double as a lava lamp?  A sex toy?  Or a rocket?

Or a lava rocket sex toy?

(Also known as whiskey.)

This week in French whores and whisky

(source)

First of all, if your French whore smells of perfume, violets, and soap, you should count yourself lucky.  Just imagine the myriad of intimate odors she could otherwise smell of.  I understand that FWP is shorthand for characteristics peculiar to a specific era of Bowmore single malt, but if one was to use "French Whore Perfume" as a metaphor then it would work much better with the multitude of stunt finishes currently being heaped upon Scotch whisky.  Murray McDavid comes to mind first.  With their ACEing finishing of almost all of their releases in Chateau Lefart casks and Skittles firkins, MMcD often seems to be trying to hide a warehouse full of questionable whisky with French showers.

Apologies to the French for all of this.

Secondly, I spent way too much time trying to write Tuesday's post.  I wrote then cut four additional paragraphs defending the idea of "bad" whisky then realized I was either going in circles or expending too much energy not talking about the whisky itself.  When it comes to writing about imposing one's personal conceptual structure onto objects being observed, sometimes one can and sometimes one Kant.

......

......

*crickets f---ing*

......

Wow, tough crowd.

We all have our own opinions about what is palatable and gross in whisky.  There seems to be a mixed tolerance for floral notes.  I like the ones that smell like actual blossoms, I don't like the ones that smell like bathroom spray.  Some folks feel the same, others don't.  Soap notes are particularly difficult.  Dish soap is not pleasing to the human palate for the most part.  (If, for some reason, you doubt me on that, go ahead and give your kitchen dish soap a few licks.  Then some hand soap and maybe some shampoo.  Then allow yourself a slug of the 1984 D&M Bowmore I referenced on Tuesday.  You'll find they're all equally pleasing.)  But a hint of soap doesn't negate a whisky, according to my palate.  On that 0-9 soap scale -- with "9" being the old liquid Dove soap I used to use when washing my parents' cars -- I still enjoy whisky that registers a 2, can forgive a 3, and will finish a glass of 4.  But some folks hate the very hint of soap in the mouth.  That's fine.  In fact, that's probably very good, as their brain's defense mechanisms are working better than mine.

Even so, I don't think that all FWP-era Bowmore should be written off as the same.  There's so much potential for variation in whisky -- individual batches, distillery management, vintages, ages, bottlers, casks, warehouse placement, bottle storage -- that there are some good ones amongst the bad ones.  Sadly (or not so sadly in some folks' opinion) that era of Bowmore's whisky brings a sizable purchase price.  I never recommend anyone to buy something blindly, so before you splurge on a potentially weird bottle make sure you do your research online.  The bottlings from '90-'91 often bring positive reviews; and there are some '80s Rattray, G&M, Macarthur, and Duncan Taylor that Serge likes.

I won't say it's not a gamble, every blind purchase is a gamble, but be educated about your choices.  And don't accept every bit of popular whisky shorthand as your own personal truth until you've tested it yourself.  Who knows, maybe you'll find a perfume-free bottle.  Or maybe you're just the saucy type who likes a little FWP.

Single Malt Report: Bowmore 20 year old 1991 AD Rattray (Cask 2061)

On Tuesday, I wrote about FWP-era Bowmore and took a brief look at two single malts from that period.  On Wednesday, I explored a third malt a little deeper.  Today, I'll present a fourth malt.  This time it's from the nebulous borderlands of FWP and the so-called improved era that followed.

This whisky was distilled when the Morrison family still held majority ownership of the Bowmore distillery.  After Suntory bought them out, the Morrisons formed the independent bottling company, A.D. Rattray.  Thanks to their connection with the distillery they've been able to secure some casks in the years since.  The A.D. Rattray Bowmores tend to have a good reputation, so I wouldn't doubt the Morrisons knew which were the good casks to pull.

This sample came from a whisky swap I did with Florin almost a year ago.  I was waiting for a good opportunity to spring it, and here it was.

Distillery: Bowmore
Ownership: Suntory (Morrison Bowmore Distillers Ltd. at time of distillation)
Bottler: A.D. Rattray
Age: 20 years (15 July 1991 to 15 September 2011)
Maturation: Sherry cask
Cask: #2061
Region: Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 56.2%

NEAT
The color is reddish mahogany.  After a 25 minute rest, the whisky's nose is full of ripe dark berries and a berry syrup.  There are pencils, golden raisins, and something in the molasses-rum arena.  There's also a peated sherried lavender note that remains in the mid-ground throughout.  There's also a little bit of coastal Islay in there, a salty seaside and band-aid-like phenols.  And far in the distance is a manured lawn.  After about 50 minutes, notes of cologne and menthol arise.  The palate leads with black pepper, burnt seaweed, and barbecued dog hair (sorry, no link Ghostbusters video).  And someone rolled up that lavender and smoked it.  There's some raw horseradish, sweet sherry, and just a whisper of soap.  A lot of char in the finish, like charred sherry if that was a thing.  That soap hint vanishes, leaving ashes of all kinds (wood, paper, peat moss) to linger long.  It's immense.  Sweet sherry and a spliff.

WITH WATER
On the nose there's a nice merging of sherry and sweet peat, reminiscent of Uigeadail.  GOOD note of struck matches.  Mint and menthol compliment a bright floral note.  A big brick of peat moss floating in brown sugar syrup.  More char and sherry in the palate.  There's a little (pleasant) bitterness.  The lavender and soap characteristics seem to grow again with added water.  Lots of sherry in the finish.  Flower blossoms (something between lavender and violets). Mild peat char.

This is my favorite of the four.  It's the biggest boldest sherriest Bowmore I've had so far.  The smoke is marbled nicely throughout the palate and finish.  The nose is great again, though very different from yesterday's Bowmore.  Comparatively, there's more Islay aggression here with different fruits and fewer candies.

Now, about that light soap note......Is 1991 still within the FWP-era?  It's a close one.  Originally, I thought that FWP continued into the early '90s, right up until ownership changes in 1993.  Though Serge Valentin shouldn't have the only word on whiskies (remember, we all have our own sensory realities), his site does have the most extensive and detailed (and un-paid) whisky reviews online and I concur with his notes more often than not.  For instance, he has 318 Bowmore reviews at the moment.  Around 115 of those reviews are for 1980-1992 distillations.  Almost all of the '89s have references to perfume and/or soap.  Only 5%-10% of the '90/'91s have such references.  None of the '92s have them.  So, to Serge's refined nostrils and palate, nearly all of the 1990 and 1991 Bowmores were free of the FWP notes.

Did my pre-existing assumptions of FWP dates influence my experience of the soap note?  I don't think so.  I'm not 100% certain, but maybe 99%.  I'll leave that 1% to psychological factors.  The good news is that on a soap scale of 0-9, the note was 2 on the palate and 0 on the finish, while served neatly.

Again, I recommend leaving water out of this one.  Though the whisky is intense when neat, adding water doesn't seem to improve the experience.

Tomorrow I'll do a brief recap -- with fewer words! -- to conclude this FWP voyage.

Availability - This cask is mostly sold out, but can still be found with some snooping

Pricing - was $110-$120, probably a little higher now

Rating - 88