Just a few items that were floating around my head:
1. Last Monday, Jordan at Chemistry of the Cocktail had a killer post about the importance of long fermentation in whisky production. Science is one of Jordan's fortes, so yes the post is science-y. But it underscores a mutual concern: the speeding up of whisky production does have an effect on the final product. Denying it only serves the purpose of protecting the brand through misdirection or naïveté. Maturation has changed, barley varieties have changed, yeast has likely changed, and barrels are getting dumped earlier and earlier. These changes to the product are not being done in the name of progress, they're being done for revenue. Anyway, that's my hot air. Jordan's post has actual fact-based observations and studies about fermentation effects.
2. My Annoying Opinions unleashed his latest opinion piece last Wednesday. As he is apt to do, MAO ventures out into delicate territory. This time he explores the blurry lines between whisky blogging and brand marketing. As usual, he is right on. The resulting comment section is quite something. Some big names in the whisky blogging community respond to MAO's questions. Sometimes the comments are very thought-provoking, and sometimes the comments are very disappointing. Good stuff.
3. A little update on that weird Suntory Royal SR blend I'd found. In my post I said that making a mizuwari out of it was okay. I was wrong, it's really not okay. The sink drank the drink.
4. Two weeks ago, I posted a rave review of two Old Taylor bourbons that had been bottled in the 1980s. I'd noted then that the 1985 bottling had oxidized very quickly. Well, the 1987 bottling (which I'd given the higher grade) has now oxidized very quickly as well, nearly silencing the palate and adding a subtle soapiness to the finish. I'm beginning to wonder if this quick oxidation is something that happens often to dusty bourbons once they're opened. Dusty scotch whisky doesn't thin out like this.
5. I added a Diving for Pearls Facebook Page follow button on the right side of the blog. If you're reading this (and thank you for doing so!), then you already have your method of getting here -- by boat, train, Twitter, Google+, Feedly, blogger links, searches, etc. Facebook is another method. If I find fun stuff to share on FB then that will join my links to the posts.
6. I've got a fever and the only prescription is more 'Fiddich. 'Fiddich Fever burns hot this week. All of three bottlings worth.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
Single Malt Report: Bowmore 15 year old 1990 James MacArthur
Welcome to the third of five consecutive single malty Fridays of coinciding reviews between Diving for Pearls and My Annoying Opinions. Week 1 brought a sherried Longmorn. Week 2 was a youthful Caol Ila. This week it's a 15 year old Bowmore, distilled in 1990, bottled in 2005 by James MacArthur & Company for their Old Masters series. (Here's the link to MAO's review!)
I really like independently bottled Bowmores. I've had the pleasure of trying fifteen of them over the last two-and-a-half years, and found only one of them less than very good. A bottle of this James MacArthur Bowmore was split between MAO, a Mystery Malt Mensch, and me. Because it was distilled in 1990, we were running the slight risk of FWP. But I'm a man who lives on the edge, man, so I rolled the dice, spun the chamber, ordered the fugu, and laid my money down.
Distillery: Bowmore
The color is a medium amber. The nose starts with burnt manure. Mmm, lots of it. Then lemon zest, anise, layers of rotting vegetation, and fresh garlic. Now plastic toys are melting and tire rubber burning. And, unless I'm just imagining things, perhaps there's a note of cannabis? There's a load of moss in the palate, along with coffee grounds and dirt (which is redundant to some of us). Also plenty of sweeter peat smoke, peppery arugula, lemon sour candies, and cayenne peppery. Some Laphroaigy cigarettes in the finish, followed by lemoned peat moss. Behind a wall of kiln smoke alternates peeps of tart, bitter, and sweet. It's huge.
WITH WATER
The peat moss recedes a little in the nose. More barley and vanilla come up front. There's still the burnt rubber, lemon zest, and weed. It's spicier, with a little bit of the farmy note. Some sort of fruity Belgian ale too. The palate is herbal and mossy with moments of mild sweetness. Cardamom cookies served on a nest (an actual nest). Bright spices are more apparent in the finish. A little lemon, less smoke. Fresh herbs amongst the moss.
This is wonderfully dirty Bowmore. Nothing artsy or subtle about it. No flowers or soap. The peat is so much more aggressive here than in Bowmore's official stuff. It'll sock you in the nose first and when you're on your heels it'll punch your mouth. The smoke and fire isn't due to it being too young, instead it's courtesy of a very good spirit and a decent refill cask.
This one's my favorite of the three MacArthurs we'd split. None were bad, but the Bowmore is really my style. I'm going have another glass of it right now.
Availability - Sparse
Distillery: Bowmore
Independent Bottler: James MacArthur & Co.
Series: Old Masters
Series: Old Masters
Age: 15 years (1990-2005)
Maturation: probably re-fill bourbon barrels
Cask number: 1168
NEATCask number: 1168
Region: Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 51.1%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: Probably not
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: Probably not
The color is a medium amber. The nose starts with burnt manure. Mmm, lots of it. Then lemon zest, anise, layers of rotting vegetation, and fresh garlic. Now plastic toys are melting and tire rubber burning. And, unless I'm just imagining things, perhaps there's a note of cannabis? There's a load of moss in the palate, along with coffee grounds and dirt (which is redundant to some of us). Also plenty of sweeter peat smoke, peppery arugula, lemon sour candies, and cayenne peppery. Some Laphroaigy cigarettes in the finish, followed by lemoned peat moss. Behind a wall of kiln smoke alternates peeps of tart, bitter, and sweet. It's huge.
WITH WATER
The peat moss recedes a little in the nose. More barley and vanilla come up front. There's still the burnt rubber, lemon zest, and weed. It's spicier, with a little bit of the farmy note. Some sort of fruity Belgian ale too. The palate is herbal and mossy with moments of mild sweetness. Cardamom cookies served on a nest (an actual nest). Bright spices are more apparent in the finish. A little lemon, less smoke. Fresh herbs amongst the moss.
This is wonderfully dirty Bowmore. Nothing artsy or subtle about it. No flowers or soap. The peat is so much more aggressive here than in Bowmore's official stuff. It'll sock you in the nose first and when you're on your heels it'll punch your mouth. The smoke and fire isn't due to it being too young, instead it's courtesy of a very good spirit and a decent refill cask.
This one's my favorite of the three MacArthurs we'd split. None were bad, but the Bowmore is really my style. I'm going have another glass of it right now.
Availability - Sparse
Pricing - probably $100-$120
Rating - 89
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Taste Off! Glenmorangie 10 (old label) versus Glenmorangie Original
Do you need much more of an intro than that?
Well, of course you're going to get one. The older labelled Glenmorangies (back when they were distributed by Brown Forman) were the amongst the whiskies that really hooked me on single malts, especially the 10 year old and "Sherry Wood". They were simple but flavorful and relatively affordable. Perfect for a starter drug.
I've seen the Sherry Wood selling here and there for amounts a bit too steep for me to chase, but I have lucked into a bottle or two of the 10 for a decent price. This bottle (on the left in the picture above) is from 2005.
In 2007, Moet Hennessey started distributing Glenmorangie (which it had also owned since 2004) and gave the packaging a full makeover. Gone were the old school bottles, tubes, and labels, now replaced by new names, new font, and curvy bottles. The "Sixteen Men of Tain" went from center stage to somewhere off in smaller print. Glenmorangie was now a luxury brand, it couldn't look stogy, it had to dress the part.
But did they change the whisky? It takes considerable effort to "change" a whisky. Thousands of casks are dumped and mixed each year, and a BRAND like Glenmorangie has to be reliable enough in nature for its fans to return for more bottles. But if a BRAND is trying to expand, could the producers tilt the whisky a little sweeter, smoother, or softer?
My memory says that the old Sherry Wood kicks the crap out of its current Lasanta iteration, but that's for a future Taste Off to challenge or confirm. This year, I had in front of me the old 10 year and the new 10 year "Original". I actually like the Original, so this seemed like a win-win for me.
Here's were things take a little bit of a turn. This was a different bottle of Original than the one from my 2012 review and it's different than the one sampled by MAO in his review. In fact, this one was an L7, as in from 2007. When I first planned this review, I had intended to compare the oldie with something absolutely current. I was pissed that I didn't look at the bottle code before buying (I'm a nerd like that), but then I realized that now I could actually compare Glenmorangies at the point of switchover from old to new, in 2007.
THE GLENMORANGIES TEN
Distillery: Glenmorangie
Ownership: Louis Vuitton Moet-Hennessy (accents and umlauts not included)
Age: minimum 10 years
Maturation: first fill and refill ex-Bourbon American oak casks
Region: Highlands (Northern)
Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Older Label (2005, L5 237)
The color is light gold. When I first opened the bottle, scents of melon and tangerine poured forth after being closed up for eight and half lonely years. But now, with the whisky in the glass and a little bit of breathing time, the nose holds more peaches, toasted barley, and lemon-scented soap. It also vacillates between jasmine, grape drink, and mild cheese. Gradually citronella and cotton candy come forth. Give it more air, then vanilla and cucumber notes develop. The palate starts with lemon peel tartness and cocoa (or perhaps brown butter to some). Lots of barley, then peach, and orange pulp. The tartness progresses to tanginess. The barley note grows with time and continues on into the finish. It's joined by lemons and talcum powder. It's of decent length, the citrus staying the longest.
New Label, "Original" (2007, L7 306)
Its color is identical to the older version. Lots of rosy perfume on the nose. The grape drink has become Concord Manischewitz (also known as kosher grape drink). A hint of peach in there, but much more orange Jolly Rancher and cotton candy. Toasted grains and grapefruit round it out. As for the palate, it's pretty simple. Peaches, sweet cream, tangerines, and limes. There's also a slight bitterness and greenness that feels sort of young. The citrus grows in the finish. There's a green veg note alongside rubbing alcohol. And it's brief.
Let's walk backwards. The L7 is much less oaky than more recent bottlings of the Original. But it's also less complex. And there's also less barley character than there is in the L5. The nose of the L7 Original is much more perfumed, bright, and focused than the L5. The palate seems younger than the L5's and feels a little thin. The L5 has a big lemony finish, while the L7 has almost no finish at all.
Did the Master Blender/Distiller/LVMH try to change the whisky? The peach, citrus, and cotton candy notes show the L5 and L7 are very much related. And neither have much barrel influence showing up. The L5's nose is more fun, but it's also wilder. The makers of the L7 seemed to have reined in that jazz and replaced it with pop prettiness. But that process has taken something out of the palate. The L7 seems more readily accessible at the start, but provides much less excitement at the finish. Could the latter have been due to heavier filtration? The former can be from cask selection. Or am I reading too much into something that could be a bottle-to-bottle issue? Even so, I'm much more sold on the 2005 version.
If you can find a bottle of the older label, I don't recommend airing it out too much. Usually I do encourage folks to allow a whisky some time to open up, but not in this instance. This whisky has been best at the top of the bottle or at the start of the glass. It seems to kinda slow down with air. Though if you find a really old bottle you can ignore this whole paragraph.
If you go to buy the Original, check the code printed faintly somewhere on the lower-half of the back of the bottle. The 2012s and 2013s (L12 and L13, I think), while more oaky (possibly due to Astar-style casks), have more character and zip. While the L7 isn't bad, it seems like something intended to be poured over ice and forgotten. There are plenty of blends available to serve that purpose.
If you've had similar or different experiences with the old 10, let me know. I may seek out another bottle if the price is right.
GLENMORANGE 10 YEAR OLD, OLD LABEL (L5)
Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - I've seen everything from $35 to $70
Rating - 85
GLENMORANGE 10 YEAR OLD, "THE ORIGINAL" (L7)
Availability - Most liquor stores, though it's usually a more recent bottling
Pricing - $30-$40
Rating - 80
Monday, April 7, 2014
Something Weird: Suntory Royal SR Japanese blended whisky (early '80s)
At some point this year, my selection of open whisky bottles turned into Kravitz's Cabinet of Curiosities. While I do enjoy having an occasional oddball bottle to share, there are too many of these open right now. I lugged a box of them to a whisky friend's house last week and felt like I should have donned a top hat and commenced carnival barking.
From the Cabinet of Curiosities, I present The Bearded Lady.
I found this sitting by itself on the shelf at a local liquor store, selling for $25.99:
As you can see, the immediate appeal is the rockin' bottle. The bigger appeal for me was that it's a Japanese whisky that's been out of US circulation since the first Reagan administration. After completing the sale, the woman behind the counter said that her husband would call in to get it restocked. I said, good luck with that.
As I drove home with the bottle wedged upright behind my seat, I suddenly noticed that my car smelled like whisky. As in, a lot of whisky. As in, I-probably-don't-want-to-get-pulled-over-by-the-fuzz a lot of whisky. When I got home and lifted the bottle, vapors of warm malt oozed forth. I noticed when I had bought the whisky that the fill level was a little low (see pic above) but What The Hell? There were little whisky bubbles forming around the closure. Yet with its intricate rope-bound top, it was still technically sealed.
Normally, I don't open a bottle immediately upon purchase, but this year has been anything but normal. And this bottle never qualified as run-of-the-mill itself. So I twisted open the rope-sealing thing and noticed that the T-shaped top was basically resting on the bottle, providing no actual sealant. I pulled it off to reveal this:
The cork had been almost entirely eaten away. There were some crumbs around the bottle neck, but nothing appeared to be inside the bottle. It had become part of the whisky. And then I drank it. And I was reminded of the time that Homer Simpson was told that he'd just drunk a sample of dish detergent and he responded with a shrug, "Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?"
The Details, or lack thereof:
There's an almost total absence of information about Suntory Royal SR online. There are some auction and collection photos. Nonjatta has a post regarding a different blend called Suntory Old, as does The Coopered Tot. Here's Peter Lawford pimping a bottle in 1978:
But that's about it. Pete Lawford's bottle shows a measurement in quarts, mine has metric. Thus my bottle is post-1978 and probably post-1980 when metric measurements became used for US booze. The listing of proof rather than ABV, the paper seal, and the lack of government warnings shows it to be from the early 1980s.
Regarding the ingredients, the label only says "Distillery at Yamazaki, Near Kyoto, Japan". Could this be a blended malt? That technical nomenclature didn't exist 30 years ago. Did Japanese whisky companies use the term "Pure Malt" back then, or was any sort of blend just called a "blend"? I know that Suntory currently has a grain facility called Chita, but I've been unable to find out when it was built. If anyone knows, please share! If Chita wasn't built at the time, and if there is grain whisky in the SR, could it have been distilled at Yamazaki too? I honestly don't know.
So how is it? How does this partially-oxidized, possibly cork-enhanced, mystery Japanese blend, bottled back when Brezhnev and Suzuki were neighbors, actually perform? Here it goes...
Brand: Suntory Royal
Ownership: Suntory Whisky
Distilleries: Yamazaki, maybe Chita?
NEAT
The color is a medium gold with a reddish tint. The nose starts with watermelon candy, cherry candy, and tropical fruit candy. Not the actual fruits, but the manufactured flavors. Then an Abba-Zaba but with more vanilla. Sherry takes a while to show. As do some mothballs. It still has bit of an ethyl nip even with time and oxidation. Something papery lingers throughout. Finally, there's an occasional rotten strawberry note that peeks out then vanishes quickly. The palate goes from paper → tobacco → malt → bitterness. Also a piece of tart citrus-flavored saltwater taffy (if that's a thing). It gets very sweet over time. And then there's that occasional bizzaro note that makes the drinker's face purse up; somehow it's both synthetic and rotten at the same time. Luckily, it remains in the background. Some moldy sherry appears in the finish, as does some tartness, the nose's fruit candies, and something like smoky paper. After a while it gets cloying like a really sweet liqueur.
WITH WATER
The nose starts with a cross between orange oil and locker room. Then caramel, vague raisins and prunes. The watermelon candy and mothballs are still here. And maybe some of that moldy sherry? The palate has hints of sherry, some bitterness, some brown sugar, malt, and vanilla. The texture is nice and thick. But then there's that synthetic-yet-rotting note. The finish ends up tart and bitter, mostly modulated, but not always pleasant. Prunes, vanilla, and caramel. And a little plastic.
Well, I'm still here. And I've tried a bit of this stuff. No calls to Poison Control. Are those odd notes due to the cork? My guess is, probably. What's impressive is that even with untold years of oxidation, the whisky is still very flavorful. Without those rotten synthetic thingies, this could be a solid B-grade whisky. I don't think water does it any favors, but it makes an acceptable mizuwari [Correction: mizuwari bad]. All things considered, this could have been much worse.
One final thought. A dusty hunting tip. Before you buy a dusty bottle of booze, take as good of a look at it as the store owner will let you. Check out the seal, the information on the label, and the fill level. Even though that old whisk(e)y you've found is cheap, it's still something that becomes yours. It'll be in your cabinet and, eventually, in your mouth. If you can smell whisky from across the counter, and that scent isn't coming from the cashier, then maybe you should just buy a lottery scratch-off ticket and call it a day.
Availability - Happy hunting
From the Cabinet of Curiosities, I present The Bearded Lady.
 |
| Yes, that's a champagne cork in its whisky hole. |
I found this sitting by itself on the shelf at a local liquor store, selling for $25.99:
As you can see, the immediate appeal is the rockin' bottle. The bigger appeal for me was that it's a Japanese whisky that's been out of US circulation since the first Reagan administration. After completing the sale, the woman behind the counter said that her husband would call in to get it restocked. I said, good luck with that.
As I drove home with the bottle wedged upright behind my seat, I suddenly noticed that my car smelled like whisky. As in, a lot of whisky. As in, I-probably-don't-want-to-get-pulled-over-by-the-fuzz a lot of whisky. When I got home and lifted the bottle, vapors of warm malt oozed forth. I noticed when I had bought the whisky that the fill level was a little low (see pic above) but What The Hell? There were little whisky bubbles forming around the closure. Yet with its intricate rope-bound top, it was still technically sealed.
Normally, I don't open a bottle immediately upon purchase, but this year has been anything but normal. And this bottle never qualified as run-of-the-mill itself. So I twisted open the rope-sealing thing and noticed that the T-shaped top was basically resting on the bottle, providing no actual sealant. I pulled it off to reveal this:
The cork had been almost entirely eaten away. There were some crumbs around the bottle neck, but nothing appeared to be inside the bottle. It had become part of the whisky. And then I drank it. And I was reminded of the time that Homer Simpson was told that he'd just drunk a sample of dish detergent and he responded with a shrug, "Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?"
The Details, or lack thereof:
There's an almost total absence of information about Suntory Royal SR online. There are some auction and collection photos. Nonjatta has a post regarding a different blend called Suntory Old, as does The Coopered Tot. Here's Peter Lawford pimping a bottle in 1978:
 |
| Source |
Regarding the ingredients, the label only says "Distillery at Yamazaki, Near Kyoto, Japan". Could this be a blended malt? That technical nomenclature didn't exist 30 years ago. Did Japanese whisky companies use the term "Pure Malt" back then, or was any sort of blend just called a "blend"? I know that Suntory currently has a grain facility called Chita, but I've been unable to find out when it was built. If anyone knows, please share! If Chita wasn't built at the time, and if there is grain whisky in the SR, could it have been distilled at Yamazaki too? I honestly don't know.
So how is it? How does this partially-oxidized, possibly cork-enhanced, mystery Japanese blend, bottled back when Brezhnev and Suzuki were neighbors, actually perform? Here it goes...
Brand: Suntory Royal
Ownership: Suntory Whisky
Distilleries: Yamazaki, maybe Chita?
Age: ???
Maturation: ???, my guess is a blend of ex-bourbon, ex-sherry, and Mizunara casks
Country: Japan
Alcohol by Volume: 43.4%
NEAT
The color is a medium gold with a reddish tint. The nose starts with watermelon candy, cherry candy, and tropical fruit candy. Not the actual fruits, but the manufactured flavors. Then an Abba-Zaba but with more vanilla. Sherry takes a while to show. As do some mothballs. It still has bit of an ethyl nip even with time and oxidation. Something papery lingers throughout. Finally, there's an occasional rotten strawberry note that peeks out then vanishes quickly. The palate goes from paper → tobacco → malt → bitterness. Also a piece of tart citrus-flavored saltwater taffy (if that's a thing). It gets very sweet over time. And then there's that occasional bizzaro note that makes the drinker's face purse up; somehow it's both synthetic and rotten at the same time. Luckily, it remains in the background. Some moldy sherry appears in the finish, as does some tartness, the nose's fruit candies, and something like smoky paper. After a while it gets cloying like a really sweet liqueur.
WITH WATER
The nose starts with a cross between orange oil and locker room. Then caramel, vague raisins and prunes. The watermelon candy and mothballs are still here. And maybe some of that moldy sherry? The palate has hints of sherry, some bitterness, some brown sugar, malt, and vanilla. The texture is nice and thick. But then there's that synthetic-yet-rotting note. The finish ends up tart and bitter, mostly modulated, but not always pleasant. Prunes, vanilla, and caramel. And a little plastic.
Well, I'm still here. And I've tried a bit of this stuff. No calls to Poison Control. Are those odd notes due to the cork? My guess is, probably. What's impressive is that even with untold years of oxidation, the whisky is still very flavorful. Without those rotten synthetic thingies, this could be a solid B-grade whisky. I don't think water does it any favors, but it makes an acceptable mizuwari [Correction: mizuwari bad]. All things considered, this could have been much worse.
One final thought. A dusty hunting tip. Before you buy a dusty bottle of booze, take as good of a look at it as the store owner will let you. Check out the seal, the information on the label, and the fill level. Even though that old whisk(e)y you've found is cheap, it's still something that becomes yours. It'll be in your cabinet and, eventually, in your mouth. If you can smell whisky from across the counter, and that scent isn't coming from the cashier, then maybe you should just buy a lottery scratch-off ticket and call it a day.
Availability - Happy hunting
Pricing - ???, I found mine for $25.99 but who knows what it sells for elsewhere?
Rating - 75, though it could be an 84 had it been a normal bottle ... (score dropped to 71 in a 2nd review, then down to 69 in a 3rd review)
Friday, April 4, 2014
Single Malt Report: Caol Ila 12 year old 1994 James MacArthur
It's the second of five fantastic Fridays of simultaneous reviews with My Annoying Opinions (Here's the direct link to his review!). Today's review covers another bottle that he and I split with Florin Industries' brand ambassador, Florin. Last week it was a full powered Longmorn sherry cask. This week it is a Caol Ila 12 year old single cask, again from James MacArthur's Old Masters series.
Distillery: Caol Ila
Brief tangent. I really recommend doing bottle splits with fellow trusted geeks. There's less financial risk per unit and your collection can expand much quicker, overflowing your cabinets with random small bottles from here and there. A three-part split on a 750mL bottle results in 8+ ounces each, a four-part goes 6+ ounces each, and a five-part five ounces.
You just have to be okay with forgoing the big tall sexy bottle that you would normally be posting to the Malt Maniacs Facebook page with the same nervous excitement as if you were sexting a nude selfie.
Back to this stuff. Here's a great opportunity for me to expand my indie Caol Ila experience. I haven't had any bad CIs yet, so let's see how this James MacArthur version fares.
Independent Bottler: James MacArthur & Co.
Series: Old Masters
Series: Old Masters
Age: 12 years (1994-2006)
Maturation: probably re-fill bourbon barrels
Cask number: 2103
Cask number: 2103
Region: Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 59.5%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: Probably not
I promise there will be fewer notes than last week...
NEAT
The color is of a very pale amber. Diageo would not approve. The nose holds A LOT more peat spunk than official CIs. Green mossy stuff, plastic toys, and wet sand. Then there are more foodie things like sugar cookies, basil leaves, burnt butterscotch, and smoked carob. But that beach-moss characteristic looms large. Smoked seaweed on the palate, and lots of it. All kinds of moss in the back of the throat. Graphite and white peppercorns. Echoes of sweet and earthy molasses. A mild tartness, some caramel, and two dried apricots. Smoky and mossy on the finish. Lemon oil. Ocean water. No that's not redundant. Ever take a wave to the face and swallow some of it? That's what I'm talking about. The finish is simple but extensive.
WITH WATER
Water brightens the nose up. Maybe some sugary citrus. Actually, more water = more lemon and citron. Some whiffs of barley and a cinnamon stick. But there's also some seaweed and pencil lead in the mix. On the palate there's toasted peat and toasted barley. Horseradish, bitter lettuces, and ground black pepper. It's somewhat ashy with a lingering minor sourness. Lots of peat residue in the finish. The bitter greens and pepper remain. Some more tartness and maybe a little bit of vanilla.
Due to the very reserved oak, this feels younger than a 12yo. It's a bit dry and rough, but in a good way. It's still sort of hanging around my taste buds three hours later. The nose reminded me a lot of the L7 Ardbeg Ten I have open. It would be a fun sparring partner for one of the more nude Laphroaig CSes, but because this CI can be a bit on the narrow side it wouldn't win a real fight.
If you like indie refill bourbon cask Ledaigs and/or that K&L Talisker "Speakeasy" then this is probably your whisky jam. If you prefer your peat mingling with rich oak, I'm not sure if this is for you because this can get a little raw.
Availability - Sparse
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: Probably not
I promise there will be fewer notes than last week...
NEAT
The color is of a very pale amber. Diageo would not approve. The nose holds A LOT more peat spunk than official CIs. Green mossy stuff, plastic toys, and wet sand. Then there are more foodie things like sugar cookies, basil leaves, burnt butterscotch, and smoked carob. But that beach-moss characteristic looms large. Smoked seaweed on the palate, and lots of it. All kinds of moss in the back of the throat. Graphite and white peppercorns. Echoes of sweet and earthy molasses. A mild tartness, some caramel, and two dried apricots. Smoky and mossy on the finish. Lemon oil. Ocean water. No that's not redundant. Ever take a wave to the face and swallow some of it? That's what I'm talking about. The finish is simple but extensive.
WITH WATER
Water brightens the nose up. Maybe some sugary citrus. Actually, more water = more lemon and citron. Some whiffs of barley and a cinnamon stick. But there's also some seaweed and pencil lead in the mix. On the palate there's toasted peat and toasted barley. Horseradish, bitter lettuces, and ground black pepper. It's somewhat ashy with a lingering minor sourness. Lots of peat residue in the finish. The bitter greens and pepper remain. Some more tartness and maybe a little bit of vanilla.
Due to the very reserved oak, this feels younger than a 12yo. It's a bit dry and rough, but in a good way. It's still sort of hanging around my taste buds three hours later. The nose reminded me a lot of the L7 Ardbeg Ten I have open. It would be a fun sparring partner for one of the more nude Laphroaig CSes, but because this CI can be a bit on the narrow side it wouldn't win a real fight.
If you like indie refill bourbon cask Ledaigs and/or that K&L Talisker "Speakeasy" then this is probably your whisky jam. If you prefer your peat mingling with rich oak, I'm not sure if this is for you because this can get a little raw.
Availability - Sparse
Pricing - probably $80-$100
Rating - 86
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Batch Match Up: Eagle Rare 10 year old versus Eagle Rare 10 year old
Distillery: Buffalo Trace
Ownership: The Sazerac Company
Type: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Region: Frankfort, Kentucky
Ownership: The Sazerac Company
Type: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Region: Frankfort, Kentucky
Age: minimum 10 years
Mashbill: BT low-rye: approximately 80% corn, 12% malted barley, 8% rye
Mashbill: BT low-rye: approximately 80% corn, 12% malted barley, 8% rye
Maturation: charred white oak barrels
Alcohol by Volume: 45%
Unlike the High West Double Rye from Tuesday's post, Buffalo Trace's Eagle Rare 10 year old (ER10) bourbon is a single barrel release per its label. But nowhere is it listed what barrel number is used. It's just "single barrel" and no listing of any specific real or made up information. You know, just something to throw to their customers, so that we may say "Hey, barrel 3701B and 185A are the sh*t!" and buy more of the same.
Eagle Rare uses the approach opposite to the same company's Blanton's single barrel bourbon, whose label lists more information than most of us desire. The lack of disclosure on the Eagle Rare label makes me wonder "Is this really from a single barrel?", "Is there any proof they have to provide to the TTB regarding its Single Barrelness", and "How much should I really care?" I'm not angry about it, I just think it's a little silly. Disclosing the barrel number would not only benefit us, but it would lend a little boutique element to a mass-produced bourbon.
I'm a fan of Eagle Rare's little brother, the regular Buffalo Trace bourbon, a $20-$25 whisky that always hits the spot. So when I saw a 375mL bottle of the ER10 on a shelf for $14.99 I snapped it up. It was an easy drinker, having many of the elements I liked in Buffalo Trace. Thankfully, I saved a review sample of it before the bottle was empty. I was then inspired to buy a 750mL bottle selling it for less than $25. But from the start, that bottle was......not as good. As a result it went into a number of Old Fashioneds and highballs. I may have even poured a few ounces down the sink. It wasn't terrible, but life is too short to sweat over lesser whiskey. Again, I saved an ounce for review because I really wanted to match it up next to the first bottle to see if the whiskey was different or if my palate had changed.
Though ER10 does not have that barrel number on the label, there is a bottle code one can reference. Whether or not it's from a single barrel, the bourbon is bottled in batches of some size and the printed code (near the bottle's back bottom) will at least provide a date of bottling. Here are the codes for the two "barrels" in question:
B13119 - This was the original 375mL bottle I'd purchased at Hi Time Wine Cellars in early September 2013. My guess is that it was bottled on the 119th day of 2013 (April 29th).
B13140 - This was the 750mL bottle I'd purchased at Hi Time Wine Cellars in December 2013. Again, my thought is that it was bottled on the 140th day of 2013 (May 20th).
Two batches of the same bourbon, purchased at the same store, possibly bottled within a month of each other. Here's how they match up:
B13119, first bottle
Its color is actually slightly darker than the other ER10. The nose holds the old school Robotussin note that I sometimes find in regular Buffalo Trace. There's also corn syrup, corn chips, spearmint, cilantro, and maple syrup. With a lot of air, more youthful spicy rye notes open up along with some light caramel. Quite a bit of spice in the palate, mostly pepper. Peppery vanilla and caramel, then it quickly goes dry. Mild mint notes carry throughout. It's not that sweet at first, but (again) after a lot of air, the whiskey grows sweeter, very sugary. At first the finish is dry and tight, a little salt and savoriness. Once the sample was aired out, more pepper notes arose, along with dried cherries and vanilla beans.
This needed at least 35 minutes in the glass before it came alive, which is (in my limited experience) a little unusual for a modern 10 year old bourbon. But it needs to breathe or else it seems very closed up.
B13140, second bottle
The nose starts with mint, floral perfume, and new carpet smells. Then some taffy and bubble gum. Corn and caramel notes grow with time. Orange oil, rubber, sugary glaze, and one moment of menthol. The palate goes from brief sweetness straight to bitterness. Very closed. Maybe some vanilla. Sweet corn and a slight herbal rye spice. But plain bitterness makes up at least 75% of it. More bitterness in the finish. Hints of corn, caramel, tart citrus, and granulated sugar. But mostly bitter.
This one does not improve with time in the glass.
Winner:
Nose - B13140
Palate - B13119 by a considerable margin
Finish - B13119
Overall - B13119
The B13140 reminds me of an IPA that is all bitterness with nothing else going on. The single note is interesting for one glass and then you look around the shelf for something better. The B13140's nose is the best part of the package, but even that can be easily trumped by most of Buffalo Trace's other products.
I still like the B13119 better, but not enough to ever buy Eagle Rare 10 again. The price on the bourbon is good and it makes for a mildly easy drink, but not much more than that. To tell the truth, I didn't finish either of these small samples and instead vatted them for a future Old Fashioned.
But back to the original intent of the batch match up. There is a significant difference in the palate between the two Eagle Rare bottles. The B13140 was bitter and otherwise boring from the start of the bottle. The B13119 was always sweeter, though maybe a little limited on the nose. There are similar elements between the two. The corn, rye spice, and caramel notes, though present in different quantities, are comparable when they show up. But other than those somewhat common bourbon characteristics, I doubt I'd believe these were the same brand if I hadn't owned the bottles myself.
(Update: For a different take, here's MAO's review of the B13140. And I think our samples came from the same fill level in my bottle.)
EAGLE RARE 10 YEAR OLD SINGLE BARREL
Availability - Most liquor specialists
Pricing - $25-$35
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Batch Match Up: High West Double Rye versus High West Double Rye
No, this is not an April Fool's joke.
One of the things I wanted to start doing on this site this year was comparisons between whiskies bottled under the same name. I'll compare batches, barrels, bottling years, ABV versions, ownership changes, and shifts in mashbills or oak. This is partially to demonstrate that the whisk(e)y websites and books which exist for the sole purpose of being buying guides are not entirely reliable. But these matchups' main purpose relates to my intent for all of my spirits posts, and that is to document my personal experience and share my findings with you. Our palates change, as does the liquid.
I'll be sprinkling these posts around, mostly when I have the samples in hand. Last week, I really enjoyed doing the Old Taylor lineup because the whiskey was so damn good. This week, I'll do two slightly more relevant posts. Today, it's High West Double Rye.
Two months ago, I reviewed my bottle of Double Rye and found the whiskey to be surprisingly uninspiring. I'm a big fan of High West's Rendezvous Rye, but its little cousin was a letdown. Immediately following my post, reader Florin exclaimed, "WTF?! GTFO." He claimed his Double Rye experience did not match mine, saying his open bottle of the Double was good. And he generously supplied a sample.
The usual rundown:
Product: Double Rye
Producer: High West
Distillery: Barton/Tom Moore and LDI distilleries
High West is great when it comes to a batch match up, since their labels actually list batch numbers. And their batch numbers are usually decipherable. In this case, they are as follows:
My bottle -- Batch 13C07 (likely March 7, 2013), bottle 2309, purchased at Costco,
Florin's bottle -- Batch 12J12 (likely October 12, 2012), bottle 782, purchased at DrinkupNY or The Party Source
Line 'em up.
BATCH 12J12, bottle 782 (Florin's)
Actual rye seeds in the nose; fennel seeds, too. Pickle juice, black pepper, and something almost rosemary but not quite. It gets sugarier with time: brown sugar, simple syrup, and fresh baked carrot cake. The palate is dry and herbal, like a mellow Willett LDI rye. Salt and savory, very little sweetness at first. Rye bread toast with salted butter. A graceful floral note develops with time. That extra air also brings a sweet(er) -> herbal -> spicy progression. Salt and pepper in the finish. Green and pink peppercorns. Not particularly lengthy, though it develops some nice bitterness, over time.
BATCH 13C07, bottle 2309 (Mine, from Costco)
The nose starts with chlorine, vodka, cherry juice, and hints of mint and pepper. Then brown sugar, bubble gum ice cream, cinnamon candy, and orange candy. Rubbing alcohol. With some air, the whiskey shows some maple syrup and a lot of new oak. The mild sweet-ish palate is oddly corny. Vanilla from the barrel char and then a hit of bitter oak. It's very green, in both herbs and grains. Some peppery spice and artificial mint flavoring. Cinnamon, sugar, and the fake mint thing make up most of the finish. A slight rye zip grows with time.
Winner:
Nose: 12J12 by a lot
Palate: 12J12
Finish: 13C07 slightly
Overall: 12J12
These don't even seem like the same whiskey. My batch tastes like a cheap young hi-rye bourbon. Florin's batch tastes like a young but approachable LDI rye. When I gave my batch of Double Rye its score last time, I was worried that it was too low. But now I'm going to dock it a few more points. It's a C grade whiskey. Florin's is more like a B-/B.
I've floated the theory that Costco was given a crummy batch not on accident. High West could save their best stuff for well-respected specialty liquor retailers that buy at a higher price (than a Costco bulk purchase) then turn around and sell the product to bigger spenders and/or pickier whiskey folk. Though I can't really prove this, my bottle from the Costco batch was capital-L Lacking, while Florin's was demonstrably better.
Another more dispiriting possibility is that High West is running short on the 16-year-old Barton stock thus its almost total absence in the 2013 batch. If you've had a batch more recent than mine please share your experience.
One final thought on price. Though Rendezvous is still the better rye, if you can find a good batch (maybe an older batch) of Double Rye at $30, I'd say it's a good deal. But, unless you know someone who liked his or her bottle of 2013 Double Rye, I can't even recommend buying the Costco batch at $27.99.
DOUBLE RYE
Availability - Most liquor specialists
One of the things I wanted to start doing on this site this year was comparisons between whiskies bottled under the same name. I'll compare batches, barrels, bottling years, ABV versions, ownership changes, and shifts in mashbills or oak. This is partially to demonstrate that the whisk(e)y websites and books which exist for the sole purpose of being buying guides are not entirely reliable. But these matchups' main purpose relates to my intent for all of my spirits posts, and that is to document my personal experience and share my findings with you. Our palates change, as does the liquid.
I'll be sprinkling these posts around, mostly when I have the samples in hand. Last week, I really enjoyed doing the Old Taylor lineup because the whiskey was so damn good. This week, I'll do two slightly more relevant posts. Today, it's High West Double Rye.
Two months ago, I reviewed my bottle of Double Rye and found the whiskey to be surprisingly uninspiring. I'm a big fan of High West's Rendezvous Rye, but its little cousin was a letdown. Immediately following my post, reader Florin exclaimed, "WTF?! GTFO." He claimed his Double Rye experience did not match mine, saying his open bottle of the Double was good. And he generously supplied a sample.The usual rundown:
Product: Double Rye
Producer: High West
Distillery: Barton/Tom Moore and LDI distilleries
Type: Straight Rye Whisky
Region: Utah (High West), Indiana (LDI), Kentucky (Barton)
Region: Utah (High West), Indiana (LDI), Kentucky (Barton)
Age / Mashbill: 16 years, 53% rye 37% corn 10% malted barley (Barton) + 2 years, 95% rye 5% malted barley (LDI)
Maturation: charred white oak barrels
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
High West is great when it comes to a batch match up, since their labels actually list batch numbers. And their batch numbers are usually decipherable. In this case, they are as follows:
My bottle -- Batch 13C07 (likely March 7, 2013), bottle 2309, purchased at Costco,
Florin's bottle -- Batch 12J12 (likely October 12, 2012), bottle 782, purchased at DrinkupNY or The Party Source
Line 'em up.
BATCH 12J12, bottle 782 (Florin's)
Actual rye seeds in the nose; fennel seeds, too. Pickle juice, black pepper, and something almost rosemary but not quite. It gets sugarier with time: brown sugar, simple syrup, and fresh baked carrot cake. The palate is dry and herbal, like a mellow Willett LDI rye. Salt and savory, very little sweetness at first. Rye bread toast with salted butter. A graceful floral note develops with time. That extra air also brings a sweet(er) -> herbal -> spicy progression. Salt and pepper in the finish. Green and pink peppercorns. Not particularly lengthy, though it develops some nice bitterness, over time.
BATCH 13C07, bottle 2309 (Mine, from Costco)
The nose starts with chlorine, vodka, cherry juice, and hints of mint and pepper. Then brown sugar, bubble gum ice cream, cinnamon candy, and orange candy. Rubbing alcohol. With some air, the whiskey shows some maple syrup and a lot of new oak. The mild sweet-ish palate is oddly corny. Vanilla from the barrel char and then a hit of bitter oak. It's very green, in both herbs and grains. Some peppery spice and artificial mint flavoring. Cinnamon, sugar, and the fake mint thing make up most of the finish. A slight rye zip grows with time.
Winner:
Nose: 12J12 by a lot
Palate: 12J12
Finish: 13C07 slightly
Overall: 12J12
These don't even seem like the same whiskey. My batch tastes like a cheap young hi-rye bourbon. Florin's batch tastes like a young but approachable LDI rye. When I gave my batch of Double Rye its score last time, I was worried that it was too low. But now I'm going to dock it a few more points. It's a C grade whiskey. Florin's is more like a B-/B.
I've floated the theory that Costco was given a crummy batch not on accident. High West could save their best stuff for well-respected specialty liquor retailers that buy at a higher price (than a Costco bulk purchase) then turn around and sell the product to bigger spenders and/or pickier whiskey folk. Though I can't really prove this, my bottle from the Costco batch was capital-L Lacking, while Florin's was demonstrably better.
Another more dispiriting possibility is that High West is running short on the 16-year-old Barton stock thus its almost total absence in the 2013 batch. If you've had a batch more recent than mine please share your experience.
One final thought on price. Though Rendezvous is still the better rye, if you can find a good batch (maybe an older batch) of Double Rye at $30, I'd say it's a good deal. But, unless you know someone who liked his or her bottle of 2013 Double Rye, I can't even recommend buying the Costco batch at $27.99.
DOUBLE RYE
Availability - Most liquor specialists
Pricing - $30-$40
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)