Laphroaig for my daughter: Laphroaig Cairdeas Port Wood Edition

Yes, after last week's Littlemills, Laphroaig is the other "L" distillery I'm drinking to celebrate my daughter's birth.  I'm going to dig into my Celebration-Only stash for the next two, but first: The Pink Laphroaig.

Sorta...

Distillery: Laphroaig
Product: Càirdeas Port Wood
Release Year: 2013

Owner: Beam Suntory
Type: Single Malt Report
Region: Islay

Age / Maturation: 8 years in ex-bourbon casks, then 14 months in former port pipes

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Probably not

Alcohol by Volume: 51.3%
Limited Release: ?????

With this year's annual Laphroaig Cairdeas due to drop soon, I also thought this would be a good time to review last year's edition.  I liked the 2012 "Origin" edition a lot, partially because it was relatively futz-free.  Then last July, our local Laphroaig rep, Brandon, brought the 2013 Cairdeas Port Wood to Peatin' Meetin'.  Between the port finish and the pink color, the whole package seemed a bit dubious to me, especially coming from a distillery that prides its regular malt on being the "most richly flavoured of all Scotch whiskies".  I requested a pour of the Quarter Cask to chase the Port Wood just in case.  But to my surprise Pink Laphroaig was actually pretty good.  In the following months, I had another handful of opportunities (via different bottles) to try it.  And while I still liked it, the whisky was different each time...

First time -- strawberry shortcake, fresh raspberries, hint of peat
Second time -- tart blackberries, more peat
Third time -- no berries and a ton of smoke
Fourth time -- very sour cherries and salt

This mutability is what kept me from doing a review.  But then, my good buddy Daniel donated a significant sample of this whisky to help further my research.  This allowed me to take notes on two different samples, one much more oxidized than the other, to see if I'd find two different whiskies.

The oxidized sample sat in a half-full sample bottle for one month.  Then, after I poured it into a Glencairn glass I let it air out for 30 minutes.  The non-oxidized sample was kept in a sample bottle filled to the brim, then I nosed and tasted it as soon as it was poured, covering it to keep the air out of it the best I could.

Thus, here are two sets of notes:

Oxidized sample:
NEAT
Color -- Pinkish orange
Nose -- Young spirity Laphroaig, with an ethyl bite.  Dried peat, tar, and band-aids.  Then milk chocolate, roses, and raspberry jam.
Palate -- Very ashy. Sweet notes like agave nectar and gummy worms. Ripe cherries with a dark berry & tobacco syrup.
Finish -- The sweetness grows, as do some sour berries. Tangy gummy bears.

WITH WATER
Nose -- The peat seems wetter, more mossy.  Potpurri-like perfume.  Caramel chews.  Berries in yogurt.
Palate -- Ash, sugar, citrus acid, tart out-of-season berries
Finish -- Sweeter again, jammy and ashy

and...

Non-Oxidized sample:
NEAT
Nose -- A whole bag of gummy worms.  Lots of fresh berries, and whiff of manure from underneath.  Maybe a blackberry and blueberry compote cooking in a pot.  Port and band-aids
Palate -- Very peppery and smoky.  Sugary peat and berry candies.  A berry syrup that's mostly sugar.
Finish -- Salty.  Ocean peat if that was a thing.  Hint of tangy citrus or berries, but mostly Laphroaig cigarettes.

WITH WATER
Nose -- Farty overripe strawberries, sour milk, mentholated peat.  Potpurri perfume and creme de menthe.
Palate -- Honey & raspberries, hints of smoke.  Sweet and porty.
Finish -- Sugar, port, smoke, in that order.

Time for observations.  In both samples, the nose was at its best when neat.  In both samples, water sweetens up the palate.  The oxidized sample was ashy while the non-oxidized sample had more fresh smoke.  Overall, I liked the palate of the oxidized version more, but liked the nose on the non-oxidized sample better.

These samples were different enough that I'm thinking of splitting my remaining Port Wood into different bottles, and letting one oxidize.  This whisky is that schizophrenic.  While that fact can be disorienting if one is looking for consistency every time out, it can also be berry very entertaining if one is just seeking good experiences.  And in this case it only works because each reveal has been good.

In the past, Laphroaig has claimed to not have a Master Blender, but someone is blending up every winey release.  Whomever he or she or they are, I applaud them for concocting this whisky.  I tend to strongly dislike wine cask finishes and I doubted that Laphroaig would go well with anything other than more Laphroaig.  But this one works for me.

Availability - Happy Hunting!

Pricing - original US price range $55-$75, currently......whatever people will pay for it

Rating - 87

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1984 Hart Brothers

So, apparently it's difficult to publish blog posts in an expeditious manner when one has a newborn.

"What? How could I ever be a distraction?"

This week I've been drinking Littlemill samples in honor of my new daughter, Mathilda.  Tuesday's Littlemill, bottled by Berry Brothers & Rudd, was decent, light on the oak and bigger on the malt.  Wednesday's Littlemill, bottled by the whiskybase folks under their Archives label, was very pretty; all light citrus, flowers, and butterscotch.  Today's Littlemill was bottled by Hart Brothers, an indie brand I've often seen but never tried.

This bottling is at 46% ABV, which is good, but I've never seen a Hart Bros. cask strength release even though in the U.S. their whiskies are often priced like they were full strength.  On their official site, they list 30 current(?) single malts, only one of which appears to be at high strength.  On a more positive note, none of those thirty whiskies is younger than 11 years.

My sample was obtained via a swap with Mr. Opinions (Thank you, sir!).  He found some curious notes in his review of his bottle, which he had picked up when it was on clearance at Binny's.  So let's see what I find...

Distillery: Littlemill

Independent Bottler: Hart Brothers

Age: 20 years (April 1984 - January 2005)

Maturation: ex-bourbon barrel

Region: Lowlands

Alcohol by Volume: 46.0%

NEAT
The color is a pinot grigio. The nose starts out with rolled oats and matza in rubbing alcohol.  In fact, that takes front stage for almost 15 minutes.  Then lemon sugar cookies and store-bought nectarines (you know, the out of season ones that sit on trucks for a week or more and never ripen well? Specific!) appear.  Something creamy and vanilla-ish.  Then, after more time, sour milk and (um) urine.  Meanwhile, there's still a whole lotta wet maztos in there.  The palate starts out a little soapy.  Lemon flavoring, mild graininess, geraniums, the aforementioned stone fruits. It's tart and a little "fizzy" (a borrowed descriptor).  Lots of dish soap in the finish.  A mild maltiness meets notebook paper.

WITH WATER
Fewer unusual notes in the nose.  More citrus and tropical fruits.  In the palate, the citrus and malt get bigger.  The soap lessens and the fizziness remains.  The finish gets bitterer and the tartness ramps up as well.

An odd duck indeed.  Despite the fact that the notes may sound off-putting, the nose is actually a lot of fun.  Lemon cookies, matza, rubbing alcohol, and pee?  Good times.  The soap on the palate isn't too tough and not a deal breaker, but the finish is tragic.  When is joy not joy?  When it is Lemon Joy.  Water evens out the nose but doesn't help the whole package that much.

As MAO mentioned at the end of his review, there's something reminiscent of the "FWP" Bowmore period in this whisky.  All it's missing is the peat, then swap out the geraniums for lavender and violets.  Like some of the indie "FWP" Bowmores I've had, it seems as if the cask was picked for its nose and no one actually tasted the thing.  Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh.  Perhaps the soap notes grew in the bottle; they certainly expand with air.  This isn't a total throwaway whisky, it noses well, but if you're soap sensitive, beware.

Availability - Released in the US, likely sold out

Pricing - originally $110-$130

Rating - 76

NEXT WEEK, the celebration continues with another "L" distillery, one with a character noticeably different than Littlemill's.  Hint: It's not Lost Spirits.

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1992 Archives

Whenever most folks start writing about Littlemill Distillery, they usually start with some information about it possibly being the oldest whisky distillery (excise officer accommodations built in 1772, the possibility that production started in 1750, a brewery being on site since the 1300s).  But, sadly, because the distillery has been closed, dismantled, and burnt down, it can't be in the running because it no longer exists.

Littlemill is one of those distilleries that has bounced from ownership to ownership to ownership throughout the years.  That didn't seem to effect production negatively in the 1700s and 1800s.  In fact, when it was owned by William Hay in the 1870s the facilities were refurbished and expanded.  When it was bought in 1931 by an American, Duncan Thomas, the distillery's triple distillation practice was ended.  Glenlivet and Barton Brands of Chicago bought the distillery in 1971 then mothballed it in 1984 during the glut.  It was then sold to Gibson International who reopened it in 1989.  Gibson International was then bought out by some of its own corporate officers two years later.  Then all of that company's assets went into receivership and it was bought out by Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited (later to become Loch Lomond Distillery Company, owner of the Loch Lomond and Glen Scotia distilleries) in 1994.  They then dismantled the Littlemill distillery in 1996.  The remaining buildings burned to the ground in 2004.

The whisky glut was probably the death knell for this distillery, but the constant shifting of ownership and management over its last 25 years certainly would not have helped keep production consistent.  It truly escapes me why Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited (whom I want to call Glen Latrine) found Loch Lomond Distillery of more interest than both Littlemill and Glen Scotia.  Loch Lomond was expanded and fitted with new stills, while Littlemill went to hell and Glen Scotia was left to run only a few weeks a year by the Springbank staff.  I'm going to assume it had something to do with blending contracts, but it's tough to imagine that a historically difficult malt like Loch Lomond would be more in demand for blends than a light fruity Lowlander like Littlemill.  But maybe I'm just bitter.  It would have been fun to have an old school Lowland single malt to compete with Auchentoshan (Beam Suntory) and Glenkinchie (Diageo).

Okay, so today's Littlemill was bottled by the Whiskybase fellas under their Archives label.  One of these days I'm going to get around to buying an actual full bottle of one of their releases because they're samples have been decent to very good so far.

Distillery: Littlemill

Independent Bottler: Archives

Age: 20 years (Feb 1992 - November 2012)

Maturation: ex-bourbon hogshead
Cask number: 44
Limited bottling: 339

Region: Lowlands

Alcohol by Volume: 54.8%

NEAT
For the color, see the comparative photo above.  The nose holds lemons, papaya, roses, and orange hard candies.  There are more subtle notes of vanilla bean, butterscotch, and citronella floating in and out.  It's all very lovely.  The palate starts with some salt and dried savory herbs then......wow, it's otherwise the same as the nose: soft oranges and lemons, flower petals, vanilla bean. Then there's a soft rumble of malt following it all. It's a very easy drinker and has a nice thick texture.  The finish is just as pretty as the nose.  Flower petals and lemon zest and vanilla pudding.

WITH WATER
The nose starts with caramel sauce and lemon candies.  Then the nougat in a Three Musketeers bar. Maybe some tangerine juice? Lots of flower blossoms after a few minutes. In the palate, there's a malt note that is almost chocolatey, followed by orange peel. It's slightly sweeter but not cloying.  The finish, though shorter, hasn't changed much, which is a good thing.

There's a reason I went with Littlemills this week, aside from the cute name.  There's an imaginary Lowlands stereotype I've built up in my mind, and this fits it perfectly; it is all light citrus, flowers, and butterscotch.  A beautiful baby girl of a whisky.

In more vague whisky-talk, it's neither burly nor heavy, yet very full and fragrant.  It focuses in on a half dozen notes and hits every single one head on.  Shoulda bought a bottle of this, but it's sold out now.  Dang it.  Congrats to those who beat me to it, you have a good one there.

Availability - Sold out, here's the original link

Pricing - around $130 w/o shipping, depending on exchange rate

Rating - 92

Littlemills for my little girl: Littlemill 20 year old 1992 Berry Bros & Rudd

In the days leading up to Mathilda Rose's birth, my whisky drinking slowed to a stop.  I needed to be in Ready Mode at a moment's notice.  Plus with stress levels being high, I wanted to avoid utilizing it for medicinal purposes.  So for three weeks, I was down to a maximum of one drink per night; then the final week I stopped altogether.

But now she's here and to hell with restrictions, right?  Well, wrong.  First, I'm a responsible dad.  Secondly, when I opened my celebratory bottle of Yamazaki 18 I found out quite quickly that my former meager tolerance had been reduced by half.

But.

To celebrate, I have four weeks of reviews of very different whiskies.

I'm leading off with Littlemills for my little girl this week.  I've tried a handful of indie bottlings of this closed distillery over the past few years and enjoyed all of them, in fact, I've liked them better than the pair of Rosebanks I tried during the same time frame.  So, at the moment it's the only Lowland distillery (current or former) that I consistently dig; though, I have heard that the old official 12yo can be a bit hideous uninspired.  In tomorrow's post I'll include some more info about the distillery, but since I've pished around so much in this post already, I'm going straight to the booze.

This is the first of three Littlemills this week.  Three, no more, no less.  Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.  Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.  Five is right out.  Once the number three, being the third number, be reached...

Distillery: Littlemill

Independent Bottler: Berry Bros. & Rudd

Age: 20 years (1992-2013)

Maturation: likely an ex-bourbon barrel
Cask number: 10

Region: Lowlands (though close to the Highlands border)

Alcohol by Volume: 54.9%

Thank you to Eric S. for another great sample!

NEAT
The color is amber with some brassy notes up top.  At first there's lots of youth in the nose, especially chlorine and varnish, then big notes of barley and yeast.  Hints of sawdust and caramel.  Lime-flavored gummy candy, salty beach scents, pencil eraser, and white vinegar.  It grows more buttery with time.  The palate focuses mostly on barley, salt, and walnuts.  Gradually notes of caramel hard candies, spicy basil leaves, and tart oranges emerge.  Lots of heat still present.  The finish is simple but sturdy: cocoa powder, hazelnuts, and toasted barley.

WITH WATER
The nose grows more bourbon-like with a boost to the sawdusty caramel.  There are orange peels and lime peels, flower kiss candy, and the inside of a Big League Chew bubblegum bag.  More water leads to more flowers and peels.  The palate is saltier and slightly savory.  The orange peels show up, as does an herbal bitterness.  The finish has the mild bitterness as well, along with toasty barley, and sour citrus.

A decent malt.  It's lean, pleasant, and with hints of greater things.  Its pleasures depend on how one feels about spirit-forward whisky.  In this whisky's case there's still tons of youthful barleyness present.  If one requires more oak in the presentation, then this may bore.  Personally, I like the low oak quotient.  But "like" is a far as I'll go.  It was a fun whisky to try but there's no need for me to get a bottle.

Serge Valentin is almost over the moon about this one, though he's clearly finding more going on in the palate and finish than I do.  But his reference to wormwood is right on; I liked the bitterness but wasn't sure what it reminded me of and Serge's review came to the rescue.  The whiskybase community also loves this stuff, but because only one person wrote up tasting notes I don't know what they're raving about.

Now, back to my opinion...  This whisky wins a couple extra points from me because I admire Berry Bros & Rudd for bottling the cask when they did.  They could have let it age for five more years and doubled the price.  Or they could have waited until it was 30+ years old and quadrupled the price.  But had they done so that sawdusty caramel note from the oak would have gradually taken over all the other flavors by the third decade.  A buyer would then shill out $500 for a "super-premium" single malt only to get the sort of oak juice that can be found in many 12+ year old bourbons at 1/10th its expense.  But instead, this Littlemill is brisk and spirity with subtle stirrings of American oak.

Tomorrow another 1992, but for today:

Availability - UK/Europe only, not sure if this specific cask has sold out yet

Pricing - around $130 w/o shipping, depending on exchange rate

Rating - 85

Mathilda Rose Kravitz has arrived!

Welcome, Mathilda Rose, to our world of gravity and light.

Lots of blog milestones! Thank you!

It's going to be a quiet whisky week here at Diving for Pearls.  Next week, there will be some goodies, I promise you that.

According to Google Analytics, Diving for Pearls surpassed 100,000 views last week (Blogger has the count at 270K, but they seem to be counting all of the spambots).  Last week, I also passed the 600-post count.  After next week, I'll have reviewed my 300th whisk(e)y.

Thank you to all of my readers, whether you found this site via an image search for Anna Benson or wound up here looking for scuba gear.  Diving for Pearls wasn't originally structured around whisky reviews, but it has fascinated me how many people have stopped by to read my booze posts.  Sitting down with my whisky journal and a Glencairn of something new has become a lovely addition to my life.  My nosing and tasting process is slow, a little meditative, and probably sort of weird to anyone who is not me.  That process has improved over time, especially as I've been trying similar whiskies together.  That approach then helps me schedule my posts, giving each week its own theme.

My palate preferences have shifted over the years and I will try to warn you when they do.  Otherwise, I hope there has been some level of consistency in my reviews.  I do know that I used to give out much higher grades than I do now.  It's not that I like whisky less.  When one has tried 50 whiskies, one's frame of reference (or whisky sensory cache size) is much different than when one has tried 500 whiskies.  As I look at my whisky review list, I see a few towards the top that I want to retaste to see if they still hold up.

Perhaps you've noticed that I also give out fewer low scoring reviews -- for instance, I've been averaging two sub-80 point reviews per month in 2014, which is half the pace it was in the 2-1/3 years before.  That's not because I suddenly love everything I drink.  Instead, it's due to selection bias.  After doing a few "Cheap Blend Weeks" in the past, I found myself really not looking forward to drinking anything afterwards, such was the result of drinking one uninspiring whisky after the next.  Instead, I am and will be sprinkling oddities (and cheapies) throughout the weeks.  I'm both looking forward to and dreading the first sub-50 point whisky review.

I'm also looking forward to posting my first 97 point review.  I've certainly tried a few that could meet that grade, but never in a controlled review setting.  Will it be this year?  I don't know.  But in my whisky heart, I know that both the best whisky and worst whisky I'll ever try have yet to meet my lips.

---

"The Standings" was something I used to post every other weekend for a few months back in 2012.  It was pretty silly and oddly time consuming.  Also it was pointless and narcissistic.

So here are The Standings.

The All Time Top 25 Most-Viewed Posts:

1. Chivas Regal 12 versus Johnnie Walker Black Label - A pair of hard to find indie blends.
2. Glenlivet 12 versus Glenfiddich 12
3. Dewars White Label versus Johnnie Walker Red Label - Wherein a commenter calls me a snob and I call him a troll, one of this blog's finest moments.
4. Famous Grouse Blended Whisky
5. Glenfiddich 12 year old
6. Macallan 18 year old - I call a moderately okay whisky moderately okay and complain about its price.  And then its price goes up 30%.  Basically, it's every post I've done.
7. Black & White Blended Whisky - This is the fourth most popular post since 2014 began.  Really, people?
8. Lauder's Blended Whisky - Um...... Must have been all the nude photos.
9. Las Vegas, Days 4 & 5 - Fremont Street and Departure - Probably a lot of viewers stealing photos that I also stole.
10. J&B Blended Whisky - People like blends
11. Glenlivet 15 year old French Oak - This used to be the most popular review on this blog.  Now no one reads it, which makes me hope that people have stopped drinking the whisky too.
12. Johnnie Walker Black Label - The first, briefest, and least lucid of my Black Label posts
13. Macallan 17 year old Fine Oak - This is the bottling from four years ago, when it was better and cheaper.
14 (tie!). Jameson Select Reserve versus Jameson Select Reserve - I'm very happy that people are reading this post because the Black Barrel hype was very aggressive, meanwhile the whiskey is the worst Jameson product by a considerable measure.  My worst bottle purchase in the last three years.
14 (tie!). Willett 5 year old Single Barrel Rye - My first rye post. I later re-reviewed the whiskey and found the whiskey less good.
16. Maker's Mark versus Four Roses Single Barrel - A blind taste off.
17. Isle of Skye 8 year old versus Johnnie Walker Black Label
18. Talisker 18 year old - I really enjoyed writing this post, almost as much as I enjoyed the whisky. I say that free of sarcasm.
19. Diageo, Whisky Killer, Part 2 - The death of Green and Gold Labels - This was the moment when I decided to laxative-up and sh*t all over Diageo.
20. Ardbeg Uigeadail versus Ardbeg Uigeadail - L6 versus L13
21. Glenfiddich 18 year old
22. Power's Gold Label Blended Whiskey - Good ol' Power's.
23. Getting rid of baseball cards
24. GlenDronach 18 year old - Not sure why folks viewed this one more than its brethren
25 (tie!). Glenmorangie Original
25 (tie!). Macallan 12 year old

All of the above, except the Uigeadail post, are more than a year old.  The older the post the more opportunity for views.  Here are the top ten posts one-year-old or younger:

1. Ardbeg Uigeadail versus Ardbeg Uigeadail
2. Needed: Whisky Consumer Advocacy
3. Laphroaig Cask Strength Batch 005
4. Springbank 12 year old Calvados Wood
5. Finlaggan Old Reserve
6. Macallan 17 year old Fine Oak versus Macallan 17 year old Fine Oak
7. Lagavulin 16 year old
8. Willett Family Estate Single Barrel Rye 6 years old, Barrel #57
9. A Poacher Enters the Dusty Hunt
10. Whisky Fail: The Blind Taste Test

The Bottom 5 All Time Least Viewed Whisky Reviews:
5. Willett Family Estate Single Barrel Rye 4 years old, Barrel #85
4. Jefferson 10 year old Straight Rye (Hi Time Select)
3. Auchentoshan Three Wood

2. Kilkerran Work in Progress 4 (2012)

1. Taliskravaganza! Day 5: Talisker 18 year old 1986 Macleod's Vintage
Four of these are relatively recent reviews, but the Auchie 3 Wood was posted almost 2 1/2 years ago.  But that's okay, the whisky is crummy and my review is worse.

The Top 3 Posts Beloved By Spambots For Reasons Only They Understand:
The Flailing Writer Goes Gardening, Part IV
The Single Malt Report returns with a Kilchoman Taste Off!!!
K&L Single Cask Whisky tasting with the LA Scotch Club (Part 1)

Some more random facts:
My Johnnie Walker posts are responsible for 10% of my pageviews.
Blend reviews in general picked up 18% of my pageviews.
The big four malts (Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, Macallan, Glenmorangie) counted for 14% of the pageviews.
21% of views are in languages other than English.
German, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Polish are the top five non-English languages.

The U.S. of A. makes up 57% of my views.  But here are the next ten countries in order of views:
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Australia
India
Netherlands
France
Sweden
Switzerland
Poland

---

I hope that this was enough argle-bargle and/or fooferaw to distract you from the fact that I will not have a whisky review posted this week.  That's the sort of thanks you get for being a loyal reader of this blog.  But don't worry.  I'm pretty sure there's something fun up ahead...

My Final Barrel Experiment, Part IV: Lessons learned

(Monday, Part 1, link)
(Tuesday, Part 2, link)
(Wednesday, Part 3, link)

Part 4 of 4

No matter how they resulted, all of my barrel experiments were fun.  There was a lot of joy in the anticipation each time, marking the calendar, weighing, nosing, drinking, guessing.  And I learned a number of things, the hard way:

• A spirit does not taste the same fresh out of the barrel as it does after resting in a bottle for a week (or more) afterwards.  That has been true for every spirit I aged in my barrel.  Knowing this would make me a little concerned if I was selecting single casks for paying customers.
• The Rye Storm was palatable when first bottled, but grew increasingly harsh and astringent in the matter of a couple of weeks. 
• The Eagle Morning continues to change; the oak and rye notes have grown much stronger over time.
• The Ron Matusalem rum that I'd used to season the barrel seemed to have changed little when I poured it back into the bottle, but less than a month later it was a sawdust-riddled sulphuric mess.  I've dumped a half bottle down the sink.
• The whisky blend's palate went from being so-so to almost undrinkable in a week.
• By suffocating the barrel and cutting off oxidation, maturation is severely altered. There's actual chemistry involved in aging spirits.  A shortcut is a guess and probably a bad idea.
• One of the major whisky companies really should do a rye-finished single malt.  But...
• Rye-finished single malts need very little time in the rye barrel because rye is STRONG stuff.  I wonder if rye-finishes have been tried and wound up unsuccessful.  Still...a brief finish in a Rittenhouse barrel shouldn't be too abusive.
• Malted rye spirit is probably not the best thing to age if you're new to at-home spirit maturation.  Its flavors are much different than the unmalted rye most of us are used to.  I would recommend aging a regular rye spirit (and with some corn in the mash bill) before trying something more experimental.
• My home is probably too warm to gracefully mature spirits.
• Milliliters are not the same as grams, no matter what the kitchen scale says.  Density matters.
• If you're doing spirit infusions, cinnamon sticks and orange peel are elements that require very little time in the liquor. I recommend tasting the infusion after four days, and then testing again each succeeding day.
• Also, per Alex in yesterday's comments, the cinnamon sticks we Americans see in stores tend to be cassia bark, rather than true Ceylon cinnamon. Cassia tends to be hotter and spicier, while ceylon cinnamon tends to be subtler, fruitier, and pricier!
• Infusions are an entertaining way to salvage crummy whisk(e)y.

These exercises have often been humbling, as I went into each with a just enough naïveté to mess with the results.  But even if I discount my inexperience, this little barrel was a mystery.  I never knew the char level nor the quality of the cooperage.  Now, if a business offered mini barrels with charring and oak options, I'd recommend it to those who want to do some spirt maturation at home.  But I don't think anyone is offering those options at the moment.  So it's difficult for me to wholeheartedly recommend buying a mini-barrel.

I don't foresee me getting a new barrel any time soon, either.  A 2-liter mystery barrel can cost $80-$100.  My three experiments cost $350-$400, not including the barrel (which had been wonderfully gifted to me).  The important result of those expenditures wasn't the weird brown fluids that emerged at the finish line.  What I really received was many months of anticipation, lots of blog content, and an education on how not to mature spirits.  That's been wonderful, but my next set of quirky ideas needs to be cheaper than $500.

Right now I'm much more interested in working on infusions and perfecting brandied fruits.  And I'm even more interested in drinking well made spirits fashioned by those who know what they're doing.  Again, my adventures aren't over.  They're just going to be a little different going forward.