Single Malt Report: Royal Lochnagar 10 year old 2002 Faultline (K&L exclusive)

After last week's OF THE MOMENT reviews, I'm shifting gears.  The next eight (I cannot count) seven reviews will be of K&L exclusive whiskies.  Now, because I can't be timely with all of these, this first whisky was probably sold out a year ago.  But I'm just warming up.

Royal Lochnagar, Diageo's smallest distillery, goes into the Pinch, Windsor, VAT 69, and Johnnie Walker blends.  And I've heard third- or eighth-hand that it's one of the main malt components for Blue Label.  So there's a chance that many folks have had it, but not on its own.

I'm not sure if I've ever had a Royal Lochnagar single malt before, so I'm just going to say that this is my first.  Though K&L drew rightful criticism for overstating the rarity of independent Lochnagars, indie RLs can be a challenge to find.  Whiskybase has 110+ RL indies, but only 10 have been released since 2013.  And this Faultline was the only one of those to make it to the US.  The only other one I've seen on the shelves is the Dewar Rattray one that BevMo! released 4-5 years ago.

(source)

Distillery: Royal Lochnagar
Owner: Diageo

Independent Bottler: Faultline
Retailer: K&L only

Age: minimum 10 years

Region: Middle Eastern Highlands

Alcohol by Volume: 58.2%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No
Thanks to SmokyPeat for the sample!

NEAT
Its color is very pale.  The nose starts with a load of ethyl with buttery oak behind it.  Give it a couple minutes...and......Floral perfume.  Lots of soap.  Lots of vanilla.  Lemons.  A little bit of saltwater.  The palate is REALLY hot.  A little bitter and soapy.  Lots of sticky sugars, flower petals, and vanilla.  The finish is heat. Barrel char, vanilla, and woody bitterness.

Okay, that was not what I'd identify as pleasant.  I'm going to water it down...

WITH WATER (~46%abv)
The nose is still perfumy, but clearer now.  Limes, roses, a hint of malt.  Kasugai peach candy, caramel, and confectioner's sugar. Still some ethyl in there.  The palate is pretty malty and mild now.  Sugary and grassy.  Some lime zestiness and a slight farm note.  The finish is clearer too.  Better bitterness.  Lots of woody vanillaness.  Perfumy.

As noted above, I received this sample from Smoky Peat.  Mr. Peat is more of an optimist about current whiskies than I am......and he gave this whisky one of his two or three lowest scores ever.  The reddit review of this Royal Lochnagar is not kinder.

I'm not sure if I've ever written the following: I do not recommend even trying this whisky neatly.  Water is a must.  While that still doesn't turn it into a great whisky, hydration does cool its crazy heat and washes away the soap.  It still seems like a very young malt once it's reduced, which while that is not a bad thing, it may not be to everyone's taste.  It's sugary, grassy, and perfumed.  It's drinkable at 46%abv, perhaps even more so at 40%.  So keep that in mind if you have issues with your bottle once it's opened.

Availability - Sold out  :^|

Pricing - $50-$60

Rating - 74 (with water only)

NOT Single Malt Report: Haig's Dimple Tin Cap Blended Whisky (bottled in 1950s)

To cap off this week's old blend reviews, I'm skipping right over the '60s to get to the '50s.  I've reviewed two of Haig's 1970s cheaper blends, finding one much better than the other, but neither were of the Dimple/Pinch (Dimple in Europe, Pinch in U.S.) variety.  I've had the somewhat current version of the 15yo Pinch (or, again, "Dimple" outside of the US), I found it to be an acceptable blended whisky and hope they can keep it in the $35-$40 price range as long as possible.  This, though, is different.

Photo not of actual bottle sampled,
instead the image is from this page

I really don't know how to continue an intro to a whisky like this so I'll just end it with saying thank you to Sir Cobo for this sample!!!

(Also, please see that previous Haig post for a summarized history about the brand!)

(Also, if you do have an old Haig in your collection, the Haig site does something rare for an official site by providing a little bit of assistance with figuring out your dusty's age.)

Brand: Haig
Ownership at the time: Distiller's Company Limited (DCL)

Current ownership: Diageo

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 3 years

Alcohol by Volume: 40% (or 70º UK proof)
Bottled: 1950s

The color is a moderately dark gold.  The nose begins with wood smoke and orange oil.  Almond cookies and ocean water.  Grapefruit.  A minerally white wine.  After 20+ minutes in the glass, a fragrant mossy peat note appears alongside vanilla beans and rope.  The palate is a little dusty and musty but not much; the '70s Ballantine's was much mustier.  Instead it's loaded with a gorgeous bitterness and tart grapefruit.  Lots of salt.  Some oily greasy Springbanky stuff in the midground.  A mellow sweetness in the background.  After a while it develops a very literal mineral note, like licking a rock.  Not a long finish, but it's impressively free of sweets.  Lots of citrusy tingle, like lemon and grapefruit.  The rocky-mineral note.  And the bitter note, now reading sort of IPA-ish.

Can I say "they don't make them like this anymore" without sounding cliché?  No?  Well, they don't make them like this anymore because no one bottle ages their blend for sixty years before releasing it to the public.  But really, a load of tartness, bitterness, and rocks with a minimum of sweetness?  I'm assuming that can still be done by someone somewhere.  Right?  I'd buy a bottle of that.

While the palate was my favorite part, the nose was also very good.  It's a shame the finish finished fast, but while it lives its notes are consistent with the rest of the experience.  I'm liking some of these old Haigs, so I have a feeling there may be more posts about them here......maybe in 2016?

Availability - The occasional auction and/or European retailers who sell dusties at premium prices

Pricing - ???

Rating - 86

NOT Single Malt Report: Ballantine's Finest Blended Scotch Whisky (bottled 1970s)

One of the most exciting moments for a dusty hunter is when he or she sees the word "QUART" on a whisk(e)y label.  That means the bottle is from the 1970s, at the latest.  I'll be honest, I've rarely had that pleasure.  On one of those rare occasions, I found this bottle.

I was pretty geeked out about this.  I love old cheap blends from the whisky glut era.  One never knows what one's going to find in 'em.  Also, it feels like one's drinking something old, a creaky but vibrant, sometimes sort of moldering, likker that our grandfathers used to drink after long day of beating up scabs.

The fill level wasn't perfect in my Ballantine's, as you may be able to glean from the photos.  The bigger challenge was that the tax strip was virtually gone.  The screw cap was certainly sealed, that wasn't the issue.  The issue was how old was this damn bottle?  After researching a zillion Ballantine's ads from the past 50+ years, I was able to conclude that this specific label (with standard measurements) was used from 1968-1979.  So I'm going with 1970s.  More importantly, the whisky was entirely drinkable.

Brand: Ballantine's
Ownership at the time: Hiram Walker Gooderham & Worts

Current ownership: Pernod Ricard
Distributed by: 21 Brands, Inc.

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 3 years

Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Bottled: probably between 1968 and 1979

Its color is a yellow gold.  The nose can be a bit of an adventure.  At first it's very musty.  Some mild cheese, salty buttery potatoes, and oats.  But after than comes the limes and lemons and vanilla.  A mild maltiness (though not young stuff).  With time (20+ minutes), the citrus moves to the forefront.  Some orange creamsicles now.  A peep of prune juice and wisp of wood smoke.  Lemon creme filling in the palate.  Slight occasional musty moldy note.  Still has a little ethyl bite to it after all these years.  Mild smoke.  Some vanilla and sugar.  As it opens up, it gets very peppery on the tongue.  Some brief oaky moments here and there.  Its finish is shorter than yesterday's '80s Famous Grouse.  It's all Boston creme, toffee, a hint of sawdust, and a spicy nip.

Yeah, it's weird at times.  So are most of the dusties that sit on sunny Southern California shelves for 30+ years.  It takes time open up and let go of the funk, much like my old '70s JW Black Label.  But it's never boring and makes for a pleasant mindless sipper once the weird stuff fades out.  It's also better than the current Ballantine's Finest but not as drastically so as the Grouse issue noted yesterday.  There's definitely plenty of grain filler here and I do wish there was more fruit going on.  But I'd happily buy this for $20 or less (okay, maybe $25 for historical value) any day.

Availability - Happy Hunting!

Pricing - ???

Rating - 78 (needs a little breathing time)

NOT Single Malt Report: Famous Grouse Blended Whisky (bottled late 1980s)

My first bottle of the modern Famous Grouse was also my last.  It was a 1-liter bottle purchased at Trader Joes for $20.  I wrote the review, giving it 2-1/2 stars (later 74 points), when it was at its halfway point.  By the end of that bottle I hated Famous Grouse.  By the end of the bottle it was no longer "Wow, it's okay!".  By the end of the bottle it was aggressively crappy.

Two-and-a-half years later, while dusty hunting, I saw this 375mL bottle of an older version of the Grouse:

I didn't really know what I was doing at the time, but I did see that it was bottled at 86 proof and the label looked old.  Because it had no tax strip, it was from after 1985.  And with its "proof" measurement, it was from before 1990.  It also had this weird label issue on the back:

This brought to mind the double struck coins and miscut baseball cards from my youth.  Sometimes mis-struck coins were worth something (though, often not), but miscut cards were seen as flawed.  I knew this bottle of whisky wasn't going to be valuable, so I opened it almost as soon as I got home.

The first thing I noticed was that the whisky was good.  I mean, like so good I actually looked forward to pouring a glass of this Famous Grouse.  Because it was 375mL it was consumed quickly.  Luckily, I saved a sample just for this tasting.

Brand: The Famous Grouse

Current ownership: The Edrington Group

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 3 years

Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Bottled: probably between 1986 and 1989

The color is a dark orange gold.  Right up front, the nose is very fruity -- tangerines, loquats, and cantaloupe.  A little bit of brine, some honey, some caramel sauce.  Biscotti, the occasional peep of vanilla extract, and malt.  The moderately sweet palate has load of malt right up front.  Lots of salt.  Lots of spiciness -- yes, pepper and cinnamon, but also cloves.  Tart lemons and a wee musty note.  The caramel and musty note grow with time in the glass.  The lemons turn tangy in the medium length finish.  A hint of burnt raisins.  Toffee, malt, and a peppery bite that grows with time, filling the mouth.

This malt bomb doesn't even remotely resemble the current Famous Grouse.  Either its single malt element was enormous or the producers found a grain whisky that complimented it well.  I don't know where the fruity element comes from.  Maybe bourbon cask Macallan?  Or Glenturret?  Not only is it better than almost all of today's major blends, but it's better than many starter single malts (and basically any OB from Glenrothes, which is an ingredient of the current Grouse).  Though he has different notes than I, Serge was a big fan of a 40%abv 1985 French version of Grouse, so take that as you may.  I'm not going to make any grandiose statements, like this is better than everything, but it's a killer deal if found at a sub-$25 price and by comparison it makes the current version of Grouse seem gross.  What the hell happened, Edrington?

Availability - Happy Hunting!

Pricing - ???

Rating - 84

NOT Single Malt Report: Campbeltown Loch 21 year old Blended Whisky (40%abv version)

How about a blend made up of, "as much as 60%", 21 year old Springbank?  And at $70?  Sounds amazing, right?  You may notice though, that no one ever really raved (okay, maybe Ralfy) about the 40%abv version of Campbeltown Loch 21yo.  No "must buys" or "gold medals" or "5 stars".  I found this silence over a well-aged Springbank product kind of odd, so I bought a sample of it to find out if we were all missing out on something special.  I mean, the single malts coming out of Campbeltown are often fantastic, shouldn't their blends be good as well?  Anyway, as soon as I bought this sample, J&A Mitchell updated the blend giving it more modern packaging and a 46%abv.  Oh well, here's the old stuff.

Brand: Campbeltown Loch

Ownership: J&A Mitchell & Co. Ltd.

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 21 years old
Distilleries: Springbank (malt) and probably Girvan (grain)

Alcohol by Volume: 40%
(Sample purchased from Master of Malt in 2013)

The color is amber with a slight pink tint.  The nose is very mild.  Takes a moment before it wakes up.  Then...limes and soil.  Light vanilla, light sugar.  Light mango, light fresh apricot.  After 20 minutes a nondescript citrus note takes over -- kinda lime, kinda lemon, kinda grapefruit, kinda clementine.  A tiny bit of sherry, maybe a tinier bit of sulphur.  The palate is pretty malty.  Some strong caramel.  Dried apricots and dried pineapple.  After 30 minutes there's definite oloroso action (toffee, almonds, and dried cherries).  Plus a whisper of peat.  Salt and chewy caramels in the finish.  Some of the dried pineapple.  Eventually it gets some tart grapefruit, dried cherries, and a small smoke note.

Had I not known what I was drinking I'd have had no idea this had Springbank in it because it's yet another blend drowned in water, handcuffed by its minimum level 40%abv.  It's not bad and it's not entirely boring.  Its second wind of oloroso lifted it up a little.  But aside from the sherry and the fruit, there's really not much going on here.  Like many blends, it likely aims for "smooth" but doesn't entirely deliver on that or on any real character.  It needs more of everything.  Luckily, the 46%abv version replaced it.  Though I haven't had that version, I'd go for that one over this one.  Or I'd just buy an actual Springbank single malt instead.

Availability - This version, I don't know. New version, at many European specialty retailers.

Pricing - This version was $55-$75, the new version is $90-$110

Rating - 79

NOT Single Malt Report: Compass Box Peat Monster 10th Anniversary Edition

Yesterday I suggested Compass Box, so here's something from Compass Box.

Last September I called the current edition of the regular Peat Monster "merely great", an upgrade over my previous experiences with it, which were merely decent.  So I was very intrigued when I read the news that they were releasing a limited older bigger version in 2014.  Then I discovered that it was going to be in the $100-$120 range.  Less intrigued.  But when K&L put it on closeout for $75, I found myself unable to resist this guy:

As for its ingredients, Compass Box released this tweet:

@whiskycast @n1vux PM10 has more Laph (72%), some old Ardmore (16yo), a dollop of French oak Clynelish, and a dash (6%) of 21-25 yo CI & Cly

— Compass Box (@CompassBox) June 9, 2014

All of those parts sound good to me.  And they were.  This bottle went very quickly.

Company: Compass Box

Type: Blended Malt (formerly known as Vatted Malt)

Distilleries, Maturation and Age: See above tweet
Limited Bottling: 5700

Alcohol by Volume: 48.9%
Chillfiltered? No
Color added? No
(find the official "Fact Sheet" PDF here)

NEAT
It has a regular ol' uncolored amber tone.  On the nose it starts out with bakery smells, like fresh breads covered in sugar and stuffed with cinnamon swirls; definitely some of my mom's zucchini bread, which goes heavy on the brown sugar.  The peat is very aromatic, as opposed to ashes or smoke.  Lots of toffee, a little vanilla.  Seawater/brine.  A beach bonfire in the distance (I♥Ardmore).  After 20+ minutes it gets smokier and picks up some sharp lime notes.  That aromatic peat continues in the palate.  Some baking spices.  A gentle sweetness.  Sweet dark berries followed by an herbal bitterness followed by tart berries.  That tartness is a little acidic, but not too bad.  After time in the glass, some anise appears.  The sweets and bitters grow, balancing each other out.  In the finish, the peat now reads as moss, smoke, and ashes.  Brine, vanilla beans, and a wormwood-like bitterness.  Tart berries and tart citrus.  It leaves behind that good grimy peaty aftertaste.

WITH WATER (~40%abv)
The peat gets a little stinkier and aggressive in the nose.  Vanilla frosting.  And to be really vague, it's reminiscent of young Lagavulin, mostly seaweed and rusting boatsides(?!).  The palate gets very peppery and sugary sweet.  Some bitter chocolate in there.  The peat reads as green and mossy.  Sweet and peat in the finish.  A little bit of bitterness lingering.

Very good.  It's right up there with my favorite CBs, Spice Tree and the NY Edition of their Great King Street Blend.

It's a much different creature than the regular version, and I prefer this one's recipe and strength.  The peat is louder and richer, and overall a little sweeter especially with water.  It's a good rainy or snowy evening drink if you actually get that sort of weather by you.  It's missing the sort of complexity that would propel it into 90+ points, but everything else is in line so it sits right on the border grade-wise.  Sadly no one else has since lowered the price on this whisky.  At $100-$120, it's difficult for me to recommend it, but at $75-$80 I felt no buyer's remorse and probably should have bought another bottle.

Availability - Retailers who never dropped their original price

Pricing - $95-$125

Rating - 89 (recommended w/o water)

NOT Single Malt Report: Chivas Regal 18 year old Blended Whisky

Let's talk about Smooth.  Most scotch buyers want smooth.  Most drinkers do not want to wince.  Most drinkers don't want Islay Stank in their mouths the next morning.  Most drinkers want a quiet but tasty libation.  The cheap blends aren't smooth, and I know this because in a previous chapter of my life I consumed a high quantity of cheap blended scotch whisky.  Many of the whiskies we geeky geeks geek about can be thunderous, trying, or even abusive experiences to most palates.  Some folks don't want Penderecki's Threnody, they want a three-minute pop song.

May I introduce, Chivas 18.  Produced and engineered to be smooth, Chivas 18 is much cheaper than Johnnie Walker Blue Label (engineered for the same purpose).  Hell, Costco has this thing on sale for $45 sometimes, so you can get three (or more) bottles for the price of one Blue.  I will not declare that Chivas 18 is great nor profound whisky, but it tastes good, has some character to it, and has an actual finish.  The last of which cannot be said of JW Blue Label.  But as I cannot write a paragraph without including some complaint, I do mourn the quantities of 18 year old Longmorn, Glenlivet, and Strathisla being expended to create smooth.

Let's have a sip.

Brand: Chivas Regal

Ownership: Pernod Ricard (via Chivas Bros. Ltd.)

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 18 years

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Bottling: 2014, I think
(Mini purchased at a local liquor store)

Its color is a red orange gold.  Definitely redder than DiageoGold™.  The nose is pretty straightforward at first.  Sherry, vanilla, halvah, hazelnuts, and very distant fruits (melon and pear).  There is a slight burnt note, but it vanishes after a couple minutese.  After 20 minutes, notes of oranges and orange blossoms arrive.  More raisins and prunes.  In fact there's a good funky sherry note somewhere in the back; it's too bad it was watered down so.  The palate is very easy, stress-free, steady, polished, frictionless.  Lots of dried fruits and caramel sauce.  A roasted/malty note in background.  It's lightly tingly, but even that bite is comforting.  It grows fruitier with time, think citrus and tropical stuff.  The caramel remains prominent throughout.  It finishes with the dried fruit, lychee, some flower blossoms.  The slight burnt thing comes back for a moment: e150a?  Finally, caramel candies and a subtle bitterness.

'Tis schmoove.  The thesaurus has "velvety" and "creamy" as synonyms for "smooth" but, due to the level of filtering and added water, Chivas 18 never earns those adjectives.  But it does have a dependable and enjoyable level of fruitiness and some pleasant sherry.  While in its current state there's nearly zero complexity, I do think the potential is present for a really good whisky if it were (here it comes again) bottled at 46%abv, unfiltered, and uncolored.  Instead what we have here is easy drinking.  If you want more from your whisky, go elsewhere......to, say, Compass Box?

Availability - Very wide

Pricing - $55-$70, often cheaper at Costco

Rating - 82