The new grading system

After 18-20 hours of editing posts and spreadsheets, I think it's time for me to roll out the new grades.

When I first started the Single Malt Reports almost 2 1/2 years ago, I didn't have my own history of rating whiskies to reference.  Either it was excellent or good or drinkable or dumpable.  Though that's still sort of the basis of grading whisky anyway, I didn't have much of a system in place.

I'd spent the previous 15 years of my life privately grading films.  That system started with a five-star structure, but then expanded out into a number of spreadsheets, partially because I love numbers and partially because the sheer quantity of films allowed me to compare and contrast and thus produce a more honed 100-point system.

A week before I posted that first Single Malt Report, I figured out how to create stars and 1/2 symbols via HTML.  That was fun, so I used those.  After a little while, I had the brilliant stupid idea to actually rank the stuff I was drinking.  That's fine with 50 whiskies or so.  At 200 it got to be too much of a pain in the ass.  Plus that at level of exactitude, 200+ separate "scores", it stopped making sense.  After whisky #200, I knew it was time to start transitioning to a 100-point scale.

Michael Jackson had a 100-point scale.  Ralfy has a 100-point scale.  Robert Parker has a 100-point scale.  Jim Murray has a 100-point scale.  Whisky Advocate has a 100-point scale.  Serge has a 100-point scale.  But they're all different 100-point scales.  Parker assigns 100 points to wines rather regularly, to the extent that a 90 point Cab sounds like it's crap.  Murray's faves score at 97.5 each year.  Jackson didn't go above 90 often and neither does Ralfy.  While Serge does go over 90, he had only 3 out of 1000+ whiskies scored at 94 points or more in 2013.

There's also been a bit of discussion about whether reviewers really utilize the entire 100-point scale or if they just park themselves in the 80-90 range, using 10% of the possible grades.  I can understand that gripe.  Whisky Advocate rarely grades any whisky below 80.  Serge often drops into the 70s and a few times a year descends into the 50s and 60s when he finds real stinkers.  Ralfy seems to limit his video reviews to 80 or better.  So, yes, it can appear as if many of the major reviewers are neglecting a big part of their grading range.  Smaller reviewers, including me, dip below 70 rarely as well.  But that has to do with selection bias.  We don't have access to thousands of samples.  And if we do drink something, we're more motivated to go with a potentially enjoyable choice rather than something Cutty Sark.  For me, whisky is the best thing I've ever drunk, so I'm still going to find positives in the mediocre products.  On the other hand, most of the vodkas and tequilas I've tried would never make it north of 70 points.

All of my grades from this site are available on The Big Whisk(e)y List page (which has replaced the Whisky Rankings page).  And to be fully open with my approach, I'm also including the mean grade, along with the standard deviation, and a comparable A-F grade list utilizing the STDEVs (located at the bottom of the list).  When I first did these calculations, I happily discovered that my bias wasn't too high grading-wise.  Maybe a point of bloat overall, but that will shift and adjust as my future scores roll in.  I hope to enjoy many lovely drinks this year, so perhaps the mean may rise.

You can think of my system in terms of school test graves.  There's about a point of a curve up right now, so a 90 is still a B+.  Also, I want to make clear that when I score something in the low 80s, the whisky is not bad.  82 is middle range for me, think Glenfiddich 12 or Strathisla 12.  When the score drops into the low 70s, then we're talking about a D grade; the whisky isn't a total failure but it's not easily recommended.  When the score heads into the 60s or lower, I'm concluding something went terribly wrong.  And a score of 80 still means I'd pay for it at a bar, if I can afford it.

Which brings me to the $$$ situation.  The grades are generated without taking price into consideration.  There are 90+ point whiskies which are priced totally out of whack, while there are 70+ point whiskies that don't cost much.  I'm not taking price into consideration in my scoring because I'm simply (or not so simply) rating aesthetics.  I don't feel comfortable listing a price-quality ratio/grade because the damn drink keeps getting more expensive every week.  But don't worry, I'll bitch about discuss pricing issues in almost every post anyway, usually right above where I list the score.

So there are two ways to view the 100-point system.

There are comparable letter grades:

98 to 100 - ???
96 to 97 - A+ : The stuff that dreams are made of.
93 to 95 - A : Truly thrilling.  Can make one ponder his or her existence.
91 to 92 - A- : If the style suits your palate, I do not hesitate to recommend this lovely drink.
88 to 90 - B+ : Grand stuff, if I don't already own it then it's because the money tree croaked
85 to 87 - B : Great whisky. It makes me smile when I see it on the shelf at a retailer or bar.
83 to 84 - B- : Solid, reliable whisky. Not without its flaws, but the positives out weigh 'em.
80 to 82 - C+ : Average. Pending the price, something I'd still order at a bar.
78 to 79 - C : Drinkable, but mildly disappointing as the bad starts to outweigh the good.
75 to 77 - C- : Not terrible, may be just for specific palates.
72 to 74 - D+ : Difficult to recommended. Either it's too sleepy or it's among the least of its type.
70 to 71 - D : Not recommended.
67 to 69 - D- : Considerably broken whisky.  Should avoid.
00 to 66 - F : Failure from top to bottom.

Or a more simplified...

90 - 100 - Excellent.  A lovely drink and something I would hope to possess for myself.
80 - 89 - Good.  Always reliable and I would be happy to barter some cash for the liquid.
70 - 79 - Drinkable.  I wouldn't turn it down, but I personally wouldn't pay for it.
60 - 69 - Dumpable.  Mediocre or worse.  Truly not recommendable to anyone.
00 - 59 - Disgusting.  Need I say more?

Please know that I recognize how goofy it can be to assign measurements to something as gorgeous as whisky, whether with 5-star or 100-point scales.  I hope these changes add to my reviews rather than subtract, because they're here to stay.  Cheers!

Rating system under construction

Happy New Year, y'alls!  I hope everyone got that handle of Clan MacGregor that was on his wish list.  I don't know if I'll be posting any Best Of lists, but I do intended to post one or two thoughts on The State of Things (aka whisky stuff in 2014) next week.

Also for this new year, I will be changing my rating system.  So if you see some inconsistencies -- or more than there usually are -- it may be due to the updating of 250+ posts and a few other pages and a big spreadsheet.  I hope to have this finished in a week's time, after which I will explain further in a larger post.

Cheers!

The Time Had Come: Longrow CV versus Longrow Peated

One day I was going to have to move on.

Longrow CV was replaced by Longrow Peated almost two years ago.  I had become very attached to the CV (see here for my review from two years ago and then a second review here) as I have to many recently discontinued whiskys.  In fact, more than half of The Cabinet is made up of recently retired bottlings or earlier versions of "refreshed" whisky ranges.  I had no doubt that Longrow Peated (or LP) would be drinkable -- especially since I adore Longrow malts -- but, you know, it was so difficult to say good-bye to something that had quickly become like an old friend.

Like CV, LP has no age statement.  It doesn't seem to have the mix of cask maturations that CV had, instead likely being from primarily ex-bourbon barrels.  And I wouldn't doubt that it holds younger whiskies within.  But mostly the issue was that LP is not CV.  New could not equal Old.

But I bought a sample of LP for the inevitable day when a comparison would need to be done.

Here's the link to the Longrow 10 review posted yesterday

My bottle of CV had lasted almost 17 months.  I kept decanting it into smaller and smaller bottles, stretching it out and stretching it out.  Some oxidation had set in, lifting away some of the cask influences but not neutering its bold oceanic blast.  Now it had gotten down to its last sips.

I realized not too long ago, that due to the sort of year this has been, I was going to have to end it with this very matchup of Longrows.  Here it goes.

LONGROW CV

Distillery: Springbank

Brand: Longrow

Ages: between 6 and 14 years (likely 7, 10, & 14 years in this specific bottling)

Maturation: sherry, port, bourbon, and rum casks

Region: Campbeltown

Alcohol by Volume: 46%

The nose begins with some naked spirit: barley, oats, and rice with a twist of antiseptic.  It's very herbal.  And a hint of something grilled and savory.  With some time in the glass, the whisky starts piping out sugary rum notes, fresh apricots, rich peat, tropical fruit-scented hand lotion, grapefruit peel, and brown sugar.  I also wrote, one "can feel the excited youth."  No matter how much oxidation theoretically occurred, the palate still packs a big bite.  Lots of barley.  Salt, vanilla, chimney smoke, and a medicinal bite (but not quite Laphroaig-sized).  There's the grilled, savory note and herbs that are herbal (i rite gud) and green.  It finishes full of malt and salt.  Not sweet, just strong barley, sea salt, and yeast.  Crisp, bready, and lengthy with the smoke ever lingering.

LONGROW PEATED

Distillery: Springbank

Brand: Longrow

Ages: unknown, though likely younger than 10 years

Maturation: unknown, though my guess is ex-bourbon casks

Region: Campbeltown

Alcohol by Volume: 46%

The nose starts piney and fruitier than the CV.  Pine nut cookies.  Leather coat.  Seaweed and some of Springbank's industrial funk.  Then lemon meringue meets Cool Whip.  Vanilla extract, grapefruit, and lavender bloom (but NOT the dreaded Bowmore lavender, instead something much fresher).  On the palate: grains, grains, grains.  Like unsweetened breakfast cereal.  Twigs, dried leaves, and earl grey tea.  A very mild alcohol bite considering its youth.  A tangy Asian sauce and tart peat.  It feels mostly oak free, which is a thumbs-up from me.  The tangy note stays in the finish.  Like the CV, it's not sweet.  There's a little salt, something oily, some vanilla, a hint of cigar smoke, and lots of toasted grains.

Guess what?  Longrow Peated ain't bad.  In fact, it's pretty darn good.  It's not a complicated drink and its phenolics feel milder than my oxidized CV.  But it's solid in its leanness.  I'm thinking there must be a considerable refill cask contingent here, no matter what those casks had previously held, which in turn highlights the good distillate within.  And this makes me happy.  While it probably won't knock CV off its pedestal, Longrow Peated will find a home in my cabinet at some point in 2014.

As for CV, I still like it as much as I had in its previous two reviews, so its rating doesn't change.  But as I part with 2013, I part with my old whisky.  May the new year bring many more new discoveries.

LONGROW PEATED

Availability - Specialty liquor retailers

Pricing - $55-$65

Rating - 88

Single Malt Report: Longrow 10 year old

I'm going to end the year with Longrows.  Firstly because Longrow is good.  Secondly, because it is a December whisky.  Thirdly......well, you'll see why in tomorrow's review.

Two weeks ago, I lined up a three-part Longrow Taste Off.  One was from my own bottle, one was from a gifted sample, and one was from a purchased sample.  There wasn't a bum in the bunch.  But this one packed a bit of a surprise.

The official 10 year old Longrow was released by vintage year starting in 1991 when the Springbank distillery re-started their regular Longrow spirit runs.  The quality and content of each year's bottling varied noticeably, as per Serge Valentin (see his reviews here).  On the technical side, the vintages from 1991 to 1996 (bottling years 2001 to 2006) have their stated vintage on the label (like the second whisky from my review here).  But after that, beginning in bottling year 2007, the vintage year was dropped, which was likely done so in order to give them the flexibility to produce a 10 year old when needed.  The 10 year old in today's review is one of these non-vintage bottlings.  The sample was poured from Florin's bottle (Thank You, Florin!) on the morning after the birthday booze bash.  We couldn't find the usual Springbank bottle code stamp on the bottle, so all I can confirm is that the whisky was distilled between 1997 and 2001.  I'm not sure if they've bottled any 10 year olds recently, which might explain its scarcity.

Distillery: Springbank

Brand: Longrow

Age: minimum 10 years, distilled sometime between 1997 and 2001

Maturation: primarily ex-bourbon casks

Region: Campbeltown

Alcohol by Volume: 46%

The nose is an absolute fruit bomb.  Though it starts with whoosh of a modern minty-style absinthe, it goes directly to overripe (maybe even rotting) cherries.  Then peaches.  Then good fuji apples, grapefruit, and juicy in-season plums.  There's some tropical fruit candy and honeyed peat as well.  Meanwhile, the palate goes in a different direction, and is more fragile as well.  The fruit becomes slightly floral on the tongue.  Then there are vanilla beans, soft smoke, soft peat moss, and a slight medicinal quality.  With some air, a hint of mango and rosemary shows up.  Some ripe fruits come back in the finish.  Peach, mango, and sweet clementine juice.  There's a peep of bitterness in there, along with some salt.  The smoke remains in the background.

To my considerable surprise, this nosed like an old ex-bourbon-cask Highlander.  Gorgeous, but huh?  The palate, while limited and subtler, was very focused and mostly Springbank spirit driven; thus positive in its own way.

Here's where things get interesting.  Over a year ago, Jordan at Chemistry of the Cocktail reviewed the same whisky from the same bottle but found completely different notes.  BUT, the whisky has been opened for more than a year since Jordan's review.  Thus oxidation has very much set in and, I believe, has worked some wonders on the whisky's nose.

I'm becoming more and more of a fan of the effect limited oxidation has on a bottle of whisky.  The booze at the top of the bottle can be a bit tight or harsh.  The booze at the bottom can get soft.  But at mid-bottle, it's juuuuuuust right.  Of course this isn't true 100% of the time, but it seems to be happening more often than not with my own bottles.  And, in my opinion, it has occurred with Florin's bottle of Longrow 10 year old as well.

I score this one highly due to this great experience, but please note, there can be considerable batch variation in Springbank's products.  I cannot promise your bottle of Longrow 10 (if you can find it) will kick this much ass.  In fact the odds are likely against it, especially since I don't know what year my sample was distilled and bottled.  But if you like Longrow and Springbank, this whisky shouldn't disappoint.

Availability - Happy hunting!   :)

Pricing - $75-$100  :(   (sadly, buying it from the UK won't be much cheaper)

Rating - 91

Single Malt Report: Arran Port Cask Finish vs. Arran Sauternes Cask Finish

With the introduction out of the way (posted yesterday), I can get directly to the whiskys.
Here they are:

The one on the left is the Arran Port Cask Finish.  The sample was provided to me by Jordan of Chemistry of the Cocktail via a recent sample swap.  Thank you, sir.

The one on the right is the Arran Sauternes Cask Finish.  The sample was provided to me by Linh Do,  writer of Bliss in a Barrel and fellow SoCal whisky carouser.  Thank you, ma'am.  Also, full disclosure: Linh has done some work for Arran in the past.  My sample was part of a swap and there were no requests for a review.  I am reviewing it here because it was nice/fun/constructive to compare it with another one of Arran's finishes.

---

Arran Port Cask Finish
Distillery: Isle of Arran Distillery
Type: Single Malt
Ownership: Isle of Arran Distillers Ltd.
Age: around 8 years before the varied secondary maturation
Maturation: maturation #1: ex-bourbon barrels; maturation #2: former port casks
Region: Isle of Arran, Scotland
Alcohol by Volume: 50%
Bottled: October 2010
Chillfiltered? No.
Colored? No.

NEAT
As per the pic at the top, this one has the darker color of the two, with a little purple or red apple skins mixed in with the malty gold.  I find toasty, slightly nutty malt in the nose up front.  Then grape juice and blackberry syrup sneaks up next.  Some Chambord, ripe plums, and orange pixie stix.  Then there's some toffee and a hint of apple juice.  Behind all of this is a bit of an alcohol nip from the young spirit.  The palate is not port heavy (which is a good thing for my palate).  More grape skins than juice here.  Rich caramel.  Brown sugar syrup.  Seawater, milk chocolate, and a moderate sweet level.  It can be a little hot.  It finishes with the caramel; I actually wrote "caramel" twice in my notes, so I guess there was a lot of it.  Hints of the salty seawater, toffee, and milk chocolate.  A sweet orange candy note.  And plenty of spirity bite.

WITH A COUPLE DROPS OF WATER
The port reveals itself more in the nose with the water added.  Some berries.  Now there's some blueberry syrup mixed in with the blackberry.  Orange peel.  "Tiny grapes", not sure what I meant, but there it is.  The malt is still quite present though, swimming amongst the port notes.  More port in the palate too, reading as sour berries.  There's a nice bitterness too.  And again, the malt hangs on.  The finish brightens up.  Milk chocolate, salted caramels, sweet grapes, and sour grapes.

Without a doubt this feels young due to all of that alcohol heat.  As Jordan mentioned in his review, it doesn't take much water to calm the whisky down.  But I'd love to see what it would be like with a couple more years in bourbon barrels.  It's already better integrated than Glenmorangie's Quinta Ruban, but at 10-12 years old this Arran Port Finish could be mighty.  And I like that it's bottled at 50% ABV which allows the consumer to tinker with it as he or she pleases.

Availability - Some liquor specialty retailers
Pricing - $70-$80
Rating - 84

---

Arran Sauternes Cask Finish
Distillery: Isle of Arran Distillery
Type: Single Malt
Ownership: Isle of Arran Distillers Ltd.
Age: around 8 years before the varied secondary maturation
Maturation: maturation #1: ex-bourbon barrels; maturation #2: former port casks
Region: Isle of Arran, Scotland
Alcohol by Volume: 50%
Chillfiltered? No.
Colored? No.

NEAT
Its color is a dark gold.  The nose is full of very rich toffees and caramels.  Honey on baked peaches, roasted almonds, creme brûlée, and the current corn syrup version of Frosted Flakes. It actually reminds me of a wheated bourbon.  It smells like it's going to be a sweetie.  Indeed, the palate is sweeter than that of the Port finish.  Honey and caramel mostly, along with some dark berries.  The heat is present but less so than in the Port.  The berry note in the palate turns into jam in the finish, like boysenberry and grape jams (yeah, perhaps a little unusual for Sauternes).  The sticky sweet fermented grapes and honey that follow are more Sauternes-like.  Again, the heat.

WITH A FEW DROPS OF WATER
The nose is slightly plummy, but mostly it's fresh peaches and apricots.  It's lightly floral, maybe a flowery honey.  Perhaps a little sulfur too, but quietly, like a mild seasoning.  The palate is almost all caramel sauce on vanilla ice cream.  Now it reminds me of a hypersweet Speysider.  Sweetness continues on into the finish with moments of sour and salt.

Like the all the other Sauternes-finished whiskys I've tried, this is a dessert malt.  While Glenmorangie's Nectar D'Or could be considered "richer", the Arran Sauternes Finish is actually less syrupy and less winey.  As a result, it actually feels better arranged and more casual.  But it's still quite sweet.  Like with the Port Cask Finish, the alcohol bite reveals this whisky's youth so a little more age probably wouldn't hurt it (especially at its price).  I'm not the biggest Sauternes finish fan, but I would definitely drink this one again, along with a dessert in the summer.

Availability - Some liquor specialty retailers
Pricing - $70-$80
Rating - 82

My introductory Arran Cask Finish shpiel

(I'm a-travelin' right now, so my posts may be a little disjointed for the next two weeks...)

I'm not the biggest fan of finished whiskies.  And I'm not referring to emptied bottles when I say "finished", though those can make me sad too.  I'm referring to whisky that has had a brief additional maturation period in a cask type (usually wine-based) different than that of the original barrel the spirit had been poured in after its distillation.  (For instance, the whisky sits in an ex-bourbon barrel for its first twelve years, then an ex-sherry cask for another six months.)  On the bottle label you'll see references to "finish" or "finished in" or "double maturation" or "triple maturation" or (ugh) "ACEing".

This "finishing" or "multiple maturation" procedure has become widespread in the whisky industry.  In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if we've reached the point wherein more than 50% of officially bottled single malt products have had undergone this technique.  As I stated above, and also in every post I've written about whisky finishes, I tend to not like the results of the finishing process.  It often feels like the producer is trying to slather makeup over a scar, paint over a stain, or put lipstick on a whisky pig.  In the resulting product, the wood, wine, and whisky often seem to sit separate from each other, never fully integrating.

For me the biggest offender is in fact that largest purveyor of finished single malt Scotch, Glenmorangie.  In their case, they're not trying to hide anything with their sherry, port, and sauternes finishes.  Instead, via finishing, they have created multiple pricier products.  That's fine for them since these whiskies sell very well.  I just don't see any of them improving on their starter malt, the non-wine-finished spartan 10 year old "Original".  In the "Original", the malt shines and plays nicely with the American oak.  I do not feel the same about their finished single malts and they had kind of ruined me for the rest of the finished whiskies on the market.

Enter Arran single malt.  The Arran distillery is a baby in the Scotch industry, having run its first distillation in 1995.  Early in their business life they wanted to create a variety of whisky products, so they used different kinds of casks and, yes, they also utilized finishes.  They tried a little bit of everything and seemed to have not held anything back from the market -- casks of Amarone, Argonnne, Bordeaux, Bourgogne, Brandy, Calvados, Champange Grand Cru, Chateau Margaux, Cognac, Cream Sherry, Fontalloro, Madeira, Marsala, Montepulciano, Moscatel, Pinot Noir, Pomerol, Port, Rum, Sauternes, St. Emilion, and Trebbiano d'Abbruzo.  So it's not like they're not trying.

Though one can still find a couple of their single wine cask malts floating around here and there, now that Arran's whisky is a bit older and more successful (critically and financially) they've trimmed back on the experimental releases and focused on more reliable or better selling products.  Of the finishes, they're down to Port, Sherry (actually it's Amarone, a red wine), and Sauternes......much like a certain older Highland distillery.

I've liked Arran's 10 and 14 year old regular releases a lot.  So, I looked forward to trying some of their other whiskies, even their wine finishes. Though the single malt within Arran's cask finishes tends to be young, around eight years old (if that's still considered young in today's market), I was pretty confident in the quality of their stuff.

Though I gripe about sherry finishes, I can usually drink them without too much of a fight.  (Again, that third cask finish is actually a red wine finish not a sherry.  Thanks to Jordan for the heads up.)  But I tend to struggle more with port and sauternes finishes.  And wouldn't you know......two of my whisky buddies shared samples of the Arran Port Cask Finish and Arran Sauternes Cask Finish.

Tomorrow, the results of the Taste Off...

The Life of a Whisky Bottle: Bowmore 11 year old 2002 Exclusive Malts (K&L exclusive)

On Monday, I posted about one of bottles from The Cabinet.  Today, I'm writing about another.  It's another peated winter whisky, though one with its own story and fate.

Earlier this year, The Creative Whisky Company (CWC) finally entered the US market with about a half dozen single cask, cask strength "Exclusive Malts".  One of those malts was a Bowmore 2001.  It was very good and very pricey and now very gone.  Not too long after that first batch of Exclusive Malts had mostly sold out, K&L Wines announced they were getting their own exclusive set of single casks from the same company.  (On a side note, there were a bunch of Davids behind this.  David Stirk runs CWC, while K&L's spirits buyers are David Driscoll and David Othenin-Girard.)  I decided to pre-order one of the K&Ls and went with the Bowmore 2002.  Reasoning: I love love love indie Bowmores.

Once the whisky bottles arrived at the K&L warehouse, David Driscoll publicly admitted (here and here) he had noticed that the Bowmore's nose wasn't quite what he'd remembered it to be when he'd sampled the casks in Scotland.  Now it was full of new oak and no peat.  He wasn't sure what the culprit was -- the cask, the shipping, or the bottles -- but with time or oxidation, he said the nose came around.  He and I swapped a couple emails as I wanted to make sure I should still go with this Bowmore or another of their upcoming exclusive Bowmores.  In the end, I stayed with my original choice.

Distillery: Bowmore

Independent Bottler: The Creative Whisky Co. Ltd.
Series: The Exclusive Malts
Retailer: K&L only

Age: March 12, 2002 - 2013 (11 years)

Maturation: "Oak Casks"
Cask number: 20098
Bottle #:  ??? of 271

Region: Islay

Alcohol by Volume: 56.3%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No

This bottle's usage:
39% - Swaps and shares
17% - Whisky experiments
8% - Graded tastings
36% - Casual drinking

Before I continue, note the small percentage of the bottle utilized for actual casual drinking.  Please also note, that is no tragedy.  I had difficulty with this whisky.  And I'm sort of hoping those folks to whom I have swapped (or will swap) this Bowmore like it better than I.

Upon opening the bottle, the nose issue that Driscoll had mentioned was somewhat confirmed.  It was not peaty at all.  What David D had sniffed as new oak, read to me as rancid dairy.  It was kinda gross (official terminology).  What made it stranger is that the palate was actually very peaty and held none of the off-putting nose note.

More and more often, I'm finding that at the very top of its bottle, a whisky is not in its best form.  Somewhere in the middle-third, in its interaction with tiny amounts of oxygen, the malt opens up and hits its money spot.  [Or sometimes, if it's a roughie (like Monday's baby Ledaig), the last-third of the bottle shows it best.]  So, putting my faith in that observation and David's comment that time or oxidation helped this Bowmore out, I gave it time.

I set aside a sample from the top of the bottle so I could taste it alongside the whisky at a later date.  Once the bottle drew near the last of its middle-third, I compared the two versions of the same whisky.  Please note, though the first sample was taken on the same day I'd found the rancid dairy note, it was decanted into a small sample bottle and thus may have experienced minor oxidation in the process.

---

Top of the bottle:

NEAT
Color - Amber
Nose - Butterscotch, cinnamon, and ginger powder.  Have to really search for peat since this is mostly buttery oak.  Black licorice, cardamom (of course), vanilla beans, and cut wood.  Did I mention butter?  Did I mention oak?
Palate - Barbecued peat with a fresh ginger zing.  Caramel, butter, and red hots candies.  In fact there's a lot of chewy cinnamon candy in here.
Finish - Butter, grass, and cinnamon candies.  Peat becomes more vegetal with just a peep of smoke.

W/WATER (sub 40% ABV)
Nose - More peat revealed.  Much less butter.  Lemon zest.  It's leaner but less all over the place.
Palate - Sweeter and peppery.  Peat is just hanging in there.  Lots of butter, though.  Here's the cardamom and the cinnamon candy.  A little tartness too.
Finish - Lightly bitter, lightly sweet.  Coriander and faint peat echoes.

---

End of the bottle's middle-third:

NEAT
Nose - Fruit breads.  Cinnamon on carrot cake.  The butter's still there, but better integrated.  The licorice is more subtle.  Very light peat moss, a little sugared now.  It's actually sort of Christmassy, I suppose.  Oak still blocks out much of the Islay shoreline.
Palate - Cinnamon with a coffee-like bitterness.  Peat is less smoky and a little sweeter.  A hint of citrus juice blends.  The oak rolls along more toasty than charred.  Very dense mouthfeel.  A bit narrow, but tasty in its narrowness.
Finish - Sweet, as in Nutrasweet.  Smoked cinnamon sticks and a hint of bacon.

W/WATER (sub 40% ABV)
Nose - A better (or more classic) Islay peat funk.  Oranges and vanilla.  Very candied.
Palate - Grassy, light on the peat, and light on the butter.  Mild cracked pepper.  A tannic dryness.  Have to be very careful with water because this one's easily broken.
Finish - Brief.  Some vanilla and a little veggie peat.

---

Conclusion #1: It was better than I'd thought...
Conclusion #2: ...though that may be the result of giving it a lot of focus.  All of my previous less positive experiences came while drinking it casually.
Conclusion #3: Even though it was better than expected, it takes some work to get it into its best shape.  It needs just the right amount of air and time in the bottle, not to mention airing it out in the glass.  And though it does take to water, the drinker has to be very cautious because it drowns quickly.  I like playing with my whisky, but this one requires a hell of a lot of attention, and even after all that tinkering I am left wondering if it was worth it.
Conclusion #4: Oak. "Oak Casks" indeed.
Conclusion #5: It appears as if my whisky experience does not match up with that of the employees of K&L. That's not the first time.  I loved their exclusive Caperdonich, but found it to be quite different than their official notes.  In that case, it was for the better.  I've also heard (hearsay!) similar observations regarding a couple of the other current K&L exclusives -- if I try them and feel the same, I'll let you know.  Yes, tasting notes are all subjective but I'm seeing enough of a gap to make me disregard the official notes going forward and rely on my own actual interest in the whisky.  Which is actually how we should all be buying stuff anyway.
Conclusion #6: In the current whisky market, the price is good.  The official 12 year old -- which is diluted, filtered, and colored -- is much less interesting but not much cheaper.  Also, the most recent official Tempest (er, Dorus Mor) was a 10yo selling for over $100.  Since K&L's inventory lists a hell of a lot of bottles remaining for this Exclusive, I'm wondering if they'll need to price it for clearance next year as they had with the Caperdonich this year......though, I'm not sure how much lower the price can go on this.
Conclusion #7: My expectations were set very high due to my experiences with independently bottled non-FWP American-oak-matured Bowmore.  While with manipulation this one can still be decent (provided the drinker loves lots of oak), this is my least favorite out of the fourteen I've tried over the last two years.  Compared to non-Tempest official bottlings, this whisky would fare well.  But up against Tempest?  Farewell.

Availability - K&L Wines

Pricing - $75.99

Rating - 81