Clubbin' Canadian: An Intro

(source)

No, not him.

Nor him. Sorry.

This.

Inspired by posts from bloggers Arok (bourbonguy) and Joshie (sipology), I've decided to end this run of blend reviews with a Canadian Club Taste Off.  For much of my drinking life Canadian Club was synonymous with "Canadian Whisky".  To me it stood in for the entire category, like Jameson's does for Irish Whiskey for quite a lot of folks.  Over the last three years, I've tried a number of Canadian whiskies (all blends, I'll admit) and I can't say that any have inspired me to buy a full bottle.  But after reading the blog posts by Arok and Joshie, then happening upon a pair of interesting finds, I decided to give Canadian Club another try.

A quick history lesson:  After distilling vinegar for his grocery stores for a number of years, Hiram Walker began distilling whisky in 1854 in Detroit, not Canada.  But since Canada provided cheaper real estate and materials, he invested in building an official distillery across the river, near Windsor, Ontario, a few years later.  A number of years later, his whisky gained the "Club" moniker, since it was being slung in gentleman's clubs.  The word "Canada" made its way onto the front label in 1890, setting the product apart from the Scotches, Irishes, and bourbons on the market.  Once national prohibition hit, Walker merged with Gooderham & Worts to become Hiram Walker - Gooderham & Worts (what a name).  After that, the company became part of the acquisitions game: In 1987 HW-G&W was bought by Allied Lyons (which, itself, was the result of a merger), which later became Allied Domecq after another merger several years later.  After buying out Allied in 2005, Pernod Ricard sold off the Allied brands that conflicted with their own.  Canadian Club would have bumped heads with Seagram's, so CC was sold to Fortune Brands.  Six years later Fortune Brands was split up and Canadian Club went to Beam, Inc.

Over the past decade Canadian Club has wiggled its way back into the public sphere, thanks to the very fictional Don Draper and the occasional cheeky advertising campaign (see pic on the right).  Sadly, drinking Club will not make you look like Jon Hamm.  Hell, it won't even make you look like Harry Crane.  But for this Luddite, seeing the old bottle labels on Mad Men made me wonder what the whisky actually tasted like during (non-fiction) previous decades.

I tried a 2004 bottling two years back and found it to be an awful chemical slurry.  But why stop there, you know?  During recent dusty scouting trips, I found bottles from 1986 (200mL) and 1982 (1L) with fully intact tax seals. (In my travels I've also seen two other labels from the late-'80s-early-'90s, but I decided that a line needed to be drawn for now.) What was actually more difficult was finding a current 200mL. There are plenty of bottles from the Aughts, but rarely something from the teens around here. Luckily(?), I found one from 2013.

That 2004 I'd tried was a plastic bottle and after drinking the whisky inside, I was concerned that something from the brown plastic had leached into the drink.  So I was very happy to find that the '82 and '86 bottles were made of glass and had excellent fill levels.  The current bottle is plastic again.  So it goes.

Since this post is a long enough read as is, I will be posting the full Taste Off results tomorrow.  Tune in, click over, drink up, and enjoy!

NOT Single Malt Report: Usquaebach Old-Rare blended whisky

First off I'd like to thank JLR for this sample.  We did a sample swap in May of 2013 when we were both experiencing very difficult personal circumstances.  But since then, between our two families, we've had three tremendous little blessings.  As I write this Mathilda rolls around in her crib, trying to swallow her feet.

Until today, I had no idea that this Usquaebach Old-Rare was a $130+ whisky.  Yeah, it has a curious flagon and all that, but what the crap?

The scarce amount of online information about this whisky and its company is odd in the current whisky climate.  Partially it's a good thing because most whisky producers are larding up the whisky internets with marketing, marketing, and marketing.  But it's also not a great thing because this is a $130+ blend with no official description or explanation.  Only large well established brands can sell mystery malarkey for three figures.  So why would someone want to buy this whisky?  For its flagon?  You can get a handmade flagon for less at Etsy or Flagonland (not a thing).

Go ahead, google "Cobalt brands" and/or "Usquaebach Old Rare". Cobalt Brands is a New Jersey importer who may (or may not) be getting help from Douglas Laing with the blending part of things.  The whisky had somewhat of cult-ish following back in the '70s and '80s but that was when it was owned by a different now-defunct company.  Cobalt, who bought the brand not too long ago, sent John Hansell a press release in 2009 full of weird errors which they appear to have never addressed.  Overall, the company and whisky information is all kind of jumbled and I'm still not sure why the whisky is so expensive.  Because it's "Old-Rare" and 225yearsoldohmygod!  Sorry, I'm reaching.

Brand: Usquaebach

Ownership: Cobalt Brands

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: not stated (no, it isn't 225 years old)
Blend: malt and grain whiskies (there might be 41 Highland malts involved)

Alcohol by Volume: 43%

Chill-filtered? ???

Caramel Coloring? ???

HIGHBALL ...... nah, I'm not going to make a highball out of a triple digit (price, not age, dude) whisky.

NEAT
The color is yellow gold.  The nose starts with anise and mothballs, then limes and lemons.  The oak seems more toasted than charred, likely American by birth.  There's an herbal twist, maybe coriander/cilantro and mint.  Cassia "cinnamon" sticks.  After some time in the glass, the whisky develops floral perfume notes and hints of papaya.  Overall it's maltier than any of the non-Green Johnnie Walkers and the caramel note is mostly under control.  But there's also a substantial chlorine note that then carries over into the palate, where it expands further.  There's some alcohol bite that follows.  A brief stone fruit sweetness gradually becomes orange candy, then there's a bit of bitterness and some spearmint.  Vanilla ice cream from the big clear plastic buckets.  But the biggest note I keep finding is a dusty moldy mothball waft reminiscent of an old lady's closet.  The medium length finish stays in the old lady's closet -- a peeping tom of a whisky?  The chlorine returns.  Vanilla and caramel emerges.

Hmm.  Again, the nose wins.  It shows off the possibility of the presence of mature Highland malt, though not that old unless the casks were eighth-fill.  But at the same time, there's a lot of super young stuff floating around (thus the lack of age statement), especially the chlorine and cinnamon.  So, while there may be old whisky in the blend there's also a definite quantity of young whisky which tosses the blend out of balance.

So why the high price?  The vessel must be the excuse.  The whisky inside is as completely unknown as the company who put it in there.  The drink isn't a complete mess; as already mentioned, the nose is good, almost great.  And there definitely seems to be a high malt content.  If they could sort out the chlorine and naphthaline issues this could be a successful mid-level blend.  But at a luxury price, I don't see it flying off the shelf.  And after someone purchases one novelty flagon, is he or she ever really going to go back for a second?  Unless Usqueabach starts releasing flagons of different colors......

Availability - Some specialty retailers
Pricing - $100-$140
Rating - 76

NOT Single Malt Report: William Lawson's Finest Blend

Yesterday, I reviewed Grand Old Parr 12 year old, a pleasant tasty alternative to Chivas, though at a higher price.  Today, I venture down down down down to a lower shelf.

William Lawson's Finest Blend is one that is not sold in The States.  Florin (a prince) brought a bottle back from his recent voyage behind the Iron Curtain to Poland.  Adjusting for exchange rates, a 700mL bottle often sells for $10-$15 in much of Europe.  So keep in mind the price territory here.

The William Lawson's brand has an XTREME-styled website, seemingly designed for adults who still crush Mountain Dews.  Their commercials are of the loud sort as well.  Aside from the (NAS) Finest Blend, there's a 13 year old which used to be a 12 year old (upwards!) and a Super Spiced flavored product sold in (and designed for?) the US market.

Master of Malt says that William Lawson's is a high-malt whisky.  Meanwhile, William Lawson's official site makes it pretty clear that Macduff is a main ingredient.  That would make sense since Macduff (known as Glen Deveron in its single malt form) distillery and Lawson's are both owned by Bacardi.

What makes this blend of greater interest to me is the gap between the opinions of Ralfy Mitchell and Serge Valentin.  Ralfy likes Lawson's a lot, giving it an 85.  Serge thinks it is poor, giving it a 56.  That's not a casual difference of opinion, even considering that Ralfy grades blends versus blends within their own category while Serge grades everything together.  Let's see whose side I'm on.

Brand: William Lawson's

Ownership: Bacardi

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: not stated
Blend: malt and grain whiskies (Macduff is a main ingredient)

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Chill-filtered? Yes

Caramel Coloring? Yes

HIGHBALL (1:2 whisky to club soda ratio)
Lots of cereal grains, yeast, and lightly ripened bananas.  No real finish but very refreshing.

NEAT
The color is light gold, much lighter than the Old Parr.  The nose is intense, rosy, full of flowers and stewed apples.  Lots of exotic overripe fruit odors, some sort of combination of citron, mango, and cantaloupe.  BUT these notes fade out after ten minutes or so, replaced by caramel and burnt raisins.  The palate has one of the thickest textures I've ever felt in a 40% ABV whisky.  The bananas from the highball have now been flambeed.  There's a hint of smoke, possibly from the barrel.  In fact it's like smoked caramel.  Some saltiness, along with cracked pepper and lime.  The weird grain notes often found in young blends are kept to a minimum here.  The finish is sorta short.  There's salt, spice, and savory stuff.  More caramel.  It can get a little cloying, but that much.

Firstly, Ralfy vs. Serge:  Ralfy, as he always does, reviews his own bottle.  In this case don't know if Serge is grading from a sample or a bottle, but I don't recognize any of his notes.  Perhaps he had a corrupted sample?  I do recognize many of Ralfy's notes, though he found even more positives than I did.

For a $10-$15 blend, this is at the head of the pack.  The nose is good if you don't allow it to oxidize.  The texture is impressive.  No turpentine, acetate, or weird crap in the nose or mouth.  If Bacardi sold this in The States, in that price range, I would keep a bottle on hand.  I'm not saying this is excellent whisky, but it's much better than its popular stablemate Dewar's White Label and at half the price.

Availability - Continental Europe and Latin America
Pricing - $10-$15
Rating - 78

NOT Single Malt Report: Grand Old Parr 12 year old blended whisky

Every whisky we drink -- unless it's a single never-been-recasked cask bottled at its actual cask strength -- is a blend of some sort.  Like blended malts and blended whiskies, single malts are the result of multiple casks being combined and mixed together.  But it seems as if "blended whiskies", which still make up almost 90% of whisky volume, are treated by whisky geeks as an embarrassing cousin to or not even a relative of the single malts we obsess over.

For this snob, when it comes down to it, I'm not a big fan of the single grain whiskies I've tried.  Haven't hated any of them, but haven't discovered one that I'd buy.  And though there are many great blenders out there, quite often the grain whiskies in a blend mute the vivacity and depth of the malt whiskies.  Of course, that's no accident.  The major blends are designed to drink easily and not offend a large audience.

But otherwise, there are a number of blended whiskies (Nikka's From the Barrel, Ballantine's 17yo, JW Black Label, earlier versions of JW Gold Label, and Compass Box's goodies) which I like better than many single malts.  Many blends are very good.  Most are drinkable.  And they usually make for decent highballs.  My issues with lower shelf blends are actually similar to my problems with lower shelf single malts.  Most (if not all of them) have been watered down, filtered, and dyed.  It's only in the blends I really dislike (Cutty and Dewars White) that I start finding young cruddy grain whisky overwhelming the package.

But I'll always give a blend a try, whether it's a $10 bottle or a $100, though I'll go with the $10 bottle first every time.  That's not just because I am (trying to be) fiscally responsible.  A $10 bottle may prove to be a fantastic find or stomach churningly craptacular.

This week I'll be reporting on three Scotch blended whiskies, though only one of them drifts into the $10 range.  Since the Long Beach summer lasts through November now, I've been in the search for a good highball whisky.  So I'll start each one off as a highball before proceeding neatly.

---

Today, I'll start with Grand Old Parr 12 year old. There are three blends in the Old Parr regular range: a 12yo, 15yo, and 18yo. These blends are sold mostly outside of the US and UK, often in South America and Asia. While I've read positive reviews for the fifteen and eighteen, none of them match Jim Murray's declaration that the eighteen was the World Whisky of the Year in 2007. As usual, I haven't found a single person who agrees with his hyperbolic outburst. That doesn't stop me from wanting to hunt down a sample of it since old blends have, yes, old whisky in them.

The Old Parrs are named after Tom Parr who, legend has it, lived until the age of 152. He even got married at 122; and if they say he was still fulfilling his marital requirements at age 122, then I'd call bulls**t on that long before the claim of his final lifespan.

But if he was doing so, then it's about time we dig him up from under Westminster Abbey and beat the secret out of his corpse.

So......whisky.

Brand: Old Parr (though it sells 1 million cases annually, it hasn't earned itself a website)

Ownership: Diageo (boo)

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: at least 12 years
Blend: malt and grain whiskies (Cragganmore might be a main ingredient, per Wikipedia)

Alcohol by Volume: 43%

Chill-filtered? Yes

Caramel Coloring? Yes
(Thanks to Florin for the sample!)

HIGHBALL (1:2 whisky to club soda ratio)
A sweeter, more vanilla-ed alternative to Johnnie Walker Black.  A little bit of orange, a little bit of peat perhaps?  Has an extended finish of malt and citrus.

NEAT
It's color is Diageo Gold™.  The nose leads with caramel and toasted oak.  There are also prettier elements like citrus peels and flowers sitting alongside some tougher young grain notes.  But with time, it grows richer with a big vanilla note, plum, sandalwood, and lime juice.  The palate has a good thick mouthfeel.  It's oily and sweet at first.  Then the vanilla and mild grains follow, and it grows more peppery as it progresses.  Some mint and toffee sneak in.  Brief moments of bitterness compliment the sweetness.  It might be maltier than the most recent version of Black Label.  There are cracked peppercorns and orange peels in the finish, then caramel and toffee.

Grand Old Parr 12 year old is an easygoing, well balanced blend which makes it a good option for a hot late summer.  It makes for a sugary highball and, when neat, the nose is the best part if you give it some time.  If you're a Chivas drinker and are looking for something similar but different, this is a good option.  In fact, it's arguably a more enjoyable drink.  Geeks looking for complexity and depth should look elsewhere.  And while it's not hyperbole worthy, there's probably nothing technically wrong with the blend.

Availability - Most specialty retailers and the occasional corner liquor store
Pricing - $30-$35
Rating - 81

Further failures in bourbon blending......

(Yes, I'm aware that these aren't all bourbons, but I was looking for lazy alliteration.)

Two weeks ago, I shared with you the brief tale of my solid number two.  I made three whiskies out of Balcones True Blue Cask Strength corn whiskey and Rittenhouse Bottled-in-Bond straight rye.  Whiskey #1 and #3 had their strengths, but their weakness tilted them out of favor.  Whiskey #2, an ultra-high rye bourbon, was good enough to bottle 600mL worth.

On September 2nd, I took the last dribbles of the Balcones True Blue CS, the remainder of the Koval Dark Millet, and some of the Koval Dark Rye whiskey (each 100% one grain) and did two experimental blends.  The idea was to create a bourbon and a rye, but using the extra light millet grain whiskey rather than a malted barley whiskey as the third grain in each.

On the surface it sounds relatively harmless, but there were two issues floating above the experiments.  Firstly, these were all super young whiskies that displayed nearly no maturation characteristics.  Secondly, I didn't particularly care for the way any of them tasted on their own.  There were positives in their noses, but not in the palates.  With my previous whiskies, #1, #2, and #3, at least I had Rittenhouse BiB bringing a little bit of age and luscious flavor to the mix.

---

#4 - Goal: Design a 51%-corn bourbon.  Result: Due to adjustments I had to make to take into consideration the whiskies' alcohol strengths as well as the microscopic milliliter adjustments, I had to settle for a 52%-corn bourbon.  Curses!

Stats:
Approximate resulting mashbill: 52/24/24 (corn/rye/millet)
Approximate ABV: 47.4%
Quantity made: 30mL
Resting time: 22 days

Nose -- Turpentine, caramel, vodka, corn, apple-flavored candy.  Lightly smoky.  But that's before I air it out.  After giving it 20+ minutes in a covered glass something awful began to happen.  While it still smelled of caramel and sugar, a massive note of rotten fish began to emerge.  And it wouldn't go away.  Either it absorbed something weird from the air or I crossed the streams.
Palate -- Corn, apple juice, vodka, and paper. With the extra time in the glass it improved slightly, with some more sweetness and bitterness.  But it never reaches a drinkable quality.
Finish -- More paper.  Very drying.  With air it becomes chemically bitter.

Verdict:  Wow.  Bad.  I could not finish it.  Worse than the sum of its parts.

---

#5 - Goal: Design a rye with Rittenhouse's mashbill (37/51/12), substituting millet for barley.  Result: Due to the structural issues mentioned in #4's, I got pretty darn close

Stats:
Approximate resulting mashbill: 37.6/52.6/9.8 (corn/rye/millet)
Approximate ABV: 45.1%
Quantity made: 30mL
Resting time: 22 days

Nose -- Less ugly than #4.  A little bit of rye spice sneaks in.  Some flower blossoms.  Vanilla.  Vodka.  Lots of corn pushes past the other elements.  With 20+ minutes in the glass there isn't much change.  Might be a little more sugary.
Palate -- Lots of bitterness.  No sweetness whatsoever.  Corn, paper (again), bland vegetation.  Very light, almost like a Canadian blend.  With time no major flavors develop.  Sort of semi-bitter / semi-sweet.  Sort of drinkable.
Finish -- Paper, corn, imitation vanilla extract, some bitterness and caramel.  Nothing changes with time.

Verdict:  Better than #4, but I still wouldn't drink it if it were free.

---

Both of these blends were crappy, though on different levels.  Aside from the bizarre rotten note, what was most disappointing was the feeling that in both instances I was drinking paper-flavored vodka (attention: makers of Cupcake Vodka...).  For a moment I considered blending #4 and #5 together, but then I decided that the whole thing needed to end promptly because...

The main lesson I learned from this blending experience is to not expect to suddenly create something good from elements one doesn't like in the first place.  Quality ingredients are the key to great dishes and cocktails.  Having at least one decent whisk(e)y may also be required in a blend.  So it's likely that one won't be able to salvage a bad whiskey by adding another one to it and then another one.

This week we'll see if professional blenders did a better job than I with the young whiskies they had at hand.

NOT Single Malt Report: Blue Hanger (7th Release) Blended Malt

In 2013, the vatted malt named after the Third Lord Coleraine's attire preferences materialized on American liquor retailer shelves in its septenary edition.  In the previous (sixth) release, Doug McIvor and BB&R started to dabble in adding peat to Blue Hanger's recipe by including two Bowmore hogsheads.  Then in the seventh release, they upped the peat's intensity by adding very young peated malt from Bunnahabhain.  The size of the release was also expanded to 3,088 bottles.  And though it was again given no age statement, the cask specifics were detailed in its press release one full year ago...

Bruichladdich 1992 hogshead
Miltonduff 1997 hogshead
Miltonduff 1997 hogshead
Miltonduff 1997 hogshead
Miltonduff 1997 hogshead
Bunnahabhain 1990 sherry butt
Bunnahabhain Moine (peated) 2006 hogshead
Bunnahabhain Moine (peated) 2006 hogshead

Thank you to Eric S. for this sample!

Company: Berry Bros. & Rudd
Brand: Blue Hanger

Type: Blended Malt (formerly known as Vatted Malt)
Edition: 7th Release
Bottled: 2013

Ingredients and Age: See notes above

Alcohol by Volume: 45.6%
Limited release: 3,088 bottles

The color is medium gold.  The nose begins with peated dark chocolate and rubber bands.  This is followed by subtle sherry, tennis balls, jasmine flowers, toffee pudding, and vanilla extract.  The peat is intensely grimy at first, though it mellows with time, becoming more mossy and vegetal.  A nice pop of anise also shows up, alongside cardamom, and little sulphur.  A dense ashy peat jumps out in the palate; creating the feeling of a bunch of cigarette butts in the mouth.  It takes a moment before the sherry-ish dried fruits roll in.  Grape jelly.  Currants in dark chocolate.  It's never over-sweet and the bitterness never takes over.  The finish has a decent balance between sherry and ash.  Bitter cocoa, vanilla, and cigarette mouth.

This is a much different creature than the fifth release.  The choice of very young peated malt is a brave one.  Those two casks make the entire whisky feel much younger than the age carried by the other six casks.  I like the grimy peat, though it overwhelms the rest at times.  Once the whisky is aired out, the good sherry butt shines and the blend eases into a single unit.  It's comparable to Laphroaig Triple Wood.  They're not the same, but BH7 reminded me of Triple Wood quite a bit and the quality is very close.  Keep in mind that the Hanger is much scarcer, bottled by a smaller company, and 50% more expensive.

Availability - Still can be found at many specialty retailers
Pricing - $85-$90 in Minnesota (wuh?), $100-$120 in the rest of the states
Rating - 86

NOT Single Malt Report: Blue Hanger (5th Release) Blended Malt

I have one hour to write and post this report or else......I'll just have to post it tomorrow.

The Blue Hanger blended malts are created by Doug McIvor for Berry Brothers & Rudd.  The first edition had only Glen Grant and Glenlivet casks in it and was given a 25 year old age statement.  The second and third had the same distilleries but had a 30 year old age statements.  For the fourth release, more distilleries had joined the lineup and the age statement was dropped (though it was just under 20 years old at that point).  The next year, McIvor and BB&R tested three different potential versions at Whisky Live Paris in order to let those socialists democratically elect the 5th edition.

Here are the ingredients for the prototype selected and ultimately bottled in October 2010:
Clynelish 1997, hogshead #4704
Dufftown 1982, hogshead #18584
Glenlivet 1978, hogshead #13510
Mortlach 1991, sherry butt #5141
(Source: Roskrow, Dominic (Ed.). 1001 Whiskies You Must Taste Before You Die. New York, NY: Universe Publishing. 2012.)

And here's the sample I bought from Master of Malt:

Company: Berry Bros. & Rudd
Brand: Blue Hanger

Type: Blended Malt (formerly known as Vatted Malt)
Edition: 5th Release
Bottled: October 2010

Ingredients and Age: See notes above

Alcohol by Volume: 45.6%
Limited release: 1,155 bottles

Its color is a dark gold.  The nose leads with oranges, brown sugar, and nutty sherry.  That's followed by dried cherries, caramel candies, pear, and toasted oak.  There's a little grassiness and some salted beef (the cows who ate the grass, I suppose).  Gradually a note of honey cinnamon glaze develops, as does a bold one of mackintosh apple skins.  It's big sherry that hits first on the palate.  Tobacco, mint leaves, candy canes, something pepperish (which might be sulphur), and chocolate malt follow up next.  Also a subtle note of rosewater and little bit of salt.  It's not that sweet, which is appreciated.  There's a lot of sherry in the finish as well.  Madeira too; let's just say it's a fortified wine party.  Toasty grains and oak meet tart berries.  Nestle's milk chocolate and stewed cherries.

That single Mortlach sherry butt must have been a monster on its own because it holds court throughout.  The result is very similar to a version of Macallan that some of us wish still existed: dense, bold, malty, and loaded with fruits.  With the sweetness in control and the hint of sulphur in the background, the whisky is much more interesting than I had expected.  I think it's right up there with Compass Box's Spice Tree as my favorite vatted malt so far.  The apple skin note in the nose was lovely.  The tobacco/rosewater/sulphur combo really worked somehow, as if it was a Persian restaurant in a glass.  If you're sherry-phobic this won't work for you, but if you're not then good luck tracking down a bottle!

Availability - This release has mostly sold out, a few European stores may still have it
Pricing - £70 or more, especially if it's deemed "collectible"
Rating - 89