...where distraction is the main attraction.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Single Malt Report: Grangestone Double Cask

Total Wine & More has an interesting approach to whisk(e)y.  Their locations (or at least their California ones) have excellent selections of single malts, including an extensive number of independent bottlings.  So they clearly have a knowledgable spirits buyer.  But they staff their stores with folks who don't know anything about these products.  Either they'll admit that whisky isn't their strong point or they'll just make up information.  And this includes the managers.  The first two times I heard the tall tales, I waited until the staff member left and provided some actual assistance to the customers.  In both cases, it was a middle-aged wife looking to get her husband something for his birthday.  After that, I had to ignore it.  They're far from the only liquor retailer with this problem, in fact they're in the majority.  But find it funny that they work so hard to get Exclusive Malts, AD Rattray, Berry Bros. & Rudd, Battlehill, Montgomeries, etc. onto their shelves but are not set up to move the actual bottles.

One of my friends used to work for Total Wine.  This person confirmed that product education was not valued while she worked there.  But what was/is prioritized foremost is the selling their own exclusive labels (I think they're called Spirits Direct products).  For instance, Grangestone is one of their whisky labels.  There are Grangestone blends and single malts, from NAS to 30 years.  And their because Grangestone's prices are very reasonable, I've stared at these bottles for longer than I should have.  But I don't know what's inside the bottles and (due to my experiences) I don't trust their staff to accurately inform me.  It's too bad that SoCal has so many liquor permit issues because a full public Grangestone tasting would be very useful for them (Total Wine) and us (the customers).

Happily, one of my other whisky friends (J.L.R.) received a bottle of Grangestone Double Cask as a Christmas present.  "Happily" for me, not for him.  He was not a fan, but he was more than amenable to part with a review sample.
Photobomb by someone who is not J.L.R.
Listed as "Grangestone Bourbon Cask" on Total Wine's website, the Double Cask is all of $24.99, a reasonable price for an NAS whisky.  The label is sort of vague.  It says that the first maturation happens in "handcrafted white oak casks", while the second maturation happens in "bourbon oak casks".  Since "bourbon oak casks" are in fact handcrafted from white oak, and the vast majority (and least expensive) white oak casks previously held bourbon, we might as well call the whisky, Grangestone Tautology.  Their website is of a little more help, noting that the first pass happens in "traditional American oak", then the second in first fill bourbon casks.  So let's just go with: 1st maturation is refill ex-bourbons, 2nd maturation is first fill ex-bourbons.
Warning: high quality photo!
Label: Grangestone
Retailer: Total Wine & More
Distillery: ???
Type: Single Malt
Region: Highlands
Age: no statement
Maturation: probably refill ex-bourbons and first fill ex-bourbons
Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Thank you to J.L.R. for this sample!

NEAT
It has the dark orange gold glow of added caramel colorant.  The nose starts of with a bit of orange candy.  Then switches directly to cardboard.  Then more cardboard and microwaved plastic fumes.  That's followed by cassia cinnamon, chives, mint, and hay.  After some airing out, notes of vanilla and pear, um, appear.  The palate has a weird amount of heat for a 40%abv whisky.  There's some vanilla and caramel up front.  Then notebook paper and Nilla wafers.  It doesn't air out well, growing sour and developing a case of The Turps.  It does have some texture to it, though.  It finishes with caramel and lemons.  It gets grainier with time and picks up some chlorophyl-ish notes.

ON THE ROCKS
Gah! Awful, awful, awful bitter poison. Cutty Sark reborn! Kill it! I tried to stab it with my United boot knife, but succeeded only in cracking the tumbler.

HIGHBALL
Refreshing, but that's due to all of the club soda I dumped in it.  There may be whispers of apple and vanilla in there though.

I'll start with the positives.  It's not an utter failure like Lismore NAS.  Aside from all of the cardboard notes, the nose isn't bad.  It doesn't taste too poorly as long as one drinks it immediately.  And the highball was consumable.  It's better than Dewar's White and JW Red (as if that was a feat).

Otherwise this is really young whisky.  And while it's possible to have characterful zippy baby single malt, this ain't it.  In fact, this is almost exactly like the current NAS iteration of Canadian Club 1858, with its Nillas, orange candy, caramel, and turpentine.  But what is this whisky in actuality?  Well, the label does say "Highland" on it.  My top three guesses would be in this order: Tomatin, reject Glenmorangie, and Dalmore.

And finally, though the price sounds tempting, there are better things to be found.  At Total Wine (in CA) one can get Glenfiddich 12, Tomatin 12, Glenmorangie 10, Speyburn 10, Chivas 12, and JW Black Label for almost the same amount (or less).  So it's difficult to recommend this on any level.  If the older Grangestones are any better, please let us know in the comment section!

Availability - Total Wine & More
Pricing - $24.99
Rating - 70

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Taste Off! Kilkerran WIP 5 Bourbon Wood versus Kilkerran WIP 6 Bourbon Wood

Ten months ago, I reviewed Kilkerran Work in Progress 5 Bourbon Wood and gave it a rave review, of course, because I am romantically attached platonically attracted to the spirit coming from Glengyle distillery.  But, that review came from a 30mL-ish sample bought from Master of Malt.  In early August, I finally got around to buying a bottle of this stuff.  I was planning to do a "Life of a Bottle" post on it, but the darn whisky vanished so fast that I was thankful to have saved a review sample early on.
When I received a sample of Work in Progress 6 Bourbon Wood in a sample swap with smokeypeat (thank you!!!), I realized I'd better try these two head-to-head while I could.

As a quick refresher for those who are new to Kilkerran, the single malt is made at Glengyle distillery which is run by the same folks that own Springbank.  The malt is lightly peated (probably at a level similar to Springbank's) and is named after the nearby Kilkerran church because another company (Loch Lomond, I think) owns the rights to the "Glengyle" brand name.  Kilkerran single malt has been released annually since 2009 as a "Work in Progress".  The brand has said that it will discontinue that WIP title when, in 2016, they will have their first 12 year old.  In 2013, they split the WIP into two different whiskies: one aged in ex-bourbon casks, the other aged in ex-sherry casks.  They continued this approach in 2014, and also had some limited edition versions aged in other sorts of casks.  Each WIP has a different color.  WIP 5 is blue (see pic above).  WIP 6 is pink.

Now onto the tasting:
WIP 5 Bourbon Wood
Distillery: Glengyle
Brand: Kilkerran
Age: 9 years (2004 - 2013)
Maturation: ex-bourbon American Oak barrels
Region: Campbeltown
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Label color: Blue
Limited release: 9000

Neat
Its color is amber, and maybe slightly darker than the WIP6.  The nose has the forest floor character I always anticipate: dried leaves, damp soil, roots, and a little pine sap.  Plenty of roasted barley and even a hint of yeast.  There are smaller notes of cream, anise, caramel, and wet sand.  Some citron and lemon peels in the far back.  And, for what it's worth, it's more pungent than WIP6.  The palate leads with lots of barley. The moderate peat reads leafy and rooty.  Some sand, yeast, broken rocks, tobacco leaves, and lots of green herbs.  It's not massively complex, but its bold nudity is an approach that's becoming scarce.  The finish is pretty long considering the age and strength.  The herbs are sweeter and there's a minty menthol glow.  There's a great combo of rocky minerality and honey.

With water (approx. 40%abv)
The nose didn't change much other than flattening out and simplifying. Pine, leaves, yeast, citrus, vanilla, and (orange blossom?) honey. The palate gets sweeter, and more honeyed.  Some cayenne pepper slips in.  Then toffee, fresh oregano, and a whiff of smoke.  The finish is shorter, a little grassy, and plenty sweet.

WIP 6 Bourbon Wood
Distillery: Glengyle
Brand: Kilkerran
Age: 10 years (2004 - 2014)
Maturation: ex-bourbon American Oak barrels
Region: Campbeltown
Alcohol by Volume: 46%
Label color: Pink
Limited release: 9000?

Neat
Like its younger sibling, its color is amber.  The forest floor is still there.  More citrus peel, more pine, more vanilla and caramel.  There's a peep of moss and pencil graphite.  A mint candy note grows with time, as does a curious note of human musk (and I don't mean Elon).  Eventually the musky smell drifts away; anise, sand, and honey taking its place.  The palate is silent for the first moment and then explodes open, richer, sweeter, rounder, and less subtle than WIP5.  There are still some notes of ink, graphite, seashells, and smoke beneath the sugar and honey.  The finish is sweeter as well, and milder with the tougher notes.  There's a moment of dried fruits and nuts that almost feels like oloroso.

With water (approx. 40%abv)
The nose flattens out again.  Pine sap and caramel remain, as does the musk.  The citrus begins to read more like rose blossoms.  The palate gains a spicy peppery edge that illuminates an otherwise vanilla-powered character.  Perhaps a hint of soil, too.  The finish is sweet and grainy.



Kilkerran is ready to come to market with what they've got.  They can call it Kilkerran 10 and stop hedging with the whole "the cake is still baking" approach.  WIP6 (or the 10 year) is well-rounded and comfy.  It has the Glengyle character, but is smoothened out to include some light oak notes and exclude stuff that would scare a larger customer base away.  If Kilkerran was an artist (if you'll allow for one sentence), her youthful aggression has developed into a style than can be more easily received by a large audience, yet hasn't gotten totally soft from too much adulation.

Which WIP a drinker will prefer depends entirely on taste.  Personally, I favor the dirt-under-the-fingernails fashion of WIPs 2 and 5.  But because the oak plays nicely in WIP6, I would still be happy to buy a bottle.  If it seems like I'm dwelling on minutiae here then it's because there are so few single malts that still embrace such a rustic style and I would hate to see it get swamped by oak like a number of my former favorite distilleries.  In any case, Kilkerran is an excellent autumn malt, I hope they continue to keep up the good work.

KILKERRAN WIP 5 BOURBON WOOD
Availability - Few specialty retailers, as WIP6 has taken its place
Pricing - $60-$80
Rating - 90 (neat)

KILKERRAN WIP 6 BOURBON WOOD
Availability - Many specialty retailers
Pricing - $60-$80
Rating - 87 (neat)

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Single Malt Report: BANFF!! Twice


Oh Banff, the poor ol' distillery, always getting its ass kicked like Officer Nordberg.  It survived a massive distillery fire in 1877.  It survived a thorough bombing by the Luftwaffe in 1941.  It survived a still explosion in 1959.  But in 1983, it did not survive the incorporated genital wart that is DCL/Diageo (Ed.: Dude, let it go already).  And, just for good measure, the abandoned building caught fire in 1991 and then was bulldozed.

There haven't been many Banff releases in recently.  Whiskybase shows only 11 total indie casks released in the past four years.  Winesearcher shows only one store selling a Banff in the US (for almost $2000).  I could say that now would be a good time to go Full Hipster and get into Banff before it becomes the next big ticket dead distillery, but there's really not much of an opportunity to do so.

I obtained two samples of Banff right around the same time last year so I tried them together as I huddled in my secret winter East Coast hideaway.  First, here's a 1974 G&M Connoisseurs Choice mini with the "old map label", meaning it was bottled before 1997 (I think).  Many many thank yous to Cobo for sharing this with me.

Distillery: Banff
Ownership: DCL (proto-Diageo)
Independent Bottler: Gordon & MacPhail (Connoisseurs Choice)
Region: Speyside (Deveron)
Distillation year: 1974
Bottling year: ???, before 1997
Maturation: probably not first fill casks
Alcohol by Volume: 40%

The brass-colored whisky's nose has some nice old stink to it, like moldy honey and manure.  Those notes are soon followed by perfumy dish soap, orange oil, and vanilla.  But with more time, all sorts of scents begin to escape from the glass: cucumber, hay, toasted barley, pencil graphite, sea air, and something vaguely meaty.  The palate has some of the old stink as well. Maybe some dry sherry too? But nothing stronger than a re-re-refill cask.  It has a light bitterness and citrus tang.  It's a bit thin texturally, but has solid notes of coffee, ground black pepper, whole wheat bread, Cow Tales (think vanilla and caramel), and Lucky Charms "marshmallows".  The finish is brief at first, but seems to get longer with subsequent sips.  It's sugary and lightly tangy, but also bitterer than the palate. The coffee, pepper, and hay notes linger on, as do barley and smoked toffee.

This probably was a light charming whisky when first bottled 18-20 years ago.  Now that the old dusty stuff has developed, the whisky has likely become more layered.  I welcome those dirtier notes and the general lack of wood and wine influence.  As I referenced in the notes, I do have a nagging feeling there were refill sherry casks in the mix; and the pepper note rung sort of sulfurous.  Some fun stuff going on, but the low ABV keeps it from really blasting off.


Next, I purchased a sample of a Cadenhead Banff at a LASC event.  Though this Banff may have been bottled around the same time as the G&M, it's a different beast.


Distillery: Banff
Ownership: DCL (proto-Diageo)
Independent Bottler: Cadenhead (Authentic Collection)
Region: Speyside (Deveron)
Age: 21 years old
Distillation year: 1976
Bottling year: 1997
Maturation: ???
Alcohol by Volume: 57.3%

Its color is that of a five-beer piss.  The nose buzzes with bright notes.  First there's fresh watermelon, cucumber, and papaya.  Then confectioner's sugar, cinnamon, citron, and black licorice.  Then, after more than 30 minutes in the glass, the whisky releases fresh-cut grass and grapefruits.  The palate gets dirtier.  Dingy sweet spicy tangy malt with a very oily mouthfeel.  The dark dank (musty moldy) note that had escaped the nose arises here, followed by lemons and peppercorns.  Sticky toffee with orange zest.  Green garden herbs and sugar, like herbal candy.  The finish is loooooong, though simple.  Spicy, sweet, citric.  Then grassy with a hint smoke.

This one is wild.  The nose is plum gorgeous.  The palate is a dark stinger.  And the finish hums pleasantly.  For those who are familiar with such things, this was one of those old green bottles that sat on a random liquor store shelf for a decade-plus before someone smart spirited away with it.  The LAWS entry is the only thing online about this whisky (the lone Malt Monitor entry is by Dave who is also part of LAWS).  And I liked it a lot more than they did; maybe something went wrong with their bottle because the nose seems to have been DOA on theirs.  In any case, I loved this one.  If it didn't lose steam in the finish, the whisky probably would have made my all-time Top Twenty.

So, two Banffs: one good, one excellent.  Some of the difference in quality may have been due to the bottling strengths.  Otherwise both were spirit-forward zippy whiskies that I would be happy to purchase if I could find them at their original 1990s prices.

BANFF 1974 G&M CONNOISSEURS CHOICE (old map label)
Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - 700mL bottle will likely be over $300 nowadays
Rating - 85

BANFF 21yo 1976 CADENHEAD AUTHENTIC COLLECTION
Availability - Happy hunting!
Pricing - may have been $145 back in 2008
Rating - 91

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Laphroaig 10 year old Cask Strength Batch 005, again, but served four ways

I reviewed Laphroaig 10yo CS batch 005 around this time last year.  Then, after a year of the bottle sitting two-thirds full on the opposite coast, I did another set of notes without looking at the last one.  Last time, I found it to be good, though with an aggressive oak influence that kept it from competing with any of the previous batches.  And this time?

I had two winters to take a picture of my damn bottle
but apparently I was too dippy to do so.
Distillery: Laphroaig
Owner: Beam Suntory
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay
Maturation: ex-bourbon barrels
Age: minimum 10 years
Batch: 005, Feb 2013
Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Probably not
Alcohol by Volume: 57.2%

This time, inspired by Chemistry of the Cocktail, I added to water in different amounts in order to reduce the ABV and compare each version with the other.  The tasting glasses were lined up as such:

#1 - 1.0oz + no water = 57.2%abv
#2 - 0.5oz + 1/2 tsp water = 49%abv (between 50% and the 48% of their Quarter Cask)
#3 - 0.5oz + 1 tsp water = 43%abv
#4 - 0.5oz + 1-1/4 tsp water = 40%

Again, for some reason I didn't any pictures of the comparison.
Here's a picture of breakfast, instead.
#1, Full strength
Nose - Lots of American oak: pulp, char, and sap. Sugary malt meets a peat that is almost floral.  No grunge, no medicine, no maritime.  Some green herbal stuff, caramel, roasted nuts, and oats.
Palate - Dirtier here (thankfully).  Still, there's lots of vanilla and sugar.  A tiny bit of bitter herbs is overwhelmed by the sweetness.  Some salt and lemon peel sneak in, and a cassia cinnamon note that grows with time.
Finish - Medium length. Big on the vanilla, caramel, and sugar. Mild on the bitter and smoke. Afrin nasal spray. A green peat note develops but that's also smothered by the sweetness.

Comments - I'm getting tired of it in this state. While the oak isn't as odd as I'd remembered it, it is incredibly heavy.  And that hurts the Laphroaig style.

#2, Reduced to 49%abv
Nose - Less oak, more green herbs, more peat moss, and a bit wilder overall.  More earth, slightly inky.  Ground cardamom and burnt oregano.  Subtler vanillin and floral notes.
Palate - A creamier, oilier texture.  A nice bitterness.  Peat!  Salt, anise, and manure.  It's like a high-strength Underberg.
Finish - Medium length.  Big peaty phenols stomp down the sweetness.  Bitter and spicy.  Tart lime candy and hay.

Comments - This bitter, spicy, herbal style is my favorite of the four.  Reducing the sweetness is the key.  Man, do I want me some Underberg right now.

#3, Reduced to 43%abv
Nose - A buttery, vanilla-y version of the regular official 10 year old.  There's the seaweed and moss.  Salty air, manure, bitter lettuces, and cardamom.
Palate - Texture is still good.  The bitterness lightens up.  A little more sweetness arrives, as does caramel.  Some lemons and limes.  A farmy note appears after a while.
Finish - Salty, citric, and spicy.  Mild peat.  Both sweetness and bitterness build with time (that note sounds like some cheap poetry's about to break out).

Comments - Not bad, though it's lighter, of course.  Comma, comma, comma.  I might like this better than the full strength version, too.

#4, Reduced to 40%abv
Nose - The peat begins to fade now.  The sugar returns.  Odd gooey oak note develops.  Moss on a log.  Grass and bitter lettuce.  A random Nutella note.
Palate - Watery, thin.  Mostly neutered.  Hints of peat and bitter stuff.  Sugar and lime register strongest.  Maybe some fresh grass?
Finish - Short.  Lemony, slightly peppery.  Peat lingers a little.

Comments - The gap between the 43% and the 40% is incredible.  The palate and the finish are broken, gone.  It's Laphroaig to ignore.



While it's not terrible at full strength, the Laphroaig style is barely there.  It's masked by oak and a significant sweetness that I've never found in a 'Phroaig.  But, when reduced to the 48-50%abv range, the whisky's wildcat heart is uncaged (more cheap poetry for yous!).  In fact, I re-bottled the final quarter of this bottle at that strength and enjoyed it thusly.

Overall, I still think this was the strangest and weakest of Laphroaig's 10yo CSes by some measure.  The joy of their Cask Strength releases is/was the full powered dosage of Laphroaig's unique style.  Batch 005 covers up that style with too much sweetness and oak, though the charms can still be found when adding a little water.

Availability - I'm still seeing this batch everywhere
Pricing - a broad range that depends on the state you're in: $55-$85
Rating - 85 (with water added only; served neat this barely makes an 80)

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Bearded Lady versus Suntory Royal SR (late '80s), unbearded

Once upon a time there was The Bearded Lady...
The corrupted lass
...discovered by a whisky blogger who was unwittingly relieving Long Beach of its sh*ttiest whiskies during his dusty hunts.  The intrepid blogger realized something was wrong on his way home from the liquor store as his car smelled like hot rotten whisky.  He soon discovered that The Bearded Lady's seal had been eaten away and its cork dissolved by the whisky within the bottle.  At first the whisky, formerly known as "Suntory Royal SR", was judged to be drinkable, then sort of not drinkable, then relatively unpleasant, and ultimately bad.  About a third of the bottle found its way down the sink drain.
What remained of the cork
Months later, the ever persistent handsome blogger found a liquor store with a bakers dozen 50mL mini bottles of Suntory Royal SR for all of $3.99 each.  The bottle design itself was cute as a button, mimicking the 750mL bottle almost precisely.  And the seal was intact due to a screw cap.  But what about the whisky within?



Okay, I can't keep this third-person crap going any longer. It's exhausting. The fact that Rickey Henderson did it for 25 years' worth of interviews is more impressive than his stolen base feats.

I had hoped there was something nice beneath the oxidized and possibly-tainted Bearded Lady.  It was a good thing I had optimistically saved two ounces of The Bearded One so that I could compare it to what was likely the real thing.


Info for both whiskies:
Brand: Suntory Royal
OwnershipSuntory Whisky
DistilleriesYamazaki, maybe Chita?
Age: ???
Maturation: ???, my guess is a blend of ex-bourbon, ex-sherry, and Mizunara casks
Type: Blended whisky
Country: Japan
Alcohol by Volume: 43.4%
Bottled: Late 1980s

THE NOSES
Her Royal Beardness - At first it's okay.  Then it's not.  Artificial-watermelon-flavored Yamazaki......in fact there's lots of fake fruit stuff.  Sandalwood in cinnamon syrup.  Fungus.  Old school Bayer children's chewable aspirin.

Suntory Royal SR, unbearded - Malty and a little dusty.  Incense and citronella candles.  Orange peel, hints of dried fruit, a spicy creamsicle. Some bright but not buttery American oak.

THE PALATES
Her Royal Beardness - Something not quite safe, aggressively chemical, perhaps like cleaning fluid mixed with Sweet-n-Low.  Cardboard with pepper, cinnamon, and imitation vanilla extract.  After a while some of the weird artificial fruit notes show up.

Suntory Royal SR, unbearded - Very light and subtle, but with a significant silky mouthfeel.  Salt, sugar, and mild Talisker-like pepper.  A bit of toasted oak and tropical fruit appear towards the end of the glass.

THE FINISHES
Her Royal Beardness - Very saccharine at first.  Then acrid with lots of vinegar.  Mouth drying.  A little bit of spicy zing that quickly gets smothered by stale vanilla.

Suntory Royal SR, unbearded - Short-ish at first sip.  But with succeeding sips more vanilla bean and toasted sandalwood linger, growing ever spicier.

THE VERDICT
While dotted lines connect some of their characteristics on paper, these are two very different whiskies in the glass.  The untainted SR is fresh and spicy.  A better, richer blend than Chivas 12yo, with the nose being the best part.  It would be great to match this with Yamazaki 12 to see how they relate.

At one point during the taste off, I got the two glasses mixed up.  But I immediately sorted them out via the noses.  The Bearded Lady has grown worse at every tasting (the first grade was 75, the second was 71, and this one will be lower) and it may actually get uglier with time in the glass.  It was such a shame that a spoiled bottle was my introduction to Suntory Royal SR.  While the SR won't make anyone swoon, it was good enough that I saved half of the mini to sip for fun later that night.  I'd take it over Hibiki 12yo.

The Bearded Lady
Availability - Hopefully it was unique
Pricing - $25.99
Rating - 69

Suntory Royal SR (un-tainted)
Availability - Happy hunting
Pricing - was $25-$30 before it was discontinued
Rating - 84 (my original guess was actually spot on)

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Beginning a Whisky Buying Freeze and Ending the Dusty Hunt

Man, did you make it all the way through that What Was the Whisky Boom series?  "It's half as long as Das Kapital and only twice as funny."  Thank you for sticking through it and stopping by for more words.  Whisky reviews (and shorter posts) resume next week!

Every year I go on at least one whisky buying freeze, during which time I purchase nary a bottle of whisky.  Each time, I write up a list of rules and regulations then post it on the fridge.  The freeze lasts usually a month or so.  Last year's freeze was technically for 120 days, but there were so many asterisks (due to previous commitments) attached to that one that it wasn't too difficult.  Plus my daughter arrived right in the middle of it so my attention was just slightly diverted away from whisky.
Here he goes again with "The Freeze".
I engage in these buying freezes for a number of reasons:
  1. Storage limits. In 2013, we bought a whisky cabinet. It was actually Kristen's idea. After measuring everything, told her with much confidence that I'd never fill it.  I filled it.  Quickly.  We have very limited closet space and the aforementioned baby, so I have no place to put my bottles other than in the cabinet.  Despite much rearranging, the cabinet is at maximum capacity.
  2. Finances.  If you haven't noticed, whisky prices are higher than they used to be (another plug!).  With less money and more obligations, I have less to spend.  I'm a picky buyer, but I still buy more than I need.
  3. There's not much out there that I find worth buying.  In 2014, I purchased a total of 3 recent (bottled in 2012-2014) officially bottled Scotches.  My preferences lead me to the indie companies and recently discontinued or revised single malts.  Those are the items that excite.  And as the rest of my fellow hoarders buy up those goodies, there are fewer left for me.  Oh well.
  4. Happiness. Buying a bottle is a momentary pleasure.  Even if one stretches out the bottle research for months, like I do, once one obtains the bottle and stashes it away in the hoard, that glee is spent.  If life's stress and anxiety are playing havoc in one's blood, the search for the next bottle(s) begins again soon.  One can keep buying to keep the rush going but I believe that strikes closer to addiction than sustained happiness.  I have more than I need and I would like to enjoy what I have without having to have more.
If you have both the means and room, and you love the chase, then that's great!  Enjoy!  (Though please actually drink some of your stash.  You're not going to live forever.)  But when I'm short on those elements then it's time for a freeze.

This year, my purchase fast will last until at least April 1.  The only exception is the commitment I made to a friend (on this site actually) on the purchase of a bottle of rye.  Otherwise I'm still working out the regulations, ordinances, and bylaws of the freeze.  Usually they look something like this:

1.    The Buying Freeze begins at 00:00 January XX, 20XX.  It continues for XX days, ending at 23:59 on April XX, 20XX.
2.    No whisky of any sort will be purchased during this period. That includes Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 bottles.
3.    No samples or minis will be purchased.  No bottle splits allowed.
4.    Whisky trades are allowed.
5.    Whisky gifts are allowed from and to other people.  Examples are: etc. etc. etc.
6.    Social whisky events are allowed.

7.    The following are exceptions to the rules as they were commitments made before The Freeze began, and will be carried out during The Freeze: etc., etc., etc.

Punishment for violation includes reseting the freeze entirely and feeling like a sad sack of sh*t.  Anyway, if you're ever interested in doing a buying freeze, I highly recommend that you nail down the particulars before it starts.

Once the first of April arrives, I may choose to extend the freeze longer.  What I am suspending indefinitely is The Dusty Hunt.  Much of 2014 was spent on the hunt.  I found stuff.  I found awful stuff.  In California the good dusties have been picked over and over and over.  I'm getting sloppy sevenths, at best.

Though most of the dusty bottles I've opened have been crap, the disappointment has helped me see
more clearly that all whisk(e)y wasn't necessarily better in the old days.  I've had much better luck with bourbons since they usually stay nice and sweet, especially the National Distillers stuff.  I've found only two palatable Scotch blends (which I'll review this year).  There was a bottle of (tainted?) Teacher's from 1981 that was so bad that I started reading about stomach pumping immediately after swallowing.  That was such a heartbreaker because of my love for its main ingredient, Ardmore.  Damn thing had a perfect fill level and the liquor store had at least a dozen bottles.  Now I know why.  Good thing I bought only one.

Connecting this back to the buying freeze......Dusties are usually cheap and when ya find a bunch ya buy a bunch.  So then ya have a lot of bottles.  That leaves me (changing pronouns) with two problems: I've spent a chunk of money on a bunch of bottles I can't store.  $200 on 10 questionable dusties would have been better spent on a pair (or more, once upon a time) of excellent single malts that I actually want.  So the hunt is done.  But if I were to just happen to step into a store that had a dusty single malt at its original price?  I'll welcome that dilemma if ever arises.

I'm not usually one for New Year's resolutions, but those are my 2015 whisky resolutions.  Have you made any?  What motivated them?  Do you feel good about them or do you give them until, like, March until you crumble?

Monday, January 12, 2015

What Was the Scotch Whisky Boom? Part 3: Plateau and Decline

The seed for this series was planted in October 2013, back in the days when I read Shanken News Daily's site every day.  On October 9, 2013, they posted an article entitled, "Single Malt Scotch Volumes Continue To Soar Even As Retail Prices Surge".  It was twice as long as their usual articles and threw around lots of numbers about single malt prices (though they never cited their source).  But it was the chart at the bottom of the article that blew my whisky mind.  I encourage you to check it out, as long as Shanken doesn't put it behind a paywall.

It's a very small chart, "USA – Top Four Single-Malt Scotch Whisky Brands", but is dense with important information.  It shows actual nine-liter case unit sales numbers for the industry as well as the top four brands.  You'll note the bottom line, which shows a total volume increase of 7%.  That sounds like a good amount, right?  75,000 more cases of single malt were sold in the US in 2012 than was sold in 2011.  But here's the thing, 73,000 of the 75,000 cases worth of growth came from only four brands.  That's right, 97% of the growth was due to Glenlivet, Macallan, Glenfiddich, and Glenmorangie.  All other brands put together accounted for less than 3% of the growth, or only 2 thousand more cases nationwide in an entire year.  That's......not a boom.  Hell, that's stagnation for all but four companies.  In fact, Glenlivet and Glenmorangie accounted for more than 2/3s of all the US single malt growth that year.  And 2012 was right in the center of the boom times we were being told about.

Whatever growth that was happening was not balanced throughout the industry and probably never had been.  I had looked at an SWA report once upon a time but after seeing this chart I went back and downloaded all of them.  The following week, I met up with Tim Read (Mr. Scotch and Ice Cream) for lunch.  We both agreed that the boom was either exaggerated or a total fib.  The data was there for the public to see and whisky "journalists" to detail.  But the myth was printed and the readers consumed it.



First, I'll recap the actual growth that happened to the Scotch whisky industry, the sort of data that support a Pro-Boom Narrative.  (All of the data referenced below came from the Scotch Whisky Association's annual reports.  There's more info and visuals about all of these items in Part 1 of this series.)

1.) Export value.  Starting in 2007 and ending in 2012, Scotch whisky exports grew at a healthy rate:

2007 - +14.0%
2008 - +8.2%
2009 - +2.5%
2010 - +10.0%
2011 - +22.6%
2012 - +1.1%

By 2012, whisky exports' value was 72.4% higher than it was in 2006.

2.) Export volume.  Between 2004 and 2011 export volume grew 32.1%.  In 2011 alone, the increase was 19.0%.  You'll note that I didn't reference the 2007-2012 timeframe mentioned above.  I'll come back to that period's volume soon enough.

3.) Export price per liter. By 2012, the price per liter of export Scotch whisky had grown 44.3% from its 2007 amount.  Though inflation drove much of the increase in price of whisky in previous years, between 2007 and 2012 the UK's inflation was only 17%.

4.) Malt whisky. Between 2008 and 2011, malt whisky exports had climbed 72.3%  In 2010 alone, it had jumped over 50%.  And by 2013, the value of malt whisky exports had risen 78.4% since 2008.  As a portion of the entirety of Scotch whisky exports' value, malt whisky rose from 17% to 22% in that time period.  Meanwhile, existing malt whisky stocks older than 10 years were being emptied at an ever increasing rate.  In 2008, 12.9% of those stocks were emptied.  In 2009 it jumped to 19.8%.  In 2013 it was 22.65%.  Meanwhile malt production increased to meet future demand, going from 168M liters in 2006 to 275M liters in 2013.

5.) Whisky exports to the United States. By 2013, the value of whisky exports to the US were 120.4% greater than they were in 2008.  In 2011, the volume of whisky exports to the US were 21.4% greater than they were in 2008.  You'll see again that I changed the years referenced when comparing volume and value.  There must be a reason for this...



Now I'm going to dig deeper into items 1 through 5 in order to deconstruct the Pro-Boom Narrative and to demonstrate that if this Boom Time ever existed, it certainly has since passed by.

1.) Export value.  I'm going to add a number to the list of value gains from above:

2007 - +14.0%
2008 - +8.2%
2009 - +2.5%
2010 - +10.0%
2011 - +22.6%
2012 - +1.1%
2013 - -0.3%

It can't be denied that there was serious value growth occurring up until 2011.  But in 2012 that ascent was slowed drastically creating a potential plateau and in 2013 it was further confirmed.  Here's a graph from Part 1:


Here are the comparative data, using 2007 as a start date:


That red plateau equals about 0.8% growth spread out over two years, including an actual loss in 2013.

And it has gotten worse.  This past September, the SWA announced that export value in the first half of 2014 had dropped 11% compared to the first half of 2013.  They blame the loss entirely on “economic headwinds and uncertainty” and Chinese government austerity measures.  While the former is a term vague enough to mean anything, the latter is responsible for only a small fraction of the total decline.  China wasn't even amongst the top 20 export markets in 2013.  What was more important and what should have been noted was the fact that there were value drops in 8 out of the top 10 largest 2013 markets.  So not only is the value boom over, but when the final 2014 numbers are released that red line is going to drop to a point closer to 2010's level than 2011's.

2.) Export volume.  When I was referencing the export volume gains in my little pro-boom section above, I did not reference the 2007-2012 timeframe.  Here's why:

(Same chart as before. But note the blue line this time.)
During the big boost in value (arguably the Boom years), volume only had one year of significant growth.  It declined in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.  In 2013 it nudged up all of 2.5 percent.  Using the "Scotch Whisky Export tables first half of 2014" report from the SWA, I did some manual math and found the top 20 export markets cumulatively dropped another 0.8% in volume during the first six months of 2014.  So though 2014's year-end volume slide won't be as drastic as the value's, any decline will mean that there were drops in five out of the last seven years.

3.) Export price per liter. I didn't mention 2013 when demonstrating the price/liter growth above and by looking at the "Growth in Scotch Whisky Exports since 2007" graph, you'll see why.  The price per liter actually dropped almost 3% in 2013.  And judging by the difference in value and volume drops, 2014's price per liter will decline again.

4.) Malt whisky.  While the value of malt whisky exports continued to climb in 2013, volume did not.  In 2012, volume dropped 2.4%.  In 2013, volume dropped a further 4.2%.  Likewise, as malt whisky's portion of whisky export's value rose in 2013, its portion of overall volume dropped.  Here are two little graphs to demonstrate these points:


5.) Whisky exports to the United States.  Here's another graph from Part 1:


While the value of US exports rose like a rocket from 2008 to 2013, the exported volume did not.  It dropped in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  There was growth only in 2010 and 2011.  Admittedly, the 2012 and 2013 decreases were smallish (1.9% and 0.2%).  But according to SWA's "Scotch Whisky Export tables first half of 2014" document, the first half of 2014's volume was 12% lower than the first half of 2013's.  That's not smallish.  IF that percentage holds up, then that would send US volume levels below their 2010 total.

And it gets worse, again.  With the SWA and its major members blaming the Chinese goverment's austerity measures as often as possible, they have until recently avoided alluding to the elephant in the room: us, the US, the largest market, the golden boy of Scotch whisky value growth (120% in five years) is no longer growing.  We're shrinking.  Our 16% value downturn in the first half of 2014 (compared to the first half of 2013), £64m, makes up nearly a third of Scotch whisky's entire export drop.



Taking these financial elements into consideration, I think it's fair to say that Scotch whisky sales are on the decline and some of its major elements have been weakening for more than two years.  Since it's patently untrue that Scotch sales are still strengthening, I would be curious to see how the industry adjusts in order to rebound, if it can.

Diageo is taking a full step back from their well-publicized £l,000,000,000 distillery expansion plans.  They were going to expand Glen Ord, Clynelish, Mortlach, Teaninich, and build a new distillery.  Adding together the figures from all of their press releases, my calculator never found more than a quarter of that announced billion pounds, so I assumed the big number was there to excite investors.  But the important part was that the largest Scotch whisky company saw a bright future for whisky and was willing to invest in it.  Yet those sunny skies clouded over once their quarterly reports started to sag.  But it takes more than a 1.5% quarterly decline to stop a billion pound facelift.  So either Diageo's bean counters know something the rest of us don't or they're more worried about the industry's numbers than I am.  Whatever they know, they're not sharing it with Pernod Ricard who is planning to triple Glenlivet distillery's size just as the biggest market (US) has had an industry-wide volume decline for the past three years.  I suppose they get points for optimism.

Meanwhile, though the Scotch Whisky Association's CEO more or less admits to the real decline in sales, he's either trying to force an optimistic message or is tone deaf when it comes to the "why".  In the linked Spirits Business interview he says “To be honest we’re not totally sure why,” and “To be equally honest we’re not really worried because the fundamental drivers seem so strong. The attractiveness of the category in recent years, the strong interest in malts, the premiumisation in the US – none of that seems to have changed."  Okay.  That's one way to look at things.

Here's another way to observe the situation.  In previous years, with the big increases in value and the moderate gains (or losses) in volume, customers were increasingly spending more on individual bottles.  But in the first half 2014, with the steep declines in value and smaller declines in volume, customers appear to be spending less on the fewer whiskies they are buying.  Have single malts (pricier than blends) lost ground?  Export volume results say so.  Have drinkers been buying blends instead, keeping their expenditures down?  We'll find out sooner than later.  Either way, "premiumisation" in the US (and elsewhere) took a hit during the first half of 2014.  And "attractiveness of the category in recent years" isn't a strong enough fundamental to lean on, especially since volume sales (again) not only never really exploded, and may have even declined for the last three years.

When the price per liter jumps 44% (and higher in their biggest market) in six years shouldn't the Scotch Whisky Association and its members have anticipated real market factors eventually countering their annual gains?  Or with drops in export volume potentially registering in five out of the last seven years, was further "premiumisation" the only tool in their toolbox?  Boost the marketing, product-place with television shows and celebrities, sell the glamour in the brand......and raise the price, countering the drop in unit sales.  How long will that work?  The Value Plateau of 2012-2013 and the first half of 2014's rocky report wouldn't give me the confidence that everything is "strong".

The Boom is over.  Prices are high, but demand has muted.  The Scotch whisky industry could be at a major turning point.  Though I have been cynical about their approaches thus far, I am looking forward to what happens next.  Will the NAS masquerade expand, cheap artificially-flavored whiskies grow in number, and aged single malts get pricier?  Or will consumers' palates and pocketbooks be better valued?  Or will the response be mixed among individual producers?

Where do we whisky consumers go from here?  We'll each have our own personal response: running after each new shiny bottle or being happier with less or ending the chase altogether.  We all have different financial and social circumstances motivating our relationship with our purchases.  The only approach I recommend is to be informed about one's buying decisions and seek out opinions independent from the industry.  Happy 2015 everyone!  It's going to be one hell of a year.