Review 145: Laphroaig Signatory 16 Yr 1995/2011 Cask Strength

Review 145

2/23/13

Laphroaig 1995/2011 16 Yr Signatory Cask Strength: 59.5% abv

Background: Signatory has a range of whiskies called the Cask Strength series, and bless them for it. This particular bottling is a Laphroaig, and if you remember Laphroaig, you remember that they’re an Islay distillery and they don’t hold back when it comes to peating their whisky. This particular bottling is no exception, but don’t be afraid by the big numbers or big smokiness. This is a gentle giant, and as far as quality whiskies go, this is among the upper echelon. 

Nose: Campfire, big peat, barbeque, wood smoke, sweet malt, slight salt, subtle white wine, seaweed, phenol, intense, slightly fruity, berries

            A/W: More subtle, fruity, apple, honey, peat starts to calm down

Arrival: Warm, gentle peat, hot spice, ginger and cinnamon, vanilla

            A/W: Sweet, slight smoke, honey

Body: Peaty, fruity, hot cinnamon, caramel, apple, berries, smokey zing

            A/W: Slight peat, honey, slightly fudgy, oily

Finish: Fruity, peat, savory meat flavor, caramel, vanilla, malt, spice, subtle salt, slight sweet sugar, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg

A/W: Peat, honey, well balanced spice, smoke, barbeque, barley, spice, hot cinnamon, slightly bready, yeast, slight fudge notes, hints of tobacco

Final Comments: This is one of the most refined tasting peated Scotches we’ve ever had. It has great balance and complexity, and this only gets better with some water, which comes as no surprise. What is a surprise is how well it holds up without the water. It isn’t harsh; it simply comes through smooth and “clean”, with a peat finish to contradict its smoothness. You might not realize for a second you’re drinking a Laphroaig, but it is a fantastic craft whisky. We’ve tried peated whiskies by Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Kilchoman, Smokehead, Port Charlotte, Caol Ila and many others, but this might be the best one we’ve ever had.

Why you’d buy it: You have the money, and you aren’t afraid to buy an independent bottling of a fantastic peated Scotch.

Why you wouldn’t: You can’t afford it. That’s really the only reason you shouldn’t.

Score: 9.5/10

Review 144: Edradour 10 Yr

Review 144

2/23/13

Edradour 10 Yr: 43% abv

Background: Edradour makes their mark by calling themselves the smallest distillery in Scotland. That sounds like a silly little marketing thing until you hear the facts. Currently two people work at the distillery, and three people founded it. They produce 95K liters a year, and if they were any smaller they would be considered a portable distillery with implicit capacity for illegal distillation. If that isn’t enough for you, they produce only 12 casks a week. This makes Edradour quite a tiny little operation. Edradour is placed in Perthshire, and is a Highland distillery. I bet you’re curious about how this one turns out.

Nose: New make spirit, mellow spice, honey, caramel, barley, agave, slightly harsh

            A/W: Not much different

Arrival: Sweet, honey and caramel, candied almonds, slight bitterness, big vanilla

            A/W: Big almond, nutty

Body: dark, rich, sweet, almonds, honey, vanilla, sugar

            A/W: Almond, sweet caramel

Finish: Nutty, dry, slight sherry, powdered sugar, honey, grain, barley, rye, dry spice, hot cinnamon, maple

A/W: Powdered sugar, more almond, sherry backs off

Final Comments: So you might have guessed, but this is pretty much like mixing Amaretto and Highland Scotch together. Is that a good or bad thing? It is up to you, but there is a certain lack of balance and the huge nutty quality to the Scotch seems to steal some of the complexity from the spirit. After adding water, we noticed that there was a huge jump in the presence of the almond character, and suggest staying away from the addition of water. This still has some interesting characteristics to it, but it certainly isn’t the highlight of the Scotch world.

Why you’d buy it: You like Amaretto and you like Scotch

Why you wouldn’t: You’re afraid of having an allergic reaction to almonds

Score: 8.25/10

Review 143: Glen Grant 10 Yr

Review 143

2/23/13

Glen Grant 10 Yr: 40% abv

Background: Glen Grant is one of those distilleries I tend to overlook, but don’t be fooled. This Speyside whisky distillery is one of the biggest in Scotland. It is the third biggest whisky producer in Scotland, below Glenfiddich and Macallan, and just barely above Glenlivet. This gets to be a very scary statistic to publish, partially because there are two metrics “Produced whisky”, and “sold whisky”. In any case, Glen Grant is big. They have capacity to produce a measly 5.9 million liters a year. That being said, we are looking at their bottom statement, the 10 year. This whisky sits at around $40 a bottle, so it is very reasonably priced.

Nose: Light, fresh grain, vanilla, vegetable oil, malt, wheat, subtle spice, minimal heat

            A/W: Not much different

Arrival: Sweet, malty arrival, honey

            A/W: Honey and vanilla

Body: Sweet malt, vanilla, wheat, nutty

            A/W: Slightly vegetal, caramel

Finish: Dry, malt, straw, wheat, vanilla, lemon, citrus, cinnamon, subtle pepper, hot, spice, honey

A/W: Pear, nutty, vanilla, slightly vegetal, agave

Final Comments: This whisky should be competing as a Speyside with the likes of Macallan 10, Glenfiddich 12, Glenlivet 12, and so on. To be honest, I don’t think it does. Although it is a good whisky, it doesn’t have the fruity nature of Glenlivet 12, it doesn’t have the sherried nature of Macallan, and it doesn’t have the combined balance of Glenfiddich. If KCM were going to compare this to anything, we would compare this to Glengoyne 10 . This is a simple, straight forward, whisky, without the influence of sherry or peat to weigh it down. Its light and grainy, with a dry sweetness to it.

Why you’d buy it: You want a simple, gentle starter whisky for an affordable price

Why you wouldn’t: You want to go for something a little more advanced like Glengoyne

Score: 7.75/10

Review 142: Auchentoshan Three Wood

Review 142

2/23/13

Auchentoshan Three Wood: 43% abv

Background: Auchentoshan is a distillery in the Lowlands of Scotland, and is one of six remaining Lowland distilleries today. Of those six, only four are currently producing sellable whisky. The other two are just starting up. Auchentoshan is distinctive in the fact that it triple distils its whisky, which is common in Irish whisky but very rare in Scotch whisky. They have a 1.8 million liter capacity per year and are currently owned by Bowmore. The distillery is located in Dalmuir. Their Triple Wood bottling is a non-age stated whisky which has been sent from American bourbon casks to an Oloroso Sherry butt, and finally stopping at a Pedro Ximenez (commonly known as PX) Sherry barrel. Do you think sherry is at all prominent in this whisky? Oh yeah.

Nose: Rich, sherry, fresh grain, barley, vanilla, vegetal, grassy, light cream, slight chocolate, oily, malt, mellow spice

            A/W: Big grain notes, sweet wine, light honey

Arrival: Sweet, big sherry flavor, raisons, light spice, cloves

            A/W: More mellow, soft, creamy, gentle malt, balanced, vanilla

Body: Raisons, malt, sherry, hot spice, cloves, vanilla

            A/W: Less spice, creamier, gentle

Finish: Sherry, vegetal, grainy, big malt flavor, slight tang, grassy, cognac, vanilla, caramel, maple, cloves, dry spice

A/W: Vegetal, modest spice, less sherry, light caramel, vanilla custard, sugary, lingering spice hotness

Final Comments: On the nose, this malt almost reminds me of Isle of Jura 10 year with sherry on top, which struck me as particularly odd. Smelling a whisky can be great foreshadowing to the taste, but in this case it was a little misleading. The slight oily, vegetal quality didn’t carry through exactly as I thought it would. The sherry influence is so obvious in this one, it makes this seem more like a Highland than a Lowland malt, but the creamy, gentle, fruity notes remind you of its delicate background and triple distillation. This whisky gives you an excellent spectrum of flavors, and you couldn’t ask for much more out of it. The mouthfeel is a little more syrupy than some, and there is surprising spice hotness to the body which could deter some novice drinkers. This is a great malt for the more experienced drinkers, and it competes well with Glenfarclas 12 Year.

Why you’d buy it: You love unique, complex whiskies with a strong sherry influence and clean, creamy taste.

Why you wouldn’t: You are not experienced with spicier or more vegetal whiskies and this intimidates you.

Score: 9.25/10

Review 141: Bell's Black Note Stout

Review 141

2/21/13

Bell’s Black Note Stout: 11.8% abv

Background: Bell’s Black Note Stout. This is a sought after beer in some parts, and for a moment, I lost the review for it. Silly mistake. Bell’s is a pretty big company, and as far as microbreweries goes, this one is an old one; Bell’s has been around since 1983. Back then, Bell’s was called the Kalamazoo Brewing Company and was founded by Larry Bell. In 1996, Bell’s changed its flagship summer beer’s name to Oberon and in 2005 Bell’s changed their name to Bell’s. What’s most impressive is Bell’s 500,000 barrel capacity as of last year, and the availability. Bell’s is available in 14 different states and the District of Columbia. This makes Bell’s huge, taking tons of money into the market. Now, Bell’s provides us with a unique stout offering. Black Note Stout combines the Expedition Stout and Double Cream Stout and throws it in a refill bourbon cask to let it age. That’s the story behind this brewing beast, and now the results. Is it worth the high price tag?

Nose: Yeast, slight must, chocolate, cocoa, coffee, butterscotch, oatmeal, vanilla, rich caramel, raisons, oak, molasses, nutty, and slight malt influence

Arrival: Wood, bourbon notes late in arrival, roasted almonds, vanilla, lemon-lime citrus, bitter rind, spicy, coffee, cocoa, slightly hot

Body: Caramel, thin mouthfeel, wood, slight earthiness, bit of hops, touch of cinnamon, chocolate, hot spice, Rock N’ Rye soda, molasses

Finish: Caramel, wood, vanilla, lingering spice, butterscotch, dark cherry, sweet wheat flavors, malt and rye, medium length

Final Comments: This is a complex beer. There is no arguing with that. We enjoy the complexity of this beer, but there is a caveat. This beer is not dynamic. We don’t know what it is we are missing, but everything seems pretty flat, and there isn’t a great progression from the arrival to the finish. It is a dry and sweet beer, with rich, unique character to it. Our one reservation is that the beer doesn’t have a dynamic taste to it. We are nit-picking because this is an expensive, limited beer.

Why you’d buy it: You want to experience a bourbon-barrel aged beer that is complex and unique, and hard to get.

Why you wouldn’t: There are much more available bourbon-barrel aged stouts which have similar quality.

Score: 9.25/10

Review 140: Epic Brewing Big Bad Baptist Stout

Review 140

2/11/13

Epic Brewing Company Exponential Series Big Bad Baptist Stout: 11.4%

Background: It’s easy to forget how young the microbrewery boom is, and man is it a boom. We wanted to look outside of Michigan, where a lot of the strong microbreweries are cropping up and jump all the way to Utah. What’s in Utah? Epic Brewing Company. They aren’t the only ones who go by this name, but the other brewing scene is in New Zealand so let’s avoid that for the sake of simplicity. This group is from 2008, and as of 2010 they have 9 fermenters and that means more capacity. This would be exciting for any business. I wouldn’t mind having a few fermenters myself! So a little more about the beer, you might want to hear. Sounds like Epic’s Exponential Series is a little more experimental, sitting alongside the Classic Series and Elevated Series. Sure enough, this particular stout is not just an off the line stout. It is brewed with cocoa nibs and coffee beans. It also sits in the Imperial region with the longest title ever and a whopping 11% abv. 

Nose: Cocoa, coffee, vanilla, dry wood, sawdust, malt, dark, rich, apple, raisons, brown sugar, earthy, light tobacco, chocolate, nutmeg

Arrival: Creamy, light, easy, modest crispness, mellow, vanilla, caramel, coffee, apple

Body: Coffee, frothy mouthfeel, oak, chocolate, crisp apple, vanilla, wheat, slight berry notes

Finish: Cherry sweetness, chocolate, mocha coffee, slight hops, heavy cream, wheat

Final Comments: So with a slight earthiness and a huge, frothy creaminess to it, this is an interesting stout, but what comes across as an interesting experiment turns into an over-powering amount of coffee and cocoa influence. This is a complex enough beer, but it is robbed by the domination of the coffee flavors. The gentle character of this stout does fool you into forgetting that you’re dealing with an Imperial bad boy here, and if that’s the kind of thing you like, here’s your winner.

Why you’d buy it: You’re a coffee drinker who likes soft stouts

Why you wouldn’t: You want to get more out of your beer than coffee.

Score: 8.25/10

Review 139: Dailuaine 15 Year Signatory 1997/2012

Review 139

 2/10/13

Dailuaine 15 Year Signatory 1997/2012: 46% abv

Background: Dailuaine (pronounced dale-you-an) is a distillery in Scotland which you may not have heard of, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t big. In fact, Dailuaine has quite a history and background. Dailuaine was founded by a gentleman by the Name of William Mackenzie in 1852, but as of 1865, he died, leaving his wife widowed. His wife leased the distillery to the man by the name of James Fleming, who wasn’t a nobody. James Fleming is actually the founder of Aberlour Distillery. Dailuaine was the first distillery to adopt a pagoda style building for the malt house, and in 1884 had the largest production capacity of any distillery in Scotland. Fast forward, and now Dailuaine has 6 stills, and has around 3.3 million liters of capacity per year. Dailuaine is a Speyside whisky, and is currently owned by Diageo. This means much of their production will go into blends. That being said, independent bottlers like Signatory with snatch up the opportunity at buying a barrel of this whisky should it fit the bill. And this one does. This is part of Signatory’s Non-Chill Filtered collection, and comes in at 46%, with natural colorant. This is the advantage of buying a craft presentation independent bottling. This one is even more special because it was bottled exclusively for Tiffany’s Wine and Spirit Shoppe in Kalamazoo, MI. We here at KCM live in Kalamazoo, so we knew we had to try it. And boy were we NOT disappointed.

Nose: Fresh grain, wheat and malt, slightly grassy, subtle smoke and peat, sweet honey, sweet melon, crisp mild spice, clove, mild vanilla, light, refreshing

            A/W: Grain forward, citrus, apple

Arrival: Spicy, smooth, creamy, vanilla, mild tobacco, fruit

            A/W: mellowed out, vanilla, malt, grainy

Body: Hot spice, bittersweet, honey, melon

            A/W: vanilla, big fruit, apple, custard

Finish: Orange citrus, smoke, light peat, lemon, cinnamon, cloves, kiwi, hot mouthfeel

A/W: Slightly nutty, big orange flavor, still spicy, slight mint freshness, mild seaweed saltiness, earthy, medium length

Final Comments: This is a great expression of a Speyside malt, with a wide variety of flavors but a fruity, light body and a nice spiciness to it. It isn’t as intense as you might find in a Clynelish, but the mild peat flavor to it adds an interesting sort of “zest” to the finish, comparable to a Highland Park 12, but not as defined (and without the sherry influence). It is well balanced and complex, but doesn’t delve outside of what you’d expect from the Speyside character. At 46%, it also takes on water pretty well, and you should not be afraid to experiment with this.

Why you’d buy it: You enjoy a fruity, somewhat spicy malt and want to delve outside of the world of Glenlivet, or you just want to experience slight peat without feeling like you are chewing on burnt wood. Also you love Tiffany’s.

Why you wouldn’t: You are scared of change, or you made a New Year’s resolution to not drink good whisky.

Score: 9.25/10

Review 138: Di Majo Norante Sangiovese

Review 138

2/4/13

Di Majo Norante Sangiovese 2011: 13% abv

Background: Now and again we like to try a wine and adjust our palates to something different. That does not by any means make KCM an expert on wines. We can tell you some facts and our impressions, none-the-less. There are quite a few producers of wine in the world, so we won’t really go into some great detail about Di Majo Norante, but what we can tell you is that they are from Italy. What about sangioveses? Well this is actually the name of a grape. The Sangiovese is a red Italian grape type, described as having fresh fruit flavors and mild spiciness. Sangiovese grapes are used to make many types of wine blends, which we won’t go into, but know that the grape is used for a variety of things. This particular wine is self-titled for the grape used. Here are some tasting notes.

Nose: Strawberry, blackberry, dry, light aroma, cherry, cranberry, light sawdust, raisons, light sweetness

Arrival: Tart, large blackberry notes, sour apple skin, bitter, tart grape

Body: Tannins, woody, sour apple skin, bitter, acidic, vanilla, quick body, juicy

Finish: Blackberry, sweet fruit, woody, dry, big sweet apple notes, crisp finish, tart, leathery, slight sugar, juicy

Final Comments: This is an interesting wine, and yes it is dry. There is no doubt about that. What you will find is that the complex range of fruitiness, slight floral quality, and some old aromas like sawdust and some leathery qualities makes this a surprisingly enjoyable wine for the complex drinker, without being expensive. This isn’t exactly a friendly wine for the ladies’ book club on Saturday if they’re normally drinking ice wine. This wine would couple great with a savory meal.

Why you’d buy it: You enjoy a complex, dry red and don’t want to spend a lot of money.

Why you wouldn’t: You don’t want to experience a dry mouth feel in your wine and are regularly drinking sweet Riesling.

Score: 8.5/10

Review 137: New Holland Night Tripper

Review 137

2/1/13

New Holland Night Tripper: 10.8% abv

Background: We’ve talked a little bit about New Holland. In fact, when we started doing reviews, we started with New Holland as a brewery, so there has been some discussion. Just recently we visited their quaint brewing operation and saw what could only be described as breath-taking: a room full of barrels aging Dragon’s Milk. That brings up a good point. Dragon’s Milk is now New Holland’s highest selling beer, having surpassed Mad Hatter as number one. One could say New Holland knows how to make a dark beer, and we couldn’t agree more. That’s why we were skeptical about Night Tripper, an imperial stout aged in oak that comes out once a year. Could this beer really be worth waiting for, when Dragon’s Milk is always available? They do sound very similar when you chart them next to each other. Both aged in oak, both black as night, and 10% compared to 11%. So you might think this is a gimmick. It isn’t.

Nose: Chocolate, brown sugar, coffee, caramel, apple, malty, pear, vanilla, light butterscotch, raisons, slightly dry, dark, crisp, smooth, balanced

Arrival: Coffee, chocolate-covered strawberries, slight citrus, toffee, apple, vanilla, caramel, butterscotch, refreshing, fruit, blackberry

Body: Coffee, brownies, rich fudge, cherry, sweet, slight tartness, toffee, crisp apple, butterscotch, oatmeal

Finish: Roasted coffee, malt, chocolate, slightly bitter grapefruit and hops, vanilla, pecans, boozy, raisony, wheat, apple

Final Comments: What can we say about this? This is quite a killer stout. It’s complex, but unlike other stouts out there, it balances between different flavor profiles without overwhelming you with the dark notes generally associated with a stout. So it is sort of an oxymoron, but you can find out for yourself. Is it like Dragon’s Milk? It isn’t nearly as creamy, and it is a different kind of stout all together. Better or worse? We’d like to say better, but you will have to find out for yourself.

Why you’d buy it: Find a reason why you can’t. I can’t think of one.

Why you wouldn’t: Read the above comment

Score: 9.75/10