Opinions: Age Statements on Scotch

Review #None

10/16/13

Age Statements on Scotch Whisky

Preface: This is strictly an opinion, and does not reflect every angle of every facet of everything ever.

We spend so much of our time talking about age statements on Scotch whisky, even if we don't mean to. "Oh, this one is 12 years old; its only 4 years old?; wow, at an age of 25 years..." and so on and so on. It is almost a crutch on our culture towards the quality of Scotch. Our perception is hugely skewed by the wrong senses, like viewing the color of whisky which tells us nothing due to the use of unnatural colorants, and by seeing age statements and extravagant packaging on bottles. I think they all have their place, but like humanity proves to itself on a continuous basis, we don't care about the minutia and instead of looking at quality we make ourselves catatonic off of a whole bottle of Jack Daniels and brag about it later. We grab the most readily available "information" to us and form vast-sweeping assumptions and opinions on the matter, because we can't be BOTHERED to learn an educated amount about it.

My interest today is to talk about why having age statements on a bottle is so important, and it is obviously not to give some clout to the bottle's image. While I do believe that they have the negative side effect of making people assume something that has a high probability of being incorrect, i.e. older is better, they play an important role in Scotch whisky, and some companies are pushing to get rid of them, it seems.

Macallan has recently announced their new range of whiskies, which does two things that piss me off. The first thing is the whiskies are named after colors, and OF COURSE, the darker whiskies are the more expensive ones. So that is one marketing fallacy on the board. That I can get over, because if customers are ignorant enough to believe that dark color equates to quality, they deserve to waste their hard earned money. The thing I cannot get over is that it eliminates the age statements on their 10, 12, and 15 year whiskies! This is apparently a new marketing push. Some people are writing about this as if it dispels some kind of preconception that we all had: "Oh, age statement doesn't matter! I get it now. Thank you Macallan."

I should append my previous comments with a precursor. I don't like Macallan as a company. In fact, I HATE them. I don't hate their whisky, just the way that they are diluting the Scotch business with things like super-cool flasks that you can buy with a bottle of Scotch on the side for thousands of dollars. I mean, granted, I don't find Macallan whiskies that good, and I believe they are overpriced for their money, but that doesn't bother me. I can name a dozen other distilleries that fit the same description, and I have no qualms with.

Why is eliminating age statements such a bad thing? Well by itself, if it were for one bottle in a range, it might be forgivable. I have four points I will try to make concisely (and will probably fail) as to why removing the age statements on bottles of Scotch is detrimental to the consumer.

The reason this is such a bad stand to introduce into the market is because it eliminates indicators of age. It seems obvious, but spend some time thinking about it. In some way, shape or form, age describes a certain characteristic of a whisky: the ratio of spirit to oak/other influence. Sure, we've all had Scotch that said it was 18 years old, and tasted like it was 5, but in general it gives us an idea of what we're getting in the bottle. It also allows us to understand how the barrel interacted with the whisky. It fuels our imagination, allowing us to sit down and think, "this was probably a twice refilled bourbon hogshead, because the impact of oak is not nearly as prominent as I would expect". In other words, it promotes the FUN in whisky.

Let's consider a second point. A company could bottle five whiskies from five different barrels, add varying amounts of caramel colorant, and price them differently. This is a no-holds sandbox of margins now. This is a great way for a distillery to monopolize their pricing scheme and turn greater profits on everything, regardless of quality. I know people push for the "magic of whisky", so we don't want science to "figure it out", but I would much rather see a distillery learn how to control the quality of their maturation experience than create a BS labeling scheme to void them of any liability towards pricing.

And quality. What sort of consumer-related quality control is implemented for a bottle of Scotch? Nothing really, except some guy standing at a bottling line, inspecting every 100th case to make sure the label is straight and clean and taking a swig every other one. Governmental regulations are the most hope we ever have of controlling quality. By Macallan eliminating a need for ages, they are eliminating an inherent quality assurance in their process. This isn't to say that quality will fall, just that their is no floor for it to land on if it does. And when I talk about quality, I am not confusing quality with luxury. Although a 15 year old whisky isn't necessarily higher quality than a 12 year old whisky, there is an implication towards the reduction of quality products when deregulation starts to happen.

My last point is cost. I talked about the profit side of things, but there is also the cost-focused justification. If Macallan is like any major company, they are interested in increasing sales and cutting costs. 20XX will come around, and somebody will tell the Macallan team they need to cut costs. Where do you think they're going to go first to cut costs? Let's say 50% of their WIP inventory (barrels) is whisky between the ages of 0-10 years and is worth 100X dollars in inventory costs, 40% of their inventory is between 10-20 years and is worth 150X dollars in costs, and 10% is above 20 years and is worth 75X dollars in inventory costs. If Macallan changes that proportion of <10 year whisky to 60% and takes that out of the 10-20 year range, that is a 5X reduction in cost, while revenues stay the same. Let's pretend X is $1,000,000. $5 M of easy cost reduction money is available just by having a larger proportion of young whisky. Maybe the figures aren't exact, but anybody can see the slippery slope implications.

I don't think Macallan is interested in dispelling any rumors about whisky by taking off age statements, because I'm sure it wouldn't even occur to most consumers (I could be wrong). There is clearly monetary value to Macallan, and as far as I can work out logically, it is not to the benefit of the customer. I should point out that I know Macallan is run by good people, except the...gentleman...who made this executive decision. But us as consumers, should we want distilleries to take us seriously, need to make a definitive stand against moves like this. If we don't, it is only going to get harder and harder for passionate consumers to find good product. As Ralfy would say, intrinsic quality!

If you've read this far, good for you. Gold star.

~K

Review 173: Isle of Jura 10 Yr

Review 173

8/19/13

Isle of Jura 10 Year: 43% abv

Background: Isle of Jura is a single malt Scotch whisky off the…well…the isle of Jura, to be frank. Jura is not the most climactic of all places when you put it in perspective, netting at 142 square miles of land with one road, one pub, one distillery, and a population of 188 people. You could say then, that the people of Jura are probably pretty well familiar with each other. Despite my seemingly scathing remarks of Jura, pictures show it to be a fairly gorgeous island, not unlike most of Scotland’s landscape. How about the distillery, though? The good people of Jura had self-entitlement to distil liquor until 1781, where authorities decided that they needed a license. In 1810, Jura distillery was founded. At some point, the distillery was mothballed, only to be rebuilt in 1960. Currently, Whyte and Mackay own Jura. Jura yields a yearly capacity of about 2.2M liters a year, produced by 4 tall stills. This particular whisky is their 10 Year offering, netting 43% abv and what looks to be natural coloring. This particular Scotch has been a mystery for me for as long as I’ve owned it, because I can’t seem to place my finger on whether or not I like it. Today I do a formal review.

Straight

Nose:  The nose, on immediate visitation, relays flavors of both citrusy white wine and some amount of corn and light grain. This nose gives the impression that the whisky is fairly young, with a light, fresh smell to it. There is a slight hint of maltiness in the nose, but it is overwhelmed by misplaced smells of other grains. There isn’t a strong sense of woodiness dominant on the nose (with exception to the odd sawdust smell that you get if you spend enough time with it), but there is a consistent nuttiness that comes through. If you dig deep enough, there is almost a slight hint of sherry to it, but it smells coincidental, not intentional. There is a subtle seaweed/sea salt type implication to the whisky, but it doesn’t come through like your Old Pulteney’s would. Overall, it is a mellow nose with some interesting flavors, but it is flat and shallow flavors that come through. There is not a lot of intensity to the nose.

Arrival: The arrival starts off sweet, making it seem as if there was some play from a sherry cask that might not have been assumed before. There is a hint of maltiness, caramel, and then with enough time, some salt and pepper that burns through. There is a sweet vanilla that contradicts a sense of saltiness, with some mixed berries and orange marmalade to accompany the flavor. There is a sense of tartness that comes through, akin to sweet lemon candy flavor.  The arrival is bold and complex, and certainly a respectable entrance into this whisky.

Body: This is where you might start losing the familiarity of single malt Scotch. There is not maltiness to be found in the body. There is a strong sense of salty nuttiness that is very prevalent (maybe almonds). The body is not very climactic, which can be common after a big arrival, and especially leading into this finish. There is some sense of corn that comes through in the body, almost reminiscent of soft bourbon flavor.

           

Finish: There is a confusing mixture of flavors coming out of the finish, most unfortunate of which is the sense of burnt wood that reminds me a lot of the Dalmore 12 we just tried. The corn-like grain flavor persists into the finish, with somewhat of a fluoride-like aftertaste that acts as the last flavor standing. Other than that and some light citrus flavors, with the small hint of sherry coming through, Jura falls flat in the finish. I don’t think this finish is what it could be, and with such a promising arrival, it’s disappointing to see it come to this conclusion. The finish is short and what lasts is bitter and strained. We are still waiting to see how water may help make this whisky better.

With Water

Nose: After letting this Scotch marry with some water for a few minutes, you will find in the nose that the barley starts to come through more. There are still very similar notes as before, but some confectionary subtleties start to emerge as well. There is a slight pear-like scent that can be found, as well as a small amount of green tea smell.

Arrival: The arrival, after water, is smooth and sweet, with similar flavors as before. The sherry, mixed with some lime tartness, is a prevalent sweet and sour combo up front, with some herbal notes later on.

Body: The herbal, grassy flavors bleed into the body, presenting it with a little more character than before. All the same, the body is still pretty subtle and short, just dying off from the arrival.

           

Finish: The finish has not been salvaged from the addition of water. There is still bitterness to be found in the finish. It also comes across as slightly vegetal. The slight burnt flavor seems to reside quite a bit in this instance, and there is a bit more malt richness to carry through, but it seems compromised by an almost plastic-like flavor. This is just not hitting the right way.

Final Comments: I would like to start by saying I have nothing against the Isle of Jura or its people (all 188 of you). I think the fact that they have a distillery to represent them is excellent, and Jura does have some great representation in terms of bottlings. Personally, I am not a fan of the 10 Year, and I don’t want to drink more of it. It is unique, it has a nice arrival, and it has some complexities to it. I would recommend trying this, for anybody who wants to learn more about single malt Scotch, but I have a bottle of it that I’m not too keen on killing off. That being said, I will continue to do experiments with this bottle and learn more about it. Bottom line, this is not on the top of my purchase list, and as a casual drinker, I wouldn’t put it on the top of yours either.

 

Why you’d buy it: You like trying new things, even if you’re told not to

Why you wouldn’t: You listen to the advice in my reviews (poor judgment call, if you ask me)

Score: 7.0/10

Review 172: Captain Morgan Sherry Cask Finish

Review 172

8/11/13

Captain Morgan L.E. Sherry Cask: 35% abv

Background: And here we are, revisiting Captain Morgan. It might seem like a huge jump in quality from our regular reviews, but it is always nice to review the basics. Captain Morgan is currently owned by Diageo, and was brought to market in 1944. Probably the most well-known rum in the states, Captain Morgan rum is actually named after Sir Henry Morgan, a Welsh privateer. Captain Morgan actually started being produced by Seagram Company, but was bought by Diageo in 2001. There has been rum produced in both Jamaica and Puerto Rico, but the stuff you’re probably used to slamming down came from Puerto Rico most likely. Captain Morgan is distilled spirit from Molasses and spends some short time in oak barrels to give it some life. What makes this unique is that it spends some time in a sherry barrel. So is that good or bad? Well, pre-emptively, we can tell you rum is sweet, and so is sherry, so it could either blend well, or be sickeningly like drinking sugar. And not to be overly critical, but you would think that if Captain Morgan was going to make a limited edition bottling, they would kick up the abv to more than a pathetic 35%. We did buy this, however, because it makes for a good experiment. So here it goes: Where has all the rum gone?

Straight

Nose:  The nose starts off with a nice, custardy fruitiness, vanilla and sweetness up front. The smell of vanilla is pretty overbearing up front. There are some hints of cinnamon you’ll catch up front. There is also a slight waxiness that comes through on the nose. This is an odd first in the KCM tasting notes history, but it’s fairly direct. There is some anise present in the nose, as well as some slight ginger and subtle lime. There is a definite strawberry/blueberry note present in the nose, with some orange sherbet and modest melon flavors as well. There is some confectionary flavor to it as well. 

Arrival: There is some definite honey flavor that comes out initially in the arrival, with a smooth sweetness throughout. There is some gentle, soft fruitiness akin to fuji apples and sweet berries, followed by a definite creaminess. There is a definite sugariness that comes through in the arrival. It is definitely sweet, but weirdly enough, it is a light sweetness, not much like the rich, overburdening flavor that you would expect out of a fortified wine.

Body: The body comes up with succulent black cherry flavors, some sweet berries and left over orange and cream flavors, along with subtle hints of vanilla and honey, without every getting too far into the sherry territory. This was probably not a nutty sherry cask, and it probably had minimal exposure, because the raison and nutty characteristics we become so fond of simply are not present. It is still sugary, lots of molasses present. This is very much similar to the arrival, and in this sense, you get what you get. It isn’t a very dynamic rum. What becomes unique about the body is a slight presence of anise and spice.  

           

Finish: The finish, which doesn’t hold much of a presence in the grand scheme of things, holds the most spiciness, but retains the sweet notes of before. The anise and some cinnamon comes through the most here, but the finish is fairly abrupt. It doesn’t last very long and besides the slight sensation of alcohol, you have forgotten what you drank. You might feel like you just brushed your teeth with the refreshing, almost fluoride-like flavor that hangs in the back of your mouth.

With Water

Nose: The nose, after adding just a slight drop of water, is even bigger in the fruity, vanilla, floral, and slight anise spicy notes. It is such a potent, but not off-putting nose, you would honestly want this as your car scent mirror tag. Other than the prominence of the nose, it doesn’t feel like much changed here.

Arrival: Although most of the notes have remained present here, and we aren’t noticing any new ones come out, it seems like there is a slightly better balance now in this one than before.

Body: The body is very much the same as the arrival, with a better balance, not much else is going on.

           

Finish: The finish is very similar, although it seems a little more dry and astringent than before.

Final Comments: Not bad…pretty clean and fairly interesting. It is unique and without water, it is pretty easy to drink, and it does everything you might want out of a rum. We are not huge fans of Captain Morgan, but what they’ve accomplished here, at $20, is pretty damn impressive, for lack of better terms. There is not a lot of dynamics to the rum, but we enjoyed it for a good sipper. This is also a good rum to experiment with, since it is so unique.

 

Why you’d buy it: You’d like to try something different, or you just want something good to mix with.

Why you wouldn’t: You are REALLY looking for something of high quality in the rum world.

Score: 8.25/10

Review 171: Balvenie 12 Year DoubleWood

Review 171

7/31/13

Balvenie 12 Year DoubleWood: 43% abv

Background: Balvenie, as we have talked about before, is a Speyside single malt owned by Grant and Sons, the same group that owns Glenfiddich. We talked about the fact that Glenfiddich 12 Year and Balvenie 12 Year aren’t very similar in taste due to the commanding difference in sherry influence between the two. To add on more details about the distillery itself, not only does Grant and Sons own Balvenie as a company, but William Grant actually founded Balvenie in 1892. Balvenie as a distillery has gotten to be quite large, at a capacity of 5.6M liters a year. Balvenie has a lot of their own original bottlings, with a healthy core range to choose from. Last year, we reviewed the Balvenie 14 Year Caribbean Cask whisky, an exclusive US edition single malt. Besides this and the DoubleWood, they have a 10 Year, a 15 Year Single Barrel, a 12 Year Single Barrel, a 17 Year DoubleWood, a 17 Year Peated cask, a 21 Year Port Wood cask, and several older whiskies. The 12 Year, which is aged in both American Bourbon casks and European sherry casks, is distinctively like Aberlour 12 Year, but they are by no means the same. This leads us to our review section. We will now tell you about tasty smelly stuff:

Straight

Nose:  The nose on this whisky starts off with a dense blend of different flavors, including some subtle notes of Oloroso sherry, subtle tartness, nice raisony richness, and moderate malt character. This definitely has a contrast of notes on display. The Oloroso does bring out some slight nuttiness, and there is a surprising harshness that makes nosing this single malt somewhat challenging. There is a sense of bitterness that comes through in this, with harsh grain notes and a thick oak flavor. There is even a small hint of botanicals and floral notes that tickle the nose when you start to get further into the experience. As far as fruits go, there is a sweet orange citrus flavor that helps add character. Overall, this is a pretty satisfactory introduction to this Balvenie.

Arrival: The arrival definitely starts off grainy with a slight hint of sweetness. The grain is thick and creamy malt, and it reminds me a lot of anCnoc in that sense. There is a combination of vanilla and honey that get into the beginning here, with a subtlety of white wine coming through. Even still, the arrival is very woody and holds back on any sense of sherry. There is a slight harshness in the arrival, with a little bit of cinnamon leading into the body. There is also an earthy, herbal character coming through.

Body: The body finally introduces the sherry, and although it does not come across as over-dominant, there is certainly a sense that the whisky has the raison-esque quality of an Oloroso, with some minimal nuttiness creeping into the taste buds as well. There is still some vanilla and malt coming through. At this point, you will taste an earthy, rooty taste in the whisky. There is definitely a small amount of the citrus from the nose sneaking into the body, which helps keep it prominent and fresh. The body in this whisky actually lasts for a little bit. 

           

Finish: The finish powers in with some dominant black pepper bitterness, strong burn and residual graininess. The graininess feels strained and flavorless here, not like the fresh flavor you get in the arrival. There is a fleeting notion of vanilla and sherry that dwindles away much faster than the bitterer aftertaste that lingers onward. It certainly contains an earthy, almost chicory flavor to it. The herbal tastes from the body carry over into the finish, and it makes for a good blend of sweet sherry and almost oily, modestly salty character to contrast.

With Water

Nose: After giving the whisky some time to merry with a few splashes of water, the initial nosing reveals a honey-sweet, malty, sherry-dominant aroma. There is still some harshness in the nose, but it isn’t terribly overpowering. Some of the other flavors get a little bit washed out at this point.  

Arrival: Although a bit lighter, the arrival is more sweet now and generally less intimidating. The sherry is replaced with a more agave-like flavor, and the complexity goes away quite a bit.

Body: The orange flavor still sits strong here, along with some hints of honey and sherry. There is a strong presence of sweetness, but the bitterness that we knew before comes back after just a little while. Although it’s hard to be sure, it almost feels as if this happens quicker after adding water. The body is rather dumbed down after adding water.

           

Finish: There is a nice sweetness that comes through now, which helps to balance out the heavy earthy, bitter notes that came through before. Although the presence is a bit watered down, it does help balance the differences out quite a bit. To some degree, there is a slight burnt wood quality that resonates at the end, in an unpleasant way. It is almost ashy without a great flavor.

Final Comments: This is a pretty solid offering by Balvenie, although there are a few things about it that aren’t my favorite. As a casual sipper, it really is a fantastic whisky, but as soon as I get any deeper into it, the flavor becomes a little bit unfavorable at the end. The complexity isn’t horribly impressive, but it isn’t disappointing either. Balvenie definitely runs a higher price than other offerings in its class, and after this review, the 12 Year DoubleWood doesn’t convince me that it is worth the premium, although I would much rather drink this than Glenlivet 12 Year.

 

Why you’d buy it: You like the mixture of sherry and bourbon cask influences and enjoy the pronounced flavors.

Why you wouldn’t: You are afraid of a little harshness in a whisky, and don’t want to spend your money on a rougher 12 Year.

Score: 8.25/10

Review 170: Deschutes The Dissident

Review 170

7/22/13

Deschutes The Dissident: 11.4% abv

Background: Well, here we are with another special review. A coworker of mine donated this beer to our cause and for that we are greatly appreciative. We of course took advantage of that by writing a review on it. Deschutes Brewery doesn’t show up in Michigan, but that doesn’t mean they’re the new kids on the block. Deschutes was founded in 1988 in Bend, Oregon. They distribute to 18 states, and are the 11^th largest brewery in the U.S. Now we’re talking. Founder Gary Fish named the brewery after the nearby river, which can be well noted on their emblem. This particular beer is the Dissident, 2013 vintage, which is a Flanders-styled brown ale, sour and tart in character. This is a wild yeast beer and according to Deschutes, they use Brettanomyces (a type of yeast often known as the “Brett”) as their catalyst. Deschutes claims this to be a brewing “challenge”, as it is fermented in isolation in pinot noir and cabernet barrels with a lot of favoritism and special treatment. We recall that cherries were part of the mix too, here. So this is obviously a complex and well-cared for beer. The fun question is next. What does it taste like?

Nose: The nose starts off with a good mixture of spices and fruits, with some anise, cinnamon, gingerbread, allspice, and some red grape flavors. There is a slight hint of dark cherries, but it certainly isn’t as prominent as one would think. The fruitiness includes tart green apple, with some yogurt-like creaminess and some confectionary sugar notes that come through. It is a sweet, mellow sweet smell that lulls you into an arguably questionable sense of security. There is a very sweet red wine character that comes through, probably due to the cab and pinot aging.

Arrival: The arrival starts of tart with some sweet lemon flavor to it, with definite cherry tartness up front. To compliment these two flavors, there is a sense of tart green apple to bring up the arrival even more. There is almost a carbonated lemon-lime soda flavor that comes through as well. There isn’t much sense of grain or oak, but it does pack the initial tartness of a sour candy. There is a very faint hint of agave in the arrival present, which adds to the syrup-like sweetness.

Body: The agave that was found in the arrival slips into the body with some presence, along with the tart fruit notes, but gives way to some spicy notes that were found in the arrival as well. There are some notes of cherry and blackberry that come through, with slight hints of red wine and dark grapes. There is a little bitterness and a subtle creaminess that come through in the body, with just a small subtlety of pepper. There is a little bit of Christmas spice character that goes along with this beer, but it is very minute.

Finish: There is, from the nose, a sense of sweet red wine without any sense of dryness to it. There is a really dominant sense of creaminess in the finish, which is in good contrast to the fruity character that resides in the beer. The tart apples, cherries, blackberries, and other flavors reminiscence of a Sangiovese. The finish is about medium in length and not terribly complex, but it does finish off smoothly, and convinces you that you are not actually drinking an 11% beer. Don’t let it fool you though. That will end you up in a ditch.

Final Comments:  We’ve had a small number of sour beers in our time, and by far, this strikes me as one of the more unique, complex ones. That being said, it isn’t mind blowing, and the finish definitely loses some of zest that the nose and arrival mounted up. It isn’t hard to drink, but I can see how if you like hoppy beers, this could really get to be a bit sweet over time. This strikes me as a cordial-type beer, and is a great thing to share with friends. It does show incredible promise that sour beers don’t have to taste just like grape juice (I’m looking at you La Roja), and with a little more complexity and less tartness dominating the flavor, this could truly be a home run type beer. We enjoyed the spiciness and unique qualities that aren’t normally found in beers of this style. As far as Deschutes goes, this is a great first impression of them and we look forward to the opportunity to try more of their beers.

Why you’d buy it: This beer is a great learning experience and you don’t mind a mixture of sweetness, tartness, and mild spices

Why you wouldn’t: You don’t like tartness

Score: 8.5/10

Review 169: Ardbeg 10 Year

Review 169

7/10/13

Ardbeg 10 Year: 46% abv

Background: Here we stand at the face of another peat juggernaut, the Ardbeg 10 Year. This is their flagship product, being big, affordable, and unique, but still upholding the ideals of Ardbeg, being 46% and unchill-filtered. There is no reason to scoff at this Scotch as a potential mainstay, because unlike Lagavulin, you can still afford a bottle of this without missing next month’s car payment. It is a peaty Islay, and it certainly test your passion to a smoky Scotch. It is not common to see an Ardbeg with colorant, and this one is absolutely the same case. Ardbeg will tell you on their packaging that their whiskies stand alone as the most delicate of all Islay whiskies. In fact, Ardbeg is delicate like a stampede of elephants running through a china shop built on a thin layer of ice. Nonetheless, as Jeremy Clarkson would say, the time has come to show it some corners and see what it can do. Here’s what we found:

Straight

Nose: Hey, guess what?! You might find yourself greeted by a nose of oily, smoky peat. This nose is thick in a leathery, even road tar-like character. It doesn’t overbear you with the smell of asphalt, but you certainly will smell something earthy and hot. Keep digging, and you’ll start to find a briny, salty intensity coupled with a charred wood smell and passive savory notes. There is even a slight toasted nuttiness involved in here. On a more subtle note, there are suggestions of vanilla and slightly floral notes that unravel with more exploration. After the whisky opens up, a sense of gin botanicals does make short cameo in this whisky. As a counterbalance, fruitiness akin to fresh apples comes through. It is absolutely an engaging nose.  

Arrival: The arrival starts with an awesome spiciness of cinnamon and ginger, along with some mild sweetness of vanilla and apples. Unfortunately, the arrival doesn’t hold up over time, because the alcohol content masks the flavors pretty quickly. There is a slight maltiness that comes through and is counterbalanced by the saltiness and peatiness that starts to creep in.

Body: There is a combination of peat smoke, maltiness, pumpkin spices, brininess, and even some bitterness that comes through in the body. The body follows the arrival quickly and moves into a fairly dry and spicy body. The body is a lull in the flavor, but black pepper can be found (probably a contributor to the bitterness that is seen in the whisky), along with other spice notes to compliment the smoke and maltiness.

           

Finish: The biggest residual flavor found is the long, dry smoky peat flavor that carries on for what seems like an eternity. Unfortunately, the rest of the whisky doesn’t carry that same length. There is still a lot of salt, black pepper, cinnamon, pumpkin spices, and other spicy notes. It is hugely earthy in the finish, in an unmerciful way. This is definitely a finish suggestive of a novice drinker. It is hot, but not terribly prominent in the sense of burn. There is some light, dry fruitiness that can be found as well, but it is subtle.

With Water

Nose: Seeing as this whisky is 46% and made by Ardbeg, we were a little more liberal with adding water, which did significantly open up the nose. There was more maltiness and balance than before, taking out some of the more obtrusive notes, albeit it still stood as a hugely intense nose.

Arrival: The arrival starts off sweeter, with more malt sugar character than before, and even some honey. The spiciness backs off slightly, and allows a floral, slightly citrusy flavor to come through. A sense of pear rind starts to come through after some time.

Body: The new found citrus in the arrival carries through into the body, representing light orange flavor, maltiness, and still a huge chunk of peat. There is a phenolic character in the body, which is still exacerbated by the peppery bitterness that we found before. The body is short, and finishes rather quickly as well.

           

Finish: The phenolic, peaty, and rather medicinal finish is pretty standard out of an Ardbeg, but comes to light more after adding water. This Scotch doesn’t get much gentler after water, that’s for certain.  The finish just holds an ashy character, with a seaweed saltiness that keeps in the mouth as well. Although most of the complexities of the finish are short, the peat flavor still takes its time and sticks around.

Final Comments: This is a bold whisky, and like Laphroaig it is not for the faint of heart. Where this differs from Laphroaig is that it is drier, less fruity, and has some more “oily” notes. I wouldn’t generally introduce a new peated Scotch drinker to this as their first dram, but it is a relatively enjoyable dram for somebody with experience. That aside, some of the complexity is lost after the arrival, and the flavors don’t seem to pop like they do with some of the other peated Scotches we’ve tried. This is a minor criticism, and there should be no reason not to try it. The biggest thing Ardbeg can do for themselves is to continue producing single malts at good proofs and natural presentation. Also, if you are looking to grow some hair on your chest, look no further. This’ll make you look like Austin Powers in no time.

 

Why you’d buy it: You like an oily, peaty Scotch with complexity, or you aspire to be Austin Powers

Why you wouldn’t: You don’t like drinking liquid smoke.

Score: 8.75/10

Review 168: Dalmore 12 Year

Review 168

6/30/13

Dalmore 12 Year: 40% abv

Background: Dalmore is the pinnacle of marketing class. The bottle design is elegant and sexy, there is a metallic-looking stag on the front, and it takes a minimalistic labeling scheme. With all of this, it is tough to walk through your single malt section of the liquor store and not let it catch your eye. Dalmore distillery is a Highland distillery in Alness, Scotland. The company is owned by Whyte and Mackay. The distillery was established in 1839 by a trader who was pretty into the whole opium trading thing, as I’ve heard. In 1886, the distillery was bought by the MacKenzie family, of which one of their predecessors allegedly saved King Alexander III from a rampaging stag. This resulted in the MacKenzie bloke to be able to bear the emblem of the 12-point stag. That brings us back to the bottle, which has used this as a means of marketing shenanigans. This bottling is the 12 year, which doesn’t tell us that it isn’t chill filtered, or that it is naturally colored, and it does get bottled at only 40%. That being said, none of that guarantees us that this is a poorly made Scotch. That’s why we’re here to tell you exactly what to expect before buying a bottle. Before we dive into this, we can tell you a bit about how this is aged. Dalmore tells us this whisky sits for 9 years in bourbon casks, and then is divided (carefully, they say). One half of the whisky sits for another 3 years in bourbon barrels, and the other half sits in “30 year old Matusalem oloroso sherry casks”. What does this mean? Not a whole lot.

Straight

Nose: So right out of the gate, this nose gives off some hints of harsh alcohol, implying maybe not the best quality of spirit. Dig further, you’ll get a signature oloroso nuttiness and sherry combo coming out nicely. There is a sense of wet grass and burnt wood in the nose, with some stale malt flavor coming in the background. It doesn’t start as a fresh nose, quite honestly. It isn’t very crisp or refreshing, but more heavy and compacted. That being said, there are some nice dark apple flavors coming out of the nose, with small hints of butter and honey. The nuttiness seems to dominant the nose at the end of the day, but it reminds me of a toasted almond that got burnt. I have to confess, this is a relatively confused nose.

Arrival: The arrival starts off butter and butterscotch, almost like you are grabbing some popcorn. There is a pale maltiness that lurks in the shadows, and a bland sense of fruitiness comes through. It feels pretty worn and unimpressive. After a couple of sips, the best guess for a flavor is dried cranberries and grapes. There is still some burnt wood flavors coming through as well. The arrival is pretty flat.

Body: Into the body, you will get some more of the nuttiness coming out in the whisky, which is good. The overall sherry idea is somehow loss in the flavor. There is a sense of marzipan in the body, with again a reoccurrence of dried fruit flavors. There is slight vanilla notes involved. The maltiness in the whisky is uninspired and flat, and does not pop in the flavorful, fresh manner that we saw in the anCnoc.

           

Finish: There are terribly dominant notes of popcorn kernels, sherry, and chocolate in here. There is hardly much to talk about, minus a slight residual hint of tobacco. There is still a nuttiness from the beginning of the flavor, with some vanilla and more burnt flavors. It is really a short and simple finish that doesn’t excite us a whole lot.

With Water

Nose: Water seems to just exacerbate the rough spirit smell that starts at the beginning. There is still the burnt sensation that is apparent in the beginning of the whisky. That ashy smell seems to over dominate the nose again. Not worth continuing with more notes on the nose.

Arrival: Finally, there is some salvation. You may have thought this review was going to be 100% negative, but alas, in tasting the whisky after adding a teaspoon of water, it seems like the maltiness has jumped forward much more, along with making the fruitiness more lively. There is actually some caramel coming through, with some light spiciness and a sort of peanut butter cookie flavor. This isn’t a perfect arrival, but it is certainly MUCH better with some water.

Body: The body carries over some of the burnt flavors still, but in addition there is a sense of confectionary notes as well which help to balance out the ashy character. There is some apple character and some cinnamon sugar flavor coming through as well.

           

Finish: Those peanut butter cookies are interestingly lasting through the finish, with a sense of chocolate and cinnamon as well. There is some tobacco notes in here, but there is still some nuttiness, apple and cranberry flavor, and gingerbread. This is a much better surprise than the initial flavor content. There is also a citrus, orange flavor coming through at the end.

Final Comments: There is a terribly disappointing quality issue here. When we talk about “flatness”, we are not talking about carbonation, but rather a lack of dynamics and assertive flavors in the whisky. This is a flat whisky, and the flavor doesn’t pop out in the arrival, or in the body, or in the finish. Without water, there is not much flavor to be had at all, and we were disappointed by how much we didn’t enjoy unassertive notes. The saving grace to this whisky is that with a bit of water, there is some more complexities and flavors to overcome the shortcomings slightly. That doesn’t make this whisky “fantastic” by any stretch of the imagination, but it does provide some hope that it could be drinkable. Also, don’t think this means we’re dismissing Dalmore. I hear there are some great independent bottlings of Dalmore.

 

Why you’d buy it: You want a nice centerpiece for your table, and that bottle just really hits your “I want this as my centerpiece” buttons.

Why you wouldn’t: You don’t want to spend $50 on disappointment.

Score: 6.5/10

Review 167: anCnoc 12 Year

Review 167

6/18/13

anCnoc 12 Year: 43% abv

Background: Let’s get this straightened out: anCnoc (meaning “the hill” in Gaelic) is pronounced a-nock. The namesake of anCnoc has not been around for that long, but the whisky itself has been around for quite some time. That’s because anCnoc whisky is formerly known as Knockdhu Scotch, which comes from the Knockdhu Distillery, in Knock, Scotland (Knock on wood…). In 1994, the distillery stopped calling its whisky Knockdhu, because the distillery was being confused with Knockando Distillery. In 1894, the distillery was founded. They currently have about 1.7M liters of capacity, and from an outsider’s perspective, they are gaining presence. The 12 Year is one of two regular main stays in the reasonable price range, with the 16 Year being its right-hand man.  So reasonable is this whisky, it sits alongside the Glenfiddich 12, Glenlivet 12, and Macallan 10 price range. So does it warrant you moving away from these classics to potentially adopt a new staple into the liquor cabinet?

Straight

Nose: You might get some green fruits of the nose of this whisky. The two we thought of immediately were white wine and pears. You will definitely find a malty character to the aroma, complimented by a natural wheat flavor in the background. The vanilla character associated with this Scotch is pretty dominant, and ultimately you do not suspect the influence of peat or sherry in this whisky. It would be safe to say that there is not much influence outside of bourbon casks. There is, however, a very subtle salt note that comes through in the back of the nose. Even to an extent, there is some agave coming through as well. After further analysis, there is a noticeable piece of ginger aroma within the AnCnoc.

Arrival: Well, if you like malt, you won’t be disappointed here. This is an absolutely fantastic blast of malt flavor right in the front; this is a pure, creamy and malty flavor, which feels like the perfect flavor extraction from the distillation process. I might venture a guess that this would actually make for decent white whisky. There is a sense of dried fruit, oak, and vanilla that come through. There is a tart flavor that comes through as well. There is a mysterious spiciness that will be evoked in the arrival as the single malt opens up.

Body: There is still some good maltiness in the body, but there is an addition of wheat, vanilla, cream, and even some saltiness. The evolution is quite smooth, but also noticeable. It is an oxymoron of dynamic and subtle at the same time. It is ultimately incredibly smooth. There is a sense of pear in the body as well. There is a sense of slight tartness in the body, which carries over from the arrival.

           

Finish: You would never guess it, but you guessed it. This finish is super malty, with some earthy, floral notes involved too. The vanilla is dominant, along with some residual tartness, subtle wood flavor, and a long lasting creaminess that almost reminds you of ice cream. Right from the body into the finish, you will find a Laffy Taffy banana flavor that jumps in, which is a weird descriptor, but truly hits the nail on the head. As an accent note, there is a very negligible, almost invisible note of smokiness that comes through in the finish.

With Water

Nose: The nose, although quite similar, brings forward some of the more dominant flavors of the Scotch. There is a sense of lemon that starts coming through, accompanied by a candy sweetness. There is more floral harshness in the nose with a significant vegetal quality, but it still retains the sweetness from before.

Arrival: The arrival is pretty similar to before, with the thought that maybe there is a slight increase in woodiness.

Body: There is a small amount of spiciness into the body that wasn’t as prominent as before. This isn’t necessarily a black pepper spice, but something more hot and flavorful, without breaching the realm of red pepper potency.

           

Finish: The finish comes across as a little less prominent than before, without much flavor change. It is a softer ending, but not too much shorter. The vegetal earthiness that comes through in the finish is a little more dominant now than before water.  

Final Comments: Yes. This will replace Macallan 10, it will replace Glenfiddich 12, and it will DEFINITELY replace Glenlivet 12. Take the price out of the equation for a second. The quality of this whisky is great, no matter what the age or the price is. It tastes fresh, but the creamy, pure malt flavor feels like exactly what good distillation should be. The complexity of this whisky isn’t groundbreaking, but that doesn’t mean it is dull. The whisky takes a contradictory path of smooth, mellow character met with deep, engaging flavor. We truly enjoyed this single malt a lot, and to be honest, it is almost TOO easy to drink. For the price, it is a must try. We would advise you to review the flavors, to understand what you’re buying, because unlike Glenfiddich or Glenlivet, this is not as much about dark, rich fruit flavor, but rather crisp, fresh, but slightly dried fruit flavors with a super blast of maltiness. If you like a dram of Glen Grant 10, this should definitely be on your list.

 

Why you’d buy it: It is good.

Why you wouldn’t: I don’t know.

Score: 8.75/10

Review 166: Jim Beam Rye

Review 166

6/18/13

Jim Beam Rye Whiskey: 40% abv

Background: Jim Beam is obviously a big player in the world of bourbon, and if you are taking Jack Daniels out of the equation, they are the biggest. Rye Whiskey, as we may or may not have stated in the past, is in the stages of resurgence after its staggering loss of popularity post prohibition. Bourbon gained more traction because of its sweeter, more pleasant flavor, whereas the intense, spicy nature of rye quickly fell out of favor from the general public. It looks like the public has grown a pair again, and since the big guys have caught wind of it, they are jumping on the bandwagon. It isn’t as if Jim Beam Rye has been put on the shelves yesterday, so it probably seems like it has always been there, but on the cosmological scale of whiskey, this is a coming back in the Rye world. The question becomes, does Jim Beam do this well, or should we keep walking past the now-iconic bottle to something less recognizable.

Straight

Nose:  Right off the bat, you get a burning intensity from rye whiskey that could arguably be much less pleasant than bourbon, but don’t let that deter you on. Smell on. Once you get past the initial intensity, you will find a little more rye grain coming through to add. You will get some vanilla and anise coming into the nose after the whiskey starts to open up. There is a modest hint of caramel that layers over the aromas. There is an interesting sense of creamy, fruity notes coming through, akin to bananas and light yellow apples and other tropical notes. There is a sense of spiciness coming through, but it is pretty ambiguous and light.

Arrival: The arrival to this Rye whiskey, is surprisingly creamy, with some banana from the nose coming into the arrival. This is complimented by a sweet corn smoothness. There is some rye and malt grain coming through, with big vanilla flavor. There is also a slight oakiness. The flavor is surprisingly mild in the arrival, and does not to elude to a very dynamic body or finish.

Body:  There is a buttery, vanilla, and oak flavor coming through in the body. It is actually rather sweet, and non-obtrusive. The rye character is pretty light, and doesn’t really present the full intensity of what a rye whiskey can be. Surprisingly, there is more of a corn-flavor dominance coming through in the body, than the rye character.

           

Finish: The finish is probably the most intense part of the whiskey, imparting a peppery, rye, character to the whiskey, with a light brininess counterbalancing the peppery nature. There is a corn flavor that comes through. There is a minty character that works into the end as well. The finish is still not very dynamic, and although the whiskey has flavor that is enjoyable, it is pretty non-complex. There is some sweet fruitiness coming through later in the finish, but it fades down rather quickly.  Fruit flavors might include berries and golden apples, but it was hard to pick out. The finish isn’t terribly long, nor is it terribly short.

With Water

Nose: Well, as per last time, the grainy intensity comes to the forefront. The nose is pretty similar after adding water. The creaminess is still there, if not amplified from before. With that being said, there is no major transformation to the aromas coming out of here.

Arrival: Well, the arrival is certainly a mellow experience here, with almost nothing happening without swishing the rye around in your mouth. A blanket taste of vanilla starts off, but as you let the whiskey sit, an intense spiciness creeps into the picture. This lives through the body and finish as well.

Body: The body translates some of that spiciness into gingerbread and cinnamon flavors, but carries over the general feel from before. Some of that banana and cream type flavor that was seen before is now just as lively as before water was added.

           

Finish: The finish, disappointing, becomes much duller after some water is added to the equation. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this whiskey sits at 40% abv, there isn’t a whole lot of room for growth. That does detract, and it should come as no surprise that the results of adding water can be a little bit deterrent from the already meek flavor.

Final Comments:  This is, in fact, a whiskey worth buying. Now, that does not mean it is terribly complex, nor does it mean it bears semblance to the classic rye whiskey. This takes on a contemporary approach to the rye flavor, with a little modesty. This sits comfortably close to the Jim Beam bourbon, probably by design. I think we would see this rye come to life if only they didn’t cut it down nearly as much. At 46%, this would be a great buy, albeit the rye content is probably awfully close to 51%. We would venture a guess that much sweeter grains were used in this mash, and it takes away some of the influence of the whiskey. We’d also conjecture that this would do better with another two years in the barrel. At the end of the day, you won’t go home crying if you buy this whiskey, but you might consider some others before pulling the trigger. Hopefully, we will be helping with that in the future.

Why you’d buy it: You want a soft introduction into rye whiskeys on a budget.

Why you wouldn’t: You really already know about the world of rye out there, and know there are better gems to be found.

Score: 7.25/10