Three key malts

Since my normal rate of tasting new whiskys has ground to a halt in the last months, partially due to a long lasting cold followed by some busy summer month traveling, I've decided to post some short tasting notes from an earlier set of bottle shares I did with some friends. The common theme of the three bottles shared was that they were alleged key malt components in Johnnie Walker Blends. The theme was mostly an afterthought and it was really just an excuse to sample some of the, at the time, available exclusive bottles by the California based retailer: K&L Wines.

These notes are shorter than usual and rating them now adds some inaccuracy.

1991 Linkwood 21 Year Old K&L Exclusive Sovereign (key malt in JW Green label):

Nose: Robertson's marmalades ("Lime Curd" or "Silver Shred"), sweet lemonade and then a hint of honey and fruit compote. With water the malt comes through a bit more, either as biscuits or as shortbreads. 

Taste: White toast bread with Swedish honey. Adding water gives a hint of hard fruit candy. It is warming and ends with a medium long finish that ends with some slight pepperiness.

Comment: After you tame the alcohol (with water), it becomes an easy drinking dram with malt and honey.

Rating: 6.5±1

1996 Caol Ila 15 Year Old K&L Exclusive Sovereign (smoke component in several JW Blends):

Nose: Peat and Smoke, in the form of soot and ash, then the nose transitions more towards campfire (burning light wood such as birch). Very faint nose of rubber and some floral notes can be detected. With water, the distillery character comes through more, a sense of lightness amidst the smoke.

Taste: Initial hit of peat and smoke, but with a distinct sweetness that transitions more into smoke in the finish. Also tastes of ash and soot. Water tames the taste and the sweetness becomes more fruity (raspberries and strawberries).

Comment: Well balanced.

Rating: 7±1

1990 Mortlach 22 Year Old K&L Exclusive Chieftain's (key malt in JW Black label):

Nose: Raisins and some kind of solvent or glue. Chocolate-covered raisins and hint of vanilla custard. Then lots of spices: cinnamon, cloves and other Christmas spices (we are at the dessert table at a Swedish Christmas smörgåsbord). The nose is complex and it keeps changing. With water the whisky shows its age and I detect some of the wood (cedar, teak or some other dark hard wood).

Taste: Sweet, spicy, warming and mouth-coating. Like a well-aged Caribbean rum. With water it becomes rounder, and you taste more dried fruits; raisins and prunes. The finish is long, spicy and drying.

Comment: Very complex and definitely needs its time in the glass.

Rating: 8±1

None of the three bottles are, unfortunately, available any longer. If the chance would happen that I would one day stumble upon a bottle of the Mortlach, I would not hesitate to buy it, assuming the price was within reason. It was the clear favorite among the people sharing the bottles. The Linkwood, in my opinion, was highly underrated among the other tasters. I found it to be solid and the type of dram that might have grown on me, had I had a full bottle to enjoy over time.

Whisky Grapevine

Thought it would be fun to round up some monthly observations from the public TTB label-approval registry (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in the US). This is a public registry that shows label approvals for spirits to be sold in the USA. An approval is no guarantee that it will eventually be sold in the US and sometimes labels change or are missing final information such as age and cask no. However, sometimes you get a glimpse of what's to come several months ahead of release date.

June offers several interesting labels, not least of which is William Grant & Sons, including an official 40-year-old release from the closed Ladyburn Distillery. The 40% ABV might disappoint some though. Kininvie 23-year-old Batch 002 looks destined for the US as expected. Batch 001 was a Taiwan-exclusive but found its way to European auction sites quickly. It remains to be seen if Europe will be left out again and has to wait for it to hit the secondhand market. A 25-year-old single barrel Balvenie and the 26-year-old Glenfiddich Excellence are among other approved labels from William Grant & Sons.

A whole slew of independent bottle releases from Berry Bros. & Rudd has been approved. Fun to see more independents on the US shelves. Among the more interesting ones:; a Littlemill from 1992, a 1995 Caperdonich and a 1974 Glenlivet.

Looks like Scotch Malt Whisky Society (SMWS) has gotten approval for a single malt from Ireland (most likely distillery number 117). If the society is allowed to import Irish releases, why not Japanese? Since there seems to be some issues with whisky produced in one country and bottled in another.

Official distillery bottles from the rarely seen Speyside Distillery (the distillery with the same name as the region) seem to be on their way.

Those were just a handful of the bottle labels approved this past month that caught my eye.

Whisky Reading

A bad cold put my whisky reviewing into a grinding halt for the last month or so, but it did at least give me an opportunity to catch up on some reading. I’ve recently read three whisky-related books that I can recommend.

I was very excited to grab a copy of “The Science and Commerce of Whisky” by Ian Buxton and Paul S. Hughes [1]. Coffee table-style books about whisky are plentiful but more technical books or textbooks aimed at people that actually study chemistry and distilling are rare. Although I lack the background to really grasp the chemical aspects of distilling and maturation of whisky, I found that the book still offered a wealth of information for a layman and enthusiast like me. Each chapter is jam-packed with information but still well-written. Compared to the previous reference text on whisky making, “Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing” edited by Inge Russell [2], I find Buxton and Hugh’s book more approachable and easier to read. After reading this, I was tempted enough to pick up a textbook on organic chemistry, just to get a better understanding of the more technical chapters of the book.

Dave Broom’s new book I pre-ordered without knowing anything about it. I’ve found Mr. Broom very entertaining at other occasions and with a title such as “The Manual” [3], what could go wrong? To my surprise when I got a hold of the book, Mr. Broom has decided to educate us on how to drink whisky mixed with soda, ginger ale, and even coconut water and green tea. Just the thought of diluting your precious single malt with something other than water makes some whisky drinkers see red. Not discouraged, I dove right in and found Broom’s book to be very entertaining. It starts out with the almost obligatory whisky history chapter. Very informative as expected but also with a focus on how whisky has been enjoyed throughout history. What then follows is Mr. Broom’s guide on how to enjoy whisky. A multitude of whisk(e)ys are presented with a description and rating on what the whisk(e)y mixes well with. I must say I’m instantly intrigued and can not wait to try out some of the recommendations. The book ends with a chapter on cocktails.

The last book I finished was “MacLean’s Miscellany of Whisky” by Charles MacLean [4]. It’s a collection of essays on anything between heaven and earth related to whisky. This is a nice book to read while enjoying your favorite dram in front of your fireplace. Informative but most of all entertaining. The essays vary in length but most of them are pretty short, which makes it easy to pick up this book and just read a chapter at random when time allows. It also contains many illustrations from the era.

[1] Ian Buxton and Paul Hughes, The Science and Commerce of Whisky, ISBN: 978-1-84973-150-8, Royal Society of Chemistry (2014)

[2] Inge Russell et al, Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing (Handbook of alcoholic beverages), ISBN: 978-0-12669-202-0, Academic Press; 1 edition (August 28, 2003)

[3] Dave Broom, Whisky: The Manual, ISBN: 978-1-84533-755-1, Mitchell Beazley (Octopus books) (2014)

[4] Charles MacLean, MacLean’s Miscellany of Whisky, ISBN 978-1-906251-42-0, Little Books Ltd (2010)

Clynelish vs Johnnie Walker Gold Label

The Striding Cat

Clynelish, a Highland distillery I've heard a lot of good things about, and I've read a lot of good reviews for - both for their own bottlings, as well as independent bottlings. It's also often mentioned as well-regarded among blenders as well, e.g. Compass Box bases several of their blended malts around Clynelish. My own experience with the distillery has unfortunately been limited, so it's finally time to educate myself.

I decided to start with the official 14-year-old release (46% abv) and I will compare it to Johnnie Walker Gold Label Reserve (40% abv), the Johnnie Walker known to be built around a core of Clynelish.

First up, the single malt. I find the nose a nice balancing act between a potpourri of fruits (black currants, oranges and green apples) and right amount of wood (oak and sawdust). There is a very pleasant trail of peat smoke in the background and it's slightly spirituous. Some of the sweetness reminds me of honey, like honey soap or honey candles. With water, the nose mellows a bit. The spirituous part becomes more briny and maritime. To the taste it's more woody than fruity. The black currants have taken a back seat. Other berries have been baked into a pie. With water it becomes too easy to drink. The finish is dry and medium-long.

Compared to the single malt, the Johnnie Walker is more spirituous and medicinal on the nose, almost phenolic, albeit still very light smokiness. Hint of glue stick, but also some berries. A mix of tart lingonberries and ripe bananas. With water the smoke takes you to an outdoor clam bake. To be honest, I would have a hard time picking this out as a blend among single malts. It has a slightly more spirituous, solvent, glue-type character that I find in other blends, but it is very well-balanced here. On the tongue it is very smooth and the wood character comes out more. Maybe some of that famous Clynelish waxiness is also present. Water helps malt and cereal notes come forward but does not necessarily improve it.

You can definitely tell that Johnnie Walker Gold is in the same family and a good guess is that it’s been derived from a fair amount of Clynelish. I like both a lot and Gold might almost bump Green from the top spot of my favorite Johnnie Walker. I would venture to say I prefer the Gold over the official Clynelish, at least as a every(other)day sipping dram.

Sssh, don't let the cat out of the bag!

As a bonus, I decided to throw in another Clynelish in the mix. A single cask bottling from the nice folks at Scotch Malt Whisky Society: No. 26.89 'An exotic tearoom experience' (27 years old, ex-sherry refill butt, 56.6% abv). For you that don’t know, Scotch Malt Whisky Society (SMWS) is an independent bottler and membership club that bottles a wide range of single casks for its members. They for some reason or another deliberately don't reveal the distillery on the label but give it a unique number instead. They also give their bottles quirky names with sometimes even quirkier tasting notes. With the power of Google, we can figure out that No.26.89 was actually distilled at Clynelish.

First impression of the nose is "Wow!", this is why I love whisky. Fine sherry, berry compote with peaches, light peatiness, honey and a sweetness that reminds me of blueberry pie served with Sauce Marsán (Instant Vanilla Cream). Followed by strawberry shortcake ice cream, but also Crayola crayons (Is this the Clynelish waxiness everyone refers to?). It is prickly on the tongue, light with a nice mouthfeel. A light pleasant smokiness and you can taste spices in the back. With water, the vanilla becomes stronger on the nose. It also tames the palette and makes it easier to drink. The finish is long and lingering with spices reminiscent of Swedish ginger snaps.

An excellent foray into the world of Clynelish. I've already ordered more samples of this fine distillery.

Clynelish 14 year old: 7±.5, Johnnie Walker Gold Label Reserve: 7±.5 and SMWS 26.89: 8.5±.5.

Scallywag vs 3D

Here we go, the first reviews for the blog. I recently ordered a set of samples from the good chaps at Master of Malt. The first two samples I tried are two very different blended malts in a nice price range.

I decided to pit these malts against each other solely based on the fact that they are both blended malts.

First up is the Scallawag (46% ABV), a blended malt from Douglas Laing. Specifically what caught my eye, with this malt, was the packaging. I am a sucker for nice labels. Don’t get me wrong, I don't care much for overpriced crystal decanted whiskies in leather suitcases with purple velvet interior. A well-designed label or a smart package, however, often catches my eye.

But let’s move on the the whisky:

- Oh! First thing that come to my mind when I nose this is: ex-Sherry Glenrothes. Had I nosed this blind, not knowing it’s a blended malt, I would definitely have guessed Glenrothes. I have not tried many Glenrothes but this whisky share a distinct smell that I for some reason associate with a smell I can best describe as a “new car smell," a combination of leather, vinyl and rubber. I've found this smell in several of the few Glenrothes I tried in the past and to be honest something I've often found a bit to overwhelming, but in this case it is more subdued. The nose is also buttery, it transitions from a more solvently (paint thinner) to a more sweeter smell. Sweet hard candy. With water I find the more familiar sherry notes; dried fruits and some nuts. A hint of spices as well, maybe nutmeg.

Taste is initially peppery but quickly turns into dark (bitter) chocolate and tea leaves (Dolphin’s Earl Grey Chocolate bars),  still some hint of spices, anise and licorice. water brings on the dried fruits; prunes and cranberries.

I find Scallaywag to be very pleasant to drink, the taste appeals to me more than the nose though.

Second up is 3D (56,4% ABV), from the guys at Cask Strength and Carry On, apparently a blend of three Ds; Dailuaine, Dalwhinnie and Dufftown. Three distilleries that I associate with a bit more funky, complex whisky that need a few years to mellow out. The nose is not at all what I expect; it’s light and ethereal; citrus fruits mixed with vanilla (sponge cake) and oak. A hint of honey and nuts, but also green grass. With water more fruits; citrus and apples. It also reminds me of “Piggelin” a pear flavored ice popsicle of my youth. On the tongue - it’s sweet, the fruits have been caramelized. Lime cordial also comes to my mind. The grass makes a comeback with the water added. It finally ends with a dry finish.

My first impression was: This is a solid, easy to like style of whisky. After letting all the impressions sink in, I feel that this is a whisky that I would enjoy at almost any occasion, it’s kind of a crowd-pleaser. Well-balanced, bright light flavours and a nice kick, being cask strength.

On this tasting occasion I felt that the 3D came out on top, albeit two very different blends, one sherry cask heavy, the other, what seems to be mostly ex-bourbon cask.

Scallywag: 6±.5 and 3D: 6.5±.5

Rant on Rank

When I decided to start this blog, I thought a bit about ranking verses rating. Are we actually rating whisky or just ranking whisky among the ones we have tried ourself? And what is the difference? I think of rating as assessing the whisky individually and score it based on its individual merits. Rank a whisky would be to access it in contrast to other whiskies. A ranking can of course be expressed as a number as well? So then you might still say, what is the difference in the end? Can I not just rank the whiskies I tried based on their rating? Yes, you can, but...

I like to draw analogies to sport rankings. If you have two teams; A ranked 1 and B ranked 2, does that mean that  A always beats B? No. Let say you have 3 teams: A,B and C and A beat B, B beat C and C beat A in a round-robin match up. How would you rank the teams? The same questions can be applied to whiskies to some extent. Rating seems to absolute to me. One day I might enjoy Whisky A over Whisky B, the other day the opposite. Sometimes I find whiskies offer different qualities and can’t always imply that since A > B and B > C then A > C. As in sports, ranking changes over time and there are many ways to compute and express ranking, most of them overkill if applied to whisky (and for a blog like this). But I still like the Idea of giving whisky a non absolute rating, that can be updated over time, theoretically, to get the exact ranking, I would have to, every time I try a new whisky, retry all other whiskies I’ve tried before and re-assess their score against the new whisky. Of course practically impossible.

So initially I will try grade my whiskies on a scale from 0-10, with a twist, I will see it as a normal distributed probabilistic score, expressed as r±s , i.e a score that with (my) 95% confidence falls within 2 standard deviations (s) of r.

E.g. Let's say first time I grade a whisky I give it 5±.5 (meaning, with 95% confidence my subjective score falls between 4 and 6), the score could naturally become more uncertain over time, expressed as a larger deviation e.g. 5±1. But If I re-taste the whisky at a later occasion, I can re-asses the score, and hopefully reduce the deviation (the opposite can also happen).

Will I compute it exactly and update it every time I try a new whisky? No of course not…

Statement of Purpose

There are literally thousands of whisky blogs out there, so you might ask yourself: why do I bother with writing one (and why should you be bothered with reading it)? I've been tempted to start a blog about some of my favorite fine things of life, whisky and food in small tins, for quite some time but never gotten around to do it. But recently I decided to bring my whisky interest in a new direction and decided I should start writing down some of my thoughts on the whisky I try, so why not do it in a blog form.

This blog will be for my personal whisky journey and I won't pretend that I know what I am talking about and I will refrain from orating about the state of the industry or the latest NAS bottling, or whatever is currently having the whisky community up in arms. No, this will just be a log of my thoughts on whisky (and maybe a tin of food once in a while), a tool for me to develop my skill to analyze, talk about, think about and enjoy whisky.

So, will I do reviews? Yes, somehow I will try to note down my thoughts and give them some kind of rating. In what form? I don't know. One thing I know for sure is that I won't use a 0-100 point system. I have no frame of reference and for me to grade on such fine scale, at this stage, would not make any sense to me nor anyone that would read my writings. Will I follow a template? Not at this stage, I will experiment with different forms of conveying highly subjective thoughts on whisky, some probably more informative than others.

That said, my initial plan was to make the blog private, but decided against it. Should a reader find their way here, or even better, leave a comment, criticism or feedback, that might just teach me something new about whisky, and that is what this blog is about.