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.

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…