Comments for Scotch Hobbyist's Blog

Comment on Whisky Wish List by B.D. Russell

B.D. Russell — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:27:41 +0000

I’m new to your blog, so I don’t know what all “glen” whiskies you’ve had.
I would suggest Glenfiddich 18, 21 and 30.
As for Bunnahabhain, I was incredibly disappointed by it. If seen such great reviews, then I tried it and it was a total lack of smoke and peat. I’m not a peat head at all, but I expected an Islay to be more than a high alcohol content speyside.
Macallan 18 is okay. I would say never buy a bottle. The jump in quality from any 12 to 18 year is never worth more than $100. I liked it, but there was a lot of sulphur and it wasn’t worth $180.
Glenfarclas are good sherried whiskies for lower prices. You can get their 21 and 25 years for less than the overpriced macallan 18.
Glenkinchie is like all lowlands: mild. I’ve heard it’s uninspired and now is mass produced with the whole classic malts promotional thing here recently. I would try older auchentoshans for a good lowland.
I’ve heard Yamazaki 18 is good but is like the macallan 18 in that its overpriced for the amount of quality increase. If you can get it cheap though do it.
I don’t know where you live, but I’d look into having samples delivered. Now, I know it may say it’s technically illegal or whatever but perhaps give it a shot. It is strictly prohibited in my state but I have them delivered every so often. It is worth it to spend a tad more per drink rather than take the gamble buying an entire bottle. I use master of malt but there are others.

Comment on At long last…Mackinlay’s Shackleton whisky replica by zyryab2112

zyryab2112 — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:11:23 +0000

Some CostCo’s carry it.

Comment on No accounting for taste, or: How I learned to stop worrying and love whisky ratings. by Scotch Hobbyist

Scotch Hobbyist — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:56:16 +0000

Hi David. Thanks for this reply/insight! I’d forgotten about this article, and probably could have responded to the quote I included in a less “brusque” way myself. I think I got a little over-dramatic about it.

I’m fully in agreement with what you’re saying. Whisky preferences are very subjective and personal, and scores cannot be universal. It’s just one means of providing personal insight to others, or tracking your own tastes over time. I find minor point differences to be almost useless outside of the context of a direct comparison, in which case I use them for future reference as to my preferences/tastes at the time I compared them.

Cheers,
Jeff

Comment on No accounting for taste, or: How I learned to stop worrying and love whisky ratings. by David S

David S — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:30:14 +0000

Apologies for only just seeing this (many years too late…). Although written quite a while ago I will stand by my words. It IS an arrogance but it is an allowable one. Scores for whisky are an arbitrary thing, based on experience and personal biases. To print them for any reason other than to show your own personal preferences, i.e as an unequivocal, unarguable guide to whisky is, well, arrogant. I don’t really mind scores and probably in some unconscious (or conscious) way score everything I taste – but I would never dare to suggest, even with a considerably greater number of whiskies tasted by all but the most long-toothed in the industry, that I can choose between whiskies for others or that I can categorically state the ‘best’ whiskies. Serge, who I consider a friend, is very quick to point out that he is suggesting what he likes, what he ‘gets’ out of any particular whisky and not to take his scores too seriously. He is truly independent and not beholden to any style or any maker. I would suggest this is not the case for some other ‘scorers’ and also Serge would never suggest he was right all of the time – again like some others. Please feel free to print your scores, it is an insight into what you like and others may find that they have very similar tastes to yours and can be guided by your scores to certain whiskies. Hope this takes some of the edge off of my quite brusque comment quoted in the blog!

Comment on Maker’s Mark birth announcement by Stanley J Thomas

Stanley J Thomas — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:09:01 +0000

I received a card with my Barrel # on it and have misplaced it. Can you give me the info again. Name: Stanley J Thomas BD: February 14, 1943

Comment on Birthday dram 2011: A 31 year Glenglassaugh bottled for TWE by Scotch Hobbyist

Scotch Hobbyist — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:44:31 +0000

Well, Neil…you have me on a technicality. It’s true that the distillery is located on the “other side” of the River Spey. However, it’s closer than any other distillery to said river, so it tends to get lumped in with that group. TWE lists it as a Speyside Region whisky on their site.

Thanks for keeping me honest, though.

Cheers,
Jeff

Comment on Scotch cask types – Seeking some clarity by Neil

Neil — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:54:23 +0000

This was a very good thread, Jeff. Of course you have mentioned in your myths section but it’s worth stressing, that the reason we see most casks of American [white] oak, is in the regulations state-side: “Meanwhile, there ARE regulations stating that Bourbon must be matured in charred new oak containers”: New oak casks meaning there, they are only used ONLY once and so to all intents and purposes disposable! Whether, France, Spain or Bulgaria has the resources or not, those cost more and may well become a commodity in their own right, but cost-benefit analysis may not hold water [of life!].
While many sherry casks are not used for ‘maturation’ as we’d understand the term, there are those involved in the house “solera” processes which do pass muster and command a sovereign’s ransom!
There have been some horror stories in the early years of ‘finishing’ barrels and butts: Rather than being shipped complete, they were broken down at source to be re-coopered in Scotland!!!!!
Ouch……

Interesting post from smsmmns. Agreed it would be good to have that issue standardised. One will hear, “first-fill ex-bourbon”, “re-fill ex-bourbon” and beyond that….It’s probably subjective even with a paper trail.

Personally, I have a barrel just about in it’s final year at Bruichladdich. That barrel, I picked-up (literally and put it in my truck) back in the autumn of 2003 when they bottled their 15 Y/O “George T. Stagg”. I took it to Bruichladdich for their 2004 fill of Port Charlotte, but before then, that barrel came to the rescue (and I daresay a little “finishing”) of a fill of senior Glen Ord that needed a temporary home for a month. I will be filling her one last time as a private venture with either Glenglassaugh, Arran or Bladnoch. The Port Charlotte filling was ‘first-fill ex-bourbon’ (omitting the interloper) and the next and last filling will be the “re-fill ex-bourbon”. I intend to avoid any future problems with designation by turning the barrel thereafter into furniture of some kind….Or maybe even a classy dog-bed for a discerning companion. A deserved rest after some 37 years of continuous graft!

Comment on Birthday dram 2011: A 31 year Glenglassaugh bottled for TWE by Neil

Neil — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:49:57 +0000

Jeff, there are no such things as contradictions, one needs to check premises….”different Speyside experience”: Glenglassaugh is technically beyond Speyside You were not experiencing Speyside, Sir!
A fine dram by your account no less.
Two more accessible Glenglassaugh are currently available, in limited numbers, from their online ship. I fancy the Tennessee Barrels myself!

Neil

Comment on At long last…Mackinlay’s Shackleton whisky replica by Pizaro

Pizaro — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:38:00 +0000

I agree that this is a great whiskey and that the finish is full and fine. I got to try it, twice, at a tasting yesterday, and I immediately bought one of the three bottles available. Richard Paterson has blended another winner here. I like some of the Dalmores, the Castle Leod in particular, but this is my favorite dram yet from the hand of Paterson. A “second edition” will be released soon, I hear.

Comment on At long last…Mackinlay’s Shackleton whisky replica by Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:18:40 +0000

I guess I must be missing something in the marketing hype. It’s a replica of a Scotch from on of the Shackelford Antartic expidition. The original bottle was a 15 year old scotch. They got this Scotch in 2010, copied it, aged it 15 years and it’s for sale in 2012? They obvioulsy blended a bunch of different aged scotches to try to replicate the taste. I hope in 15 years we will have an authentic “Shackeford” Scotch (and I’m in on that one!)