SMOS Caol Ila 1991 18 Year

I’m a big Caol Ila fan, starting with the 12 year standard expression. When I first started getting into Islay malts, trying to figure out what to make of the strong, tarry, oily notes of Laphroaig and Ardbeg, I tried Caol Ila and was immediately impressed by the ashy coal smoke finish. The citrus also seemed to compliment it well. There just wasn’t anything negative going on there. My favorite Caol Ila so far isn’t actually labeled as a Caol Ila…it’s the Port Askaig 17 year by Specialty Drinks, sister company to The Whisky Exchange. When the opportunity came up to get a sample of the Single Malts of Scotland (SMOS) Caol Ila 18 year, distilled in 1991, I jumped on it [Thanks Tim!]. SMOS is another range bottled by Specialty Drinks, and seems to be well regarded. This bottle currently sells for £47.82 excluding VAT, and also currently comes with a free tasting glass (a special deal for any SMOS purchase).

Tasting Notes

Caol ila 1991 18 Year old (Specialty Drinks SMOS); Cask# 194/200; 56.1%

Comments:

I really like this whisky. I was surprised to find the citrus turned down a couple of notches from other Caol Ilas I’ve had, but the great mouth feel and long, smoky finish are a real treat. What especially stands out is the purity of the peat smoke finish. I’ve had younger high-peat whiskies (like Kilchoman) that have an almost one-note ash smoke finish, but they all have a youthful, “spirity” counterpart.  Not here. The only thing keeping this from an A rating in my book is that the nose could be more expressive, and it’s not super complex (but not completely one-note either). As a fan of the Caol Ila brand of peat smoke, and big, cask-strength palate attacks, I’d rate this in the B+ range. I think I need to buy a bottle of this.

Rating

This was a big enough sample that I was able to taste it over three sessions. I’m going to go ahead and do the full rating thing…

• Score: 88/100 points (B+) [My personal score relative to other whiskies I've tried]
• Bottom Line: A little muted on the nose, but great mouth feel and gets my tongue all a-tingle. Brilliant ashy, coal-dust, peat-smoke finish if you’re into that sort of thing.
• Rate higher if: You’re a huge peat-head, and the palate/finish are much more important than the nose.
• Rate lower if: The muted nose is going to bug you; you want more than peat smoke on the finish.
• Value: The Whisky Exchange is selling this SMOS 18 year for the same price as the standard distillery 18 year. Given that I like the standard 12 better than the 18, and I like this SMOS 18 better than the 12 [OB 18 < OB 12 < SMOS 18], I’d call this a good value. A special treat to share with your peat-smoke loving friends. Only 620 bottles available.

Comparisons

I sampled this alone, and along side Caol Ila 12 (43%), Port Askaig 17 (46%) and Lagavulin 12 (57.9%). The family resemblance with the other Caol Ilas is there, but the big ABV difference separates them, and the citrus influence is much bigger in the lower proof whiskies. Also, the Port Askaig 17 offers up just as big of a smoky finish, but it’s more complex. The only thing the PA 17 lacks is the big mouth feel from the high ABV. PA 17 is the first whisky review where I tried to start doing ratings. I gave it an 89…probably should have been a 90.

Frankly, I think the profile of this SMOS 18 year is closest to the Lagavulin 12, though the Laga 12 is more expressive on the nose, and has just a hint of “youth” on the peat smoke finish. The feel in the mouth is very similar, as is the focus on ashy peat smoke, with other flavors toned down in comparison. I’d rate the Laga 12 a point or two higher for additional expressiveness on the nose, and perhaps a touch more complexity.

Other Opinions

I can’t find any reviews of this particular bottling…not even on the Whisky Exchange site. However, Serge at WHISKYFUN.COM rated two SMOS 16 Year expressions (here and here), as well as a 17 Year, all from 1991 and bottled in 2007/2008. You can see that Serge also mentions a toned down nose on the 17 year, which seems to have carried over into this one. He rates the 17 year at 85 points, marking it down because of the nose, but it sure sounds like he enjoyed it more than that.

Kilchoman, the 8th distillery on Islay, does not have any expressions available in the United States yet, but if you act fast upon a new release, you can place orders and have them shipped from the UK. By “act fast,” I mean make sure you either have one reserved ahead of time, or place an order the day of release. It’s looking like they plan to do 3 or 4 limited (8,500 to 10,000 bottles) releases per year. The next release will be coming out in March. I’ve already written a few blog posts about Kilchoman, including a review if the Inaugural release. In November, Kilchoman came out with their second official wide-release bottling, called the “Autumn 2009 Release.”

In this blog post, I’ll compare these two releases (thanks to Jason at WHISKYhost for the Autumn 2009 sample). I actually have a bottle of this release now, but haven’t decided if/when to open it yet [I know...don't become an evil collector ]. The Inaugural was matured for approximately 3 years and then finished for 5 months in Oloroso sherry casks. The Autumn 2009 release was also matured for 3 years, then finished for 3 months in Oloroso sherry casks. Additionally, there is one refill bourbon cask mixed into the Autumn vatting.

Kilchoman Inaugural vs Kilchoman Autumn 2009

Tasting Notes

Kilchoman Inaugural Release: See notes in this previous post.

Kilchoman Autumn 2009 Release; OB; 46%; Approximately $60

Comments:

This is really good, and the sherry finish provides some very obvious added complexity. The spiciness that’s added to this release reminds me of how the Madeira finish impacts the latest Balvenie 17 year. The palate seemed a little more tame than I expected…I guess that came with some of the smoothing on the nose. However, the finish is lengthy, with plenty of smoke for the peat lover. As always, I won’t provide a number score when I’m only tasting a sample, but looking through my scoring spreadsheet, it’s probably in the 84/85 range relative to the other whiskies I’ve had. A solid B in my book, and amazing for a three year!

Note: I gave the Inaugural Release 84 points in my previous review. I had commented that it felt like an 81 pointer, but gave it 3 bonus points for the long, peaty finish. In hindsight, given that I’m not inclined to go higher with the Autumn Release score, I would probably subtract one or two of those bonus points for the Inaugural.

Comparing to the Inaugural Release

I had already read other Kilchoman reviews, and people seemed to be liking the Autumn release better than the Inaugural. Still, I was surprised at how much the nose had changed. Maybe I should have suspected as much when I put the bottles next to each other and saw how much darker the Autumn release is. Given that the Autumn release actually spent two months LESS in sherry casks at the end, they surely did something different with regards to first-fill vs refill?

Two things stand out immediately when comparing the Autumn release to the Inaugural. First is the lack of “egginess” that I was picking up on the Inaugural. It didn’t really bother me much when trying the Inaugural alone, but head-to-head, I really appreciate the perceived maturity of the Autumn release. Second, the extra spices in the Autumn release make it much less of a one trick pony. I mean, this is still a whisky for peat lovers, but that’s not all it has to offer. The one area that the Inaugural beats out the Autumn release is in the impact on the tongue. It’s more drying and has more pepper, giving a very enjoyable boost that I wish was still there in the Autumn release. Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

I did discover something new about the Inaugural release when doing the head-to-head…a very slight farminess on the nose and finish that I had never picked up before.

Other Opinions

• WHISKYhost – Jason at WHISKYhost did a comparison right after the Autumn 2009 release came out. He also liked this release better than the Inaugural.
• WhiskyNotes – Ruben likes the Autumn release better, mentioning a lack of “new make” notes. He also finds something soapy on the palate, which I did not pick up. His notes pretty much nailed it. I find myself agreeing with his notes more than any other reviewer.
• Whisky Israel – Gal, over at Whisky Israel REALLY likes this release. But then, he’s a total peat freak.
• Master of Malt – Some nice tasting notes on the Master of Malt web site. I bought didn’t get my bottle from them, but I heard that their buying experience is fantastic.

Back of Kilchoman Autumn 2009 release box

Brora 30 (2007). A bit darker than the 2009 release.

This is a follow-up post to my previous one, in which I sampled the Brora 30 year 2009 release. I just got my hands on a sample of the 2007 release (thanks Bryan!) and wanted to share my notes on this one as well. However, what I really want to draw your attention to is an excellent “Say What!?” guest post on the WHISKYhost blog by Ruben of WhiskyNotes.be fame. He talks about this concept of “farmy” notes in a whisky, which on the surface might sound off-putting, but is actually considered a desirable quality by many whisky drinkers.

Ruben notes [you checked out the "Say What!?" link above, right?] that in a  sherry-matured whisky, any existing farmy notes can be amplified by the possible presence of sulphur. I think this is what happened when I noted a pungent “dairy farm” component on the nose of Lagavulin 21. At times, it was a bit too much for me. As you’ll see, the Brora 30 does not reach this extreme.

Tasting Notes

Note: I’ll be referencing the 2009 release, as well as the Signatory Brora that I talked about in the previous post.

Brora 30 Year (2007); OB; 55.7%; Bottle 2814 of 2958; $400+

Comments:

Yes, this 2007 release is more farmy than the 2009 version. However, this is still one cool, sophisticated customer. Not nearly as rowdy as the Signatory 21 year. I didn’t really notice any mint in this one, which is a HUGE part of the Signatory profile, and still subtly present in the 2009 release. If you’re familiar with the peating level of the standard Clynelish and Oban releases, the peat in this Brora is stronger than that. However, it’s not as strong as younger, standard Islay or Talisker releases. 30 years of maturation probably has something to do with that.

I’m really glad I got to try this release. From other descriptions, I feared that I might find this one off-putting. However, the farmy qualities are not such that it makes you snap your head back from the glass. Rather, it puts you in an outdoors frame of mind, perhaps being at or near a ranch. That, combined with the rich vanilla, mature wood notes and peat makes the overall experience very enjoyable. I would rank this very close to the 2009 release. Another A- in my book.

Other Opinions

• WhiskyNotes.be – Along with his “Say What!?” guest post, Ruben posted a review of this Brora 2007 release on his own blog. He clearly likes it better than the 2009 release. I’m still on the fence, and it might come down to mood.
• WHISKYFUN.COM – (Scroll down to the “Bonus” review) Serge also rates this 2007 version a couple of points higher than the 2009 version. Now I’m really starting to wish I still had a little of the 2009 left from last week for a head-to-head comparison.
• Malt Advocate – A short and sweet review by John Hansell, where he hands out 95 points and calls it “Brora at its finest.”
• whisky connosr – Here’s a review from somebody on connosr.com (I have an account there, where I keep a list of my open bottles). They found the peat and farm notes to be more in-your-face than I did.
• Whisky Bible – No online review link, but Jim Murray rated this one at 88.5. Good, but below the other Brora releases he has reviewed. He felt that the oak was a bit tired and “off.”

Brora 30 2009

I’m tasting the Brora 30 Year 2009 Special Release from Diageo via another 30 ml sample from whiskysamples.eu. I’ve been holding onto this sample for a few months until I got around to purchasing a bottle of Clynelish 14. Having seen other people refer to this 2009 release as being more Clynelish-like than previous 30 year old Broras, I wanted to see what that means. I have tried one other Brora before…a 21 year from Signatory. I like it, but don’t love it. Therefore, I’ve not been quite as anxious to get my hands on a Brora special release as I have been for the likes of Port Ellen, Talisker and Lagavulin. However, having now tried this expression, I realize that I SHOULD have been more anxious to try it.

Tasting Notes

Brora 30 Year (2009 Release); OB; 53.2%; 2652 Bottles

Comments:

What a wonderful whisky, showing obvious maturity and tons of subtle complexity. The rich butterscotch/vanilla and well controlled oak remind me of the Cragganmore 40 year I bought a while back (G&M Secret Stills 2.2). I’ve heard tales of oak taking over and ruining “old” whiskies, but that’s certainly not a problem here. I would love to have a bottle of the Brora 30 to pour a glass from at night and sit with over a long period, listening to classic jazz. Easily worth 90/91 points if I had more than a 30 ml sample to base my opinion on, so I’ll go with an A- letter rating.

Value:

I can’t fault the $400 price tag, as that’s not unusual for a 30 year ongoing releases, let alone one from a closed distillery like Brora. However, as good as this is, if I could pick just one 30 year old in this price range, it would be a stronger offering from the likes of Talisker or Lapharoaig. While the subtle peat in the Brora is exactly the kind I like, I felt like it was teasing me…urging me to seek out that characteristic in a fuller form. Of course, this is an entirely personal reaction.

Comparisons

I got a generous sample of a Signatory Brora 21 year from a friend a while back, and it surprised me with strong mint (as if mint has been infused into the whisky) and a sharp farmy quality. Comparing it side-by-side with this 30 year release, the 21 year isn’t nearly as sophisticated. I wonder if I would have noticed the light mint on the 30 year if I had never tasted this 21 year variant. Some folks would most likely prefer the more in your face nature of the Signatory 21 to the subtle charms of the Brora 30. If it was the peat that was turned up, I might bite, but with the mint and farmy qualities, I’m in the more subtle Brora 30 camp.

I also compared to Clynelish 14 (Clynelish being the active sister distillery to Brora). There certainly seem to be similarities in the underlying spirit. While the Brora struck me with butterscotch first, possibly turning to fruit later, the Clynelish seemed more fruity up front, but I could imagine some butterscotch there. I get a little bit of mint in the Clynelish as well. Clynelish has a little smoke, but lacks the earthy, Talisker-like peat that I got from the Brora (at least in side-by-side comparison). It’s no competition for the Brora 30, but the Clynelish is very nice for the price. I think a slight increase in peating level would do it wonders.

Other Opinions

The guys that actually know what they’re talking about are saying this is a less “farmy” Brora than previous 30 year special releases. For me, this one has just the right amount of that particular trait. It sounds like the 2008 25 year and this 30 year are the ones for me (if I suddenly come into some money). Although, I’d love to taste one of the old, more peaty Brora releases (distilled in the early ’70s?).

• Whiskyfun – 91 points from Serge. More Clynelish and less Brora than previous bottlings, he says, but still excellent.
• Malt Advocate – John Hansell really digs this one, and comments on how well it holds up for its age. 93 points!
• WhiskyNotes – Just when I was wondering if the mint was all in my head, good ‘ol Ruben came through with a similar interpretation. 90 points, which means a lot coming from him!
• Whisky For Everyone – Tasted along side the other Diageo Special Releases, Matt and Karen also noted a butterscotch-like sweetness and really enjoyed this expression.
• caskstrength.net – Tasted along side the Talisker special releases, they went the citrus route, over my interpretation of butterscotch. Also stating that Springbank lovers should enjoy this Brora.
• The Whisky Exchange Blog – Perhaps a little closer to my butterscotch…here we get condensed milk and tinned pears. Tim prefers this year’s Brora over last year’s 25 year and the 2007 30 year.
• Whisky Whisky Whisky – Over on the W3 forums, butephoto praised the Brora 30. It sounds like he might have had a 30 ml sample like mine.

The Single Malt & Scotch Whisky Extravaganza (SMSWE?) is co-sponsored by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society of America (SMWSA) and Robb Report. If you plan to attend, make sure you get the discounted ticket rate. There are a bunch of whisky bloggers and web sites posting details of the event, and offering discount codes to get the SMWSA member rate of $120, rather than the full non-member price of $135.

The SMWSA provided me with a discount code to share as well: SH2010. Just go to the Tickets page on the event web site and put SH2010 in the promo code field.

Details

The Whisky Extravaganza will be coming to 13 major cities in the United States (unfortunately, Phoenix, AZ isn’t one of them): Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Denver, New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Fort Lauderdale, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Here is the official invite information provided to me by a SMWSA representative:

Ladies and Gentlemen are cordially invited to enjoy a connoisseur’s evening featuring over 100 rare & exceptional single malt and Scotch whiskies. The evening includes a delicious dinner buffet as well as a selection of premium imported cigars for our guests’ later enjoyment. The Single Malt & Scotch Whisky Extravaganza brings the discerning enthusiast the opportunity to sample the participating whiskies in a sophisticated and elegant environment with genuine camaraderie and knowledgeable representatives from each participating distillery.

From the event web site, here’s the official “what’s included” (for the $120/$135 entry fee) list:

• Taste over 100 single malt & Scotch whiskies
• Savor a sumptuous buffet dinner
• Premium imported cigars for your later enjoyment
• Robb Report magazines for attendees
• A souvenir tasting glass
• Raffle prizes

My own additional note: If you plan to taste the 100+ whiskies on hand, make sure you get a ride. In fact, think about being proactive and taking an Bambulance ambulance to the event:

Tour Schedule:

The full tour schedule can be found here: http://www.singlemaltextravaganza.com/schedule.html

Here’s the Spring schedule:

A pour of HP 'Earl magnus'

Cool people might drink whisky, but drinking whisky does not make you cool. If you want to see what the cool kids think of HP Earl Magnus, check out WhiskyFun.com or WHISKYhost.com and get their take on this new special release from Highland Park. In this blog post, I will share my initial impressions of this 15 year, 52.6% special release, then I’m going to hit you with more pictures and packaging details than most self-respecting whisky drinkers would care to see. Basically, it’s a post for [geeks] whisky fanatics like me. This isn’t a full “review”, as I like to spend several tasting sessions establishing my thoughts on profile, and evaluating overall satisfaction level. For more background on the Earl Magnus release, check out this previous blog post.

Opening the bottle in true geek fashion

Having decided to go ahead and open my bottle of Magnus alone, rather than wait for a get-together with fellow whisky drinkers, I still wanted to spice up the experience. I mean come on, the packaging for this thing is SO Glen Wonka, it almost makes you feel guilty to be a drinker rather than a collector.

Ever since I saw the beautiful box that Earl Magnus is packaged in (pictures below), I had visions of the monolith and accompanying music at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey [I know, the Glenmorangie Signet box is the one that actually looks like a monolith]. So it seemed appropriate to play Also sprach Zarathustra (Richard Strauss) in the background while I unlatched the box, took out the bottle, removed the wax seal and popped the cork. Here, try it for yourself and see what you think:

Tasting Notes

Highland Park Earl Magnus Edition One;  15 Years; 52.6%

This expression is matured primarily in American Oak sherry casks, with a few Spanish sherry casks thrown in to create the right amount of sweetness (from HP via Twitter).

Comments: Well, I suppose I DID build it up a bit much, what with taking a ton of pictures and opening the bottle to music. However, it came pretty close to living up to such over-hype. I’m very satisfied with this whisky so far, and the combined taste and presentation make the $120 (shipped) I paid seem very reasonable. It fits very nicely between the standard 18 and 21 year bottlings in value. I look forward to spending more time with this bottle, but right now, I’d say it’s right on the B+/A- border in my scoring system (see the side bar).

Comparisons

I did do some brief comparisons with the standard 12, 15, 18, and 21 year, as well as a Scott’s Selection 25 year. It was interesting how, when nosed side-by-side, all of the other expressions seemed slightly farmy relative to the Magnus. It was in these comparisons that the honey and vanilla became even richer (reminiscent of The Balvenie Madeira Cask), and the sprinkle of cinnamon came through in the Earl Magnus. The Smoke on the 21 year and Scott’s 25 year was much more obvious, both on the nose and the finish.

Having worked my way through most of my standard HP 15 year 43% bottle, and doing this comparison, I’ve come to the inclusion that my original rating of 88 for the standard bottling was a point too high. There’s definitely a bit more separation between that one and the 18 and older expressions, as well as this Magnus special edition.

Pictures and Packaging Details (with info about the this release)

Click on any of the pictures to see them full sized.

• The old-fashioned bottle making process results in an imperfect stance.

Leaning tower of Magnus

• Left side of the box, with brass hinges and info about the bottling:

Magnus Box Left

The Highland Park archive is home to many venerable bottles; one in particular, dating from around 1870, fits perfectly as an inspiration for celebrating the life of Earl Magnus. We worked with Stolzle Flaconnage, Highland Park’s specialist glassware supplier, to ignore 150 years of technological advances in order to create a bottle complete with flaws and defects consistent with those of the original.

In 1870 the bottle would have been hand-gathered, mouth-blown into a wooden mould and kept wet to prevent combustion. The raw materials would have been sand and limestone along with naturally occurring sodium sulphate. Contaminants broadly determined the colour of the glass and a little effort would have been made to control capacity or functionality so long as it did not break.

This modern bottle matches the original in almost all regards other than that it is made in a factory, doesn’t leak, and conforms to all applicable legislation. The modern moulds echo the flaws in the hand-made one from two centuries ago; advanced techniques were used to generate bubbles and colour consistency in the glass. The artisans of 1870 would be most impressed with our efforts made in search of imperfection.

The image of Earl Magnus on the original label of the 1870 archive bottle was inspired by an ancient stained glass window. The impact of the label is shown to maximum effect by the development of this simple, open fronted and etched wooden box.

Highland Park Earl Magnus Edition One is a perfectly-balanced natural strength bottling of hand-selected casks containing Scotch Whisky distilled at Highland Park Distillery in 1994 and earlier years. To appreciate it fully, take your time and add a little fresh still water – a couple of drops at a time. This will release the subtle aromas and reveal the complexity of a single malt that has been made within a mile of St. Magnus Cathedral since 1798.

Whisky has been made in the traditional manner at Highland Park for more than 210 years. Released in 2009 this bottling is a tribute to the skilled and dedicated craftsmen who built the St. Magnus Cathedral.

For more information visit www.highlandpark.co.uk

• Right side of box, with brass latch and information about Earl Magnus:

Magnus Box Right

Earl Magnus Erlendsson was born in 1075 when the Orkney Islands belonged to Norway. His Viking ancestors were terrifying warriors whose code of heroism, hatred and honour through vengeance framed their brutal lives. Into this world came Magnus, a man unlike any other Orkney Earl, spreading Christianity.

The pease-loving Magnus was unlike his cousin Haakon who remained imbued with the fighting spirit. Haakon was envious and ambitious, striving for self-glory. Their history is a classic tale of the struggle of good versus evil; the treachery and tragedy of the life of Earl Magnus accounts for his prominence in northern literature.

Magnus reigned jointly with his cousin Haakon from 1108 until 1115 when their followers fell out. Peace was negotiated and the Earls agreed to meet bringing only two ships each. The treacherous Haakon arrived with eight ships and captured his saintly cousin. The Norwegian chieftains decided that one of the Earls must die. After the refusal of his standard-bearer to undertake the task, Haakon ordered his cook to kill Magnus which he did by striking him on the head with an axe.

The life of Magnus is celebrated in two Icelandic Sagas and in the Orkneyinga Saga; he was buried where he died and legend has it the rocky area around the site immediately became a green field.

The fame of Magnus, canonized only 20 years after his death, has been maintained by the stunning cathedral built by his nephew in Kirkwall; St Magnus Cathedral was referred to as ‘incontestably the most glorious monument of the Norwegian dominion to be found in Scotland’ by J. Moodie Heddle, Orkney and Shetland, 1920.

Work began in 1137 and continued over several hundred years. In 1917 a secret cavity was found in one of the columns; in it was a box containing ancient bones including an axe-wounded skull. The influence of Earl Magnus spread far and wide; the forename became popular in Orkney, notably in the case of Magnus Eunson, a man forever associated with the founding of Highland Park distillery in 1798.

• Back of bottle, with raised logo and wording:

Magnus bottle (back)

• Highland Park logo on bottle:

Magnus bottle HP logo

• Bottle top with wax seal. The ribbon hanging out cuts easily through the wax. Nothing like trying to open one of those freaking Aberlour A’bunadh bottles.

Magnus bottle top

• An imperfect bottle surface and concave bottom, mimicking the style created in 1870:

Magnus bottle surface texture

• Air bubbles in the bottle (upper middle):

Magnus bottle air bubbles

Signed Bulleit Btl

As I prepared to leave work yesterday, I checked my Twitter feed and saw the reminder from Sportsman’s Fine Wine and Spirits that a free Bulleit Bourbon tasting was taking place from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. I was kind of tired and almost ignored it, but then…I’ve passed that unique flask-shaped bottle with raised lettering many times and wondered about the spirit inside. Why not take a few minutes to see what it’s all about? I’m glad I went, as company founder Tom Bulleit was there talking about bourbon and signing bottles. Not only was he a very entertaining and likable gentleman, but I also got the scoop on some new works in progress by this [currently] single-expression brand!

Tom talks about the Bulleit History

Tom bulleit at Sportsman's in Scottsdale, AZ

It’s Mr. Bulleit’s Great, Great Grandfather Augustus who is credited with formulating the original Bulleit whiskey recipe. He came to America with his French family in 1805, taking root in New Orleans. In the 1825 to 1830 time frame, he worked his way up to Louisville, Kentucky where he married and ran a couple of taverns. He also started making whiskey, which he sold locally, and would also take barrels back to New Orleans to sell there.

Tom Bulleit mentioned that he DID work at a distillery when he was young (he’s currently 67 years young), but his father was never really involved in the business. Tom went on to be a marine and a successful lawyer. However, he had always dreamed of resurrecting the family whiskey recipe and starting his own business. He said his father wasn’t too keen about the idea, but Tom felt compelled to follow his passion. He founded Bulleit and ran it as a family business until 1997, when they partnered with Seagrams. Diageo bought out most of Seagrams a few years later and Bulleit became their small-batch bourbon. He said that Diageo has been great to work for/with. They can still be very entrepreneurial and independent, but have access to vast resources.

The Bulleit Bourbon recipe

Now, the story goes that the Augustus recipe, after his death in 1860, was passed along in the family, and it was this recipe that Tom used when he founded Bulleit Bourbon in 1987. The current Bulleit recipe calls for 68% corn, 4% malted barley, and 28% rye. This is a significant increase in rye relative to other bourbons. What I found interesting was Tom’s description of the original Augustus recipe. He said it was originally about two thirds rye and one third corn…not technically a bourbon by today’s standards.

So…I guess the “original recipe” thing is a bit of a loose interpretation, with the key being that, as a bourbon, it has a very high rye content. Of course there are other factors involved in the recipe. Apparently they are very specific about how the grains should be grown. They also have a method of filtering the distillate so that they’re only using ethyl alcohol and none of the phenols (something to do with temperature and specific gravity…I took his word for it). This helps give it a very smooth character. They mature the barrels for at least six years, at which point they start checking them for “proper” maturity. The barrels used to make the final product are between six and eight years of age.

Tasting Bulleit

Bulleit Bourbon Frontier Whiskey; 45% ABV (90 proof)

Comments:

I expected the 28% rye content to really give this a pop, but it’s quite gentle. It’s fascinating to experience that pepper and high level of dryness on the tongue, but have the rest of the experience be one of subtle toffee sweetness, vanilla and light oak. Bulleit compares price-wise with Knob Creek and Maker’s Mark. I’m having difficulty organizing their profiles in a linear fashion, though. The Bulleit lies in between the other two in relative sweetness and spiciness, but it’s lighter than either of the other bourbons. That lightness is similar to that of Gentleman Jack Tennessee Whiskey, but unlike the GJ, you can tell this one is whiskey, not flavored water.

My tasting notes are based on the in-store tasting last night, and another dram tonight. I’ll hold off on trying to rate this until I’ve had more experience with it. While I’m not going to give up Island or Islay Scotch for this bourbon, my initial impression is that it is a good value if you can find it for a little over $20. I’ll pull it out when I’m looking for something light, but I still want to get an entertaining tingle on the tongue (both from the dryness and the pepper spice).

Bulleit in cocktails

I can’t really offer much when it comes to bourbon cocktails. I like mine neat or with a few drops of room temperature water. Mr. Bulleit also indicated a preference for drinking whiskey neat or on the rocks. He fully supports everyone’s right to create whatever mixes they see fit, but what truly gives him pleasure is seeing somebody enjoy the profile that they worked so hard to create. He did offer up one particular cocktail recommendation. He said this ONLY works with Bulleit [with a sly smile on his face]:

• A shot of Bulleit Bourbon
• 1.5 – 2 oz tonic
• A squeeze of lemon

That’s it…very simple, but he says it’s great. I’ll have to pull a lemon off of our tree this weekend and give it a try.

Conclusion

Signed Bulleit Btl (back)

It was a pleasure meeting Tom Bulleit, and he was incredibly generous with his time. I had monopolized a bit of that time towards the end of the tasting, and when I apologized, he said no apologies necessary. It was a pleasure to talk bourbon with people who are passionate about whiskey. I believed him. He’s a good salesman, but he also seems very humble, down to earth, and appreciative of his opportunity to follow his passion and share it with others. His bourbon is well crafted, refined, and very drinkable. If you’re scared off by the likes of Knob Creek, don’t be frightened by the “Frontier Whiskey” on the label. I’d think of that as more of a reference to Augustus Bulleit’s travels between Tennessee and New Orleans (with whiskey in tow) than to the character of the bourbon itself.

Oh, and I mentioned at the beginning that I got the scoop on some exciting new products they’re working on. However, when I mentioned that I have a whisk(e)y blog, he asked me to hold off putting anything in writing so that they can have first crack at sharing the news. However, I’m free to blog about it in four months if they haven’t gone public with anything. At least that gives you an idea of the time frame they’re looking at. We’re not talking about something that’s years away from coming to fruition.

Penderyn Welsh Whisky

What do they know about making whisky in Wales? Quite a bit, apparently. Check out this awesome Penderyn Distillery Visit blog post over at Whisky for Everyone, based on their recent tour. This isn’t just a copycat operation Penderyn has going…they’ve come up with their own unique whisky-making process, from the mash used to the unique combination pot/column still used for distillation. In this Malt Advocate blog post from October, 2008, Ed Minning of Penderyn stated that the average age (at that time) of Penderyn was 4.75 to 5.5 years, with eventual “peak” maturation to take place in 6.5 to 7 years.

Disclaimer: The bottle I’m reviewing here is another freebie, but it was NOT sent to me specifically for review. I just happened to win one of the many contests that Penderyn has held on their Facebook page. Actually, I might have been the first contest winner, after which they changed their contest rules to UK-only participants because of difficulties in shipping alcohol to the United States. Many thanks to the folks at Penderyn for jumping through the necessary hoops to get my bottle to me, though.

How did I win it? Well, one of the people I follow on Twitter recommended following Penderyn there. I did so, and the first tweet I saw from them said that there was 5 minutes left in their contest to win a 700ml bottle of Penderyn. Just complete the following sentence: “I thought Penderyn was just another whisky until…” I quickly followed the link to their Facebook page and entered:

I thought Penderyn was just another whisky until I tasted this charmer with its sweet, fruity, spicy balance. A perfect example of the Scottish heritage that…What? It’s Welsh?! I must go there.”

I certainly didn’t expect to win anything, but thought somebody might find it amusing. To my surprise, whoever was picking the winner really did have a sense of humor and selected my entry!

Tasting Notes

Penderyn Aur Cymru NAS; 46%; Bottled Nov. 2009

This is the standard Penderyn [pronunciation] expression, finished in Madeira casks. The label says “Aur Cymru”, which means Welsh Gold. It’s a NAS (No Age Statement) whisky, but based on the Malt Advocate link in the intro, I’m guessing it’s at least 5 1/2 years old.

Comments:

I talk about tropical fruits, especially mango and melons, because that’s the closest I’ve been able to come so far to describing a particular part of Penderyn profile. It doesn’t quite tell the whole story, though. There’s some other element, maybe grassy or floral, that plays a part in making this a totally unique whisky relative to the others I’ve tried. I know they talk about Penderyn maturing quickly, but I’d definitely be interested in tasting an older expression in the future, as this still feels a tad on the young side.

I like this Penderyn, but for me, it’s a mood whisky. Maybe an afternoon or early evening dram when I want something light on the palate, but with a bit of a zing to it. It’s light, but it’s certainly not boring. So, is it a novelty or the real deal? I’d say both! It’s novel, in that it is unique, but I think it has staying power…the real deal.

Rating

• Score: 81/100 points (B-) [My personal score relative to other whiskies I've tried]
• Bottom line: Light and tropical, with a bitter-sweet finish. A unique whisky likely to evoke mixed reactions. Definitely worth a try to see where you stand.
• Score higher if: When choosing a Jelly Belly pack, you go for the tropical mix; you prefer marmalade over jam.
• Score lower if: You’re not looking for something “different” in your whisky; you don’t like sweet whiskies.
• Value: Penderyn is $60 here in Arizona. I’m a bit torn on the value proposition. I rate this similar to $35-$40 whiskies I’ve tried and liked. However, I understand that this is a relatively small distillery and they probably can’t achieve the economies of scale that a Glenfiddich or Glenlivet can. I really think any whisky lover should try this at least once, though. You could try a 50ml sample to see if you want a full bottle.

Comparisons

Normally in this section, I would talk about other expressions by the same distillery, or whiskies I’ve tried that offer a similar profile. In this case, I have nothing to offer in either of those areas. However, I could compare this Penderyn expression to The Glenlivet 12 year in terms of overall level of enjoyment. The Glenlivet is more gentle on the nose and finish, with a focus on honey and floral notes. It’s VERY drinkable, and would be less divisive than the Penderyn when used as an introductory malt. The Penderyn, with its tropical and bitter-sweet profile, is equally smooth on the palate, but there is a sharpness on the nose and finish that keeps me alert. We’re comparing apples to melons here, but I get similar enjoyment out of both, depending on my mood. I think that’s actually pretty strong praise for the Penderyn.

Other Opinions

I’ve talked about the unique qualities of the Penderyn profile, and that uniqueness seems to lead to quite a difference in opinion by whisky afficianados. I can certainly understand this being a divisive whisky, but I definitely recommend trying for yourself to see where you stand.

• Whiskyfun.com – A 2004 bottling of Penderyn is one of the few expressions to be completely panned by Serge, coming in at a lowly 45 points. Now, the one he tried was probably closer to a 3 year, so he may like recent bottlings more, but I would be surprised to find him suddenly rating it in the upper 80s or 90s. Note that he also got melons on the finish, likening it to a melon liqueur.
• Jim Murray (Whisky Bible link) – No direct review link, but I just wanted to point out that Jim Murray LOVES Penderyn. He’s been sampling and rating the releases monthly since 2007, with scores ranging from the mid 80s to the mid 90s, with most being upper 80s and above. The scores have varied from month to month, so it’s not just a progression based on maturation. It sounds like the flavor can vary a bit from batch to batch.
• Whisky for Everyone – In addition to the link a the top of this post, Whisky for Everyone has posted a full review of the Penderyn Madeira. They mention an herbal grassy note that might not be to everyone’s liking. This is probably the same element of the profile that I was having difficulty describing.
• whisky-pages – They give the Penderyn a good rating, but feel the Madeira might be masking an underlying immaturity that keeps peeking through.
• caskstrength.net – A good, but not great review of a Penderyn bottled one year before mine. They admit, though, that they were coming off a string of Islay whiskies before trying this one, which might have influenced their reaction to the lighter profile.
• Edinburgh Whisky Blog – A comparison/competition between Penderyn and Highland Park 12 back in 2007. The Penderyn came pretty close!
• Whisky Israel – Gal tries the Penderyn and really likes it. He noticed the oakiness on the nose, and also mentions melons in the profile.
• Dr Whisky – [Update] Dr. Whisky just added a blog post on this very expression. He finds it to be light and refreshing; an alternative to ordering a round of Jamesons in a bar. Interesting take, given the distinctive flavor in this malt.
• Drink Hacker – [Update] Another recent review, Drink Hacker also notes the bitter-sweet finish. They find some faults, but give bonus points for “moxie”, with a final rating of B+.

The Balvenie 17 Madeira Cask

This past holiday season was a great time to be an amateur whisky blogger. Marketing companies are into social media big-time these days. In addition to starting up Facebook pages, blogs and company-owned Twitter accounts, they’re reaching out to “real people” with these same types of accounts to get their message out. Around the same time I was contacted about receiving samples of JW Blue and Chivas 18 for review, I was contacted by a PR company representing The Balvanie, wondering if I was interested in trying out this year’s 17 year special release, finished in Madeira [fortified Portuguese wine] casks. Yes!

On December 23rd, a couple of weeks after I was told the sample would be shipped, a good sized package arrived that required signing. It was my sample, and I soon discovered why it had taken a little while to get here: the Liquor Fairy [amusing disclaimer mechanism from The Pegu Blog] had turned my small review sample bottle into a full 75oml retail bottle of The Balvenie 17 Year Madeira. Merry Christmas to me, and thank-you Balvenie! [Officially, it's "The Balvenie", but I'll probably fall back on just plain Balvenie much of the time]

Tasting Notes

Ok, after 2 weeks of a head/chest cold followed by a couple of healthy days, and then a week with a stomach virus…here, finally, are my tasting notes on this Christmas present. Not that you were dying to hear my take on it, but it’s been frustrating for me.

The Balvenie Madeira Cask Aged 17 Years; 43%; 2009; $120

Comments: I was struck by the consistent story this dram tells from first nosing to finish. That doesn’t mean it’s overly simple, though. While nothing particularly new was introduced on the palate and finish, nothing was really taken away from the multi-dimensional nose, either. This whisky is very smooth and accessible, and should appeal to a wide audience. Also, [not taste-related, but...] I love the Balvenie bottle shape. It makes a great glug-glug-glug sound when pouring.

Rating

• Score: 87/100 (B) I’ll still reach for a peated malt most of the time (even lightly peated like HP), but for a Speyside that’s not heavily sherried, this ranks pretty high for me.
  
• Bottom Line: Very impressive Madeira cask integration, providing an extremely balanced and accessible whisky. The Madeira finish provides some nice spices that you don’t get every day with a Speyside scotch, without blocking out the fruitiness of the spirit. Enjoyable from start to finish.
• Score higher if: You’re a big Balvenie fan to begin with, and/or Speyside is your favorite scotch region.
• Score lower if: It’s all about peat and/or big sherry for you. This one won’t change your mind about more subtle Speyside offerings.
• Value: This is definitely a step above the younger, very nicely priced Balvenie expressions. I think the Edinburgh Whisky Blog hit the nail on the head when they put this in their Christmas Gift Guide, as it would make an excellent gift, and appeal to both the occasional drinker and the connoisseur. At $120, though, I don’t see a lot of people buying this by the case. To consider the premium Bavenie expressions “values”, I’d want to see the Bavenie 21 year Port Wood come back down below $150, and these 17 year releases at or below $100.

Comparisons

Younger Balvenies

I did some direct comparisons with the 15 year Single Barrel and 12 year Doublewood Balvenie expressions. You can definitely taste the family resemblance when comparing to the Doublewood, which brings fresh apples, vanilla, some spices and a bit more oak to the nose. The Madeira takes this base profile to the next level. Everything is richer and smoother. There’s less fresh oak, but the vanilla is much richer. The 17 year also brings those additional spices from the Madeira cask. As for the 15 year, it’s got HUGE fresh oak. I like oak with stronger whiskies (Laphroaig QC comes to mind), but it’s almost too much for me here. I definitely like the way the finish tones this down in the 17 year Madeira expression. I also find the 15 SB to be much more “spirity” than the Madeira Cask, with the alcohol being more prominent on the nose.

Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban

My first dram of Balvenie 17 year Madeira immediately called to mind the Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban, a 12 year finished in port casks. Madeira and port casks, both having previously housed fortified wines, seem to offer similar contributions to the whisky, at least where the spices are concerned. I’d love to see a review of this expression by Serge over at Whiskyfun. He doesn’t seem to be a big fan of the Glenmorangie finished expressions. However, to my [admittedly much less experienced] palate, this finished Balvenie feels very nicely integrated and balanced. Much less “constructed” than the Glenmo bottlings. That being said, I like the Quinta Ruban very much, and it does manage to scratch the same itch for me that the Balvenie Madeira does at a 60% discount in price.

Other opinions

There even more reviews than this out there, but here are some that stood out to me:

• What Does John Know (Malt Advocate): – John was impressed by the balance of this whisky and awarded it a very impressive 90 points. I probably could have just copied and pasted his notes to represent my own findings.
• Dr. Whisky: The good Dr. considers this one of the best in the Balvenie 17 year series.
• whisky-pages: They also mentioned the shift from fresh fruit with their “stewed apples” reference.
• Edinburgh Whisky Blog: Definitely some different references in the tasting notes, but I can see where they’re coming from.
• Drinkhacker: An A- rating, but with a disclaimer that some might be put off by the Madeira finish. Perhaps, but I still think this is an amazingly accessible whisky.
• discover whisky: Why wasn’t I aware of this blog already? I really like their notes in this review.

This blog post is really a follow-on to my recent post pointing out my new Google Docs ratings spreadsheet (link in the side bar). There are a couple of things that prompted me to continue the ratings discussion here. First, I’m still getting over a cold that has kept me from posting whisky tasting notes for the past 7 days. Second, I was just revisiting my trusty Malt Whisky Yearbook 2009 and read the following quote in the “Classifying Whisky” article by David Stirk:

Because scores are personal and very biased it is actually an arrogance to print them as it is the author stating: ‘This whisky is better than that whisky. Why? How dare you ask! Because I say so!’

Wow! Talk about forcing your personal bias on others (and putting words in their mouths). I decided to go to my favorite whisky ratings web site, WHISKYFUN.COM, and see what Serge has to say about his scoring system. I found a link in the sidebar to one of his E-pistles from Malt Maniacs #102 titled Serge’s Simple Tasting Tips. This is a great article on the topic of doing “serious” tastings. On the subject of scoring, he had this to say:

This is rather controversial matter… Some aficionados hate scores, some others will score even orange juice.
I do use scores myself, mostly because it’s the best way to remember to which extend I once liked a whisky without having to read my notes. But a score is not a judgment, it’s just a summing up of various feelings and likings.

Obviously, Serge isn’t trying to make a universal, objective statement with his ratings. His description very well summarizes my own feeling about doing ratings. It’s a way of summing up and tracking my whisky preferences over time. Why a particular score? There are corresponding notes explaining why, and I have yet to read or write any tasting notes that are likely to be paraphrased as “Because I say so!”

Let’s go ahead and assume that the majority of whisky hobbyists feel the same way as Serge when it comes to scores. They’re personal opinions at a point in time, and they’re likely to reflect any bias of the author. If we recognize that there is a bias, is it still appropriate to share our personal scores with others? I think so.

First, there is the obvious case where you find somebody whose preference seem very similar to yours for a particular kind of whisky. Once you’ve established such a connection, doesn’t it make sense to be interested in that person’s personal evaluation of whiskies you haven’t tried before?

As for bias, the key is getting to know a person’s preferences and taking them into account when you read their scores. I’m always on the lookout for “interesting”/different whiskies. One way such whiskies come to my attention is from an uncharacteristically high rating by a whisky enthusiast for a distillery not typically associated with their preferred tastes. Maybe I’m just too much of a whisky geek, but that kind of thing gets my heart rate up a little bit and makes me want to research that expression further.

Perhaps Mr. Stirk’s remark about arrogance in whisky rating is aimed more at the professional reviewer, such as Jim Murray. Admittedly, Mr. Murray comes across as a bit more “confident” than most others in his analysis. He states in his Whisky Bible that he’s honed his skills and ability to recognize certain traits in whiskies over 30 years, implying that he really DOES have a more objective viewpoint than most other whisky drinkers. Hey, I’m willing to give Mr. Murray the benefit of the doubt, and I appreciate the amount of time he’s invested into learning about and appreciating whisky. That doesn’t mean I have to treat his ratings differently than I do any others. It’s another source [with its own set of merits to consider] that I’ll compare against my own tasting impressions in order to help me pick my next bottle. I’m glad to have one person’s take on several thousand expressions available in an easy to browse reference.

Finally, I have this to say about ratings. If you’re looking for help picking a whisky, don’t forget to look beyond the number of stars, or points out of 100. Try to get familiar with the author so that you can apply a filter to their scores based on bias, experience, and relative consistency with your own findings. If you’re dead set against scores, then ignore them and focus on the corresponding tasting notes. No need to get your panties in a bunch. Just take what you will from a whisky review and enjoy your next dram.