Amrut tasting at Mister India

This week I arranged a tasting of Indian Amrut whiskies, followed by dinner, at Mister India in Oslo. Mister India provides one of the better Indian dinner experiences anywhere, very good food, nice atmosphere and service. They have a very good selection of wines and whiskies, which you do not expect to find in an Indian restaurant. Had it been a French kitchen, they would have been a candidate for a Michelin star.

We tasted the following whiskies:
- Amrut Single Malt 46%
- Amrut 2009 single cask #2697 PX finish 4YO 56.5%
- Amrut 2009 single cask #2714 Portpipe 4YO 59%
- Amrut Kadhambam 50%
- Amrut Greedy Angels 8YO 50%
- Amrut Intermediate Sherry 57.1%

Except for the Greedy Angels, the whiskies where around four years of age. Due to high temperatures in Bangalore, the evaporation is close to 50% in four years, and the whisky is maturing quite fast. Except the Portpipe, I find all the whiskies well matured. The whiskies have something exotic and intense about them.

The standard 46% is matured in new American oak and ex Bourbon barrels. It has a vanilla, citrus, exotic fruit, floral and light oak character with a peppery finish.

The PX has a vanilla, light coconut and dried fruit character. With water spice and exotic fruit comes through.

The Portpipe appeared with some new make character and an alcoholic sting. It is quite smoky with lot of spice. It dries out the mouth.

The Kadhambam started its maturation in ex Oloroso casks before being transferred twice to brandy casks and rum casks. It is quite heavy. It has an exotic fruit character with vanilla and sweetness with light rum character. It has a small alcoholic sting, but it is not overpowering the nose. It is a bit sharper than the PX.

The Greedy Angels, matured in ex Bourbon barrels, is quite intense with vanilla and citrus. The most round and integrated of the whiskies. It has a vanilla/linoleum character that is almost too intense. It has a dry finish

The Intermediate Sherry has a vanilla, dried fruit and spicy character with a dry finish. It explodes in the mouth and has a quite long finish compared to the other. Some new make character when tasting it right after the Greedy Angels.

My favorites are the PX and Intermediate Sherry. Tightly followed by Kadhambam, Greedy Angels and the standard 46%. The Portpipe was not to my taste

After dinner, we were ready for the treat of the evening: GlenDronach Grandeur 31YO at 45.8%. It is matured in an ex Oloroso cask. It is extremely well balanced, sweet and heavy with lots of dried fruit character like raisins, dates and figs. It has a dark mahogany colour. It was never an option to add water to this whisky. This whisky alone is worth a visit to Mister India.

A memorable evening.

.

Ardbeg Almost There against the ten year old

Comparing two whiskies head to head gives me often a better experience than analyzing them individually. This time it is the Ardbeg Almost There against the ten year old.

I must face the sad fact that I have reached the bottom of my Almost There bottle. What did I do with the last drops? To make the most out of the last memory, I needed a frame of reference. What better way than to use the ten year old? As Mickey told me when I asked for more of the rough rich style: "Almost There, I call it Almost Perfect".

I find AT richer and more intense than the 10Y. The abv (54.1% versus 46%) and the balance between first and refill bourbon casks plays a major role. Both whiskies are very pale, though the AT is slightly more golden. AT has an intense brutality that makes it still to tear links, although it has reached nine years and is about to be tamed. The smoke of the AT is more intense and richer than in the 10Y. AT shows more sweetness, fruitiness, citrus and vanilla than the 10Y. This contributes to the richness. The Ardbeg finish of salt, pepper and seaweed is also more intense in AT, which has a more intense astringent aftertaste than the 10Y. I feel I get closer to the barrels in AT than in the 10Y, which is characterized by being rounder and more balanced than the AT. I find the smoke in the 10Y more abraded than in the AT, which is more reminiscent of a fire plot. I think the 10Y has a cleaner, sharper and more acidic smoke with a trace of ashes, although the overall impression is that the smoke in the 10Y is more balanced.

The savagery of Ardbeg Almost There will be missed.

Ardbeg Almost There, 27^th February 2007 to 14^th November 2014

R.I.P.

Chill filtration

The purpose of chill filtration (CF) is to avoid haze when adding water or ice to the whisky. Many people consider chill filtration to have a bad influence on the whisky. Others are indifferent to CF. It seems harder to find people who claim that CF has a positive effect. A couple of blind tests seem at first sight to support that CF has no effect on aroma, flavour or mouth feel.

Let us take a closer look at the two tests.

If we for a moment forget the limited test panel and number of samples of the test at http://www.maltmaniacs.net/E-pistles/Malt_Maniacs_2012_01_The%20Taste%20of%20Chill%20Filtration.pdf,

it is striking that all three whisky experts agreed that none of the unfiltered (NCF) whiskies were better than the corresponding CFs. This is a clear indication that CF makes a difference. With an expectation that NCF is best, it is no surprise that the best whiskies were identified as NCF by the test panel. As a result, they were not able to identify the NCF samples.

It is also interesting that the novice with a good nose managed to pick all the NCF whiskies.

It seems that this person has focused on viscosity and oiliness. Does CF cause some unpleasant notes to disappear, while the difference in body is so subtle that most people are not able to detect the difference?

So to the test at http://www.whisky.com/information/knowledge/about-whisky/about-whisky/study-on-the-chill-filtration-of-scotch-single-malt-whiskies.html.

Here we are so close to a random result that I could be tempted to conclude that CF does not make a difference, or more probable that the testers did not know what to look for to identify a NCF. The test also states that no difference was detected in quality between the whiskies. That does not necessarily mean that the test panel did not experience a difference.

After reading the two reports, I am tempted to conclude that there is an experienced difference between the CF and NCF, but the test panel seems not to know what they are looking for to identify a NCF whisky. It does not seem to be a quality difference between the CF and the NCF. Some prefer CF, while others prefer NCF.

Comparison between the Laphroaig 10y and the PX

Laphroaig has some nice smoky and medicinal whiskies. This evening’s treat was a comparison of the Laphroaig standard 10 year old and the Laphroaig PX. Both are easily recognised as Laphroaig whiskies with their woody peat smoke and medicinal character with salt and seaweed.

I find the woody peat smoke more pronounced in the 10y than in the PX, while the rubbery character is more pronounced in the PX. Both are medicinal with vanilla and cinnamon flavours, but the 10y is more intense. The 10y has a fresh acidic fruitiness with a taste of apple about it, while the PX is influenced by the dried fruity character from sherry casks.

The PX has a longer and drier aftertaste than the 10y. It is quite astringent, probably due to the tannins of the PX cask. 

The PX is more woody, sweet and heavy that the 10y. The PX has dried fruits on the nose, compared to the lighter fresh fruity 10y. The 10y is rounder and easier to drink, and it seems more mature than the PX, which seems quite young. This could be a good reason for marketing the PX as a NAS whisky.

The conclusion is that both are nice drinkable whiskies, with the PX a bit more challenging.

No age statement (NAS)

Is NAS a good thing for whisky consumers? That depends on the quality of the whisky. What is the motivation for making a NAS whisky? Obviously utilizing the stock and maximizing the profit without destroying the company’s reputation. After all, we are talking business. It is a fair thing to provide profit for the owners. Why does NAS fly? Most whisky drinkers are not into the details of NAS. A 5-year old statement could prevent the average whisky consumer from buying the whisky. A NAS seems more exclusive. A whisky beyond age.

As long as the warehouses flowed over with aged whiskies from the 80’s, the producers told us that age matters, and yes – age matters. If you think that maturation is a good thing, it is reasonable that an older whisky is better than a younger one, at least up to a point. When matured too long, a whisky can develop unpleasant flavours. Woodiness is one such flavour.

I can see one good reason for marketing a whisky as NAS. Let us say you have an 18 year old vatting that lacks freshness, and you find this freshness in a 5 year old. Adding a small amount of the 5 year old, gives you the perfect whisky. Given the general expectation that age matters, it will be better marketing it as a NAS than a 5 year old, when it for all practical purposes is 18 years old.

However, is this how it works? My experience says no. The NAS whiskies seem often inferior. Probably because the NAS whiskies are a result of too little aged whisky, forcing the use of a larger amount of younger whiskies. Then we are back to age matters.

NAS whiskies could be a good thing, but will probably be the way into immature inferior whiskies giving less value for money. Face it, when it comes to aged whiskies, demand is larger than supply. Since age matters, NAS sounds better than 5 year old. If age did not matter, the producers would not be afraid of marketing 5 year olds.

One way to compare NAS whiskies and whiskies with an age statement, is to compare two whiskies in the same price category from the same distillery. Which one do you think is the best? My experience so far is that the one with an age statement is the best.

However, is NAS all negative? One positive effect of NAS is diversity. The master blenders get one extra degree of liberty composing their whiskies, and the knowledgeable consumer gets more opportunities to analyse the distillery character.

Looking 20 years into the future, we may have returned to a situation with warehouses filled to the rim with aged whiskies, and then again, age will matter. Meanwhile, sit down, enjoy your whisky and wait for the NAS to backfire. It probably will. The question is when.

Bowmore - Mariner against White Sands

The Mariner is a 15 year old with a mix of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry cask matured whisky. White Sands is a 17 year old, and matured in ex-bourbon casks. The Mariner is deep copper while the WS is a bit lighter, but still quite dark. Both are 43% abv, coloured and filtered. The Mariner is quite heavy fruity with apple, vanilla and a bit soapiness, while WS has lighter fruitiness with vanilla, turning woody with slightly sour wood smoke, resin and light cinnamon and ginger spiciness. The Mariner is a bit rougher than the more round and elegant but distinct WS. The Mariner has a more sweet peat smoke. Both have a quite light and fast fading aftertaste. The WS aftertaste is a bit drier and longer lasting. Both are nice whiskies in their own way, but I go for the lighter more elegant White Sands.

The Glenlivet

Last night’s whisky tasting was a vertical tasting of The Glenlivet. We started with the Guardians’ triplet of Classic, Revival and Exotic.  The sherried and spicy Exotic was a clear winner, as it was worldwide. Then we went for the 12, 18 and 21 year old together with Nadurra 16 year old 48% abv – the one matured in bourbon casks. The Nadurra is more intense fruity than the 18 year old which we found more complex and balanced. Both are good whiskies, and we couldn’t decide which was the best. If you like a more sherried whisky, the 21 year old is a nice whisky. The 12 year old is light, fruity and easy drinking – one of the classical malts, and good value for money if you don’t want a challenging whisky. Then we went back to the no age statement (NAS) Guardians’ triplet. This time the new make character was pronounced. Surprisingly the Exotic turned out the big looser. The Revival was doing quite well compared to the bourbon matured, and the bourbon/sherry influenced Classic seemed more mature than the Exotic, which turned out quite immature. I am not going to buy the Guardians’ Chapter, which is the Exotic. The Glenlivet states that age matters. Yes it does. And young NAS whiskies is not the answer.