Don't be fooled by the cask

I bought a 20cl sample of Bunnahabhain that had been matured for 14 years in a Pedro Ximenez Noe cask, at the distillery. It was in a dark bottle, so I could not see the colour of the whisky. I expected to see a dark coloured whisky like the Dalmore or Glendronach, but it was light golden. Andrew Brown, distillery manager at Bunnahabhain, told me that the cask was very old and used several times to mature whisky before Bunnahabhain got it. It turned out to be inactive.

So to a comparison between the Bunnahabhain and a Caperdonich 18 years old refill American oak hogshead matured whisky.

First some facts about the whiskies:
1) Bunnahabhain, cask 555, 14 years old, 54.8% abv., Pedro Ximenez Noe sherry butt, bottled 26 March 2018.
2) Caperdonich, single cask, Douglas Laing's, Old Particular, 312 bottles, refill hogshead, REF-DL9963, distilled June 1995, bottled August 2013, 18 years old, 48.4% abv.

The Bunna was slightly more golden than the pale gold Caperdonich.

The Bunna showed sweetness and custard overpowered by new make on the nose, while the Caperdonich was sweet with vanilla and fruitiness. The Caperdonich was quite gentel.

The Bunna had very little alcohol sting, while the Capardonich seemed a bit stronger with more sting even though it had a lower abv., but it was not overpowering.

In addition to the custard and new make, the Bunna showed some oakiness in the mouth. The aftertast was light and short.

The Caperdonich had a light and fruity tast. The aftertast was light and delicate, but short.

With water the Bunna lost the oakiness, but it didn't improve. The Caperdonich took the water very well and turned into pure delight - a candy store.

Conclusion: Both whiskies had the character of American oak. I could not find any hint of Noe sherry in the Bunna. The Bunna could have doubled for a three year old, while the Caperdonich had a lot of nice American oak fruitiness. A very good whisky.

One last comment: Gonzales Byass Noe solera casks are made of American oak. Without the charcoal the sherry cask was not able to remove the new make even after 14 years. In addition it was not able to give anything to the whisky to overpower the new make due to inactivity.

Even though I didn't find the Bunnahabhain any good, it was an interesting experience. I love the policy of bottling these 20cl samples. They give a good understanding of cask maturation.

Glenfiddich - now and then

How is todays Glenfiddich 12 year old (L2B 7430 1708 08:37) compared to the Pure Malt (LA 4287 0106 42) edition of the late 80’s and early 90’s? Since todays 12 year old is the successor of the Pure Malt, you could expect them to be quite similar. Starting with the colour, you get an indication of differences. The Pure Malt is much paler than the 12 year old. After what I understand, the Pure Malt is eight to ten years old, but I cannot find any big difference in maturity between the two.

I find todays Glenfiddich very fruity with a prominent aroma of pears - almost artificially intense. The Pure Malt has still pears, but with a nutty oily character. The Glenfiddich of today is light drinking and very commercial. The old one is much more demanding, and I love it. I prefer the old one, but I think the new one is a better market match.

GlenDronach 14 - Oak influence

GlenDronach 14 is an interesting release due to the combination of casks. It is initially matured in re-charred European oak puncheons and finished in American virgin oak casks. I assume that the puncheons have been used to mature sherry. The combination of casks can help to answer some questions concerning cask influence.

How much sherry influence do we have from the puncheons?

        I find no sherry influence. Since the cask is re-charred, it has probably been used to mature whisky several times sucking the sherry out of the wood. Then the inactive casks have been re-charred, probably removing the remainder of sherry if any at all.

How much European oak characteristics like tannins do we have? Will a re-charred European oak cask have any influence at all?

-      Re-charring a cask will boost the vanilla influence, caramelize hydrocarbons and give a smoky influence. The caramelized hydrocarbons will give colour to the whisky. Characteristics like tannins and lactones are depleted and will not be regenerated by charring. The result is that the re-charred casks mainly gives vanilla, sweetness, colour and a minor smoky character to the whisky.

Will an American oak virgin cask give the whisky a bourbon like character?

-     

        An American oak virgin cask is the same type of cask used for maturing bourbon. I assume that the cask is charred. The cask gives typical bourbon characteristics like vanilla, coconut and tropical fruits.

The conclusion is that the GlenDronach 14 has many of the characteristics of a bourbon. It is an atypical scotch whisky, and a good alternative to bourbon, swapping corn with barley. GlenDronach 14 can absolutely be recommended.

Tullibardine - a vertical tasting

The Tullibardine new make is surprisingly clean and sweet with strawberry yoghurt, fruitiness and some citrus on the nose. The new make is unpeated and without the characteristic feinty sheep barn off-note. The new make should be a good base for wood maturation. Tullibardine has a nice concept for learning about the effect of maturation in different types of casks.

The base product Suvereign is matured for ten years in first fill bourbon barrels. Then we have the cask finishes 225 Sauterne, 228 Burgundy and 500 Sherry that are matured for one extra year in the respective casks. The number indicate the size of the cask.

The Suvereign has a nice clean vanilla, citrus and delicate oak nose. It is fruity with apple, pear and marzipan. Coconut is more prominent towards the finish which is relatively short.

The Sauterne finished is floral, sweeter and more intense than the Suvereign. It is creamy and citrusy with some orange and pineapple. It has a lot of vanilla and honey. It is perhaps too much, and I probably would prefer the Suvereign in the long run.

The Burgundy is finished in pinot noir casks. The Suvereign is increased with chocolate, spice and red berries. Surprisingly there is nail polish remover, new make and potato starch on the nose. It is a bit sour with vinegar, and it dies with water, turning into tannins. It is not my favourite, but neither as bad as the description should indicate.

The Sherry finished has some new make on the nose, but it is far less than the Burgundy. It has prunes, crème brulee, cinnamon and nutmeg on the nose, and it is a bit sour with a tiny bit of sulphur, and perhaps a bit metallic. It has a quite dry and salty finish. A nice whisky but I probably prefer the Suvereign. I can think of many sherry matured whiskies that I would prefer to this one.

The 20 year old matured in first fill and second fill bourbon barrels and the 25 year old matured in first fill and second fill Oloroso hogsheads seem interesting. The same does The Marray 2004 which is matured in first fill bourbon casks and bottled at 56.1%. I still have to try these.

Gjoleid 2016 release

During Oslo whiskyfestival Ivan Abrahamsen, the master blender of Arcus, presented their new releases of their Norwegian whisky Gjoleid. 

Their first distillation of Gjoleid was back in 2010, and they bottled two 3½ year old September 5^th 2013. One was matured in an oloroso American oak butt (cask 9305) and the other in a first fill American oak bourbon barrel (cask 9359).

Arcus uses a narrow cut to get a light whisky, the heart of the distillate is 74,3% for the 2011 batch. The mash is made of 85 % malt and 15 % wheat. 15 % of the malt is dried using alder smoke.

Now they are releasing three whiskies of which one is for the tax-free market.

The tax-free release Praksis 1.1 is a mix of two casks, one American oak first fill bourbon barrel (cask 10329) and one American new oak barrel (cask 10342). The whisky was bottled on June 22^nd 2016 close to five years old. 

A similar release Praksis 1.2 for the general market has the same type of casks, one American oak first fill bourbon barrel (cask 10336) and one American new oak barrel (cask 10341). The whisky was bottled on June 22^nd 2016 close to five years old. The difference between the 1.1 and 1.2 release is that the new oak is more heavily charred in the 1.2 than in the 1.1.

There are approximately 1000 bottles of Praksis 1.1, and the same of Praksis 1.2. The lable says 1400 bottles, but that is a misprint.

It is interesting how the extra charring gives a more intense whisky which appears sweeter and smokier. Both whiskies have the typical characteristics of American oak bourbon barrels with the alder smoke, wheat and new wood coming through. Both whiskies are coming on very well. Praksis 1.1 seems to have some aquavita influence, but Ivan Abrahamsen from Arcus has confirmed that there is no influence from aquavita casks in Praksis 1.1 and 1.2.

The last release Blindpassasjeren is originally matured in an old American oak sherry cask and finished in an oloroso sherry cask (465 litres) made of American oak (cask 5491) and used to mature Lysholm aquavita. Lysholm gives the whisky a light delicate flavour of caraway and star anise. Like the aquavita, the whisky has been out travelling on a ship across equator for four months. The effect of the ship travel is to move the whisky around, speeding up the maturation and taking more flavour out of the wood. The dried fruits typical for sherry cask matured whiskies is coming through together with the lighter flavours of American oak. The whisky is from the 2011 batch and was bottled June 23^rd 2016. It’s the same new make as for the other whiskies.

All the whiskies are bottled at around 47 %. The whiskies are still young, but the bourbon matured whiskies are doing quite well. I think the bourbon matured whiskies for the moment are doing better than the sherry matured. But hopefully time will help.

Arcus has a new warehouse in Nittedal stacking 13 casks high. The whisky is matured at 18˚C in a dry climate. The result is an increase in alcohol of 0,4 % each year. The is watered down to 55 % during maturation to keep it under 60 %.

Arcus has a new batch made of 100000 litres of wort that was distilled in 2013. So it seems that we have more goodies to look forward to.

Updated 170723: Alder smoke not beech smoke.
Updated 170813: Number of bottles printed on Praksis 1.1 and 1.2 are wrong. Approxiamtely 1000, not 1400.
Updated 170813: No aquavita influence in Praksis 1.1 and 1.2.

Ceobanach compared

The Ardbeg 10 year old has been one of my favourites for many years, but since introduction of the new distillate from 1998 and onward, the quality of the 10 year old has gradually decreased.

Today Ardbeg is getting serious competition from Bunnahabhain which is very good at its best, but a chocking catastrophe at its worst.

This evening I compared Bunnahabhain Ceobanach, Bunnahabhain Toiteach, Ardbeg 10 and the Edradour Ballechin 10 year old.

I prefer my peated ex-bourbon matured whiskies without the new make character which I find rancid and stale, and without the rubber/sulphur character which maturation in good quality ex-bourbon casks should remove.

The Toiteach has too much new make character and seems immature. The new make hides the nice Bunnahabhain character which I find plenty of in the Ceobanach. To my taste Toiteach should never have been bottled. But I will give Toiteach one thing, when getting it in the mouth and trying to forget the nose, it is quite good.

The Ceobanach is a beautiful whisky with citrus, sweetness, light fruitiness and flowers on the nose. The smoke is a crystal clear wood smoke. Today I find the Ceobanach much better than the Ardbeg 10 year old which has got more of the new make and rubber/sulphur part than the old 10 year old. I find the Ceobanach to be more citrusy, sweet, fruity and floral on the nose than Ardbeg. Ardbeg 10 is still a good whisky.

But, are there other good peated whiskies out there? Fortunately, yes! This evening I gave the Ballechin 10 year old a chance. With some sherry matured whisky in it, it has a hint of new make one the nose and is a bit heavier than the Ceobanach. It has also a hint of rubber and sulphur, but it works ok with a heavier whisky. All in all, I find the Ballechin to be a good whisky.

I can sit down and enjoy Ceobanach, Ardbeg 10 and Ballechin, but the Toiteach is a pain.

Aftermath

Got a sample of Bunnahabhain Moine, the Swedish edition from 2015, and compared Moine, Toiteach and Ceobanach.

The Moine has quite a bit of new make character, but lack the decay of the Toiteach. Both are young NAS whiskies, but I think that the sherry influence of the Toiteach is a problem. The casks have not been able to remove the decay character from the Toiteach, while the more pronounced ex-bourbon influence of the Moine has. 

The nose of the Moine is sweet, vanilla and fruity, but the citrus and floral part is drowned by the new make character. The Moine is not bad on its own, but head to head with Ceobanach it has a long way to go. It is too young.

A problem with the Moine is that the aftertaste fades away quite fast. It goes from sweet and new make to peppery and then dryness which fades away fast.

The Toiteach goes from intense to dry and then heavy pepper for a good while before getting dry and fading away. It has a longer aftertaste than the Moine. The Ceobanach is less peppery with a long dry oaky aftertaste. It is very clean and nice.

The Moine works well on its own, but I will rather buy a bottle of Ceobanach. I find Moine to be a much better whisky than the Toiteach.

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.

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.

Connoisseurs Choice

One of the nice things about malt whisky is the independent bottlings. Gordon & MacPhail is in this category with their Connoisseur's Choice range. This evenings tasting was a comparison between six whiskies from this range.

All the whiskies are matured in refill casks, avoiding the cask overpowering the approximately 20 year old whiskies. First fill casks could give to much wood influence. There is no information about what kind of wood that's used in the sherry hogsheads, American or European. The American refill hogsheads are probably ex bourbon casks.

Distillery	Cask	Abv.	Distilled	Bottled
Bladnoch	Refill sherry hogshead	43%	1993
Clynelish	Refill sherry butt	43%	1994
Craigellachie	Refill sherry hogshead	43%	1991
Glendullan	Refill sherry hogshead	43%	1993
Glen Keith	Refill American hogsh.	46%	1993	2011
Pittyvaich	Refill American hogsh.	43%	1993

All the whiskies except Glen Keith are pale gold, while Glen Keith is deep gold. Bladnoch and Craigellachie give a feeling of a swelling tongue in the finish.

Bladnoch: Vanilla, peach, fruity, candy, oak, pine, earthy. Dry oaky astringent finish. Feeling of swelling tongue.

Clynelish: Fruity and and toasty with vanilla in the background. Light, round and sweet with an astringent finish.

Craigellachie: Hint of chlorine, vanilla and fruity. Light, round and sweet. Not astringent, but a very dry finish with pronounced wheat. Feeling of swelling tongue.

Glendullan: Fruity, pear and bubblegum with vanilla in the background. Round and delicate. Lightest of the six. Dry and astringent finish.

Glen Keith: Pronounced coconut from nose to finish. Sweet, fruity and floral. Fresh apple and pepper. Full body. Astringent finish. My favorite among the six whiskies.

Pittyvaich: Fruity, vanilla, pineapple, floral, candy, toasty and sweet. Astringent finish.

Tasting at Highland Park

I participated in a tasting of seven whiskies at Highland Park Distillery on April 22^nd 2014. The whiskies were the standard 12Y, 15Y, 18Y, 21Y, 25Y, 30Y and a 46Y cask sample of an American oak cask from 1968.  Highland Park is matured in sherry casks made of European and American oak. Some independent bottlers mature in bourbon casks. The Highland Park whiskies have a light sweet heathery smokiness about them, quite different from the wood flavour typical for Islay whiskies.

Highland Park is malting 20% of their malt on site. 80% is sourced from Simpsons.

Highland Park stores 80% of their whisky on site, while 20% is stored in the Glasgow area. The finished product has the same 80-20 mix. The oldest cask in the warehouses is more than 100 years old, and the oldest whisky in store is 56 to 57 years old.

The 12Y is a nice whisky with a pronounced sherry flavour by its own, but compared with the others the new make is overpowering the whisky. The 12Y has some vanilla and cinnamon.

The 15Y is light fruity and floral on a bed of vanilla. It’s the one closest to the 46Y in flavour.

The 18Y is like candy with a delicate combination of stewed fruit and floral notes. I got a dry aftertaste with light coco at the end. This is good value for money.

The 21Y is back at 47.5% with the 3^rd filling, after a visit at 40% in the 2^nd filling. Approximately 10% of the whisky is 30 years old and 10% 40 years old refill. The rest is 40-50% first fill. The 21Y has sherry nose with linoleum in the background and a dry finish.

The 25Y is a round balanced whisky with pronounced sherry nose. It has a floral and candy like background with a light dry aftertaste.

The 30Y is matured in 100% refill (2.fill and 3.fill) sherry casks. It is round and balanced with sherry, stewed fruit, candy and vanilla on the nose, with a dry aftertaste.

The last whisky was av 46 years old cask sample from a second or third fill American oak cask filled in 1968. It’s extremely round and balanced with vanilla and candy character, and some sherry and oak in the background. It is the best of the whiskies, but not commercially available.

Type	Alc.	Eur. wood	First fill	Colour	Sherry	Fav.
12Y	40%	80%	15-20%	2	5	7
15Y	40%	40%	20-25%	3	2	6
18Y	43%	80%	45%	4	3	4
21Y	47.5%	20%	15%?	5	3	4
25Y	45.7%	80%	50%	5	6	3
30Y	48.1%	80%	0%	7	7	2
46Y	40.1%	0%	0%	1	1	1

In the table, colour is ranged from light to dark and sherry flavour from light to heavy.
The percentages of European oak and first fill is not confirmed and is to be regarded as work in progress.

I tried, Harald, one of the travel retail whiskies in the Warrior series last night, and compared it to the 18 year old. They are priced at the same level, but there is a huge difference in quality. The 18Y is fruity, floral and candy like, while I find Harald to have a pronounced nose and flavour of decay. I find Harald to be just one more NAS whisky contributing to destroying the reputation of Scotch, but there are worse NAS whiskies out there.