'Return to the dram' ... Glenrothes Select Reserve.

Months later, I am back in the world of whisky.

I don't mind telling you that previous experience deterred me, that and being exceptionally tight for time, money, and thought power simply debarred me from buying something to enjoy in the evenings. Not even a bottle of craft ale, although to my mind ale isn't craft out of a bottle. It is craft from cask. Ah, the joys of growing up in rural Suffolk.

But returning to whisky, I was torn between playing it safe for this malt and remaining faithful to my idea of exploring Speysiders, whenever the next bottle should pass into my mitts. Come a brief breathing space and I found myself seriously contemplating a number of malts, and indeed blends, to enjoy with some light reading from Wodehouse and Sharpe. I believe I have mentioned BenRiach, Cragganmore, and Balvenie, but I rather liked the idea of Aberlour A'bunadh, Benromach, and even an indie Mortlach to go off on a different tangent. However I noticed that Glenrothes' no-age statement bottling was reduced in a supermarket, and having gotten into cycle commuting in London as a cheaper, faster, and more enjoyable way of getting about, I cannot be bothered to train it into Waterloo purely to buy whisky. So I walked into Waitrose, picked up the bottle for around thirty pounds.(the receipt tells me £30.50, a saving of £5.50 from normal price), and returned to peruse the thing.

So, here we are with another Speysider! Glenrothes Distillery is owned by Berry Bros. and Rudd, a reputable and expensive London wine merchant, whilst I believe actually being operated by Edrington. Anyway, Glenrothes doesn't ostensibly bottle its whiskies as an age-statement focussed line, preferring to bottle them by vintage. It is a different approach, and one which I rather like, particularly as the dumpy style bottle is nicely labelled and presented.
The whisky itself is at 43%, which is good because I find that whiskies at 40% can be ruined by the slight over-addition of water. I don't know if it is chill filtered yet (not stuck it in the freezer) and there may be caramel colourant added, which would make sense given the nature of the packaging. See the image below.

(I can now confirm that this is chill-filtered and coloured)

Nose.
Hint of lavender, orange grove at night, Rich malt, sweet, spiced.

Palate
Slightly sweet, spices: Cloves, white pepper, black pepper, ginger, and nutmeg. Dark malt, drying to the finish of bitter dark chocolate. A vanilla tone rises low throughout but becomes prominent as the finish fades.

Dilution
The Glenrothes becomes creamier and softer, the vanilla more pronounced. Very easy to overdo the water here! Drying is made a little more delicate, but that pure bitter cacao is still strong. I can just get hints of the ripe fruit and sultanas that the label proclaims are to be found within.

I rather like this malt. It's certainly unique, and has an edge of energetic youth and a nice freshness to start with, but it's all about that strong malty dryness that lends itself to that intriguing finish. Really, really moreish. I'm unsure as to what this was matured in. There is a bourbon influence here, but also a drying sherry taste, and a slightly twisty  attitude to the spice and bitterness which never becomes woody.

Oddly enough, the nose and some of the feel and flavour puts me in mind of the previous malt, that one dares not speak of here. This is a much more rounded malt: the young does not clash with the old and the flavours fit rather than fight. It's not embarrassed in price point company either, and is a definite step up from true premium blends like Black Label and Chivas. At what I paid, it's excellent value, at £35 reasonable. It has also made me curious as to what the vintage versions are like, which undoubtedly ticks a strategist's box somewhere.

So, we come past the halfway point. My feelings at this point in time? Whilst Speyside has quite a bit to offer, I find myself wanting something a little less general, a little less conscious of industrial targets and convention. The stereotype flavour profile is wearing a bit thin. I note that AncCnoc has just  released two new peated whiskies, beyond my price point, but maybe BenRiach or Benromach can show me a flash of speed?

Deviation: A Macallan induced Purchase

Another confession: I have not touched the previously reviewed whisky since the publication of said review. I may find time to try and discover if it is actually flawed at a later date, but in the meantime I was faced with a conundrum. I,on limited means, do not like opening new bottles while old ones sit, because it feels like a waste. At whisky prices, that is unacceptable. I could up sticks for a weekend for that much, or have a spending spree in a second hand bookshop. Even in London, there are some exceptional dining establishments where it is possible for two to have a very pleasant meal for that much.

However, I rather like having something to drink at home, particularly for post essay writing contemplation, so, rather than spend on another whisky, I went into Adnams' London shop. After a pleasant discussion about their latest wines, I came out with a bottle of their Ruby Port. I had been weighing this up in idle moments, and eventually thought "What the hell. End a bad month with something decent."

This was a very nice change. This is not an expensive, aged, treacly aqua vitae for the bewigged gentlemen of the Law. What it is is a gentle concoction that reminds me of the very best stewed blackberries. You know, when you've picked them off the brambles yourself, taking care to mix in some less ripe ones for their sharp bitterness, and occasionally get a woody chew of a tiny piece of stalk. Mixed in with this are all the other berry fruits that my various relations buy frozen year round to mix in with yoghurt. Soft,warming, and not too sweet. Being a fortified wine, it is sweet, but there is a nice counterbalance of warming that just stops short of being an edged, alchoholic burn, but in no way is this out of place.

So, my conundrum is ended, and all I have to do now is decide what to do with the unwanted bottle. As for the resumption of the Speysiders, I think I'll play it safe and go for BenRiach, but that'll be a while off yet.

Happy New Year!

"Bringing down the curtain" The Macallan Gold

The Newcomer.

First,  an apology: I had intended to post this review in December, but at the start of the month I was behind with the Glenfarclas, owing perhaps in part to wanting to prolong the bottle. Also, this Macallan has been more of a challenge.

Macallan is a distillery that trades on it's reputation for producing consistently high quality sherried single malt whisky, to the extent that many have termed it the "Rolls Royce of the whisky world". It has legions of fans around the globe, and is one of the most fashionable collecters items in the whisky world. For some time, Macallan has quite rightly been exploring ways to make distillery and dunnage capacity go further as worldwide demand grows. The Fine Oak range was the initial result of this, and whilst I don't pretend to understand the whole ins and outs of the business, it seems that Macallan adapted their cask policy in order to add on the new range (their traditional range being renamed Sherry Oak) without having to cause a shortfall in production of it's traditional malts. Reaction to this was mixed, but the new range is generally accepted to have held its own.  In 2013 however, Macallan announced that they would be replacing both of their core ranges with a single range of no age statement bottlings ordered by their colour, which had apparently tested well in the travel retail markets of Asia. The surprise that this caused the whisky talk-o-sphere was, to put it mildly, the equivalent of at least a single blow to the head with a lemon wrapped gold brick.

I must admit, I was initially a little sceptic, because this was a very strange move for a distillery not only seen as a cut above, but whose products are priced a cut above. In this luxury market, tradition is a large part of the image of Scotch whiskey, and to depart from it is a very bold move, particularly for a distillery whose products have been underpinned by dependability for so many years. However, the whisky world benefits highly from changes such as this. One need only look at the success of Compass Box, or the revitalised Benriach, to see how innovation can expand the choices available to the consumer and retain their interest in an area where tradition underpins the appeal of the product. I applaud Macallan for doing this.

Moving on to the actual whisky itself, I confess I have made very few notes for this one, which I will explain in a minute. The Macallan Gold is the lowest priced and lightest coloured of the 1824 series, and I decided to buy it because I knew Macallan's reputation, was intrigued by the new product, and thought it might be an interesting direction to go in for my whisky exploration.

First Impressions.
The nose was floral, with a lot of youthful suggestions in the way it presented itself. Not smooth, cut grass, a little spice, and young spirit, rather reminiscent of Adnams Broadside, a spirit made from their high strength Broadside Ale recipe, matured for a year in Russian oak casks, which can best be described as firewater. Lots of young spirit scents, baked pear, raisin, apple,sweet sherry, corked red wine notes all jumping around. Wisps of more delicate smooth-gone.
The palate escaped me then, the notes as follows: "?? Vibrant but no direction, floral, little raw, honey, sherry somewhere,mint, apple, ink. Where is this going?"

This has continued for a while, and varied every time, although I did pour a glass last night, and I don't know why, but it was borderline undrinkable. I'd sooner do shots of Bulleit (sorry whisky lovers, wanted something that wasn't vodka). It had a metallic feel, in both palate and finish, and the only taste I could put my finger on was sulphur. Before I have a Murray Moment, let me first explain that I have never had that in this bottle before. So I am going to now do the only thing left to me, and type the good, bad, and unknown about the very next glass.

Nose

Aha! There's a pleasant nose! Fresh green apple,like the taste of a perfect Granny Smith, with that sweet zing that permeates the air after the first bite.Behind that on subsequent sniffs is pleasant aroma of...raki! ( I think) Not quite sherry, but Cretan raki, a beautiful after dinner drink similar to grappa, only raw and at times fiery. Then I get the malty, gently sherried whisky character.A sharp note of green oak flashes through the nostrils.Now I detect that spirituous malty Speyside thing, but this one has a sharp edge of alcohol that isn't unpleasant, but a little unexpected for a whisky which is believed to be a minimum of nine years old. I am now going to leave it for a further 30 minutes.

Upon returning, the zesty edge has softened, but so has the sharp raw note.. Curiously I find that the nose has thinned, the previously underpinning malty note which seemed to be the end recedes back into sweet fruit, raki again, and with a little dry white wine character. Puts me in mid of Linkwood if one dumped a tablespoon of icy water in.

Palate
Sweet, a little sharp. Starts as sweet baked apple, then a maltiness, swifty drying. The dryness tingles in metallic fashion and there is a heat which jars. On the finish, a rich dry sherry character is faintly discernable beneath cut grass and clashing, raw flavours which suggest spices but have the attack of chilli.A little nutty, very unripe blackberries.
Upon holding it again, more dryness comes in, but the fruit flavours flash by, twisting into bitterness which makes war on the sherry influence, which fights back to flash by on the finish. It is a strongly spiced, dark sherried whisky note that hints at a real beaut of a malt, but all the time is fighting that bitter and metallic note which I can only describe as unruly young spirit. The metallic edge is not going away, even long after swallowing. Only fifteen minutes laterdoes the aftertaste feel like a sherried whisky.

The metallic, sulpurous taste is receding, hints of almounds, rasins, dry sherry appearing, but the heat is not going away. This is neither smooth nor pleasant to feel in the mouth, initially. The fruit is reasserting itself a little. However, I can see why I dumped this down last night. I was not feeling patient with it after the first mouthful, chased it too  agressively. I'm off to get some cheese and crackers to pair with it.

Heat, drying sherry tinged with bitter spice, fruited and floral notes standing up a little more. Grapes, heather, and oddly enough, daffodil scent are all discernable. The Mac does not like the double Gloucester, and decides to hide away those more delicate flavours which started out after that dry hurricane of metallic bitterness. Softer, dryer, but still that character persists. The finish is quite short. Now for the Brie... the drying sherry flavour comes out a little further, and again the metal recedes a little. Last mouthful, and back comes the metallic heat, but the bitterness has faded, leaving a pleasant dry sherry character, contrasted with hints of pear, citrus fruit, pepper, but each of these feels young, raw, and a little shouty.

This whisky is split between the young, arrogant, fruity spicy spirit, and the older sherried malts involved here. It's an intriguing conflict if one has the time and patience to persevere with it, but this is not a gentle malt.

Conclusions.
Honestly, as I left the glass for half an hour, I wanted to hate this malt. Yesterday was the second worst whisky experience ever. The nose proved me wrong, and there was the conundrum! This had been pleasant on occasion, but it had also been wayward. On tasting it objectively, I cannot stick to previous prejudices.

The thing about this whisky is that it presents something very different to other entry offerings: it is a clash between young spirit and more mature stuff. The master blender has done a blinding job to get these characters into the same room. However, they are still unresolved over their differences- one wants to be a zesty, spicy, vibrant whisky, but the other wants to be a dark horse, a drying, nutty, rich warm armchair malt. It has a lovely nose, but to taste it is very different. Bluntly,I'm not sure that the tugging in opposite directions works for me. There is no layering of flavours, just combat for the upper hand, which moves between the two. Also, there's an elephant in the room. That bitter, metallic, slightly sulphurous taste is downright unpleasant. I may have got a flawed bottle, but I don't think so, it has not been consistently 'off'. Getting past that feel and taste takes serious time and effort, which is why this could not be a sipping whisky.

It's not a bad whisky to taste and smell. It's different, but one can only know if it is worth the perseverance if one tries it and sticks to it.

To shift from pure objectivity however, there are a number of issues with the above. If indeed, this is an entry level malt, it's not exactly an easy entry to the range. Moreover, I have an idea that this malt was created at least partially in mind to prompt the consumer to reach a little deeper into their pockets for the next one up. There is a lot of young stuff in here, and with Macallan's natural colour policy, I quote from the box "the interaction of spirit and wood alone delivers the variety of rich natural colours that distinguish the Macallan range", older sherry matured whiskies are usually darker in colour. There is a logic here that suggests consumers used to age statements will gravitate towards to more expensive expressions because they believe them to be in a similar pattern to the flavour progression of age statement whiskies. So, less an entry level bottling than a nudge towards the next one up, as Diageo has done with the Johnnie Walker range.

This irks me. Why put out an entry level malt that doesn't advertise itself on it's own qualities, but trades on preconceived consumer assumptions? In the name of profit, of course. However, Macallan may find that this one comes back to haunt them, because on this box, the sixth "pillar" of Macallan single malt whisky reads as follows: "The Macallan is celebrated far and wide by experts and discerning drinkers as the world's most precious whisky". Not based on this bottle it ain't. This is not worthy to be mentioned in the same line as a famous British automobile manufacturer. It's not junk, but not stellar either, and certainly adds nothing to Macallan's reputation. If anything, this has damaged it, in my eyes, because it has been built up to be something it is not.

Perhaps this could be much lessened and forgiven, if it was reasonably priced. But it isn't. At £35, it is £7 more than the Glenfarclas, and was not a step up at all. Crucially, it is also priced at the top end of the entry level distillery bottlings, putting it in with some big players. Clynelish 14. Springbank 10. Aberlour 12. Lahroaig 10. Bruichladdich 10. Talisker Storm. I haven't tasted the last two, but it doesn't match up to the others. Not nearly. Here's the killer however- the list of malts that are cheaper: Talisker 10, Highland Park 12, Benriach 12, Cragganmore 12, Balvenie Doublewood 12, Dalwhinnie 15, Edradour 10, and finally Glendronach 12 which I was given as a Christmas present. I've tried it once, liked it, but here is the big, big thing that Macallan have missed. This is a luxury purchase, so buying something that is rewarding is essential. For that it has to hold its own in it's chosen peer group,and this Macallan Gold does not. The gift I received was appreciated because of the thought and research that had gone into making that choice, recommendation had been scrutinized and all manner of considerations taken into account. Edrington Group, which owns the Macallan, do not seem to have appreciated any of this, that even at the entry level, Scotch whisky is a luxury purchase.

At a maximum of £30, called The Young Malt (or something similar), possibly bottled at higher strength, but at very, very least non chill filtered (no scotch mist-I've tested it), I think this might have worked. As it is however, I do not recommend you buy this if the money is any kind of consideration to you. If you had maybe £100 to spend on whisky, then as a tasting experience it's not a bad idea, particularly as you could buy a very good bottle with the remaining cash and still have a little left over to do something else with, perhaps to set up a tasting. However, if like me, you're only buying one bottle to drink slowly over a medium period, avoid this. It is not of high enough quality. For that reason, the Macallan Gold has to be rated as the lowest value for money bottle I've ever had.

Next up is as yet undecided between Balvenie and Cragganmore, though this Macallan will take some finishing. However, I am also considering Benriach, and perhaps something a little different to finish the series off.
Happy dramming in the new year!

"Hold the front page!" Glenfarclas 10 year old

Somewhat belatedly, the series begins. It begins with a curious acknowledgement; that for just under four weeks I have not tasted a single alcoholic beverage, and this is set to continue for a further few days. This post will thence comprise two parts, one written now, and another written later, with a dram (or two, for I may say now that I find this a very moreish whisky) for thought.

Why Glenfarclas? Why not begin with something a little more stereotypically suited to the initial foray of a person into whisky? I picked it because I wanted something affordable, interesting, and most of all because I wanted to like Speyside. I have had several bottles of whisky, and many drams in various bars prior to starting this series, and not once have the Speysiders charmed me. I recall once thinking a Glenfiddich 12 year old was so insipid I threw the remainder of a slow-sipped double down like a shot, and promptly made a fuss of ordering a Laphroaig from a  new bottle, given there appeared to be so little in the bottle on the bar. The one double Balvenie I've had was pleasant but given the quality of the other whiskies in said bar (Oban, Lagavulin, Highland Park, Talisker, Laphroaig, not to mention Black Label, Maker's Mark, and Woodford Reserve) it lacked interesting qualities. However, a bottle of Glenlivet 18 year old went down very well last summer, and particularly given recent experiences with the Linkwood of previous fame, that is something impressive. I have not got any notes other than vague diary mentions, but it seems to have been a good follow up to the previous whisky.

The problem I had was that the next two single malts I bought, the first two I kept proper notes for, were absolutely stellar, in very different ways. The first was a Highland Malt, Clynelish 14 y.o, and the second was Springbank's (Campbeltown) entry level 10 year old bottling. In comparison to the Glenlivet and even Highland Park's acclaimed 12 year old, they absolutely triumphed. There was so much scent, flavour, and texture that both bottles were great and varied experiences totally unlike any previous purchases. Therein lay the problem, however, that Speyside whiskies almost became pigeonholed in my mind because of previous experiences, they lacked the power and grandeur that I had come to seek in whisky. Perhaps a little fortuitously, the previous Linkwood did not do this. What it offered was very different, but no less intriguing than it's fantastic predecessors. The bottle suggested Speyside whiskies could be great too.

A little context.
Glenfarclas is an independent family owned and operated distillery famous for producing traditional style sherry matured Scotch whisky. Uniquely, it is the only distillery on Scotland to have been owned and run by the same family (the Grants) throughout its existence, and their ownership has been marked by an informed and outspoken attitude to developments and changes in the whisky industry. Take their requirement that all Glenfarclas whisky bottled and sold by independent bottlers cannot be sold with the Glenfarclas name on it. This is not only good business acumen because it keeps profits (particularly from 'collectors whiskies') in house but it highlights their understanding of how important the independence of the brand is to quality product in a market dominated by large multinationals, which have previously been the target of criticism over their quality standards. (See Jasonsscotchreviews for his thoughts on Johnnie Walker Gold Label reserve for an idea of what I mean here) I appreciate directness, because the welfare of customers is dependent on the communication between producer and consumer. No one wants to spend their money on a luxury, only to find it wrong for what they expected from their purchase.

Glenfarclas is widely recommended across the web, and perhaps that more than anything was why I picked it. Like I said, I wanted to find that level of interest and quality in a single malt that I had previously enjoyed, and from the commentary, it appeared to be a good place to start.

First Impressions
Nosing:: spiritous, malty, thick. I had an impression of nutty figs with a slight citrus cut, with a hint of spiced fruits, like homemade spiced mulled wine.To taste, this started slightly sweet, moving to a pleasant light spice like in the nose. Drying sherry lingered in the mouth, with notes of hard bonfire toffee coming through on the nose. Honeyed fruit, like stewed apples, followed by a not unpleasant lingering malty dryness- moreish like marzipan, but somehow drying without being sharp or harsh. As the malt sat, I also tasted rum soaked sultanas, dates, cherries, and dry wholemeal bread. Little hint of candied fruits.

This to me was a moreish whisky. It didn't initially seem to wow me, there was no breath-catching moment like unexpectedly meeting eyes with a striking girl, no brutally elegant power like the current Springbok XV(sorry Scotland!).I couldn't identify what made me want another sip, but the more I sipped, the more the taste and texture grew on me. I went as far as to have a second glass, which provided an outstanding companion to a good book.

Further thoughts.

I have to say upon coming back to it, that this has changed very little in the month or so since I last tasted it. This is very pleasant stuff, eminently quaffable, and indeed proof that  Speyside has something to offer me too. I like the light body and colour, like that of straw stubble at the onset of autumn. It presents a nice little contradiction to the mindset which says that a darker a whisky is, the stronger the flavours within. This compares favourably to my two star-compass malts when one remembers that it is only bottled at 40% as opposed to 46%, particularly Clynelish. I do wonder what this would be like at a higher strength, but to my mind there's a lot to be said for 40% whiskies. In this case, I think that the lower strength makes it an accessible and easy drinking dram, something that is pleasant to enjoy whilst in a relaxed state rather than being relaxed for the purposes of whisky enjoyment.

Finally, at only £30, this bottle has been excellent value for money. All whisky is a luxury, and it's very important that one gets a quality product whatever their budget, because if not then there are other luxuries which people might start to prefer to spend their money on. This bottle has undoubtedly been worth the outlay however, and I'm happy to pass on the recommendation of a friend to me.

Next up, the new Macallan Gold.

'The Prequel'- Linkwood 15 Years Old

In true British style, this blog will begin with a bit of a throwback- in this case it will be a bottle of fifteen year old Speyside malt, purchased in triumph some months ago. Upon tasting it multiple times amidst the rising heat and idleness of summer it occurred to me that it might be fun to adopt a less sporadic approach to whisky, given self's previous purchase range could fairly be described as somewhat scattergun. However, I decided that I should take it one step further and publish several series of doggerel documenting my discoveries about Scotland's whisky regions and their produce. To start this voyage of the amber oceans, there will be a short series on each of the Scottish regions which produce whisky, based around five bottles from each region, hopefully with observations and ideas which may illustrate the "novice" view of the whisky sphere.

Linkwood Single Malt, 15 Years Old, Speyside. Bottled by Gordon and MacPhail.
The purchase of this bottle pre-dates the blog plan, hence it should be viewed as a prequel to the upcoming series on Speyside single malts. I had in mind when buying it that I wanted to buy a higher quality whisky, specifically an older and more "niche" whisky. Something you'll never find in a supermarket. Hence I decided tin the shop to pick an independent bottling for the first time , and having read good things about it,selected this Linkwood. The case was advanced further by it's participation in Johnnie Walker Green Label, which I had previously enjoyed.

Upon looking back at the journal entries of a marvellous June, I see that my first palate note reads, "Puts me in mind of Johnnie Walker Green Label, without any thought of it beforehand. Peppery tinge. Finish oaken warmth, fresh baked brown bread. Dark sherry, little sweetness- honey coming through lightly-almost malted honey?" It proceeded to open up- that is, to present a more obvious progression through flavours of heather honey, berry fruit and sherry flavours, upon adding water. However I noticed at the time that "I could not discern layered flavours undiluted, they were locked away in a spiritous oak chest (with a tartan padlock)". Here then, was a complex array of flavours, scents, and textures which presented a challenge to my knowledge of whisky, and whilst I enjoyed it, noting that "it knocks the socks off Glenlivet 18 Year Old " which was my only previous Speyside purchase, the bottle presented the suggestion that to better enjoy such bottles in future, I would have to explore more. There was the inception of this blog.

I will put up some more malt musings later,and perhaps revisit this enigmatic creation in the mists of time. Next up however, the journey begins!

Prelude to a prequel

I'm just about to write a short introduction to this blog, in the form of a brief explanation of its initial purpose and conception.

As you may have guessed from the title, the inspiration for this blog is a particular variety of ardent spirit. Certain hawkeyes amongst you may also have reached the deduction that the spirit to be discussed originates in Scotland, owing to the spelling of said. This is not quite correct, as the items under discussion will not be constricted by geography insomuch as their value. However the initial focus of this blog will be to present several short series on whiskies distilled in Scotland, for the purpose of reference and hopefully amusement of anyone who cares to peruse the explorations of a whisky "newbie".