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.

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.