My Handcrafted Opinions on Whiskies, Distilleries and Other Related Stuff
I don't recall seeing very many 15 - 20 year old Canadian whiskies so I was intrigued when I saw the 20 and 15 year old expressions of Mt Logan in the Liquor Depot in Alberta on a recent business trip. The Mt. Logan brand is exclusive to the Liquor Depot retailer and the juice is made at the Highwood Distillery in Alberta and bottled as Canadian Rye whisky at 40% ABV. The nose is sweet with vanilla, Werthers Candy and lemon peel. The taste is very smooth and creamy with coffee, cocoa powder, butterscotch, vanilla toffee and Scottish tablet. The finish shows some sign of 20 years in a cask with pepper and oak notes and black tea. A little water thins out the creamy mouthfeel and the sweetness goes down (which some might find more balanced) but overall I would avoid water with this as it doesn't handle it very well, for my palate anyway, and would be easy to over dilute. Of the two expressions of Mt. Logan Canadian Rye that I tried (15 year old and 20 year old) I preferred the 20 years old (neat) but both were good.
Read More
Seriously though is it just me or is the whisky world's interest with extinct distilleries and those that were extinct and have since been reborn a little misplaced? I find myself asking this question more and more and as I taste some of these whiskies I find the questions don't go away. Let's put aside the rarity question. I fully understand that extinct whiskies are going to be collector's items and that itself creates an interest. No I am talking about the simple fact, often ignored, that they were probably not always particularly good whiskies (not whether they are collectable).
In my mind a combination of free market economics and natural selection would suggest that in order for new and better whiskies to come along, less popular whiskies must improve or fall to wayside. As popular as whisky has become it is still a finite market and therefore only a finite number of whiskies can exist. If we want better whiskies shouldn't we want less popular or unsuccessful whiskies to perish? Instead we seem to mourn passing of whisky distilleries or celebrate the re-opening of old ones without asking the important question – why did it close to start with? Is the reborn distillery really remaking the old spirit and product, if so why? Or is it using the modern equipment, standards and techniques, and in effect it's a new distillery in an old building.
The emergence of new distilleries and new whisky making countries suggests to me that in balance we as whisky lovers should welcome the passing of some tired old production that was never successful or large enough to survive and welcome the next whisky that will inevitably follow in footsteps, almost certainly a better product given the high standards of distilling and maturation today. Simply put some of these whiskies weren't good enough or loved enough or viable for whatever reason at the time and for the good of the whole industry they had to die. My guess is that they weren't the best whiskies and therefore the fittest survived. If total whisky production or producing countries was falling I would understand, but clearly that isn't the case, so let's collectively move on.
If you do come across a rare bottling of single malt from a closed distillery enjoy by all means, but don't try and tell me it is a loss to the industry. My guess is it probably isn't, although I am sure from time to time some good production has been lost it has been more than outweighed by the good new whiskies added almost every day. I am sure almost any distillery can produce, from time to time, a one off single cask bottling of exceptional quality but it doesn't mean that everything produced there was of the same standard. Occasionally even a blind squirrel will find a nut.
So let's not mourn the passing of distilleries or worry about the rebirth of others, perhaps we should even encourage and welcome it, raising the standards of the global product for everyone, like a gardener pruning old tired flowers so healthy new growth can come through.
My first comment regarding my whisky reviews, tasting notes, and whisky tasting notes in general, is that whisky, almost always, tastes like whisky. No-one ever writes that in their notes.
"Sweet whisky nose with strong whisky flavor and hint of whisky in the finish"
Whisky has it's own flavor, that why people add it to cakes, sauces and other foods. If chefs wanted the subtle soft fruit and cream flavors they would add soft fruits and cream to their recipe.
I think that some people may be confused and perhaps put off when they see whisky described as "apples on the nose with a taste of butterscotch and heather fading to old leather". I know I certainly was at first. I could understand concepts like smooth, silky, harsh but the flavor was just whisky flavor right?
I like the taste of nearly all types of whisky (Scotch, Irish, bourbon and most recently rye). I always have. Some people don't and this probably isn't the website for them. In fact the descriptors used in notes and reviews are simply the tasters attempt to break down subtle notes and tastes that may appear in the whisky to them (and often not to others who taste the same whisky) and the things that differentiate them from other brands and styles. They all taste like whisky, just like pretty much all cola drinks tastes the same, but the tasting notes are trying to differentiate what is different between Pepsi and Coke (to my palate Pepsi is sweeter).
They are just descriptions, highly personal, and the fun for me is in trying to identify the subtle flavors and to put those often delicate and fleeting sensations into my own words.
Some people might assume that if I don't like oranges, if the whisky has orange notes I won't like that whisky. Not necessarily true. I don't particularly like eating peat or old leather and yet some great whiskies have flavor notes that remind me of those things. So don't be put off by the descriptors.
Another thing to bear in mind is that occasionally the whisky is so well blended or balanced that individual notes are so subtle they are hard (or for the olfactory challenged like me) impossible to detect. I think that is perhaps the pinnacle of whisky making and so the reviews and ratings may simply reflect that. Sit back, pour a large measure and simply enjoy it, like anything well made there comes a time to stop over analyzing it and simply enjoy it. And yes that means that blends can be good whiskies. In fact they can be great. There I said it and I can sense the malt purists logging off now.
Never forget that these are simply my opinion and don't mean that you shouldn't try every whisky I review for yourself even if I choose to give it a low rating. My wife can confirm I am often wrong. In fact I find the most interesting discussions and debate around whiskies that received mixed reviews. Nearly everyone will agree that The Macallan 18 year old is great whisky, but people can argue and have completely different positions about a blend like Cutty Sark or an unusual expression of single malt like Glenturret or Ardbeg Blasda (isn't that right Jim?). That's often when it is the most fun.
If you interested in more detail on how to taste whisky try the link to the website below for one of my favorite whisky podcasts, The Scotchcast and there is also a short section on how to taste whisky in Ian Buxton's book, 101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die.
http://www.thescotchcast.com/howtotaste/
Rating System
I will use a simple 4 star system because of my own limitations and lack of ability of differentiate on the more common 100 point scale. I simply can't detect enough difference to rate one whisky 85 and another 86. Even if I could (which I can't) my rating does not mean you would rate the same way (in fact you almost certainly wouldn't) so I feel a simpler qualitative scale rather than quantitative scale is a more useful tool. I won't use ½ or ¼ stars either, that seems to me to defeat the simplistic, qualitative approach of a 4 (or 5) star system.
My "acid test" when it comes to a rating will be what I am calling the Party Test. That is hypothetical situation that someone hands me a glass at a party and says:
"I hear you love whisky, try this....."
Assuming that this person isn't someone you have to impress and you can't hand the glass back to (like your boss or prospective father in law) the system goes like this...
1 star
Not for me. Something about the whisky hits an off note in my palate or simply doesn't balance for me. At a party I might politely refuse the drink and ask for something else. If there is a bottle in my house it's just because I have been unable to even finish one I was given as gift or bought by mistake. These are rare. Ginger beer and whisky over ice with lime anyone?
2 star
Doesn't quite work for me. It is fine, nothing wrong with it but you would probably never find a bottle in my house. Perhaps some balance issues. Also some more expensive whiskies that simply don't deliver on value may also end up 2 stars as I would never buy them. If offered this whisky at a party I would drink it, but would ask if they had any other whisky perhaps rather than drink a second. Most whisky for me falls into 2 or 3 star category.
3 star
Now we are talking. Something about this whisky I really like. This would be a whisky I like enough to buy a bottle every now and again. Good value, good tasting whiskies would also fall into this category. At a party I would happily accept the glass, drink it and then ask the host for more.
4 star
I would accept the glass, complement the host and ask to see the bottle. I might then take the bottle, leave the party and go straight home and drink it. I never enjoy parties anyway. These are special whiskies (to me), favorites I will always go back to and high likelihood you will find a bottle or two in my house.