The last edition of Whisky Magazine was a milestone 100th edition and in recognition of that the publishers included a list of the 100 Greatest Distilleries to Visit.  As anyone who has seen my website knows, I like lists. In fact my website was really born after reading a list of 101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die, an excellent book by Ian Buxton.  I also like visiting distilleries and a quick count revealed that I had indeed visited 18 of the 100 listed, 2 in Ireland, 1 in Wales and the rest in Scotland. (http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries?Name=Value )

The St George's Distillery in England was notably absent, which is a pity because I had visited that one as well and I felt it was a great visitor experience, better than some of the named Scottish distilleries, where else does the distiller actually lead the tour? It also happens to make a great product. http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/62-st-georges-distillery-norfolk-england

I decided I would like to take my family on a road trip this summer and visit some USA distilleries in Kentucky and perhaps Tennessee on the way back.  We did similar road trip for two summers in Scotland (not to Kentucky - very long drive) and they turned out to be great family vacations, at least I thought so,  so I was pretty sure I could sell my wife and 6 year old daughter on the plan.  So I carefully picked my moment, and announced I had a great idea for a family road trip this summer, and then asked what Kentucky is most famous is for?  As my wife likes whisky and my daughter loves horses and horse riding I was confident in their response.  After a pause and a moment of consideration my wife offered the suggestion "Fried Chicken?"

She was of course, as usual, right.  Other then the whiskey obsessed, I think the thing most people around the globe will always associate with Kentucky first is fried chicken and a man in white suit called Colonel Sanders.  It is one of the truly global brands and according to their website (www.kfc.com) is in "109 countries and territories around the world ..... operates more than 5,200 restaurants in the United States and more than 15,000 units around the world."  As I was  thinking about this blog, on my last business trip to Lagos, Nigeria just before I pulled into my hotel I was greeted with familiar KFC logo and took a quick picture to include with this entry.

I recently read Ian Buxton's excellent article in Whisky Advocate's winter 2011 edition asking if whisky has a soul.  An interesting question and his article made for a good read.  That article also triggered in me another thought, if whisky has soul, then does it have a gender?  Is whisky male or female?  My friend Ding of www.dingsbeerblog.com on Twitter recent stated, quite simply and in way less than 140 characters, that beer was male.  However, if you are willing to entertain this abstract concept, I think the answer is not as simple when it comes to whisky.

My initial reaction was whisky is male.  Of course it is.   It is very hard to imagine anything that is regularly associated with the smell of alcohol, smoke, leather and tobacco that is not male.  Perhaps what springs to your mind is a chain smoking, alcoholic dominatrix (in which case you may need some help) but my guess is most people will think of a man first. 

However whisky is often characterized as a "man's drink".  This is a generalization and even a stereotype I accept,  I have seen plenty of women at recent whisky tasting events enjoying the water of life,  however if we accept men are preferentially attracted to whisky then doesn't that make whisky more likely to be female?  For example women, boats and cars, other known interests of the male, are referred to as female.    Don't opposites attract?

I also think there can be little argument that distilleries are female.  They are often described as beautiful and picturesque (two words I have never heard applied to me).  The rounded sumptuous curves and seductive smoothness of the pot still need no further explanation or evaluation, when up close you simply have to touch it, ideally when it is not running, and the spirit produced, often called new make spirit will sometimes be referred to as "mother's milk" and is matured, like a young child, in the distillery family home of warehouses until ready to go out in the world as whisky.  Distilleries are definitely female and should be referred to as she. When I asked Jim Martin the Malted Muse the question of whisky and gender he came to same conclusion in his podcast (www.themaltedmuse.com) that distilleries were female.  Countries are usually referred to as female as well.  As we often refer to whisky by the country of origin (Scotch, Irish, Canadian) would that also imply the product of that country, their whisky, is also female? 

All things considered, against my initial instinct, I think there is very strong case to be made that whisky is female, especially when you consider the sweetness of bourbon and the light and sophisticated triple distilled Irish whiskies.  Those spirits have to be female right?   But how can you reconcile female with the earthy, smokey Laphroaig, a cask strength mouth puckering Glenfarclas or fiery, precocious young rye whisky?  You can't.  Those aren't female, they are men.  Big hairy men.  Jim Martin also suggested that whiskies can be male or female depending on their individual character.

So I have a suggestion.   My mother is of Irish heritage and her middle name is Frances.  Her father was called Francis.  The Irish spelling of the female version of the name has an "e" and the male version has an "i".  They sound the same when spoken but when written you can tell the female from the male.  I suggest those whiskies that use an "e" in the spelling of whiskey, such as Irish and Bourbons, will be female.  Those that spell whisky with no "e" be male.   I think as broad based solution it is not bad, female for bourbons and Irish and male for scotch seems to work for me anyway and if a particular distillery or brand feels strongly their spirit is female or male then they always have the option to change the spelling to suit the convention I am now proposing.   Therefore whisky can be male or female and the spelling can be used to determine which is which. 

I don't write this blog worried about what a reader might think of me.  This is just my hobby (now grown into a fully fledged passion) and a way to keep track of all the fantastic whiskies I have tried.  I also really like the mental challenge of trying to write a weekly, coherent missive on whisky and who knows, maybe one day I will actually succeed in doing that.  It is certainly not about the feedback or adulation I get.  Just as well, because I get none.  Nada.  Zip. Big goose egg.  (Insert sound of crickets chirping and lone bell ringing in background.)  However I am writing this particular entry because I feel guilty, a bit of a phoney, somewhat shallow and need to publicly express my remorse.

You see I have espoused previously on the subject of very exclusive, expensive whiskies and my feelings about those.  In general I have been, what you might describe as, slightly negative on that subject.  I have instead preached virtuously of moderately priced, great value and ubiquitous whisky over the evils of ultra premium limited edition whiskies.  Hell I even been known to say in public I like blended whisky.  So why the guilt?

It is because I recently tried the $20,000 a bottle Gordon and MacPhail Glenlivet 70 year old and.... I liked it.  I really liked it.  Damn Michael Urquhart and his generosity for exposing me.  I really wanted to say I have had better, that it was OK but I prefer the 21 year old Archive or anything else.  But the problem was it was really good.  Really, really, really good.    There is even the remote possibility it might be worth $20,000 a bottle.   I won't reproduce my tasting notes here but I have posted them under my Reviews if you are interested.    I assume this must be how the  left wing Socialist Worker student who after leaving college settled down, got married, started reading the Guardian and voting Labour must feel in the wee small hours of morning, wracked with middle class guilt  

Sidebar:  One of my favorite stories from college was a friend telling about the time he "resigned" from the Socialist Workers Party.  When his comrades pressed him to stay committed to the cause he told them he would give it another week but if there was no workers revolution by next Friday he was quitting.  They agreed, there wasn't and he quit a week later.

I have to accept that these old and rare whiskies are extraordinary and to some people they are worth it.  I must also say again how incredibly generous it was of Michael to pour that whisky (he must be one of the people who has never read my blog) and also point out that at $20,000 a bottle of his 70 year of Glenlivet is still $230,000 less than The Dalmore 1926 single malt recently released and in that context it still represents a veritable bargain.  In my own rating system I could only rate the Glenlivet 70 year old 3 stars – simply because I would not buy a bottle to put it on my whisky shelf – but it is still, without doubt, one the finest drams I have ever tasted.

Perhaps at the next whisky festival I attend Richard Patterson will have read my blog and pour me a dram of that 1926 Dalmore?  I know it is not likely... after all Richard Patterson will, like the vast majority of the human race, never read this blog.  So perhaps a more realistic expectation is at the next Whisky Festival I go to "someone other than me or my immediate family" will read my blog.  (Re-insert sounds of crickets chirping).

I am not going to be posting a blog entry this week (well... except this one).  Why?   I spent the weekend at the Victoria Whisky Festival and I am still a little overwhelmed from that experience and to be honest I haven't really been able to concentrate on a single entry or idea (and I have a business trip to prepare for this week).  Highlights included an eight whisky / whiskey master class from Jim Murray (see picture), an unbelievable chance to sample the Gordon and Macphail Glenlivet 70 year old, participating in another WhiskCast virtual tasting and meeting Mark Gillespie, Grant Stevely, Simon Brooking, Ashok Chokalingam and many others.  Oh and I have a Glenlivet Nights of Passage tasting event tonight.... still someone has to do it.

As I look back on my first 100 plus formal tasting notes and reviews I am ready to grade myself and now you can use my system below to grade yourself.  Welcome to the whisky dojo…  hajime!

My first grade is a white belt.  If you drink alcohol and know what whisky is you can award yourself a white belt.  If you don’t drink alcohol or have no interest in whisky I am not sure why you are even reading this.  What does white belt mean?  It means that your trousers won’t fall down.

The next grade, yellow belt, is awarded to those who like and enjoy the taste of whisky.  As I mentioned in my first blog, everyone seems to skip over this rather basic step.  Whisky tastes like whisky, and you should like it to reach yellow belt grade.  If you don’t like whisky then you stay at white belt grade (and probably need to surf along to a new website).  

The next grade is all about the basic split in whisky types, whether it is the old world genre, primarily Scotland, Ireland and Japan (ie usually malt and grain whiskies) or the new world such as USA and Canada (ie usually bourbon, corn and rye whiskies).    There are often noticeable differences in the tastes between these two types which I believe most whisky drinkers can differentiate on their nose and palate.  If you can usually tell the difference between scotch and bourbon, award yourself an orange belt.

The green belt grade in tasting is awarded to those who can identify further subdivisions of these two main types, and I would call it the style of whisky.  A peaty Islay single malt is very different in style to a triple distilled Irish blend.  Rye whisky can be very different from wheated Bourbon.  The green belt requires some experience and knowledge, this grade starts to separate the whisky drinker from the whisky taster.   I suspect people who claim to have a favorite style, “I like peaty whiskies”, “I like bourbon”, “I like Irish” or even express a specific brand preference, “I like Johnnie Walker Black” are probably green belts.  This was my grade when I moved to Scotland in 2009 as “I liked Irish”.

I would now grade myself as a blue belt (on a good day).  I am now tasting the whisky and looking for specific aromas, flavors and notes.   However I have noticed a tendency to refer to a “pool” of certain flavors of about 20, including peat, smoke, caramel, vanilla, malt, honey, pepper, spice, oak, toffee, dried fruit, citrus and sherry.  However there is still an endless combination of these major tastes and aromas and I find it is possible to define most whisky uniquely with these descriptors.  If you can do that as well, welcome to the blue belt grade.

The brown belt is the grade I aspire to, but I am also reconciled to the fact that I may not have the palate to reach, and is the grade many of the professional writers have achieved.  They draw on seemingly endless analogies and variations, breaking “dried fruit” down into specific types of dried fruit (prunes, raisins, sultanas, currants), spicy into multiple different spices (pepper, cayenne, cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg), floral notes into specific flowers and specific type of wood notes (oak, pine, cedar even sandalwood).  They also seem to find levels of subtlety and that I simply cannot pick up or at least consciously identify. 

Finally we have the black belt, the ultimate in whisky tasting.  As well as having all the palate and skills of a brown belt, they are blessed with the writing skills to write an evocation of sensations rather than just a lengthy list of obscure flavors and smells.  Dave Broom (definite black belt) recently tweeted this whisky review (@davebroomwhisky on www.twitter.com) …. “An out of control kid's party. Burst balloons, broken pencils, sweets on the floor, masses of chocolate & Nutella. Feisty & fun!”    That is a whisky tasting black belt and he can kick my a**.  Going forward I will be awarding the occasional whisky black belt on my blog.

One whisky story (actually two) caught my attention over the holiday season.  My first reaction was to ignore them, but like so many slightly irritating things, by leaving it alone the itch just grew and grew and in the end I had no choice but to scratch (and write this). 

First l became aware that Dalmore had released a single bottle of a 1926 vintage whisky for the staggering price of 250,000 EU.  One quarter of a million Euros for a single bottle of whisky!  I can buy one bottle of Ardbeg Alligator for $100, and I suggest that it is highly unlikely this Dalmore actually tastes 2,500 times better than that Ardbeg.  OK, so Dalmore throw in a 1.83 carat diamond in the stopper –deduct $60,000 or so – which means the actual whisky is only 1,900 times more expensive than the Ardbeg.  I haven't tasted it of course (and never will) but I seriously doubt it is worth it.   I have written (ranted) about whisky pricing and speculation before and will not repeat myself here and if that had been the only story I would not even have mentioned it. But then I saw that the Dalmore's parent company, Whyte and Mackay, reported a significant drop in year over year profits.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/company-news/whyte-and-mackay-not-for-sale-despite-profits-plunge.16250673

The Whyte and Mackay position is that they are investing in promoting their premium brands and that is why their profits have dropped, a short term dip while they refocus their business.  I am sure (and hope) that is the case but this to me, as a business person first and a whisky aficionado second, is a red flag.  I happen to think their blends and the Jura and Dalmore single malts (the ones that cost $100 or less) are great value whiskies.    To my mind all whisky is luxury product, no-one has to buy a bottle of whisky, and certainly none of the whisky people I know are multi millionaires who will be willing or even able to spend 250K on a bottle.  Whisky lovers simply wants good product at a reasonable and fair price (taking into consideration this is often a hand crafted, artisan product).  I believe if Whyte and Mackay focus on producing good, accessible whiskies I am sure they will be successful.  If this business "re-focus" goes towards more of the "ultra premium" brand stuff and 250,000 Euro bottles with 1.83 carat diamond stoppers, I suspect this may not be the last we hear of their financial concerns.

OK I admit this is a VERY clichéd thing to do, but I promise to avoid all of the obvious traps about drinking less or spending less.  Instead, I have decided that instead of sticking to budgets I will stick to my opinions as my first resolution of 2012.  I still sometimes get an emotional reaction that "I got it wrong" about my reviews and tasting notes after I read others, even though rationally I know that there is no right answer.   I taste what I taste and I like what I like, so I am resolved to resist the temptation to "review my reviews" in 2012 based on the opinions of others.  That said, I may from time to review my review based on my own tasting experiences, and I have already revisited some after a later tasting and updated the notes. 

I originally wrote that my second resolution was to complete my 101challenge and find a new whisky adventure for 2013 and beyond.   But then as I was drafting this piece, I read a very interesting blog by an old friend of mine (www.dingsbeerblog.com) and it has made me reflect at this time of year as to WHY I drink whisky and why I have become so passionate about whisky over the last two or three years.  In his blog of December 7th, 2011, Ding discusses the danger of "pursuing the thrill of accumulation, and, in turn, had lost all perspective in terms of the very essence of what beer is all about".  I must confess to seeing a little of that in my behavior at times, such as buying the next bottle "on my list" when there were several very good bottles already open at home, just waiting for me to drink or share with others.   

So my second resolution is to make sure I take the time in 2012 to stop and smell the "whisky", not simply run around glugging down the next or newest whisky to add to a list of reviews, to check off a list or to be one of the "cool people" who has tried the latest bottling.  Rather than those slightly fanatical and obsessive behaviors, I will focus on what I love about whisky, the simple enjoyment I get drinking a whisky at the end of the day (or sometimes in the middle of the day), sharing something I love with friends and family and the great people I meet at whisky events and online.  If I get to finish my list of 101 whiskies in the course of 2012.... that's just a bonus.

Thanks for that reminder Ding, and for giving me a resolution in 2012 that is truly worthwhile. Cheers!

I quite liked my second version of the recipe and I have posted tasting notes under Reviews.  

The nose has some malt and peat smoke.  This version is a bit more subdued than Blend #1,  The taste is still smooth and rich, orange maramalade and caramel notes.  The finish is spicy and long with tobacco and smoke.  With water the finish becomes a little more peppery.  Overall  this is still pretty hefty for a blend and my guess with just 25% grain most people would assume this is a single or perhaps a blended malt whisky.

This version was more balanced than blend #1, but overall I think I will stick to drinking whisky and let the experts do the blending.  Those that can, do.  Those that can't, write blogs.

I made up my blend as per the recipe in the previous blog entry and left it to "marry" in the flask provided as part of the kit (which I sealed with cling film) for about 8 hours.  With about 8 cl of total blend it was enough for my wife and I to taste and review.  The nose was quite salty and tangy, like sea spray (the Islay's clearly evident) and also quite peaty, but in an earthy rather than smokey way.  There was even a hint of maple syrup smoked bacon.  The taste was very smooth and sherry starts to come through, followed by spices like pepper and cinnamon.  There were also some sweet fruit notes, like a jam, but the kind of generic sweet red jam you might get in bed and breakfast.  There was some smoke in the finish and with a little water some oak notes also came through.  This was quite rich for a blend, but then this has only 25 % grain whisky, most blends today are probably closer to 50/50 grain to malt whisky, and I found the Islay influence dominant in the nose (even though it was less than 20% of the total ) but overall whisky was very drinkable and smooth.  Going to Master of Malt website if I was to make a bottle according to this recipe it would cost $83 for a 700 ml bottle and have an ABV of 40.75%.  Because I found the nose and taste a little disjointed I can only give this 2 stars and I will tweak recipe slightly.

 

Barnard Blend Recipe #2:  Speyside single malt (1 ½ cl of sherry matured) and 1 cl old Speyside single malt,  1 ½ cl of Islay single malt,  1 ½ cl of Lowland single malt, ½  cl old Highland single malt (sherry finished), 1 cl of single grain and finally 1 cl of very, very old single grain.

The idea here was to remove the very old Islay and increase the very, very old grain.  I also replaced the Highland with an old Highland sherry finished.  I will now blend this one and post a review.  I think this may balance out the nose and the taste but stay true to Alfred Barnard basic recipe. It also reduces price to $ 75 / 700 ml bottle and increases ABV to 41.1%.

Whisky buffs will know Alfred Barnard for his famous, and very collectable, book "The Whisky Distilleries of the United Kingdom" written in the 19th century.  He also wrote another book called "How to Blend Scotch Whisky" for Mackie and Co and I found a reprint of that book in the Islay Museum of Islay Life in 2010 and it contained a recipe for blended whisky.  To quote the book: "We give an example of a blend that has been most popular both home and abroad.  Average age, seven years.  3 Glenlivets x 5 parts, 2 Islays x 3 parts, 2 Lowland malts x 3 parts, 1 Campbeltown x 1 part and 2 Grains x 4 parts".  Total = 16 parts.

I had not thought much about this until Master of Malt began offering home blending kits and it occurred to me that I might be able to recreate this blend (or at least something close).   Rather than describe that kit in detail here is link to the webpage.... http://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/the-home-whisky-blending-kit/.   I do have to make some substitutions, so I will use Speyside for Glenlivet and as there is no Campbeltown in the Master of Malt kit I will replace that with Highland malt.

Barnard Blend Recipe:  Speyside single malt (1 ½ cl of sherry matured) and 1 cl old Speyside single malt,  1 cl of Islay single malt and ½  cl of very old Islay Single malt,  1 ½  cl of Lowland single malt, ½  cl Highland single malt, 1 ½  cl of single grain and finally ½  cl of very, very old single grain.

If my mathematics are right that should be 8 cl (ie 16 x ½ cl parts) of blended whisky, which is enough for my wife and I to taste and write notes.  I received the blending kit (an early Christmas present to myself) this week and will make up the blend as above and review on my blog under Alfred Barnard Blend.   Happy Christmas everyone!