Under $20 included Ballantines Finest, Forty Creek Barrel Select, Ridgemont Reserve 1792, Buffalo Trace, Grants Family Reserve, Cutty Sark and Tullamore Dew.  Makers Mark just missed out at $22.   An interesting selection and a couple of things stand out.  Firstly not one scotch single malt.  The closest was Glen Moray at $29.  However there is nothing wrong with the Grants or Ballantines blended scotch, both of which I rated as 3 stars and they were both significantly cheaper than the much vaunted (and in my opinion even more over rated) Johnnie Walker Black at $29.  Ireland was only represented by Tullamore Dew, both Bushmills and Jameson were priced out of this category (just).  The clear winner is (to me anyway) the Canadian Forty Creek Barrel Select which I love and have gushed about enough already.  Strong representation by USA as well in this category, I am not so wild about Buffalo Trace bourbon, but I know others like it, and I recently tried the Ridgemont Reserve 1792 and I was impressed.  That is a great bourbon for under $20.

Under $40 was where we started to see some scotch single malts.  Glen Moray as I have previously mentioned, Glenmorangie, Glenrothes Select Reserve, AnCnoc  and Dalmore 12 year olds and even Compass Box Peat Monster which was on offer for $38.  Perhaps the best Irish blend on offer was Black Bush at $35.  Some more US whiskies were also available, the very good Rowans' Creek, as well as Makers Mark, Knob Creek (at just $26) and Baker's 7 year old.  My beloved Ardbeg did not quite make it at $45 for the 10 year old.  There is some good value to be had at this price range; I would have picked either the Glenrothes Select Reserve or the Dalmore 12 year for scotch, Knob Creek or Makers' Mark for bourbon and the Black Bush for Irish.

Between $40 and $100 was where the single malts (at least the ones under 20 years old) can be found.   Ardbeg 10 as I mentioned before is at one end of scale $45, Tobermory 15 year old was at the other at $96. In between, amongst many others, was Oban 14, Bunnahabhain 18, Balvenie Single Barrel 15, and Lagavulin 16.  Very little North American whiskey is marketed (or at least on the shelf of this store) in this price bracket.   The only whisky I found over 18 years old was the Aberfeldy 21 for a very reasonable $60.  Best value here... for my palate I am going to say the Ardbeg 10 and Aberfeldy 21, however I have to say I like all of these whiskies and it would be hard to go "wrong".

So perhaps that is the real difference between buying $20 and $100 whisky.  At $20 end of the scale you have to know what you are doing in this price range or you might end up very disappointed. At the $100 bottle where the chances are you won't go too far wrong in terms of an enjoyable dram but then the question becomes are you getting value? 

Sports fans in the United States are currently enjoying the phenomena known as March Madness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship ).  This is the 68 best college basketball teams competing in a tournament, mostly held during the month of March, to be one of the four teams who compete in the final weekend (or the Final Four as it is known) for the National Championship.    I also have my own final four, the four whiskies I have to yet to track down either a dram in a bar or a bottle somewhere in my search for all “101 Whiskies To Try Before You Die” (http://www.somanywhiskies.com/101-whiskies-to-try-before-you-die) .  While I am yet to post all 97 reviews, I have posted 85, I have a few more I have found (or even bought but I am yet to develop notes for) and I do have a plan to acquire or taste the others soon, but these final four elude me. 

So I have decided to put out a request for help.  Any ideas where I can acquire a dram or bottle of these  whiskies (in person or online) would be appreciated and if you have a bottle perhaps an exchange of samples or a small donation in kind could be made?  If you have any contacts or know of any other whisky fanatic please feel free to pass this request on.

It is St Patrick's Day weekend so an Irish blog entry is required and it turns out that I have quite a lot of Irish ancestry.  I knew my mother's family, Bradley, came to England from Cork in the early 20th century.    What I didn't know until I did some family research in 2011 was that my father's family also came from Ireland.  The Seaton's (originally spelled Seton) moved from Aberdeenshire, Scotland to County Tyrone, Ireland in the late 1600's and my great great grandfather James came over to Staffordshire in England in the late 1840's, added the "a" to Seton and we became Seaton.

That connection got me thinking about Irish whiskey and the run of bad luck that nearly wiped out the Irish distilling industry.  I think it can be summed up in six different events in relatively short time period, approximately 100 years that hurt the Irish whiskey industry and more often than not benefited the Scots, and changed the industry forever.

Number one was the invention of the Coffey continuous still in 1832 and the ability to make the lower cost grain whiskies.  Up until then both Scotland and Ireland made whisky in pot stills.  The Irish clung to the tradition of pot still distilled whiskey and disputed if the product of the continuous still was even whiskey.  The Scots embraced the Coffey still  (though not while it was running – ouch) and eventually won the argument "what is whisky?"  The irony is that this critical component in the eventual downfall of the Irish industry, the Coffey still, was in fact invented by an Irishman.

The 1850s saw invention of blending of whisky, commonly credited to Andrew Usher, a Scot, who began mixing the pot still single malts and continuous still grain whiskies to produce a lighter, consistent and more accessible spirit.  When the Phylloxora beetle affected French vines and wine and brandy production reduced significantly in the late 1880's it created a new market for whisky that the new lower cost, consistent and more approachable Scottish blends subsequently exploited and filled. Without Scottish blends perhaps the Irish pot still whiskies would have filled that void and been the replacement for brandy?

Number three was the introduction of prohibition in the USA in 1920.  The USA was huge natural market for Irish whiskey with so many Irish people transplanted to the new world after the hardships of the 1700 and 1800s and Irish was the most common imported whisky in the USA before prohibition.  It is also important to note, and often forgotten,  that the Temperence movement that led to prohibition in the USA was also strong in the UK and Ireland which in turn also reduced demand in those home markets and led to legislation including limiting the sales of alcohol, increasing costs of production and restricting pub opening hours.   The Irish whiskies had more to lose than the Scots from the Temperance movement in the 1920s, and if Prohibition had not happened then I think it is likely Irish would have remained the imported whiskey of choice in the USA.

Number four was the winning of Irish independence in 1922.  The problem was this victory came with a loss of access to British Empire markets post independence, again a gap the Scots were well positioned to fill.  As the debate around Scottish independence and the value of a United Kingdom is again in the news, this raises the question if Scotland had been independent and had no access to English, Empire and Commonwealth markets would the thriving Scotch industry be the same today or would we have had an English or Welsh whisky industry fill this demand or would the Irish, competing on a level footing, been more successful?   Was being part of the UK the best thing that could have happened for the Scotch whisky industry?

Number five was the great depression that began in 1929.  After all the restrictions on sales due to temperance, the loss of access to British and Commonwealth markets the last thing the Irish whiskey industry needed was a global depression to further depress sales.   Unfortunately that is exactly what happened.

The final blow, number six, was the outbreak of World War II in 1939.  Wartime is very disruptive to trade when you are an island and have to ship your merchandise over U-boat and mine infested oceans.  In addition, prior to the invasion of Europe in 1944, many of the US troops were based in the UK (Ireland chose to remain neutral) and the whisky of choice in the UK, for all the reasons above, was Scotch.  So the returning GI's at the end of the war had acquired a taste for Scotch further solidifying the US market in favor of the Scots.

So much for the luck of the Irish when it comes to whiskey.  It is a tremendous achievement and testament to the product that it even still exists, and I for one am really glad it does, maybe that's in part due to my Irish genes.

Prior to tasting a whisky, I used to avoid reading other people’s tasting notes because I find the power of suggestion can be very strong.  I do often read other tasting notes after I write my notes just for fun or to help me calibrate my own notes and sometimes to help me identify a taste or aroma that I couldn’t quite nail down, and that someone smarter than me might have been able to. 

When I first read Ian Buxton’s tasting notes for Deanston 12 year old in the book 101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die I was intrigued by the gingerbread reference he made and for some reason it stuck with me.  When I did finally taste it (many months later) the only way I could describe the malty nose and spicy yet sweet taste of that malt was of course.... gingerbread.  So was it the power of suggestion at work or does Deanston taste so much like gingerbread that I would have come up with independently?  The answer I think is probably a bit of both.  The taste profile certainly does contain all those elements I associate with gingerbread, but so do many other single malts and without that reference in my head I may have chosen another analogy, say cinnamon toasted breakfast cereal or a ginger snap cookie for example.  Actually a sweet tea dunked ginger snap is a pretty good descriptor for Deanston 12 year old, I think I will add that to my review.

I now find, as I taste more whiskies, it is becoming harder and harder not to have at least some expectations about any given dram.  Even if I have not read a tasting note I now have preconceptions and ideas of what I expect to find in say a bourbon, a Balvenie or Glenlivet expression or any sherry cask matured whisky based on my experience to date.   Blind tasting is perhaps the only way to avoid these types of mental connections, but to date my relatively little experience with blind tasting has been best described as a “mind f***”.  Seriously, if you think you know anything about whisky, get someone to set up a blind tasting for you and then be prepared to be humbled (especially if the person is a little crafty and knows their whisky).  

So at the end the day if I find joy in the simple pleasure joy of recognizing the same things that others before me found in a dram, even if that is due in part to the power of suggestion rather than my sophisticated palate, then I have decided I am fine with that.  After all I am doing this for fun not for science and it seems to me that whisky is all about bonding with people and sharing experiences.  If the power of suggestion actually enables or enhances that bonding process… then I say it’s a good thing.

Many cowboy movies contain the iconic scene of cowboy walking through the saloon doors (often the music stops and the locals turn and stare at the stranger), striding up to bar with his spurs jangling and ordering a whiskey.  The timid and nervous looking barman (always in a bowtie for some reason) pulls a cork out of a bottle, pours a shot and the hero throws it back, stamps his foot, pulls a face then orders another or says " ...leave the bottle".  In many cases that same bottle is smashed over the head of Bad- Breath Pete (that's a good name for independent Islay bottling) later in the scene.   In the cowboy-comedy-cartoon version the drinker's hat flies off, steam comes out of his ears and the barman then makes a comment about it being "the good stuff".   You never see the cowboy comment to the barman about the nose and making some notes in his leather bound whiskey journal.   The overall impression you are left with is that rye whiskey is stuff to get down as quick as possible and is about getting drunk and quite often leads to a gun fight.  In the politically incorrect movies the local tribes were always keen to drink the white man's "fire water".  That name is not exactly positive either and would have the marketing guys today reaching for their six guns (or at least their iPhones).

Then I tried Sazerac Rye and that all changed.  The standard Sazerac rye is good.  It is cotton picking, rooting tooting good.    I have also now tasted and reviewed the Sazerac 18 year old, Thomas H Handy and Pappy Van Winkle rye whiskies and find they are also as complex, rich and rewarding as any single malt.  I can't recommend them enough (other than the fact they are hard to find and not cheap) and as yet since I started drinking ryes I have not been involved in single gun fight and considering I live in Houston, Texas that is not something you can actually rule out.  So my advice is if you also have the image of rye whisky as the cowboy whiskey, you need to go to your local store or favorite online retailer and order a bottle of Sazerac.  You can thank me later pardner or to paraphrase John Wayne... "Get off your horse and drink your whiskey".

No more beer and wine for me.  I like beer and wine and there are times when they fit exactly the mood I am in, but now the whisky bug has bitten and the fever taken hold I don't spend any time in the store browsing the latest wines and beers.  Instead I am drawn like a moth straight to the whisky section. With my beverage budget blown more often than a Euro Zone government, other drinks simply don't get a look in any more. 

When your hobby involves alcohol, Texas and getting home.  For some reason, in most of the USA, the idea of clean, affordable public transport seems to translate to a concept bordering on communism.   It limits or even eliminates the enjoyment of whisky at events and bars due to the simple fact I have to drive home.  Take a taxi I hear you say?  You have never been in a Houston cab at night I say back.   I once saw a Houston taxi driver threaten someone because he didn't like the tip with a hammer he kept in the front seat.  I rather skip the drink. 

Whisky websites that require me to enter my age.  This is getting really annoying and seems quite pointless to me.  The delinquent web page user can simply enter an incorrect date and access all the whisky pages their heart desires.  I understand if I am buying something there is an obligation to confirm my age, but to browse a web page?  If you must, at least keep it simple and ask to me to confirm with a simple click if I am of legal drinking age rather than selection of country, and the entry of a specific birth date via drop down menus.    Please.

The Tyranny of Choice.  OK, it's not the worse problem to have maybe but nonetheless still an annoyance as every day there is a new bottle on the store shelf or a new expression released.  Which whisky to choose from a well stocked bar or even from my home selection?  Do I enjoy an old a favorite or try a new bottling?  It's all so good I find myself some just staring at a menu or at my whisky shelf like a "deer in the headlights" and trying to keep up now is simply impossible. 

The lack of respect for American and Canadian whiskies.  Too often I see people pass over Canadian and even American whiskies in preference for the Scottish varietals.  People also sometimes seem more interested in the products of new countries like Sweden, Taiwan, Finland, India and Australia which are priced high (due the nature of their limited production and high fixed costs per bottle) and to me often don't represent good whisky value.  It seems that people are  overlooking some great North American products and some great value as well.  I believe a bottle of bourbon is usually better than an equivalent priced scotch, in part, I accept, because it matures quicker so it costs less to produce.  Jim Murray stated in no uncertain terms that he feels today the average barrel of whisky maturing in Kentucky is better quality that the average barrel maturing in Scotland.   I tend to agree.

Based on web page hits I know there are at least 100 people out there who read these random ramblings... what about the wide world of whisky annoys you?

These travel experiences are usually very hard to recreate back home.  For example, no matter how closely you follow the recipe or seek out the right ingredients, it always seems to be impossible to recreate a French dish in your own kitchen.   The ambiance is different and therefore taste is different.    (Perhaps if I got a slightly aloof waiter to hang around the kitchen and pull faces at my mispronunciations that would create the right ambience?)   Similarly I have many times tried whisky in the distillery, sharing the experience with someone who cares deeply about the place and the product and then bought a bottle only to find at home it slightly misses the mark, and that it wasn't quite the whisky I was convinced it was when in their tasting room.  There is no doubt some of my favorite whisky (and other drink) experiences are tied directly to the location in which I first tasted them.  A few examples are drinking Penderyn from a hip flask in Cardiff with old friends outside the stadium before the start of a rugby test match.  There are numerous distillery examples, but certainly the tasting of Bowmore Darkest in their delightful tasting room overlooking the Loch at the end of great trip to Islay stands out as well.  I also fondly recall drinking Jose Cuervo Reserva de la Familia tequila with colleagues at a dinner in Villahermosa, Tabasco to celebrate winning a large contract.   In the right circumstances the most mundane drinks can be elevated to special and in the wrong circumstances the most spectacular sprits just don't work.   When you get the right drink in the right place... that is really special.

It is no coincidence I first started drinking Irish whisky after a trip to Ireland in 2006, and that fell in love in with Scotch whiskies while living in Scotland in 2009.  I also think I am enjoying bourbon a lot more now I live in Southern USA, often with a cube of ice to cool those peppery rye and spicy oak notes found in some many types of bourbon.  Drinking a peated Islay scotch in Texas sometimes just doesn't work.... especially between May and October.   This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to choose a "favorite" whisky.   When I hear people talk about great whiskies, many times it accompanied by a story around the first time they tried it or how they discovered the distillery.  This emotion all goes into the tasting experience and it is why two people can have entirely different opinions about the same whisky.    

So remember when you find a drink you don't like, the problem is not the liquid... the problem might be you are standing in the wrong place.

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.

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. 

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).