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.

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%.

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!

Scotch: Chivas Regal 25 year old over Ardbeg Uigeadail for the surprise factor.   I had a strong suspicion I would love the Ardbeg (and I did) but the Chivas Regal 25 really surprised me and despite its hefty price tag it stood out for me this year.   An honorable mention is deserved for both the Talisker and Bunnahabhain 18 year old expressions and the Sheep Dip blended malt as well.

Irish: Jameson 18 year old Limited Reserve gets slight edge for me over the Redbreast 12 year old.  Both excellent whiskies and the Red Breast is definitely still something I will go back to regularly, but the Jameson 18 year old has some additional complexity and depth the Red Breast doesn't. 

USA: I am going with Sazerac Rye 18 year old, but I really liked both the Rowan's Creek and Knob Creek bourbons.  For me the standard Sazerac rye completely redefined an entire genre of whisky.  I went from thinking of rye whisky as the stereotypical cowboy "rot gut whiskey" to a complex and fully paid up member of the great whisky club.  The 18 year old Sazerac is just great.

Rest of World: Forty Creek Premium Barrel (Canada) edges out Amrut Fusion (India), Nikka All Malt (Japan) and Yoichi 10 year old (Japan).  I accept that the Amrut and Yoichi may come out better if you were to rank them on taste alone in a blind tasting but the Forty Creek is staggeringly good value, easy to find (in the USA anyway)  and for me completely over turned my preconceptions of Canadian whiskey based on brands like Crown Royal and Canadian Club.

Whisky Family: It was close between Famous Grouse range (I really liked the Famous Grouse 12 year old Gold Reserve and Black Grouse) and Chivas Regal, but based on the averages scores I gave during the year, due in part to the Chivas 25 year old getting 4 stars; I am going with Chivas Regal.

As for whisky as investment, after 21 years in the oil and gas industry and watching oil prices rise and fall, it struck me that whisky is just another commodity to trade and the phenomenon of rising prices and the meteoric rise of the WM index in Whisky magazine, which if I am reading it right has increased by 300% in just 2 years,  has the potential to be another investment bubble as people are buying whisky which while in short supply or rare right now, it could be available in greater quantities in the future, and will be, if prices continue to rise.

This is the same phenomenon we see with oil, with the recent oil peak of $147 / bbl in 2008 then it dropped to $40 in a few weeks.  The market price of oil is driven by demand, and in general global energy demand is increasing, which in turn attracts speculative investment as commodity price rises, which in turn drives up demand, and with no short term supply available to suddenly meet new demand, leads to greater price escalation, further speculative investment and the cycle continues. 

Then of course the oil producers see the higher price, drill more wells and invest more capital to produce more oil (all which takes time, sometimes years) and eventually, often slowly, they increase production and the supply in reaction to the higher prices.  Once supply can meet demand then the inflation caused by speculation is reversed the price begins to fall again. 

The effect on price is even more pronounced if increased oil supply coincides with a drop in demand as happens in a recession and then price can literally collapse.  We saw $10 / bbl oil when the Asian economies slumped in late 1990s just as OPEC had ramped up production to meet what it thought was growing demand in the mid 1990's due to global economic growth and in particular the "Asian Tiger" economies.  As Time magazine said at the time, the world was "drowning in oil".  The same happened with the credit crisis in 2008. Global demand declined in part driven by the high energy costs, and oil price collapsed.

So back to collecting whisky.   If there isn't enough supply of collectable whisky today then prices become artificially inflated due in part at least to speculation as we see in the index, and like oil, it is not possible to increase the supply quickly.  However, just like the collectors, I am sure the distilleries will be looking at today's prices, and my guess is many of them will be laying down and planning more "collectable whisky" for that market in the future and saving casks to release later than they would usually to capture those premium (and artificial) prices, just like an oil company drilling more wells for increased future production, and eventually there will be over supply and prices will fall.   In addition, if the WM index continues to rise then the eventually costs will escalate to a point that they drive down demand (just as high energy costs drove down demand as people look to reduce their energy consumption) and reduced demand coupled with over supply means that the bubble will burst.  I think it is possible to envisage a scenario where the world is "drowning in collectable whisky" (which I have to admit would not be a bad way to go).   Bowmore can produce a lot of 50 year old Bowmore if they just wait long enough.

After 21 years in the oil and gas industry I think the potential for a whisky bubble is out there, and the more prices escalate and the WM Index rises, the greater the risk.   It seems I am in good company on this position as well.... here is a link to an excellent recent article by Ian Buxton on the same subject of whisky as a potential investment  http://www.just-drinks.com/comment/comment-spirits-is-investing-in-whiskey-as-good-as-they-say_id105625.aspx

I think it is fair to say that majority of the whisky community, who have expressed a preference, say they would prefer their single malt whisky came non-colored, that the producer did not add the coloring agents which are sometimes used to give a consistent color to their brand due to the slight inconsistencies that maturation in casks can create.  Some single malts in fact exploit this preference and take pride in claiming to be non colored.

So why then do so many formal tasting notes I read, often written by the same community members who express concerns about coloring agents, bother to state a color for the whisky?  Surely if color is not important and in fact a variation in color is fine with the whisky community do we insist on formally identifying the color.  This seems inconsistent and sends a very mixed message to the whisky producer that we associate certain colors with certain whiskies and therefore they need the consistency that the use of coloring agents gives them. 

I don't care about the color and I rarely comment on it during my tasting notes unless something jumps out as being at odds with expectations or even the taste.  But in general they are just tasting notes.  I have never "liked" a whisky because of its color, nor have I found a color so displeasing that I couldn't drink the whisky (but I then have never seen Loch Dhu).  So why do I care if others do comment on color?  Well I just think if we perhaps removed the reference to color from tasting notes and reviews altogether then producers would get a clear message that the whisky buying community doesn't care what color their whisky is – as long as it tastes good.

We know that you can sometimes tell or at least guess some taste profiles based on whisky's color, but we have also all been surprised that rich fruity but pale, light whisky or that dark mahogany whisky that was light and soft.  The description of a "blind tasting" to me suggests strongly to get the best possible taste description the color of the whisky should be ignored anyway.  I accept the term blind tasting is also used to refer to being blind to the producer and origin of the whisky as well, but it seems the root of the phrase is clear, that seeing something before tasting it can be misleading and set expectations or even suggest to the taster certain flavors before it is even sampled.

So I am suggesting that if the consumer demonstrates clearly they don't care what color the whisky is, by ignoring it, the producer then has no need to color it (no one would choose to spend the extra time and money coloring whisky if they didn't have to).  However by reviewing whisky and stating its color in numerous books and guides in many ways we are setting the expectation of color for that brand and expression that forces the producer to then color their whisky and the cycle continues.

Perhaps some blends targeted specifically at the whisky and lemonade brigade (not that there's anything wrong with that) would still require consistent color to prevent consumers concerns, but the single malts are targeting the more discerning whisky buyer and so we should perhaps just all agree to stop talking and writing about a whisky's color?