After trying all 101 whiskies from Ian Buxton's book I have compiled the list of my favorites based on my admitedly unsophisticated 4 star rating system.  The best whiskies, in no particular order, were Mortlach 16, Highland Park 21 and 40, Wild Turkey Rare Breed, Macallan 18, Chivas Regal 25, Jameson 18 Limited Reserve, Maker's Mark and Ardbeg Uigeadail.  Some of these were favorites before I read the book (Macallan 18 and Maker's Mark) so that leaves six whiskies that stood out for me.  

The Mortlach 16 may have been the biggest surprise in the book, a delicious example sherried Speyside whisky that could compete "toe to toe" with anything from Macallan and Glenfarclas.  I expected great things from Highland Park and Ardbeg and they delivered in a big way.  It was also no surprise to me that a Jameson blend was one of my favorites, my interest in whisky was sparked by a visit to Jameson's Midelton distillery in 2006.  Chivas 25 was the other big surprise.  I like premium Scottish blends however the Chivas family hasn't always been something I have loved.   The Chivas 25 year old was great though and I can still remember the taste of oranges.  That leaves the Wild Turkey Rare Breed as my favorite bourbon and again I can still recall the black cherry fruit notes.

I won't dwell on my two least favorites (this blog is just a personal opinion) and my feelings about Johnnie Walker Black need no further comment (you can look up review if interested) and the Glenglassaugh spirit was a "new make" that had some novelty value and never produced as a drink in it's own right.

There were some other tremendous whiskies that for various reasons, perhaps price or rarity, that I did not rate as 4 star but deserve an honorable mention, including Hibiki 30, Blue Hanger, Glen Rothes Select Reserve, Van Winkle Family Reserve Rye 13 old, Old Pulteney 17 and Thomas H Handy Sazerac Rye. 

 

My project to taste all “101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die” began and ended in the UK, so it was nicely bookended geographically.  It started with a tasting event hosted by Ian Buxton in Aberdeen in May 2011 and ended in June 2012 at my parent’s home in Devon sharing the last bottle with my father who introduced me to scotch in the first place.  Fittingly the last whisky was also perhaps the hardest to find in the book as you can’t buy it at any whisky shop or online retailer.  I had to join the Wine Society in the UK and order a society “members only” bottling.  The year also included some rather hefty bar bills in Singapore, San Antonio (very hefty as I bought a round of Balvenie 30 year old’s without checking the price first), London and Las Vegas, as well as bars closer to home like the excellent Reserve 101 in Houston.  Some big bills for sure but that was still a much more cost efficient way to sample them all than actually buying the 101 bottles.  I also owe the @masterofmalt website with its award winning Drinks by the Dram offering a debt of thanks as well. 

I think there are some not bad pieces of writing (from someone who was accurately described by his English teacher in a 1982 school report as having a “tendency to make basic mistakes”) but that is not to say there isn’t plenty of banal, repetitive and other poor writing for which I apologize. 

There was certainly some good whisky… some I knew about, some I didn’t and some that better be good for the price I had to pay.  There was also some that should have been a lot better for the price they charged.  I will write about particular favorites (and the disappointments) in a later blog.  I also learned a lot about value.  I learned there is some good, even great, whisky at low prices, and that paying a lot will almost always get you a very good whisky.  The problem for me usually lies in the middle, overpriced and over hyped brands and products.  People want to charge more than the whisky is really worth and try position their perfectly good whisky as premium product, often simply by putting the average whisky in fancy packaging and charging accordingly.

It’s a cliché but people always ask so I will answer…. no I don’t have a favorite whisky so far.  This has always been a journey and an education so even the bad ones were good in that respect and therefore I answer the cliché question with a cliché answer, my favorite whisky is always “the next one”.

Will I try to taste everything in Ian’s latest book, “101 World Whiskies to Try Before You Die”?  The answer is I don’t know.  I want to look at the list, see how many I have already reviewed, and think about it what I would gain from that.  I will need to also try and determine how much it might cost and if I have the budget and my wife has the patience to continue this.   

I haven't changed the focus of this website to UK street dancing troops (for that see the website www.somanyukstreetdancingtroops.com) and I have not been sent to a series of classes after work following an unfortunate miscommunication with a colleague.  But I have now reviewed over 250 whiskies, as well the 101 I originally went in search of, and as I look back on those reviews something becomes very clear.   The diversity of tasting notes is much greater in scotch than in bourbon.  There seems to be many more flavor types that can be found in a typical scotch, or to put it another way there is no such thing as "typical scotch".  In fact that phrase is an oxymoron, like saying "happy Scotrail employee".

 

Various rules and regulations define what can be a called a scotch, as do similar standards in the USA and yet Scotland seems to produce more varied final product.   At first this seemed a little counter intuitive to me, after all bourbon has the advantage of more ingredient options.  It must contain 51% corn as a minimum, but rye, wheat and barley can all be used, where scotch is limited to just good ole John Barleycorn.  Surely a chef with four ingredients can make a wider range of dishes than a chef with just one?

The use of peat certainly helps create variety and as yet a bourbon made with peated barley (which I believe would still be perfectly acceptable under the definition) does not exist, and upon further reflection perhaps that is a good thing.  However it's not as simple as does the whisky has smoke or not.  The differences, in my opinion, are due to the wood options available to scotch producers.

I have been told by various sources that the cask will account for 60 – 70% of the final flavor, while the spirit will be 40% - 30% depending on age of spirit (longer maturation of course means more wood influence).   The bourbon rules are very specific on wood and barrel.  Bourbons must be aged for 2 years in American white oak, charred and of course most importantly, they have to be NEW barrels. On the other hand scotch regulations just requires the spirit to be aged in oak for 3 years.  And so the maturation, blending, finishing and vatting options for scotch are really endless.  American or European oak? Used or new? Charred or uncharred? Before being used to mature scotch they may have contained wine, bourbon, rum, beer, sherry, port and madeira and they can be reused and re-used (often filled 3 times before being retired as garden center planters).

This simple difference (new barrels versus used barrels) can explain the variety in the taste profile, scotch having the widest variety of flavors while bourbon has a much tighter grouping.  The scotch producer, while limited in ingredients, has more flexibility in wood and therefore can influence the "70%".  The bourbon producer has few options regarding wood but has more variety in the spirit production, but that spirit may only account for the "30%".  This is not to say more variety is good, or that the broad range in anyway reflects on quality, just think supermarket cola and Pepsi Cola... same basic  flavors but vastly different quality.   Quality is a whole different subject.

So considering the massive the impact on the final product I think it is clear that wood is an "ingredient" in whisky and the standard Scottish distillery tour should perhaps tone down the magical water source and location of warehouse rhetoric and other routinely spouted tourist babble and perhaps just say scotch whisky has four ingredients... barley, water, yeast and wood.

Am I the only person more than a little surprised by the recent Whisky Advocate article on summer cocktails?   I was really excited about finding new ways to drink whisky during the incredibly long and hot summers we "enjoy" in Texas because I was seriously considering taking my summer drinking business back to simple, cold beer.   Dave Broom did contribute a very nice piece on ice, water and soda with whisky and I will certainly try some of his recommendations, but the piece I was really anticipating on whisky summer cocktails was frustrating to put it mildly.  I am guessing the average whisky enthusiast has a well-stocked bar and could rustle up most common cocktail ingredients and even find a bottle of Angostura bitters in the back of cupboard somewhere.  However there was not one cocktail in the nine recipes offered I could make that did not require a visit to a specialty store to acquire a spirit, liqueur or mixer so obscure that when typed into Google would simply generate "?" as a reply.  In addition all the recipes required me to formulate some syrup or other "pre-drink" concoction (Rosemary-chamomile syrup or fresh peach juice anyone?) before I could even begin to assemble the actual cocktail.

 

The list of ingredients included the following:

Mathidle Peche liqueur

Lapsang Souchong tea syrup

Aperol

Fruitlab Hibiscus liqueur

Bitter Truth aromatic bitters

Rocky Mountain peach whiskey

Rosemary-chamomile syrup

My whisky budget is strained to beyond its intended breaking point and I can't be alone in refusing to buy a bottle of hibiscus liqueur even if I could find it in Texas , which I doubt, and if I did I would probably become the target of an state government observation program.  The subscribers and readers of Whisky Advocate are, I suspect, like me.  They are whisky drinkers not mixologists  and  I am guessing the numbers of actual subscribers who have actually made one of recipes in the magazine would be far less than 1% on a good day.   Was that really your intent?

On day 2 of my Kentucky Bourbon Trail  I made it to 4 more working distilleries, Woodford Reserve, Four Roses, Wild Turkey and Buffalo Trace and on day 3, just before I left, I visited a closed one; Sitizel-Weller. Favorites were Woodford Reserve and Four Roses (neither had a bottling hall) but the obligatory chocolate bourbon balls still made frequent apprearances.

Woodford Reserve:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/328-woodford-reserve-kentucky-usa

Four Roses:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/329-four-roses-kentucky-usa

Wild Turkey:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/330-wild-turkey-kentucky-usa

Buffalo Trace:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/331-buffalo-trace-kentucky-usa

Sitzel-Weller:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/332-stitzel-weller-kentucky-usa

I have finally got round to writing up Day 1 of my trip to Kentucky and have posted links to the distllery reviews.  I managed to make it to four distilleries on the first day, Jim Beam, Maker's Mark, Heaven Hill and Barton 1792 and I also got see the world largest whiskey barrel (which is the picture on this blog entry).   Best overall experience was probably Maker's Mark but Barton was "interesting" and generally there were lots of chocolates and bottling halls.

Jim Beam: 

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/322-jim-beam

Maker's Mark: 

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/323-makers-mark

Heaven Hill: 

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/325-heaven-hill-bourbon-heritage-center-kentucky-usa

Barton 1792:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/326-barton-1792-kentucky-usa

 

I am leaving on a short trip to Kentucky while enjoying a short break from work (and my blog) and planning the next stage of my whisky adventures including starting to host tastings in Houston and adding a Whisky History Timeline to this webpage.  However I thought I would post some links to some of what I think are my better efforts of last year or so until I get back with lots of new whiskey and distillery reviews.

 

Return of the Dinosaurs?

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/71-return-of-the-dinosaurs?

 

What's the Color of Whisky?

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/116-whats-the-color-of-whisky?

 

A Whisky Bubble May Be Out There

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/127-a-whisky-bubble-maybe-out-there

 

Whisky Tasting Grades: Are You A Black Belt?

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/186-whisky-tasting-grades-are-you-a-black-belt?

 

Cowboy Whiskey: Gimme a shot of rye

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/255-cowboy-whiskey-gimme-a-shot-of-rye

 

Deanston and the Power of Suggestion

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/257-deanston-and-the-power-of-suggestion

 

Location, Location, Location

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/blog/item/233-just-like-real-estate-sometimes-whisky-is-about-location-location-location

 

 

 

 

 

While single malts are the clear leader of the pack when it comes to scotch whisky enthusiasts preference, there are also some, albeit often a minority, including myself who advocate blended scotch whiskies.  However one style of whisky I see very few people championing (with notable exception of Compass Box) is blended malt whisky.  Blended malts are the products derived from the vatting or mixing of multiple single malts but without use the grain whiskies found in blended scotch.  Usually without an age statement and often under some of the more creative whisky names out there, examples of the genre include Monkey Shoulder, Sheep Dip and Blue Hanger.  Some of the high profile blended whisky producers such as Famous Grouse and Johnnie Walker have also included blended malts in their range such as the soon to be defunct Johnnie Walker Green Label.

The Green Label is my inspiration for this blog, specifically the recent announcement that Johnnie Walker will no longer be producing Green Label.  Johnnie Walker are astute business people, they clearly have sound business reasons for this decision.  I don't know for sure but presumably they must feel that either sales of Johnnie Walker Green are not high enough, in part I suspect because of the market bias for single malts, or perhaps that they can use the malts in the Green Label product in the other products and lines and generate better returns for their shareholders.  Either way it shame because I happen to think Green Label is one of the better products in their range.  So what does this decision mean for the future of blended malts?  Will the continuing expansion of the market for single malts drive other blended malts into the whisky oblivion alongside the other industry red headed step child grain whisky?  I have to say however even grain is getting some support amongst whisky circles, an example being recent interview on www.thewhiskywire.com with Kirsteen Campbell who described grain whisky as the "as the next big thing".  It is a bit worrying for blended malt fans when you hear Nick Morgan of Diageo, Johnnie Walker's parent company, recently describe Green Label as "the odd man out within the line."

As I look at all my reviews of blended malts to date, they all score very well and are often very good value as blending allows producers to use less aged and therefore cheaper stocks, compensating for any weakness in those products by use of carefully selected stocks of more mature stock.  When done well, as in Monkey Shoulder, it produces a rich and complex dram at a very reasonable price point.  In the case of a more exclusive dram like Blue Hanger from Berry Brothers and Rudd (their iconic London store is the picture accompanying this entry) it is a fine example of the blenders skill, creating a complex amalgam but yet it is often still possible identify a particular distillery's influence on the blend.  They can be best of both worlds of single malt and blended whisky, with complexity, consistency, richness, variety and value.

Although in the past consumer pressure has altered the behavior of major producers, I suspect nothing I write about here will change the fate of Green Label (although I did propose a campaign slogan in my recent review of the Green Label ... Kill Black Keep Green), as it is not the fate of that product that I am passionate about (I do have an unopened bottle in my collection I will keep) but the fate of blended malts in general.   I really like this genre, and I will continue to support this genre and would encourage anyone (producer, retailer, imbiber) who reads this to do the same.  

I know my interest in blends is shared as I recently received a sample from a friend of mine he described as "something I blended in my own cask. It is cask strength. It is scotch and bourbon blend with some grain spirit in it".    Look for a review of a whisky I am calling "C" shortly.

So Easter weekend I had my first opportunity to visit my "local" whiskey distilery.  In fact this visit had a lot of firsts for me.  It was my first bourbon distillery, my first US distillery and the first distillery where we were greeted by the founder and owner of the distillery, in this case Dan Garrison of Garrison Brothers.  Pretty cool.  Located in Hye, this is Texas' first legal bourbon distillery since prohibition and is producing a very nice product.  They charge $10 for a tour but as this is one of the most interactive distillery tours I have ever been on and as they patiently waited for their whiskey to mature (resisting the temptation to sell white dog spirit or put an immature product on the market) I didn't mind paying.  My favorite aspect of this tour  was the fact we were able to try and taste at every stage of production.  We could taste the mash after the corn, wheat and malted barley had been cooked (it was bit like sweet breakfast oatmeal), then taste the distillers beer during fermentation (quite sour but with some fruit), white dog spirit off the still at 140 proof (hot and herbal) and finally (of course) the matured, Texas straight bourbon.   What are the main differences between a single malt and bourbon distillery? The first was the grain recipe.  Garrison Brothers use corn, wheat and malted barley (but no rye which is often found in bourbon recipes) while single malt distilleries of Scotland use only malted barley.  In Scotland the sugars are extracted by adding hot water to the grains, in bourbon making the process involves actually cooking the grains in water to extract the sugars.  The fermentation process in most malt distilleries produces a "beer" of around 8% ABV, Garrison Brothers beer was closer to 16% ABV.  Finally the distillation of the bourbon was done in a single still whereas single malt is always double distilled and sometimes triple distilled.   Garrison uses 500 gal of beer at 15%  ABV which is put into the steam heated stills and in turn produces about 150 gal of 140 proof (or 70% ABV) white dog spirit that is aged for at least 2 years in oak casks so that it can be called "straight" bourbon.  Garrison Brothers use a #4 char, also known as alligator char (and the "alligator" in the Ardbeg Alligator).

They have no license to sell liquor so we couldn't actually buy a bottle at the distillery so I bought a T shirt instead, but there is a licensed store when you turn off the main road for Garrison Bros.  I believe if you are whiskey loving Texan you will love this place and being in the middle of Texas wine country (yes that really exists) there are plenty of other reasons to make the trip and visit the area as well.  If I had to complain it would be the price per bottle.  At almost $80 / bottle retail this is very expensive for a bourbon, but there are good reasons for that.  In it's defence it is not bad when compared to the price of many Scotch single malts in Texas and hopefully with some sustained success, time (and of course increased volumes) we will see the price point reduce. 

I am all about value in relation to whisky.  I worry about expensive whiskies "not being worth it" and I probably worry even more about low cost whiskies not getting the respect they deserve simply because they commit the sin of being either ubiquitous or cheap.  My career has taught me the value of value.  It's valuable.  So on a whim, I decided to write down what I could buy in Specs (my local liquor store / off license) for under $20, under $40 and under $100.  It was an interesting experiment, and I accept just a random sample, but still quite telling.  I chose only whiskies that I knew and ideally had already reviewed.

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?