March 25, 2015

Blends, a (truly) freewheeling session

Good, it seems that we’ve accumulated a new little bag of blended Scotch, both recent and old, so let’s have them ‘until we succumb’. Unless we get bored way before that ever happens. Remember that the ‘blends are as great as malts’ motto is the close cousin of that other well-known contemporary mantra that claims that age is irrelevant. I guess grain will also soon be just as great as malted barley (as the well-known whisky connoisseur David Beckham very well knows), and all what we’ll still need is a Pharrell Williams song extolling the virtues of speedy ageing. Maybe Madonna could help as well. Anyway, we’ll first have some recent NAS blends (double punishment!), then some recent AS ones, then older drops, as usual – from when they didn’t know yet how to make whisky, ha-ha.

The Famous Grouse (40%, OB, blend, +/-2014)

What does 'matured in seasoned oak casks' exactly mean? I remember Grouse was great in the 80s. Colour: gold. Nose: well well well, this ain’t unpleasant. It’s light, delicate, with whiffs of light honey, ripe plums, flowers, plus a little custard. No feinty notes, no obvious caramel, no straight spirity notes. There is some elegance in this. Mouth: indeed, it’s perfectly all right. Maltier, with roasted nuts, cornflakes, some honey again, brown syrups… There is a lightness, and yet it’s rather full-bodied when compared with other large brands. Finish: a little short, of course, but that’s almost an asset in this context where freshness and easy-drinkability seem to be some of the goals. Only the aftertaste is a little simpler and cardboardy. Comments: really, I’m fairly impressed. Entry-level large brands usually cruise along the 72-75 line, but this will be… SGP:441 - 78 points.

Mackinlay's 'Original' (40%, OB, blend, +/-2014)

I had thought the brand was nearly extinct… Unless the Shackleton operations could revive it? This baby’s said to be 5 years of age, and that’s precisely the age of an older bottling (1970s) that I had much enjoyed. Maybe did that one contain plenty of Glen Mhor? Oh and the new one’s got a nice ‘replica-retro’ label too! Colour: gold. Nose: it is a much, much drier and grassier profile after the Grouse. I find almonds, smoky grass, a touch of metal (old tin box) and then more earth and pears. It’s an elegant nose, probably not very sexy (read commercial) but I rather enjoy it. Mouth: it’s rougher and fuller than Grouse, as if there was much more malt in there, but on the other hand, I find burnt notes and rather too much hay, soot and leather, which makes it a little difficult. Could it be that the skilful blenders have tried to replicate the old Glen Mhor side? Finish: quite long but a little astringent and kind of ‘muddy’. Comments: we’re somehow in young malt territories, but many young single malts are actually cheaper. SGP:351 - 72 points.

Enough with NAS, let’s try aged ones…

Chivas Regal 12 yo (40%, OB, blend, +/-2014)

Would you imagine that it seems that this is the first time – ever – that I’m writing proper tasting notes for a contemporary regular Chivas 12 years old? No I’m not joking. Colour: gold. Nose: it’s lighter, even lighter than Grouse, but it’s also fruitier (apples) and, above all, more aromatic. We’re talking herbal teas and flowers, chamomile, honeysuckle… What it’s lacking is a little more volume – or you could call that depth. A touch of clay. In a way, it’s a lighter Glenlivet 12 – but I believe Chivas use other malts in this, don’t they. Mouth: light indeed, with a thinish body. Apple juice, roasted malt, ale, tea, some honey and just a little orange. The honeyed notes are adding a little length, but not much. Finish: short, tea-ish, malty. Tarte tatin. Comments: there, exactly my very own definition of a 75-points whisky. Pleasant and flawless, but forgettable. Grouse had more oomph. SGP:441 - 75 points.

While we’re at it, there’s also this rather bizarre newish bottling…

Chivas Regal 12 yo 'Mizunara Special Edition' (40%, OB, blend, +/-2014)

Well, if the excellent Japanese distillers can do Jerez, sure the Scots can do Mizunara oak. Ah the wonders of globalisation… But this is only a finishing, so let’s hold our horses. Colour: gold. Nose: a leafier, oakier, grassier version of Chivas 12 yo. Some tobacco as well. It’s lost its rounded lightness and gained some, well, leafiness on the nose (as well as a little vanilla and, maybe, cedar wood). Mouth: I’m not 100% sure the spirit was big enough to stand the additional oak. The arrival is rather enticing, with many spices (ginger, cinnamon, white pepper), but it really nosedives after five seconds. Frustrating. I’m totally sure this would have worked much better at 45-46% vol. Finish: short yet tannic. You just had a cup of unsweetened strong black tea. Comments: I prefer the regular Chivas 12. The oak seems to have kind of erased the fruitiness. SGP:361 - 70 points.

Slaintheva 12 yo (40%, OB, blend, +/-2010)

A little-known old brand by Alexander Dunn that used to sell bespoke labels (like Glen Serge or Loch Whiskyfun and stuff like that, you know). This is a rather recent bottling that I found in a shop in Andorra - for cheap, no need to say. Slaintheva means ‘the very best of health!’ Thanks! Colour: gold. It’s really funny that almost strictly all blends do share the same colour. Nose: starts well, with nuts, almonds and a little fresh butter, but some kind of soapiness that’s somewhat connected to the almondy notes tends to take over. Metal polish, gravel, scoriae. A touch of lavender too. With this kind of nose, the palate could be excellent… or totally wrecked. Mouth: it’s the former! This is rather excellent, fat, smoky, sappy, waxy, complex… What a surprise! Wonderful oiliness, minerality and salinity, with a little ink as well, newspapers, ashes, soot… Tastes much older than 2010 as far as the year of bottling is concerned (which I had totally guessed), which is strange since the bottle looked brand new. Excellent mouth feel. Finish: long, oily and sappy. Very waxy and slightly salty aftertaste. Comments: there’s some great coastal malt in this blend, for sure. A very mysterious bottle nonetheless… I’ll dig further whenever I have time… One day. SGP:363 - 87 points.

It’s getting tougher for the next ones… So we’ll have only one newish bottling and then go explore the past…

William Lawson's 13 yo (40%, OB, blend, bourbon cask finish, +/-2014)

At WF Towers, William Lawson will remain related to Miss Stone… forever! So, no rules, great Scotch?... What’s sure is that it’s very expensive (+/-48€). Colour: gold. Yeah, same nuance as usual. Nose: you get the finishing. Vanilla and sunflower oil, a little fresh butter, apple peelings, some cardboard in the background… The whole remains dry. Few fruits. Mouth: good body at just 40%, but it’s more or less ridden with vanilla and butterscotch. That can work well with full-bodied young malts, but in this case it’s all a little more difficult, because of the distillate’s lightness. Having said that, it tends to gain body over time, with a growing maltiness, Speyside-style. Improves. Finish: an acceptable length. Very pleasant touches of earth and smoke in the aftertaste. Walnuts in the aftertaste. Comments: well made for sure, but the price makes it rather… anecdotal. But there’s Sharon Stone. SGP:551 - 78 points.

Good, time to have the oldies…

Old Mull (38%, OB, blend, for Mexico, 1950s)

That’s right, 38%. Remember that in the old days, Scotch could be bottled at 37.5 or 38% vol. Plus, it’s not impossible that the Mexican laws did allow such strengths. After all, there are many tequilas that are still bottled at 38% vol. Colour: gold. Nose: I’ve already tried some old Old Mulls, some older than this, and indeed there’s always been this feeling of greasy, sooty malt. As if you were nosing some kind of smoked cooking oil. Ah, yes, sesame… Plus old books, ink (obviously) and carbon paper. An old office in an old company in an old country. Mouth: it’s got power! The missing 2% do not feel after all these years, as there are many whiskies that were bottled at 40 or 43% some decades ago that have lost more alcohol than this. Actually, it’s a lovely liquoricy palate, full of salmiak (so salt + Liquorice) and salted fish – although I wouldn’t say it’s totally kippery. What’s sure is that the malt content was very high, maybe even 100%. And that the malt(s) was very, very coastal. And that it’s brilliant whisky. Finish: quite long, always on oily salty liquorice. Totally old style coastal Highlands. Comments: a wonderful old fat blend, in the same category as the old White Horses, Mackie’s, Logan and all that. Wait wait wait, could it be that there was some… Malt Mill inside? That’s not impossible, at all. A great old blend, I love it more and more. Yeah I know, only 38% vol…. SGP:363 - 90 points.

The problem with those whiskies is that they’re session killers. Unless… This…

Teacher’s 'Highland Cream' (44%, OB, blend, Ruffino Italy, +/-1960)

Let's go on with a classic...

Teacher’s 'Highland Cream' (44%, OB, blend, Ruffino Italy, +/-1960) After Sharon Stone, here come the sexy teachers from the 1960s! Teacher’s means Ardmore, as you know. I guess you’ve noticed the unusual strength again. Colour: gold. Nose: more fruits again, all kinds. Various apples and various pears, covered with a little, say iron filings, plus mint and eucalyptus (old style mouthwash). It’s globally more herbal and mentholated than the Old Mull, which was more coastal and, by comparison, more medicinal. Makes sense, doesn’t it. After five minutes, notes of old sweet white wine plus some mead. Vin Santo?

Mouth: superb! Everybody’s looking for old White Horses, but I say old Teacher’s are worth it as well. Old yellow chartreuse, other herbal liqueurs, a peatiness that remains well defined, a feeling of smoky/tarry mints, plus, even more important, a big fat and yet very ‘nervous’ mouth feel. Did they really add any grain whisky to this fabulous composition? Finish: very long, amazingly big and balanced. Some lemon now, grapefruits, a touch of salt… Comments: I think I like this one even better than the Old Mull. Spectacular peaty blend, it’s so sad that everybody seems to have lost the recipe. Right, maybe not John Glaser. SGP:464 - 91 points. PS: … sure this was also an ode to bottle ageing…

I agree, we should stop now, but this is Whiskyfun dot com, isn’t it. Let’s try to find a rarer old brand… and then call this a proper tasting session.

Moorland (100°US proof, OB, blend, +/-1940)

A blend by R. & B. (R and B?) Smith and Son in Perth, bottled for Paramount Liquors in Los Angeles. What’s very interesting is that as some used to do at that time, the malts are listed on the labels (in this case the back label). So we’re having a blend of Glenlivet, Glengrant (yup), Highland Park, Clynelish, Ardbeg, Rosebank, Caledonian and Cameronbridge. Sadly, quantity was ‘rigidly limited’. By the way, the brand’s still active; well, they have it at b****y Amazon. Oh and the strength is great, 100° US meaning 50% vol. Colour: gold (no s…). Nose: full of damp earth, soot, dirty grease, old garage, these sorts of things. Downside, there’s also quite some plasticine, new leatherette, plastic pouch and all that. Not always a good sign, but let’s see…

Mouth: full power! But it’s also a real Janus. One part is just great, with an acrid smokiness and ashes and strong mints and concentrated lemon juice. The other part’s more difficult, with these plasticky notes again, some glue, very bitter herbs… It’s almost like eating grass. Moorland indeed. Finish: extra-long, but plastic-covered grass doesn’t quite do it, if you see what I mean. Comments: that’s the fate of any old bottle. You can feel that it was stupendous whisky, but something just went wrong. Could be the taste of light/glass, as the label is much discoloured. Too much Californian sunlight? SGP:272 - 75 points (for the record).

You’re right, we just couldn’t stop here. I say we both need a last pick-me-up… Maybe a blended malt for a change? Would this do?...

Old Elgin 46 yo 1938 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Book of Kells, +/-1984)

The label wouldn’t say, this could as well be a single malt instead of a vatted malt, but I firmly believe it’s a vatted. I agree, beliefs… Now 1938 was a stupendous year for, for example, Macallan. Or Mortlach. Or Linkwood. Imagine, 1938! And imagine that these days, some would like to erase any notions of age and/or vintage from our beloved malt whiskies! And nothing will stop them, apparently. Remember, as our Pete & Jack may have said before, whisky, without age, is vodka. But we’re digressing… Colour: deep gold (aaahhh…) Nose: adios peat and smoke, welcome luscious fruits and honeys! This has certainly something to do with the old Macallans from that time, with a very, very delicate smoke coating apricots, mirabelles, kumquats (yeah well) and hundreds of tinier aromas. Verbena, wormwood, sultanas, figs, pipe tobaccos (many of them, but I don’t know them, we should ask a pipe aficionado), mandarins, putty, a touch of sugarcane, a touch of Bakelite, some linseed oil for sure, wet oil paint, hessian… The list would be endless, better stop now.

Mouth: I'd swear you can taste time. You can taste Bartok, Honegger, Teddy Wilson, Jelly Roll Morton and Gershwin. And Magritte, Cocteau, Frida Kahlo, and Dali… And sadly enough, quite a bit of gunpowder. Finish: the low strength feels a bit, but the complexity remains rather immense. Many dried fruits and some tobacco smoke, plus old style herbal liqueurs and a wee note of grapefruit. And marzipan. Comments: and now an existential question; what’s better, knowing age and even vintage but not the distillery, or knowing the name of the distillery but neither the age nor the vintage? Discuss, because those issues are getting big big big (and big)*. Oh and this Old Elgin was quite fab. But imagine we wouldn’t have known about its vintage and/or age. ‘Glen Elgin NAS possibly distilled circa 1930-1940, bottled between 1970 and 1990…’, bwaaaah!!! I feel sorry for the future Malt Maniacs. SGP:562 - 92 points. (*) it’s totally useless to listen to industry people (and the good people who work for them) about those issues, however talented, friendly and engaging they are. It’s like asking a fishmonger if his fish is fresh. But we’re digressing yet again, aren’t we?

Session over.

(thanks Geert, thanks Patrick, you both rock)