January 14, 2016

Undisclosed peated single malts galore

They’re always frustrating, these mystery malts, because you just cannot draw a nice picture of the distillery, or even of its people in your mind. You’re left with only aromas and flavours, and sometimes a nice label to gaze on. And sometimes not. We’ll have a mixed bag today – obviously, since you don’t know about the distilleries – including old bottlings and newer bottlings. Lets start with an old one…

Braw Scot 10 yo (100 US proof, OB, unblended pot still Scotch whisky, USA, +/-1960)

A brand by MacPherson, Train & Co. This is a single malt, and there’s a nice notice on the label, which says ‘should be sipped without soda’, which goes to prove that it’s well a bottling from the 1960s ;-). This baby could also have been bottled in the 1950s according to some online records. Oh remember that in the US, 100 proof means 50% vol. Colour: straw. Nose: it’s very peaty! Really very peaty, and rather magnificent. Plenty of seawater too, bandages and camphor ala old Laphroaig – but I don’t think it is old Laphroaig -, with plenty of Vicks, less tar than in old Lagavulin, less carbony notes than in old Caol Ila… While Port Ellen wasn’t working at that time. Could have been Bruichladdich, which was very peaty back then (never tried any of those, sadly), or… or… or… Hold on, could this be Malt Mill? Could anyone check if a former bottler called MacPherson, Train & Co. had any contracts with a former distillery called Malt Mill? I’m joking… But this is magnificent, really, extremely bright and profound at the same time. What a superb peatiness, further enhanced by more than 50 years in well-stored good glass. Mouth: oh my oh my oh my, how pure is this? How peaty? Medicinal? How salty? We’ve tried several old bottles of most Islays, none had this profile – and this much peat after so many years. You’d almost think you’re sipping seawater blended with tobacco juice and cough syrup. It is even pretty extreme, I’d say, and in fact you could think this was some young Port Ellen. Except that as I wrote before, Port Ellen wasn’t working when this was bottled. Finish: very long, with some lemon and more smoked brine. Very impressive. Comments: shock and awe. Unless the god of whisky likes me, which I doubt, I’ll never know if this is, or even could be Malt Mill. But why not keep dreaming? SGP:357 - 93 points.

We could as well end this session now. But this is whiskyfun, let’s find some modern young undisclosed Islay of similar strength…

Islay Malt 6 yo 2009/2015 (52.7%, Liquid Treasures, Port cask)

Colour: blush wine. Nose: I won’t say we could have found out about the distillery just by nosing this baby, but in any case, the Port’s influence is rather obvious, so I just couldn’t tell. Smoked raspberries? Blackcurrant buds for sure… And sea breeze, a little hay, barnyardy notes… I find it fine, even if I usually dislike Port in my Islay. With water: straighter, more pure Islay, more ‘beachy’. Dried kelp. Mouth (neat): rather strange. Fudge, rosemary, thyme, smoke, salt, oregano… You could drizzle this on your pizza ;-). But it’s not bad at all IMHO, just funny and unusual – and certainly not totally offbeat. With water: very salty, with still quite a few herbs. Herbes de Provence. Eucalyptus mints, perhaps a little blood orange. Finish: long, clean, not unlike some cough syrup. More blood oranges in the aftertaste. Comments: in truth I find this very fine. Probably one of my favourite Port-finished (I guess it was a finishing) peated Islays. SGP:457 - 83 points.

Islay Malt 8 yo 2007/2015 (53.1%, Sansibar, S Spirit Shop, bourbon, 120 bottles)

The label tells us it’s from Islay’s south coast, so it’s either L., L., or A. Colour: white wine. Nose: sweet and bonbon-fruity at first nosing, which, in my book, suggests Lagavulin. But there’s also an earthy, gentiany side in the background, which would rather suggest Ardbeg in my book. It’s a wee bit bandage-y as well, but not medicinal enough to suggest Laphroaig, although I don’t think Laphroaig’s recent batches have been very medicinal. Well if it’s Ardbeg, it’s a slightly Lagavuliny one, while if it’s Lagavulin, it’s a pretty Ardbeggy one. Look where that's got us! With water: crikey, some medicinal notes! Mouth (neat): yeah, again, it starts sweet and creamy like Lagavulin, with a bit of tar, while having this more intense coastal saltiness as well. Oh well oh well. With water: oh well oh well oh well. What’s sure is that it’s excellent. Finish: same. The sweetness is troubling, but there’s a lot of salt remaining on your lips. Comments: very good young peaty malt. Please do not tell me it is Laph… SGP:357 - 87 points.

One question, if you were to know only one thing about one single malt whisky, would that be its age or its distillery of origin? Discuss…

West Islay 2003/2013 (60.8%, Svenska Eldvatten, barrel, cask #882, 120 bottles)

Port Charlotte or Octomore? When was Octomore’s first vintage again? I think 2002, so yeah, this could as well be Octomore, Dr. Watson. Colour: straw. Nose: I’d rather say this is Port Charlotte, but it’s got a tarry side that’s a little… Jamaican. With olives and the whole kit and caboodle! In fact this could be Hampden rum, really. And guess what, I love this. With water: some Islayness coming through. Mud, wool, beach sand, kippers, wet dogs (we’re deeply sorry, dogs)… Mouth (neat): bang, salt, capers, black olives, earth, anchovies, smoke. Is this really whisky? What’s sure is that it’s magnificent fresh and young spirit. With water: h.u.r.r.a.y. Finish: long. And so good… Comments: totally cross-genre, and absolutely and utterly stunning. Reminds me of a wee vatting I once did, 1/3 Ardbeg, 1/3 mezcal, 1/3 clairin. Don’t try that at home! Anyway, this Swedish baby’s rrrrrright up my alley! (I think you ought to change the batteries in your keyboard, S.) SGP:367 - 92 points.

Back to the old ones, and we’re done for today…

The Eriksay 18 yo (58.1%, Eriksay ltd., single malt, +/-1995)

The Eriskay 18 yo (58.1%, Eriksay ltd., single malt, +/-1995)

Galore indeed. I’m not sure it’s a peater, but with a name such as Eriskay, it ought to be coastal at least. Now I’ve just seen that Eriskay Ltd. are wine and spirit merchants in… Berkshire. So it could be that this undisclosed baby’s absolutely not coastal, nor peaty. Could be Glenlivet after all, let’s see… Colour: dark amber. Nose: well, what it’s got from Eriksay is the crude oil from some boats, and rather massive amounts of sulphur. Asparagus cooking water, rotting truffles, old rusty metal parts, and even… tarry ropes. There is some fudge and roasted nuts in the background, but they just wouldn’t make it through. Let’s wait… zzz… zzz… After fifteen minutes, it’s still pretty sulphury, but the truffles got nicer and there’s now a certain feeling of umami. Oxtail. With water: ah, no, sulphur almost gone, replaced with soy sauce and chicken soup ;-). Never, ever judge a whisky within a few minutes, even if you’ve got a book to write! Mouth (neat): as always with whiskies that started sulphury, the palate’s much better. In this case, it’s rather nuts and dried fruits cooked in honey sauce, plus a good spoonful of maple syrup and perhaps a little pipe tobacco. What a shame it got so much sulphur in the nose – at first sniffs, at least. There’s even a smoky pepper that would suggest Talisker, at times. Like in the great old Talisker 20 sherry, remember? With water: pretty fantastic! Thick, pipe-y, honeyed, nutty, marmalade-y… Mr. Samaroli had such wonders, we all remember them. Finish: extremely long. Ham glazed with honey and Himalayan salt. You may forget about the Himalayan part. Comments: which part, which phase should we judge? It was a whole journey, sometimes difficult. Let’s remain conservative, there’re little chances you ever come across this baby anyway. My bad. SGP:462 - 89 points.

Phew! (and gracias, Angus)