Glenlochy 29, 1980 (Signatory)

Posted on January 30, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Glenlochy is yet another of the distilleries that were closed in the early 1980s (in 1983 to be exact). Not very well-known outside of ultra-geeky circles until just a few years ago, the reputation (and prices) of its remaining malt has risen sharply recently and the supply has dwindled (even Serge has only reviewed 16 bottles from Glenlochy). Glenlochy is all but impossible to find in the US and is never cheap–only two bottles show up on Wine Searcher and both are north of $400. This sample is from a Signatory release in the EU (as Glenlochy predominantly made whisky for blends when active, the little that’s available now is from the indies).

Glenlochy 29, 1980 (52.8%; Signatory, hogshead #2649; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Quite fruity off the bat with some dark raisin notes but also some ripe bananas and peaches and a touch of papaya (or you might just say nail polish remover); a little bit of honey too. With more time there’s some roasted malt and lightly tannic oak. With a lot more time there’re very nice notes of dried tangerine peel and apricot and a touch of brine. Water weakens the late developing goodness.

Palate: A little spirity and even a bit grainy on the palate which also feels thinner than you might expect at 52.8% (which is not to say that there is no alcohol burn, merely that the texture is thin). Not much of the fruit at first sip. And not much on the second sip either: it’s mostly the honey and roasted malt here. With more time the citrus starts showing up earlier and begins to shade towards apricot. Hmmm unlike on the nose, water seems to awaken a little more complexity on the palate: the roasted malt rubs shoulders with some mocha and the apricot/citrus notes get a little stronger.

Finish: Medium. There’s some citrus here and an increasing (but not unpleasant) bitterness from the wood. Water lengthens the finish a bit, pushes back the wood and amplifies the citrus.

Comments: I really liked the nose on this but the palate was a bit of a letdown, though it did improve with water. Perhaps it would have been a little more vibrant if bottled a little younger. Still, I’m very glad I got to try a Glenlochy–not sure how many more opportunities I’ll have.

Rating: 86 points.

Thanks to bpbleus for the sample!

St. Magdalene 19, 1979, Rare Malts

Posted on January 29, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

St. Magdalene, also known as Linlithgow, was one of the casualties of the wave of distillery closures in the early 1980s. In terms of its current status the gurus seem to put it a little below Port Ellen and Brora: Serge has it in the “Premier Cru Classé” in his rankings. It must be said though that it doesn’t seem to inspire quite that level of devotion among the rank and file as do Port Ellen or Brora or even Caperdonich or Rosebank or Lochside (all of which closed later). This may be because there’s not as much malt out there from St. Magdalene/Linlithgow for those of us who came later in the game to have tried. I’ve myself barely sampled any of the meagre offerings available on the US market.

The bottle I am reviewing today, however, is fairly uncontroversially considered one of the great releases of the last decade and half. It was part of Diageo’s respected Rare Malts series and has received very high scores from most respected sources: most notably, the redoubtable Johannes van den Heuvel (the now retired founder of the Malt Maniacs, whose Malt Madness is one of the few essential whisky sites) has given it a score of 97/100. That score would be stratospheric by any standard but is particularly striking coming from the usually parsimonious and unexcitable Johannes. I was thus very excited to be able to taste it after getting a sample in a swap; however, I’ve held off for a long time in reviewing it as I have to admit I’m not sure what point there is in someone like me reviewing something so widely lauded by my betters: if i love it as well I add an inconsequential “me too” to the chorus, and who really cares if I don’t? Still, I’ve rarely allowed the fear of redundancy to trump my love of the sound of my own voice, and so here goes. Continue reading →

Parker’s Heritage 2013, “Promise of Hope”

Posted on January 27, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Another Heaven Hill bourbon after yesterday’s Elijah Craig 12. I noted in that review that there’s generally not as much of a jump in quality in bourbon than single malt Scotch from $20 (where the Elijah Craig 12 plays) to $80 and beyond. Well, that $80+ category is where the Parker’s Heritage releases play. Parker’s Heritage is Heaven Hill’s annual Fall release of boutique bourbon. In terms of prestige and name recognition it lags behind the Van Winkle and Buffalo Trace Antique Collection releases (which are all but impossible to find now) and the Four Roses Small Batch Limited Edition (which was also harder to spot than a Bengal tiger in the wild this year). I think this year’s release was a bunch of single barrels. If so, I’m not sure which one this sample came from.

Named for Heaven Hill’s master distiller emeritus, and bourbon legend, Parker Beam, who chooses the barrels that goes into it each year, this year’s Parker’s Heritage benefits the Parker Beam Promise of Hope Fund through the ALS Associaton (Mr. Beam was recently diagnosed with this nasty condition). As Heaven Hill donates $20 from each purchase to the fund you should really think of this as a $60-80 bottle plus a $20 donation to charity. With that said, I’m going to feel like a jackass if I have bad things to say about this whiskey. Let’s get to it. Continue reading →

Elijah Craig 12, Small Batch

Posted on January 26, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Elijah Craig 12 is a classic, affordable ($25 and below) and easy to find bourbon. It is somewhat unusual, I suppose, in being popular with both bourbon geeks and regular drinkers. It is bottled in small batches by the Heaven Hill distillery in Kentucky and is made, I believe, from a not-particularly high rye mashbill. I have tried and enjoyed it a number of times before but this is my first time paying close attention to it.

Elijah Craig 12 (47%; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Maple syrup, caramel, cinnamon. Classic bourbon nose. Little bit of orange peel as well. More vanilla as it sits. Very well balanced. Gets dustier with time. Not very woody. A few drops of water bring the caramel closer to toffee.

Palate: More oak on the palate certainly but it emerges after the caramel, cinnamon and clove and a bit of cola pass through. Not a whole lot of change with time. With water the oak gets pushed back a bit and there’s more of a mocha note now. I just wish there was a little more texture/depth.

Finish: Medium. The spices and the oak linger. With more time I get more rye on the finish.

Comments: I like the nose much more than the palate but this is very nice–better with some water, I think. I wish the companies that own the Scottish distilleries (to say nothing of the Japanese) could give us whisky of this quality at this price. It does seem like there is a much smaller jump in quality from $20 to $80 in bourbon than there is in single malt Scotch–and some might say that bourbon is dodgier at the $80+ end of the market than closer to the $20 end. Granted I’m no bourbon maven, but I could be happy drinking Elijah Craig 12 and Old Weller Antique and not much else. Will things remain this way for long? I really enjoyed the Elijah Craig 18 that I got to try a couple of years ago but that disappeared and was replaced by a 20 yo that cost three times as much.

Rating: 84 points.

Thanks to Bryan F. for the sample.

Fettercairn 16, 1995 (Signatory)

Posted on January 24, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

I’ve said rude things about distilleries such as Deanston before; but where Deanston is merely held to be inoffensive, Fettercairn is openly scorned by many whisky geeks. The only other malt I’ve had from them was in fact quite well received but I thought it was just a bit above average: the Fior from a couple of years ago. Of course, reputations are unreliable; sometimes they rest on past sins/laurels, and even where justified on the whole are never descriptive of every cask of whisky that’s come out of a distillery. On this blog I’ve previously noted very positive experiences with malts from Loch Lomond and Miltonduff, both of which have poor reputations on the whole as well; will this Fettercairn be an outlier like those may have been?

Continue reading →

Teaninich 12, 1994 (G&M)

Posted on January 23, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Teaninich is another of the many Scottish distilleries that produce malt largely for blends. Indeed, there are only 12 official releases listed on Whiskybase and most of those are from the extinct Rare Malts series. It’s not shown up yet in Diageo’s Annual Releases either. And so it is to the indies we must look yet again to find Teaninich, and who better than Gordon & Macphail who seem to have large stocks of everything. I will be reviewing another G&M Teaninich early next month.

Teaninich 12, 1994 (46%; Gordon & Macphail; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Malty, slightly spirity and generic but pleasant sherried notes: dusty caramel, light mocha. Toasted wood emerges as well, and it gets a little bit grassy with time. With more time and water there’s some citrus and honey and the wood gets a tad more polished than toasted. Faint hints of some musky fruit too (or am I imagining this?).

Palate: Very much as on the nose at first but then there’s a burst of citrus–orange peel at first but it gets brighter quite fast. Some salt and a little bit of woody bite (some cinnamon in there too). Somewhat thin mouthfeel. Gets quite salty on the second sip. With more sips there’s an increasing leafy quality and more leathery bitterness.

Finish: Medium. It’s the citrus, salt and wood, in order of increasing intensity that make the most impact at the end. Leaves a bitter taste on the sides of my tongue.

Water didn’t do much for/to the palate or finish.

Comments: Perfectly pleasant but completely undistinguished sherried whisky. But there’s nothing wrong with that–at the right price this would be good everyday whisky. Would it have been much better at cask strength? Maybe the citrus would have been more pronounced on the nose and richer on the palate, but then maybe the woody/leafy/bitter notes would have been far more pronounced too. As it is, even at 46% it’s better with water.

Rating: 83 points.

Thanks to bpbleus for the sample!

Balmenach, 1979-1998 (Scott’s Selection)

Posted on January 22, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Balmenach, in the Speyside, is another not very well known distillery. It is part of the Inver House group along with more famous stablemates Old Pulteney and Balblair. It doesn’t get official releases as a single malt and so once again we must look to the indies, and once again to Scott’s Selection. I read a rumour recently, by the way, that Scott’s Selection is closing down as a label. Too bad if it’s true, though it does explain why nothing new seems to have come from them to the US in some years.

Balmenach 1979-1998 (59.6%; Scott’s Selection; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: A little spirity at first but then gets malty with a little bit of honey thrown in. Some grassiness too and a minerally, almost plasticky note–that last turns into something a bit medicinal (not phenolic but uncoated tablet). With more time it gets sweeter (honey) and there’s a hint of lime and pepper as well (something prickly at any rate). Water emphasizes the sweetness. Continue reading →

Royal Lochnagar 14, 1996 (A.D. Rattray)

Posted on January 21, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

This was bottled for the giant Californian chain, BevMo! This is the only malt I think I’ve had from the Lochnagar distillery (one of a very small number that get to put the appellation Royal before their name). And so I have nothing to say about it other than its name sounds like it could be that of a North Indian town and would thus be perfect for one of those Indian whiskies claiming Scottish antecedents through their names (Bagpiper, Peter Scot, McDowell’s #1 etc.). And so with this useless preamble out of the way, let us to the tasting notes:

Royal Lochnagar 14, 1996 (56.3%; A.D. Rattray for BevMo!; sherry cask #29304; from a reference sample saved from my own bottle)

Nose: Malty and mildly fruity (citrus, melon) along with some pepper and light hints of mocha. Not particularly sherried. With a little more time the fruit expands and gets more acidic, and now there are mild notes of toffee and raisins as well. With even more time some toasted wood peeks out as well. With a drop of water the malt and fruit make a big integrated comeback.

Palate: Very much as on the nose: malty and fruity with light hints of mocha and tasted wood. As on the nose, it’s not overtly sherried with mild rum-raisin notes and a hint of toffee the chief nods at the cask. Gets a little grassy as it goes. With water the fruit gets brighter.

Finish: Medium. More citrussy on the way out but there’s also something mildly soapy and bitter at the very end. Water gets rid of the soapy/bitter thing.

Comments: A decent whisky which probably owes its character more to the type of wood (I’d guess American oak) the cask was made from than from its previous contents. Nothing earthshaking here and apart from the slight soapiness on the finish at first, no real flaws. Better with water.

Rating: 84 points. (Pulled up by water.)

Glencadam 21, 1991 (Blackadder)

Posted on January 20, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Glencadam is a highland distillery about which I know very little. I’ve had their 10 yo which presents excellent bang for the buck (or at least it did–I haven’t looked at prices recently) and have unopened bottles of their 15 yo and 21 yo (the newer versions at 46%), and a couple of indies in the stash. Unlike most Scottish distilleries they’re not owned by a big conglomerate–unless, that is, Angus Dundee Distillers is a front for Time-Warner–but they’re not a quaint family outfit either: to get a sense of romance Angus Dundee-style, read this page. None of this, of course, says anything about the quality of their whisky.

This particular bottling is from the independent outfit Blackadder, who are not very shy with the pricing. In fact, some of their prices for their new releases in the US are over on the other side of ridiculous. I split this bottle–and a Clynelish to be reviewed later–with two friends (one got half the bottle, and I split the other half with the third person) and so neither of us absorbed a major hit to the wallet. We also got it at a discounted price offered to my friend Rich. As this discount was something I took advantage of second-hand I feel that it does not contravene my protocols to review the whisky. If you disagree please feel free to call me out below. Continue reading →

Restaurant Alma I, January 2014

Posted on January 18, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

I know I’m terribly hard to please when it comes to eating out at the high end in the Twin Cities, but there are two places of which I rarely have complaints. One is 112 Eatery and the other is Restaurant Alma. We’ve eaten at Alma about 5-6 times in the last few years–which, given how little we can go out now and how rarely we ever return anywhere for a second meal, let alone a third, is really saying something. While many trendier places have opened in the seven years that we’ve been in Minnesota, and received a lot more enthusiastic press, local and national, Alma just keeps on keeping on with excellent, seasonally-focused food that seems more classicist than it really is. Continue reading →

Redbreast 12 CS

Posted on January 17, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

This is the cask strength version of the Redbreast 12 that was a huge hit when it arrived in the US some years ago, and it was quite well received in its own right. I have to admit I wasn’t crazy about it the first time I tried it (or, more accurately, I didn’t think it offered enough to justify the price premium over the regular 12) but am interested to see what I make of it this time around.

Redbreast 12 CS (57.7%%; from a sample received in a swap)

Nose: Aromatic, floral wood that gets sweet quite fast, moving from honey to vanilla sweetness in the span of a few seconds. Settles finally in a darker, muskier fruity sweetness framed by polished wood, and there’s more honey and some raisins too. With time it gets a little grassy and the wood gets a little sharper but it’s still the honeyed fruit that dominates. With water there’s a dusty/talcum powder’ish note and more creamy vanilla below that. Continue reading →

Power’s John Lane

Posted on January 16, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Irish whiskey is a bit of a blind spot for me and in 2014 I am going to try and drink more of it. I have to say the little that I have tried so far has not thrilled me overmuch. I liked the Tyrconnell NAS at the price and the Redbreast 12 at its introductory price (in the low $30s) but the rest I’ve either found to be not very good or overpriced for what it is. Let’s see where this Powers John Lane falls. It is a single pot still whiskey from the New Midleton distillery who also produce Redbreast, Green Spot, and most famously, Jameson. This is from a mix of bourbon and oloroso sherry casks and I believe the bourbon casks are predominant in the vatting.

Continue reading →

Glen Scotia 20, 1992 (Archives)

Posted on January 15, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Glen Scotia is the other Campbeltown distillery, in the shadow of Springbank. The reputation of Glen Scotia’s malt has been more down than up among whisky geeks; and until recently they had not offered very much by way of variety either. Then came a sudden reboot and a series of shockingly ugly bottles. I’m not sure what the quality of the whisky inside those is but this bottle from Archives (the label of the Whiskybase boys) is very good. It was a big hit at our local group’s December tasting.

Glen Scotia 20, 1992 (50.4%; Archives, hogshead 08/71; from my own bottle)

As Whiskybase only released 80 bottles some other bottler must have got the rest. Something to keep in mind if you own this and are also enticed by another Glen Scotia 20, 1992 that does not specify the cask number. Continue reading →

Glen Spey 21, 1989

Posted on January 14, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Glen Spey is a not very well known distillery in Diageo’s portfolio. And so it was a bit of a surprise when their 2010 slate of special releases included this 21 yo. But maybe it shouldn’t have been. Say what you will about Diageo’s milking of Port Ellen and Brora and older Lagavulin and Talisker for everything they can get for them they have consistently given some of the lesser names their chance in the spotlight as well, and usually at reasonable prices (take a bow as well, Glen Ord, Benrinnes, Pittyvaich, Mannochmore, Auchroisk and Glenkinchie). This Glen Spey got good notices from some reliable quarters upon release, but given the distillery’s low profile–especially in the US–I gambled on it eventually getting deeply discounted a few years later (as happened in some places with the excellent Glen Ord 30 a few years ago). Luckily, the gamble paid off late last year and so here I am. Continue reading →

Caol Ila 22, 1991 (Cadenhead’s)

Posted on January 12, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Here, finally, is the last of the eight Cadenhead’s Small Batch bottles I split with friends. This is the oldest of the bunch we bought and probably the most eagerly anticipated one by the people who split it. Caol Ila is very, very rarely bad, and once it gets into the 20s it usually is very, very good. This smelled very nice when I was pouring it out for distribution and it’s been hard to wait to taste it. Here goes.

Caol Ila 22, 1991 (52.2%; Cadenhead’s Small Batch, bourbon hoghshead; from a bottle split with friends)

Nose: Some minerally peat but not a whole lot of smoke as such. A little pine and then fruit: apples at first and then increasing lemon, and increasingly ashy lemon. The pine/eucalyptus note gets a little stronger with time, and it’s sweeter in general after a few minutes. Let’s see what water does. With water there’s quite a bit of salt and more ash to go with the lemon and the pine/eucalyptus thing quietens down a bit. Continue reading →

Glen Grant 15, 1997 (Cadenhead’s)

Posted on January 11, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

Glen Grant, as I’ve said before, is one of the storied distilleries that I don’t know very well and so I’m always happy to try another one. I have a review scheduled for next month of a much older, sherried one from an earlier era but first, here’s this bourbon cask teenager from the late 1990s. I’ve liked all the Cadenhead’s Small Batch releases I’ve reviewed in this run–some more than others–and I hope this will keep the positive streak going.

Glen Grant 15, 1997 (55.8%; Cadenhead’s Small Batch; bourbon hogshead; from a bottle split with friends)

Nose: Wood makes the first impression–pencil shavings turning to lightly toasted oak. Some fruit below it (apples) and then an increasing maltiness. With more time there’s some white grape as well and the wood gets somewhat dusty; more acidic too now. The fruit expands, melds with the malt and gets much more musky with time. With water the vanilla from the palate shows up here too and the fruit really expands: peaches, oranges, plums. Continue reading →

Auchroisk 12, 2001 (Cadenhead’s)

Posted on January 10, 2014, 7:00 by My Annoying Opinions

This Auchroisk is yet one more from my ongoing series of reviews of Cadenhead’s bottles I split with some friends. I’ve quite liked the few Auchroisks I’ve tried so far. Those were both middle-aged (see here and here). What will the story be with this not quite teenager from 2001? As per Cadenhead’s, “[I]n 2011 the character of Auchroisk was changed” with a 72 hour fermentation now employed in place of a 48 hour fermentation. They say that this bottle is “from the old style”. Unless I’m misunderstanding, surely no one has yet tried the new style. If the new fermentation regime was put into place in 2011, nothing distilled from it could be bottled as Scotch whisky till 2014 at the earliest. Or is this a typo and did the fermentation time change in 2001? Does anyone know?