Monthly Archives: April 2014

Cragganmore 23, 1989 (Faultline)

Posted on by

Cragganmore 23, Faultline
This is the second of two reviews of 1989 Cragganmores. Unlike yesterday’s iteration this one is from a refill sherry cask. It was bottled for K&L in California for their Faultline label. This is the second Cragganmore they’ve bottled in that series, and I’ve had a sample of the previous one, a 20 yo, 1991 from a bourbon cask. That one didn’t impress me overmuch. As I paid for a full bottle of this one I’m hoping it puts on a better showing. I have a pretty good streak going with K&L’s selections and despite what I think of their marketing ways I’m not bloody-minded (or rich) enough to want to have paid for middling or poor whisky just so I can complain about them even more.

Cragganmore 23, 1989 (54.6%; single refill sherry cask; from my own bottle)

Nose: Orange peel and cloves. With more time there’s apricot jam and a leafy quality; some salt too. Very nice. With even more time notes of brandied raisins emerge and some toasted oak and roasted malt as well. Water mellows it out and emphasizes the raisins and the wood. Continue reading →

Cragganmore 1989-2010 (Berry Bros. & Rudd)

Posted on by

Cragganmore 1989 BB&R
This Cragganmore, bottled by Berry Bros. and Rudd, is from a bourbon cask and is either 20 or 21 years old. I emptied the bottle a year and a half ago, but as is my custom with malts I find interesting for one reason or the other I’d put 6 ounces aside from when the bottle was near the halfway mark. In this case, actually, I saved it not because I found it to be such an interesting malt, but because Cragganmores are thin on the ground; and as I didn’t/don’t expect to have too many opportunities to buy Cragganmores in their 20s it seemed to make sense to save some for comparisons should I ever come across more. And, as it happens, I have. This is being sampled alongside another from 1989 (from a refill sherry cask) and that review will appear tomorrow.

Cragganmore 1989-2010 (53.5%; bourbon cask #2880; from a reference sample saved from my own bottle)  Continue reading →

Balvenie Tun 1401, Batch 3

Posted on by

Balvenie Tun 1401, 3
Hot on the heels of my review of the Balvenie Tun 1401, Batch 6, here is my review of Batch 3. This has one more cask in the vatting than Batch 6 does, and one more sherry cask. This was the first of the Tun 1401s to be released in the US (it was a US exclusive) and a number of people think it is among the best, if not the best of the series so far. Even people who don’t usually get carried away love it. As a result, I’m expecting it to be very good. Will reality match the expectation and talk? Let’s see.

Balvenie Tun 1401, Batch 3 (50.3%; from a sample from a friend)

The full bottle in the picture is my own–but thanks to Patrick, who shared a sample from his bottle, I’m able to keep that bottle closed for a special occasion. Continue reading →

Grand Szechuan Redux

Posted on by

I’d planned to review Little Szechuan in St. Paul this month but they’ve been closed for remodeling. Hopefully, they will reopen soon and if so I’ll have a write-up in May. In the meantime, here are some more pictures from recent meals at Grand Szechuan which continues to be as reliably good as it’s ever been. On our recent visits we’ve been eating some things we hadn’t tried before and now have some new regulars to add to the rotation.

Click on a thumbnail to launch a larger slideshow with descriptions. (Only dishes not pictured in the previous write-up or featured in particularly heinous photographs are included.) Continue reading →

Tobermory 10 (46.3%)

Posted on by

Tobermory 10

I’ve not had very much Tobermory–just a few iterations of the 10 yo over the years. This is both because there isn’t a very large amount of Tobermory around in the US and because their malt does not, in general, have the best reputation and so I haven’t been moved to go out of my way to try it. In fact, Michael Kravitz, who I am once again simultaneously reviewing this one with, may be the only person I know who is generally a fan. (He’s reviewed two other Tobermorys leading up to this review and you should check those reviews out too.) The reputation of their peated malt, sold as Ledaig, has been on the upswing of late so it may well be that Tobermory is also due for rehabilitation. I have to admit I didn’t care overmuch for the Tobermory 10 when I last tried it back in February–let’s see what I make of it now.

Edit: Here is the link to Michael’s review. He liked it quite a lot more than I did (though our samples did not come from the same bottle). Continue reading →

Sea Change

Posted on by

Sea Change is the restaurant at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. It opened a few years ago to rave reviews and continues to be rather popular and well-received. I had one middling to poor dinner there with friends a couple of years ago and was not terribly motivated to go back. However, this year there was some noise around an omakase dinner program they had in January, and I believe there’s a different chef now than when I ate there last; and so as we tried to figure out where to go after our excellent meal at Piccolo last month it seemed like a decent bet. And as we were dining with a bunch of friends it seemed like a good opportunity to get a lot of what’s on the current menu and see if my prior experience might have been due only to bad luck in ordering. Continue reading →

Scenes from Some Whisky Tastings, 3rd Ed. (Sketches by Stephanie Cox)

Posted on by

I am very pleased to be able to once again feature some sketches by my talented friend, Stephanie Cox. Stephanie is a core member of our local whisky tasting group and while the rest of us chatter idly between sips she usually sketches us on her iPad, or when battery runs out, on paper. These are very informally made sketches but they capture the atmosphere of our tastings quite well, I think, if not my inner beauty. (If you haven’t seen her other sketches click here and here–the first link also has a detailed description of how our tastings work.)  Continue reading →

Balvenie Tun 1401, Batch 6

Posted on by

Balvenie Tun 1401, 6
This is the sixth edition of Balvenie’s Tun 1401 series and the second to be released in the US (batches 3, 6 and 9 have been US exclusives). The Tun 1401s, as all the geeks know, are Balvenie’s premium NAS vattings of fairly old whiskies, from different combinations of sherry and bourbon casks. As I recall, more information has been available on the general age range of the component casks of only the early releases–with Batch 2 said to have only one cask filled later than the 1970s and one filled in 1967. I’ve no idea if this means that the more recent releases have more (relatively) younger whisky in them–please chime in if you know more one way or the other. I’ve also read that the series allows Balvenie to salvage some high quality older casks that have slipped below 40% abv (the minimum allowed for Scotch whisky); if so, that seems like a very clever/good solution–certainly preferable from their point of view to dumping it into vattings of younger and cheaper age stated whisky as might have been the case in earlier times. Continue reading →

Jumping the Driscoll

Posted on by

David Driscoll has been on a strange tear on Spirits Journal in the last few months. Bloggers have been the target of his ire but it’s really logic and coherence that have been the victims. One day it’s important to have knowledge and “critical context”, other days all that matters is to have fun and not worry about knowing things and people who know things are a drag, and so on. There’s about as much consistency in his narratives as in those in the professional wrestling world he keeps referencing. I’ve stopped calling this stuff out on the blog as I don’t really have anything personal against Driscoll or K&L–I purchase from them and generally have enjoyed K&L’s selections. Also, even for a blowhard like me it gets tiring saying the same thing over and over again. And at this point I think most whisky geeks are wise to his schtick anyway. But his most recent post is quite something. Continue reading →

Two Ardbeg 10s

Posted on by

ardbeg10l7
That whisky geeks are obsessive is well known–we chase after and compare batches of Aberlour A’bunadh, Laphroaig 10 CS, Springbank 12 CS etc. etc.. None of this, however, compares to the mania of the Ardbeg obsessives who, in the absence of helpfully provided batch information on the labels, track bottling codes, parsing them not just for the year of distillation but for the exact bottling run. Clear distinctions between years and narrow periods are claimed by many and there are even some who insist on being able to tell differences between batches bottled at different times in the same year. I sometimes idly wonder if Ardbeg would be quite so popular if they just put all the identifying information on their labels. At any rate, it’s very good for their sales as there’s infinite granularity for the collectors this way–instead of just one Ardbeg 10 you can have an Ardbeg 10 from every year for which a bottle code is available, and instead of just one Ardbeg 10 from that year you can have many. It just goes to show that distilleries don’t really need to stimulate mania among geeks; we manage just fine on our own. Continue reading →

Aberlour 22, 1990 (Exclusive Malts)

Posted on by

Aberlour 22, 1990(This is the fourth of five simultaneous reviews with Michael Kravitz from Diving for Pearls. Here is his review.)

Aberlour are known for their sherried malt, whether it is the young, cask strength A’bunadh, beloved of so many geeks, or the regular 12 and 16 yos. They do mature a fair bit in bourbon casks, obviously–obvious because their non-A’bunadh releases tend to be double matured or vatted from sherry and bourbon casks–but very little of this, if any, sees the light of day as official distillery releases. As always, we have the indies to turn to for the variety the distilleries are reluctant to give us in order to maintain their “distillery character”, and so this 22 yo from Exclusive Malts which is the oldest Aberlour I think I’ve had to date.

This bottle is from a first fill barrel–the label does not specify but it’s ex-bourbon. It was featured at our local group’s February tasting where it was quite well received. These notes are taken from the end of the bottle but it’s not been open very long. Continue reading →

Bowmore 22, 1989 (Liquid Sun)

Posted on by

Bowmore 22, Liquid SunHere is another Bowmore from the edge of the danger zone. There is no great tension in this preamble though as I’ve had it before and know it doesn’t have any of the dreaded soapy or perfumey notes that ran riot at Bowmore in the 1980s. This was bottled by Liquid Sun, which I believe is just another imprint of the Whisky Agency (the well-known German indie outfit). As to whether there’s some method to what goes under the main imprint and what goes under the Liquid Sun imprint, I don’t know–it may just be a way of getting large numbers of releases to stand out in the marketplace.

Bowmore 22, 1989 (50.7%; Liquid Sun; bourbon hogshead; from my own bottle)

Nose: Dry, minerally smoke with a fair bit of salt on the edges. Then some seashells and sweet iodine–quite coastal. There’s an almost earthy note too or maybe it’s wet sackcloth. With a little more time there’s some lime. Quite mellow, on the whole. With more time there’s a buttery quality and a touch of pepper too. With a drop of water the lime expands and becomes more zesty/bitter, indeed starts moving towards citronella, but then the butteriness comes back again. Continue reading →

Chimborazo (Minneapolis)

Posted on by

Well, it’s the middle of the month and there haven’t been any food posts yet. To rectify that here is a brief account of a meal at Chimborazo, a popular Ecuadorean restaurant in North Minneapolis (way up on Central Avenue).

I don’t know anything about Ecuadorean food and I am going to refrain from holding forth like an expert after some desultory googling. I did know going in that Ecuador has an extensive coastline as well inland mountainous areas but I’d never really thought much about what that might mean food-wise. If I had thought about it perhaps I would have guessed that the cuisine has distinct zones with seafood and coconut at one end and a lot of starchy stuff at the other. What I would not have predicted is the use of peanuts (yes, yes, please remind me that peanut is native to South America). In some ways the food we ate felt like it was from somewhere between the Caribbean and South East Asia. If this seems outrageous, please chalk it up to my ignorance and tell me better. Continue reading →

Tullibardine 23, 1989 (C&S)

Posted on by

Tullibardine 23, 1989, C&S
This is becoming a bit of a litany these days but here is another distillery, Tullibardine, that I know very little about and have very little experience of. In fact, it is entirely possible that this is my first Tullibardine–though I do have a vague memory of having tried one or two some years ago (that, however, was before our children were born and permanent concussion set in; indeed, I also have a vague memory that there was a time when we went out regularly to the movies etc.). The length of the preceding digression suggests that it is best if we get right to it.

Tullibardine 23, 1989 (54.4%; C&S; hogshead #1957; from a purchased sample)

Nose: Musky citrus along with some malt and a mild grassiness. A bit of pepper too. The citrus gets brighter (and also nicely bitter) with time and air–think lime and lime zest. There’s just a bit of creamy sweetness below that too and then something biscuity. Gets a little dusty with water. Continue reading →

Benrinnes 23, 1988 (Mackillop’s Choice)

Posted on by

Benrinnes 1988, Mackillop's Choice
Benrinnes is another distillery with which I am not too well acquainted. It is in the Speyside and pumps out a lot of whisky for Diageo’s blends–they’re known for a sherried style and for triple-distillation* (the only Speysider apparently to do this). The only regular official release, I think, is the 15 yo in the Flora & Fauna range. I haven’t had this one, but I’ve had some indies: a younger, more atypical cask strength ex-bourbon 11 yo from Signatory (which I liked fine) and two older releases, one of which I liked well enough (a 26 yo from Chieftain’s), one that I thought was just okay (a 25 yo from the Bladnoch forum). I’m hoping to get to know these distilleries that are relative blindspots for me a little better and so this Mackillop’s Choice bottling.

*Edit: see clarifications in the comments on this score.   Continue reading →

Bowmore 15, 1990 (James MacArthur)

Posted on by

Bowmore 15 (James MacArthur)
I continue my daring exploration of Bowmores from the fringes of their dangerous period with this 15 yo from 1990. Will this provide further support for my hypothesis that the problems at Bowmore had largely cleared up as early as 1990? Let’s see (and please keep in mind that my experience of this period is very limited compared to most geeks).

This is the last of three James MacArthur bottles split with Michael K. and Florin (who, as you may recall, is the sheriff of a small community in the Inland Empire and the author of such novels as Gravity’s Rainbow and The Crying of Lot 49). This review is also being simulposted with Michael’s at Diving for Pearls. [And here now is the link to Michael’s review.]

Continue reading →

Marketing, Investment Whisky, Bloggers

Posted on by

[Let me make some apologies before you read this post. First, for the length. It’s a bit of an occupational hazard with me, I’m afraid (well, occupational for me, hazard for you). Secondly, for the genre of this post, which is the universally unloved one in which bloggers critique other bloggers–even I’m sick of it and barely engage it in anymore (not that I ever engaged in it much on the blog–just this post and this post, really). But the problem, you see, is that I’m contractually obligated to live up to the name of my blog from time to time. Anyway: you might want to come back to this when you have a lot of time on hand to read it.] Continue reading →