Category Archives: K&L

Chateau de la Grangerie 50, 1964 (Armagnac)

Posted on by

Chateau de la Grangerie 50, 1964 (for K&L)
Last week I had a review of a 20 yo Chateau de la Grangerie distilled in 1994 and bottled for K&L in California. I was not a fan. This 50 yo from 1964 was bottled at the same time, also for K&L. Is it much better? It’s certainly the oldest Armagnac I’ve yet had

Chateau de la Grangerie 50, 1964 (43%; bottled for K&L; from a bottle split)

Nose: Rich fruit (plum, orange peel, a bit of apricot) and oak and spice (cinnamon mostly, some clove too). Gets more leathery as it sits and the orange peel expands and there’s some black tea as well. Gets thinner with a lot of time and there’s a slight note of talcum powder as well.

Continue reading →

Michel Couvreur 12, Peaty Overaged Malt Whisky (for K&L)

Posted on by

Michel Couvreur 12, Peaty, Overaged Malt Whisky
As per the interwebs, Michel Couvreur was a Belgian involved originally in the wine trade who at some point turned his attention to Scotch whisky. Unlike the average independent bottler, however, Couvreur was not interested in purchasing and bottling matured casks under his own name. Instead he apparently would purchase casks of new make, fill them into his own barrels and set them out to age in his own cellars in Burgundy and usually (if not always) vat/blend the results. If you’ve familiarized yourself with the laws governing the production of Scotch whisky you know that to be called Scotch, the whisky has to be both distilled and matured in Scotland. Therefore, even though Couvreur’s whiskies all originate (presumably) in Scotland they cannot be called Scotch. And the scale of production takes this far beyond the level of a hobbyist’s noodling. Couvreur passed away in 2013 but his methods and brand have been kept alive by his apprentices. Continue reading →

Chateau de la Grangerie 20, 1994 (Armagnac)

Posted on by

Chateau de La Grangerie 20, 1994 (Armagnac)
Here is my fourth Armagnac review and the third review of a K&L exclusive Armagnac. I thought their Domaine de Baraillon 30 was quite good and that the Chateau de Pellehaut 17 was excellent and so my hopes are up for this one as well. Like Pellehaut, Chateau de la Grangerie is located in the Ténarèze appellation; unlike it, this is made entirely from the Ugni Blanc grape. K&L has brought in a number of other Armagnacs as well from this producer—indeed next week I will have a review of a much older one. And that more or less exhausts my opening patter…and so let’s get right to it.

Chateau de la Grangerie 20, 1994 (45.5%; bottled for K&L; from a sample from a friend)
 Continue reading →

Chateau de Pellehaut 17, 1996 (Armagnac)

Posted on by

Chateau de Pellehaut 17, 1996
Chateau de Pellehaut is in the Armagnac-Ténarèze appellation/region (Bas-Armagnac is the dominant one of the three; Haut-Armagnac is the third). Not knowing very much about the regions or their characteristic styles, I can only parrot what I have gleaned from other sources: brandies produced in Armagnac-Ténarèze are said to be more rustic and robust than those produced in Bas-Armagnac. This was made entirely from the Folle Blanche grape, which is historically the most important grape in Cognac and Armagnac production. I’m afraid I don’t know enough to be able to tell you how Folle Blanche Armagnac might differ from that made from other grapes—perhaps someone with more experience can fill us in on this in the comments.

This was bottled by K&L in California a few years ago. They’ve really done a remarkable job of promoting Armagnac in recent years.  Continue reading →

Domaine Hubert, 2006 (Calvados)

Posted on by

Domaine Hubert, 2006 (Calvados)
After two weeks of Armagnac let’s go back to Calvados Wednesdays for a bit. You may recall that my first Calvados review was of the new release of Domaine Hubert from K&L. You may also recall that I expressed some skepticism about the claim that this was essentially the same as their original release of Domaine Hubert, which had a vintage stated and was 6-7 years old. It certainly didn’t taste like it was very much more than four years old. Well, Florin, winner of the second season of Celebrity Apprentice, is a big fan of that 2006 Hubert and insisted that I try that one as well. (By the way, I’d sent him a sample of the new Hubert and he shared my reservations about it, though he did like it more.) He gave me a sample and here I am now with a review. I tasted it alongside a pour of the recent version. It couldn’t be done blind because the difference is obvious before you even taste them: the 2006 vintage is much darker—make of that what you will…
Continue reading →

Domaine de Baraillon 30, 1986 (Armagnac)

Posted on by

Domaine de Baraillon 30, 1986, Armagnac
Okay, let’s stay in the brandy family for Wednesday reviews but let’s mix in some Armagnac with the Calvados. I know even less about Armagnac than about Calvados, if such a thing is possible. I blame Charles Neal for this: unlike his great book on Calvados, his book on Armagnac is out of print (and the reviews for it are not as strong). I know it is a grape brandy like Cognac: I know that unlike Cognac, and like a lot of Calvados, it is single-distilled; I know that it hails from Gascony; and I know that it has three sub-appellations, of which bas-Armagnac has the status that Pays d’Auge has in Calvados. That is more or less where my knowledge ends. I know very little about the producers and about which have stronger reputations than others. This is a bit of a shame as the variety of Armagnac available in the US is greater than that of Calvados and the prices are much better. If you know of a good guide to Armagnac producers please point me in its direction.  Continue reading →

Domaine Pacory, (Calvados)

Posted on by

Domaine Pacory, Calvados
Here is another K&L exclusive Calvados (after the Hubert) and another from the Domfrontais (after the Lemorton Reserve). This is another whose age is not stated, only alluded to. Sku, from whom I got this sample, notes in his review that “while there is no age listed, K&L tells us it is five years old”. Florin pointed out in the comments that the label states the “Réserve” category which is used for three year old Calvados and wondered why they wouldn’t have used the higher category if it were indeed five years old (“VSOP” or “Vieille Réserve”). Sku noted that he “spoke to K&L and they assured me that it is 5 years old, distilled 2011. Apparently, they used existing, available labels rather than create a new one to get it done more quickly.” I found this explanation from K&L a little unconvincing and said so there but I’ll repeat myself here (I’m good at repeating myself and believe in sticking with my strengths).  Continue reading →

Domaine Hubert, (Calvados)

Posted on by

Domaine Hubert, Calvados; K&L
As I said on July 1, I am very new to Calvados. As such even though I’ve already made disclaimers about the nature of my Calvados reviews (there’ll be at least three this month), I’m going to make them again.

In brief, I am the furthest thing from an expert on Calvados. I am also pretty far from being an expert on Scotch whisky but in that case I know a decent amount about the history of Scotch whisky; I know quite a bit about different styles of Scotch whisky and the likely effects of variables in the production process; I know a fair bit about a bunch of the major distilleries and the profiles they’ve produced over time; and I certainly know when a whisky has flaws (whether it overcomes them or not) and when it has achieved very desirable characteristics. In the case of Calvados, I currently know only whether the one I am drinking appeals to me. And since my palate is conditioned by single malt whisky (which is also very relevant to my reviews of American whiskey) it may well be the case that what appeals or doesn’t appeal to me about a particular Calvados may have little relationship to the qualities looked for or scorned by connoisseurs of Calvados. (Among other things, I also don’t know what the plural of Calvados is: one Calvados, two Calvadoses? Calvadosi? Calvadeaux?)  Continue reading →

Glen Elgin 24, 1990 (Signatory for K&L)

Posted on by

Glen Elgin 24, 1990 (Signatory for K&L)
Here is the fourth of my four timely reviews of recent Signatory exclusives for K&L. Well, not entirely timely I guess: while the Imperial, Blair Athol and this Glen Elgin are still available, the Benrinnes is sold out.

Glen Elgin is another of the many distilleries of the Speyside with whose malt I don’t have a terrible lot of experience—in fact, this is the first I’ve reviewed on the blog. There’s not much available from it officially and in the US there’s not a whole lot available of it from the indies either. As such, this is another that I cannot really place in the context of the distillery’s usual profile. But I am curious to see if this turns out to be another of K&L’s selections of 20+ yo whisky that doesn’t actually display very many of the characteristics people associate with older whisky. Let’s see.  Continue reading →

Blair Athol 26, 1988 (Signatory for K&L)

Posted on by

Blair Athol 26, 1988 (Signatory for K&L)
Here is the third, and penultimate, in my mini-run of reviews of recent Signatory exclusives for K&L. Will this hold any surprises as Monday’s Benrinnes did? I expect not as this is not my first sherried Blair Athol of this general age from this period. I’ve previously reviewed a 25 yo and a 26 yo, both from 1988, both from sherry casks and both bottled by van Wees. My understanding is that Signatory is also the source of van Wees’ casks; if that’s true then that bodes well for this one: I liked both the aforementioned (though one more than the other) despite their being at 46%; this one is at cask strength.

The strength is not the only difference though: this one is much more expensive than those van Wees bottlings were and that discrepancy is hard to ascribe only to the different strengths as the price multiplier is almost 2x. Whether Signatory or K&L are the source of the markup, I’m not sure but it made me very reluctant to pay for a full bottle considering how much less I had paid for the others (one bought for myself and one bought for friends). K&L’s marketing spiel would have it that the last Signatory Blair Athol 25, 1988 sent customers into a frenzy, with people calling to ask for it well after it sold out; that doesn’t seem to have translated yet into big demand for this one as, at time of writing, a lot of it is still available. Anyway: let’s see what this is like.  Continue reading →

Benrinnes 20, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)

Posted on by

Benrinnes 20, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)
This is the second in my mini-run of reviews of recent Signatory exclusives for K&L. As with the Imperial 19, 1995, this was part of a bottle split with a bunch of other whisky geeks all interested in finding out if we wanted full bottles. In the case of the Imperial my own answer was “no”. Let’s see how things go with this Benrinnes. It’s always my hope to discover quality casks from the lower tier Scottish distilleries, as that is increasingly the only zone where good deals can be had.

I’ve reviewed even fewer Benrinnes on the blog than I have Imperials, and I’ve not tasted very many more either. And all of the ones that I have tasted have come across as fairly regulation fruity bourbon cask Speysiders (ex-bourbon Benriness seems to be the majority of what’s available in the US—I note this because the distillery is most known for its sherry matured spirit). As such I was not prepared for what I found in this Benrinnes: a lot of peat.

Continue reading →

Imperial 19, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)

Posted on by

Imperial 19, 1995 (Signatory for K&L)
This inaugurates a brief run of reviews of a number of K&L’s recent barrel selections from Signatory. These are all at cask strength—though in the cost-saving UCF bottles—and I believe they may all still be available (these notes are being taken long before this review will be posted and I am probably not going to remember to go back and check: you’re welcome!). I acquired these as bottle splits for the purpose of deciding if I wanted full bottles—my findings may be of interest to you as well.

There are some who make a case for Imperial (another closed distillery) being a bit of a hidden gem but I am yet to have any of its malt that I have found to be particularly remarkable—this includes another Signatory selection for K&L, a 17 yo that I had at 84 points. I am also yet to have very much of its malt so it’s entirely possible that I have not been lucky. Will this cask turn that around? Let’s see.  Continue reading →

Bowmore 12, 2001 (Signatory for K&L)

Posted on by

Bowmore 12, 2001, Signatory for K&L
Okay, let’s make it five whisky reviews in a row this week. This Bowmore was one of K&L’s 2014 selections (I think—I purchased it this summer at any rate). I opened it for one of my whisky group’s tastings at the end of the summer and then took it back to our November tasting. I liked it better the second time than I did the first—our group is now so large that I was one of only two people who were at both tastings and I forgot to ask the other person if his views had likewise shifted. I found it a bit too rough/sulphurous on the first go but those notes seemed to have receded with a couple of months of air in the bottle. It’s now been a few weeks since that second tasting and the bottle is almost empty, and so it should be mellower still.

(Michael K. reviewed this in the summer, by the way—he liked it more and didn’t pick up the rough notes I remark.)   Continue reading →

Benriach 19, 1994 (for K&L)

Posted on by

Benriach 19, 1994, K&L
Here is the second of two reviews of K&L exclusives. I did not enjoy last week’s Faultline Blended Scotch Whisky at all. Will this Benriach, which is much older, be better? It won’t take much. This is from a bourbon barrel and made from peated malt (Benriach is one of the few Speyside distilleries that regularly issues peated whisky—see also my reviews of their Curiositas, Septendecim, Arumaticus Fumosus and Solstice). K&L originally attempted to sell it for $150 but after a while were forced to lower the price to $109, at which point it eventually sold out. Good to see sanity prevailing every once in a while among customers in our overheated market.

As with the Faultline blend, this is review is being posted simultaneously with that of Michael K. and Jordan D. I’ll have the links once everything’s live. I wonder if we’ll have more agreeement this time. Continue reading →

Faultline Blended Scotch Whisky

Posted on by

Faultline Blended Scotch, K&L
K&L released this blend under their Faultline label earlier this year (or was it late last year)? I wasn’t very interested in it at first but when Michael K. suggested a bottle split I decided to give it a go. It’s cheap to begin with and a quarter of the bottle was really cheap. He then suggested we review it simultaneously and roped Jordan D. of Chemistry of the Cocktail in as well. And so here I am. If all goes according to plan Michael and Jordan’s reviews should go up at the same time, and I’ll link to them when I’m awake in the morning. (Here and here.)

I know nothing about this whisky or of what David D. said about it, but I’m sure it’s the very best blended whisky anyone has ever made. I think I remember Sku liking it a lot, so I guess it has a decent ceiling; at worst, the rest’ll get used up in my vattings. Continue reading →

Glenfarclas 24, 1990 (for K&L)

Posted on by

Glenfarclas 24, 1990
I thought this was going to be a return to my untimely reviewing ways but in checking out the details on this whisky after tasting it I was surprised to discover that K&L (whose distillery exclusive this is) seem to still have a large amount of it left. I guess there’s only so many whiskies even David Driscoll can convince every breathless whisky geek in the US to shell out for. Or maybe it’s because this isn’t a single cask and we tend to get—for no good reason—more excited about single casks. It’s also possible that people got spooked by K&L’s description of the acquisition of the casks, which suggests that they were casks the distillery was unwilling to release as (more expensive) singles. As per Sku, the source of this sample, this was a vatting of two casks. K&L’s own copy suggests more than two casks: they refer to it as a “multi-cask” vatting “from a sequential lot of first fill Oloroso sherry butts”. But I’m sure Sku’s information is from the horse’s mouth (or whichever wind-spewing orifice you think is more appropriate in this case).  Continue reading →

Kilchoman 5, 2008 (for K&L)

Posted on by

Kilchoman 5, 2008, K&L
This is one of K&L’s exclusive bottlings of Kilchoman and therefore THE GREATEST WHISKY FROM THE GREATEST DISTILLERY EVER! Well, I don’t know what Driscoll actually said about it as I don’t really read him regularly anymore—you can let me know if I’m very far off the mark.

Michael K., the depraved bastard who writes Diving for Pearls, proposed a bottle split of this some time ago. I’d completely forgotten about it till I got to Los Angeles and then he accused me of trying to renege on the deal and it got kind of ugly. Anyway, as recompense I had to agree to simul-review this, and I believe Jordan of Chemistry of the Cocktail is also doing one. So, after reading this you should go to their blogs and see exactly how they got it wrong. I’ll provide the links once I have them. As always, we won’t see each others’ reviews till they go up.

Continue reading →