|
|
I går lagde jeg nuddelsuppe til middag, inspirert av Din mat. Siden jeg kjøpte skikkelige nudler uten medfølgende krydderblanding måtte jeg krydre selv, og det hele ble såpass godt at jeg tenkte det var best å skrive det ned mens jeg husker hva jeg gjorde.
1 pakke økologisk kjøttdeig
1 paprika
6-7 sjampinjonger
4 vårløk
litt sukkererter
1 pakke eggnudler (også økologiske)
Kjøttdeigen brunes i pannen, krydre med 1 ts spisskumen og 1 ts ingefær (frisk hadde sikkert vært enda bedre, men det hadde vi ikke). Pepper er også bra.
Paprikaen og sjampinjongene deles i biter og stekes sammen med kjøttdeigen til de blir passe myke.
Vårløk og sukkererter skjæres skrått og stekes ett minutt eller to.
Kok opp vann i en kjele – jeg begynte med litt over en liter, og tilsett grønnsaksbuljong. Når vannet koker, ha oppi nudlene (knus dem gjerne litt først, det gjør suppa lettere å spise) og hell alt fra panna over. Fyll på med vann (nykokt fra vannkoker) til det dekker godt nok, og kok i så mange minutter som nuddelpakka tilsier. Smak til med mer krydder (jeg saltet litt og hadde oppi mer ingefær).
Ferdig. Din mat vil at du skal servere brød til, men det er strengt tatt ikke nødvendig, suppa er mettende nok i seg selv.
Kjapp og enkel, og forholdsvis sunn middag. Neste gang skal jeg ha enda flere grønnsaker i, tror jeg nok.
(Lanseres på Vinmonopolet lørdag 5. november 2011.)
Nose: Apples! Fresh, pleasant, not very complex.
Palate: Red, ripe apples. Sweet, but far from cloying. Fresh and pleasant, like the nose.
Comment: Not… well… complex or intelectually stimulating or anything like that, but it certainly goes down nicely. I will probably be buying more of these.
Nose: Lemon, grass, shortbread, malt. Water brings out pine trees and wood sorrel.
Palate: Lemon, oaky dryness, malt and buttery cake. Too much water uncovers a vaguely vomity note.
Comments: I am rarely much taken with Jura, but this is a nice exception. The taste is slightly better without water, the nose is definitely improved when water is added, which would leave me in a fine quandry if I had a whole bottle rather than just a small sample. As it is, it’s not a major issue.
Score: 7.5 out of 10
Well, you know. I’ll try anything once (almost, I mean, I wouldn’t try cyanide).
Nose: Suprise, it smells of ginger! And fizzy sweets.
Palate: Well, ginger, naturally. Rather pleasant than otherwise. Oddly enough, I think it’s got something of a cola flavour as well.
Comments: I guess it contains real ginger, because after only a few sips I can feel the ginger “hotness” as a lingering sensation. But it’s not unpleasant, and though it’s a bit too sweet for me on its own, I think I could quite happily use it in some sort of longdrink in the summer. But then it might be easier to just use non-alcoholic ginger beer. Especially because of the small print.
For more than 200 years Crabbies has followed a secret recipe, the steeped ginger is combined with quality ingredients and matured for 8 weeks.
Well, I can tell you something right off: They haven’t been following the exact same secret recipe for 200 years, that’s for sure. How do I know? I quote:
Contains Sulphites and contains Sugar and Sweeteners.
See that last bit there? Sweeteners? They weren’t around 200 years ago.
Word on the net says it’s aspartame, but it’s all one, I don’t do sweeteners. Haven’t you hear? They’re fattening. They also increase the risk of heart disease. I’d much rather just reduce my sugar intake, thank you very much.
So, you know… Score? Well, if you check my explanation of my scoring, I do take into account whether I’d actually want to drink the stuff again. And that leaves us, at the best, here:
4-4.5 Drinkable, but I wouldn’t pay for a(nother) dram.
But the TOTALLY UNECCESSARY additon of sweeteners in an otherwise quite appealing product actually annoys me. It really annoys me. Which means we’re around here, I think:
1-1.5 Not nice. I take it as a personal affront that someone even bottled this.
Sorry about that. Do a rethink and come back to me when you’ve come to your senses about the sweeteners and we might even reach the 6s or 7s. As it is, though:
Score: 1 out of 10
(Be glad it isn’t worse, I’m not entirely convinced aspartame doesn’t qualify as poison.)
Well, maybe not.
Anyway, there is a student festival – or rather a culture festival arranged and mostly attended by students – in Trondheim called UKA. This year, as indeed some previous years, they are having a whisky course. They also publish a magazine, which is available free at cafés and bars around town, and there are articles in this magazine to compliment some of the events. In this case I was contacted – through the NMWL webpage – and ended up talking to a couple of very nice students on the telephone for a wee while on a couple of occasions, about whisky.
I ought to have been clever enough to request a draft to verify quotes. I didn’t. I should probably also have offered to proofread their article for factual errors on whisky lore. I didn’t.
On the whole, though, it’s quite a good article as these things go. There are only a couple of factual errors and I was only very sparsely misquoted. In fact, they did a much better job than most professional journalists I’ve come across.
As far as I know, it’s not available online. If it turns up electronically I’ll update here.
Speed dramming at Tomintoul, we had half an hour on four drams, of which I made hasty notes on two.
Tomintoul 21 years old
Nose: Green apples, pear drops.
Palate: Spice, sweetness (honey?).
Comment: Beautiful nose!
Score: 8.5 out of 10
Old Ballantruan
Nose: Sweetness and peat, warm smoke, fruit in the background.
Palate: Colder smoke, plums.
Score: 6 out of 10
A bit disappointing this. I mean, I know Cadenheads have some really cracking drams in their stock, so getting something that’s just ok is not going to wow me…
Tasted blind, that is I wrote the notes before I was told what was in the glass.
Balmenach 22 years, dist. 1989, bot. June 2011, bourbon hogshead, 51.4%
Nose: With no water, mostly alchohol. With water added, meaty and orange.
Palate: Slate, spice, malt.
Comment: There is something distinct on nose and palate that I couldn’t put a name to before the glass was empty, so I wanted more simply to try to pin it down.
Score: 5 out of 10
Speyside 15 years, dist. 1994, bot. 2009, bourbon hogshead, 64.6%
Nose: Vegetation, pine, resin, suddenly sherry.
Palate: Resin.
Score: 7 out of 10 (well, I like resiny whiskies)
Hazelburn 12 years, Batch 3, all sherry, 46%
Nose: With water, fruit and smoke.
Palate: Clear peat on finish.
Score: 6 out of 10
(Note: No, I have no idea where the smoke/peat comes from, but it’s there.)
Ben Nevis 14 years, Rum cask, 58.1%
Nose: Rubber.
Palate: Rubber, salt, pepper, liquorice.
Score: 3 out of 10
Vatted malt for shop, 58.2%
Nose: Peat, dried fruits.
Palate: Peat, cold fireplace.
The entertainment value was better than the whisky. Actually, that’s not entirely true, the whisky was mostly quite good, however, the laughs were plentiful.
More plentiful than my notes, that’s for sure. I guess I was too busy laughing.
Mark’s choices:
Macallan 12 years old OB 40% (sherry cask)
Ok, but boring. Actually a lot more rubbery than I remember. I didn’t finish the dram.
Highland Park 18 years old OB 43%
Nice.
Talisker 10 years old OB 45.8%
Very nice.
Ardbeg 10 years old OB 46%
Cold smoke and rock – slate.
Bruce’s choices:
Glen Moray 10 years old Chardonnay cask OB 40% (the new one)
Much better than the old wine finishes.
Stronachie 18 years old 40% (Benrinnes)
Not convinced. Didn’t finish the dram.
Benromach 2001 OB 59.9%
Cheese on the nose, apple pie on the palate. Nice.
Port Charlotte An Turas Mor OB 46%
Can’t seem to agree with this one. Didn’t finish the dram.
Benriach Birnie Moss OB
Well, the glass is suddenly empty. Moreish.
We’re going to Dufftown! Tomorrow! Weeeeeeeee!
In the meantime, here are notes from the last NMWL Trondheim meeting, where we had four Old Malt Cask bottlings.
St. Magdalene 1982, 26 years old, refill butt, 50%
Nose: Gingerbread for a few seconds, then it disappears. Barley and citrus.
Palate: Barley, orange peel - including the white stuff.
Comment: Nice, but… Meh. Boring.
Score: 5 out of 10
Royal Lochnagar 1984, 23 years old, refill hogshead, 50%
Nose: Citrus, nail varnish remover.
Palate: Orange, orange peel, pine.
Comment: Slightly more interesting.
Score: 6 out of 10
Braeval 1998, 10 years old, sherry butt, Cigar Malt subseries, 50%
Nose: Toffee, apples, rose-water, strawberries.
Palate: A hint of rubber. Toffee and sweetness.
Score: 7 out of 10
Caol Ila 1979, 30 years old, refill butt, 50%
Nose: Smoke with a sour note (not unpleasantly so).
Palate: Smoked oranges, lots of fruit.
Comment: Not hugely interesting, but a pleasant smokiness after the rather bland ones we had so far, and bonus points for the fruit on the palate.
Score: 7 out of 10
On the whole I was a bit underwhelmed, as you can see. And also a bit disappointed. OMC is usually pretty good, so I was hoping for at least one stunner, but alas, it was not to be.
Ah, well. Meeting with the Friends of the Whisky Museum tomorrow evening will cheer me up, I bet.
Nose: Green apples, minerals or rock.
Palate: Light, fresh, green apples.
Comments: On the finish, especially, there is something too sour, certainly the wrong side of dryness. Otherwise it’s pleasant, but not hugely exciting. I’ve had better English bubbly.
Score: 6 out of 10
|
|
Recent Comments