Whisky and other wonderful things

And it just goes to show that I really need to do more blind tastings… I requested that we do a blind tasting where I was “blind” myself when the committee planned the spring meetings of NMWL Trondheim, and Thursday evening I showed up prepared to make a fool of myself. Which I proceeded to do. Mind you, no one else did much better at the guessing, so I was in good company.

Bjørn and Stein had picked six whiskies for us. We were told all six were available in Norway, between 10 and 13 years of age and 40-46%. Those who wanted one were given a “cheat-sheet” with 15 distillery names, but I opted to try without.

Whisky number one:
Nose: Vannilin, wood, congeners, grass, flowers
Palate: Wood, malt, bitter notes
Score: 4.5 out of 10

I suspected it might be Glenmorangie 10 years, which was way off. We established “Speyside” quite quickly, but went through pretty much every likely Speyside distillery before Bjørn said it was “favoured by collectors” and I shouted “Macallan”. And it was. Macallan 12 years old fine oak. And I suspect the reason it didn’t enter my mind earlier is that I still think of Macallan as a sherry-whisky, which is partly because I still drink Macallan as a sherry-whisky, I’ve only tried the fine oak range once, at the first Oslo Whisky Festival, shortly after its launch. Still and all.

Whisky number two:
Nose: Strange, sweet, oak, sweet white wine, something a little pert, citrus, gooseberries
Palate: Citrus, flowers, gooseberries
Score: 7 out of 10

I was sure this had to be something finished in a sweet white wine cask of some sort, but it turned out to be a Duncan Taylor NC2 Imperial 13 years old, which no one managed to guess until an embarrassing amount of hints (including IB, Speyside, not a Glen and closed) had been dropped.

Whisky number three:
Nose: Sweet, sherry, a bit nauseating, rubber
Palate: Too much sherry and rubbery notes, but at the same time the whisky seems too young.
Score: 2 out of 10

I had no ideas whatsoever. The answer was Arran 12 years old. Contrasting it with the notes for the 10 year old we had on Sunday is interesting to say the least.

Whisky number four:
Nose: Peat, banana, sweetness, seaweed?
Palate: Peat, mostly. At the moment you swallow you get a burst of fresh fruityness which comes as a bit of a shock the first time, but is quite pleasant.
Score: 6.5 out of 10

I drew a blank. I was kind of sure it was coastal, but probably not Islay. It was Longrow 10 years old 46%.

Whisky number five:
Nose: Closed, vague sherry notes, hint of peat, sour grassy notes (cattle feed?)
Palate: Bitter, cloying sweetness, glue and wood
Score: 3 out of 10

I didn’t like it at all, and hence suggested a Springbank-destillate, partly based on that unpleasant bitterness. However, it turned out to be Bruichladdich 12 years old.

Whisky number six:
Nose: Peat, heat
Palate: Peat, ashes
Score: 7 out of 10

I guessed at Laphroaig 10 or Bowmore 12, but it was Talisker 10, which was perhaps the greatest suprise of the evening. We could not find any pepper at all, and there was much more peat than I would have expected, though I suppose that might mainly have been in contrast with the rest. It appeared pleasant, if a little one dimensional.

NMWL Trondheim had a visit from Jon Bertelsen on Sunday, and we made our way through eight malts. Needless to say, my notes for the first four or five are rather more extensive than for the last few, so I’ll just include the reasonably sensible ones…

Glen Scotia 45% OB
Distilled 31 May 1999, bottled 24 April 2007, cask no. 78.

Nose: Apples and pears, malt, hint of lemon, more obvious lemon but less of everything else with water, I’d drink it without.

Palate: My first impression is of pepper. Also it’s very heavy on the grain, chewy maltiness. Bitterness and wood (not the rubbery notes of old casks but the dry smell/taste of weathered planking).

Comments: Quite nice as a “light” whisky, but the bitterness detracts.

Score: 5 out of 10

Arran 10 years old OB 46%
(L26 09 07 3 14:15 BB)

Nose: Closed, barely opens with water. It might just be my nose, though…

Palate: Wood, sweet, dare I say sherry? No raisiny notes, though, just the sherry-sweetness.

Comments: I was pleasantly surprise and noted the batch number because I wonder if there might be differences. A good, though not terribly exciting, dram.

Score: 6 out of 10

Springbank Vintage 2000 OB, bottled for Jon Bertelsen, 58.5%

Nose: Some smoke, though cigar rather than peat.

Palate: More peaty smoke, ashes, coldness

Comments: Quite definitely the best whisky from (spirit distilled at) Springbank I’ve ever had. I tried it very quickly at OFW and decided to buy a bottle just because I actually liked it, but a “proper” taste has left me changing “like” to “love”.

Score: 8.5 out of 10

Bladnoch 15 years old OB, sherry matured, 55%

Nose: Sherry, malt, vaguely floral/grassy

Palate: A lot of sherry, a little wood, some malt.

Comments: In this company this is just boring, too much sherry, not enough whisky. Not bad, at all, just too one-dimensional. I must try it again in a different setting, though.

Score: 5 out of 10

Longrow CV 46% (batch 08/330)

Nose: metallic, vague peat, liquorice

Palate: coldness, ashes, rock, peat smoke

Comment: With water, that familiar Springbank bitterness appears and it becomes undrinkable. Note to self: Do not add water.

Score: 7 out of 10 (without water)

And then we had Bruichladdich 2001 for Jon Bertelsen, Bruichladdich Waves and Longrow 10 years old CS, which were all fine, but nothing to write home about.

#1: Bunnahabhain 1994 Dun Bheagan, Manzanilla finish 43%

Nose: Rubber, sugar, sweets. Mostly rubber, though.

Palate: Dry, rubbery and vaguely spicy. Bitterness, sawdust and salt.

Comments: Not a success.

Score: 2 out of 10

#2: Bruichladdich 1998 Oloroso sherry matured, OB, 46%

Nose: A bit closed, sweetness and sherry mostly, barbequed meat, a vague flowery smell, quite pleasant, on the whole.

Palate: Bitterness, varnish, red apples, madeira punch-flavoured marzipan, bitter chocolate on the finish.

Comments: At least the palate is complex, but that’s the best that can be said for it. I’m dissapointed in this one, I had high hopes for it. I had hoped the sherry would mellow the slightly off-noteish bitterness I tend to find in Laddies, but instead it seems to have accentuated it. Can you have a cloying bitterness? If so, that is what we have here.

Score: 2.5 out of 10

#3: Port Ellen 7th annual release, OB, 53.8%

Nose: Peat, coldness, ashes, juniper wood, spices.

Palate: Ashes, peat, fridge-ice.

Comments: Nice, but somewhat disappointing. Too one-dimensional and insubsantial to be very interesting, and I’ve had much better Port Ellens.

Score: 7 out of 10 (and I’m not entirely convinced it shouldn’t be 6 instead, and at that price that really isn’t enough)

#4: Port Charlotte – PC7 61% OB

Nose: Warm peat smoke, warm wheat buns, timber, spruce, sweetness.

Palate: Peat, fire, ashes, coal, firewood and spruce. Much more which I can’t put words to.

Comments: Nice. Very nice. The peat disguises much, but there is enough underlying complexity to keep you nipping to put words to that elusive taste. Makes me very happy about owning shares in Port Charlotte casks.

Score: 8 out of 10

Nose: Sharp alchohol prickling, malt, green apples, warm wood, a hint of smoke. With water I get pears and liquorice.

Palate: Malt, black pepper(!). The immediate impression is that the palate is simpler than the nose, but this might be due to the alchohol-content. So we try with some water. Well… Liquorice? Apple pie, wood (in a good way), dark (bitter) chocolate.
 
Comments: I would probably have guessed at cask strength if I’d been given this blind. A good dram, but a tad too bitter on the taste for my preferences, I’d have liked some sweetness to round it off. A bit of sherry-maturation, perhaps?

Nose: Smoked apples (hm, that might be worth trying?). Something a little sour and unpleasant underneath – sileage? Congeners of the bad sort.

Palate: Thin and a little flat. Someone suggested Ardbeg Ten watered down too far, which is quite an accurate description of the impression. Does not live up to its ABV.

Comments: I’m even less impressed with this now than when I first tried it. It smells all right, though a little immature, but even at 46% it tastes like someone’s been far too liberal with the water. Not undrinkable, by any means, but I’d never have purchased a bottle if I’d tasted it first.

Score: 4 out of 10

Nose: Somewhat closed, warm smoke, some sweetness, something fresh. With water the smoke turns sour and I get something nutty and butyric acid (I think, hard to pin down).

Palate: More ooph in the smoke, but surprisingly mild and smooth, I would not have guessed it was only five. With water it becomes sharper and more woody, at the same time it starts showing its age.

Comments: Better without water is the first impression. No new favourite, but I suspect the bottle will be emptied.

Score: 5 out of 10