Whisky and other wonderful things

Nose: Sea. Fruits, peaches, perhaps, with a hint of dried apricots.

Palate: Warmly spicy. Slight bitterness. Heathery honey.

Finish: Longish, with heather and honey and a slight bitterness.

Comments: When I found that honey, my mind went: “Oh, yes!” Still, on the whole it’s “just” a good dram, not all that exceptional.

Score: 7 out of 10

This was the selection at the September meeting of NMWL Trondheim. All are Diageo Rare Malts series, and hence OB.

Glen Albyn 1975, 26 yo, 54.8%

Nose: Chemical, pine needle detergent, resin, new wood.

Palate: Resin, malt, sweetness.

Comments: Very leggy. Tastes better than it smells, but overall a great whisky. Nice and smooth on the palate but with a (pleasant) “sting”.

Score: 8 out of 10 

Linkwood 1975, 26 yo, 56.1%

Nose: A little unpleasant just at first, needs to breathe. A bit sharp. Malt and something berry and floral.

Palate: Black currants and black currant bush on the finish. Malt and vanilla.

Comments: Needs to breathe in the glass for a while. Nice, but boring. Not a particularly good Linkwood.

Score: 7.5 out of 10

Blair Athol 1975, 27 yo, 54.8%

Nose: Spice, toffee, red berries.

Palate: Spice cake.

Comments: Very, very pleasant.

Score: 9 out of 10

Dufftown 1975, 21 yo, 54.8%

Nose: Butterscotch, acetone.

Palate: Malt, acetone, then some christmas cake, with ginger (a bit soapy) and cloves rather than cinnamon.

Score: 4.5 out of 10

First an OB(!)

Caperdonich 16 years old, Chivas Brothers Cask Strength Edition, distilled 1988, bottled 2008, batch no. CD 16 001, 55.8%

Nose: Heather and heath. With water: Lemon sherbet, candied orange, malt, hay.

Palate: Spice. Dry, warm wood. Orange marmelade. Dark chocolate. Black pepper.

Comments: Really needs water. Very nice indeed, there’s a bit of a contrast between the fruit sherbety nose and the more spicy, “adult” palate, but they are by no means strangers. I like it.

Score: 8 out of 10

Caperdonich  10 years old heavily peated, The Single Malts of Scotland, distilled 04.05.1998, bottled 01.10.2008, cask ref 1277, 58.5%

Nose: Warm peat smoke, hay and malt. Oatmeal, flour, glue. Water brings out lemony notes and something evergreen, spruce possibly. It also lessens the impact of the peat.

Palate: Peat and banana. Malt, dry wood.With water, a little marmelade and a rich, tangy sort of spice.

Comments: A warm, rich and complex nose which could keep me occupied for a while. A dry, woody finish with a hint of evergreens. Very, very nice.

Score: 9 out of 10

Nose: Quite closed without water, but with something meaty, vaguely barbequeish. Butter or perhaps butterscotch. And some sort of flower, if I could only think of the specific variety… I think I’m thinking of oxeye daisies. With added water I get something more malty, and perhaps a bit of dry grass.

Palate: Warm and mellow. Muffled sherry. Shortbread and brown sugar notes. Bitter orange on the finish.

Conclusion: Quite a pleasant Mortlach, not oversherried like I often find them. I’m not quite sure about the bitterness on the finish, though, it’s a little too strong for my taste, and therefore detracts a bit from the overall score.

Score: 7.5 out of 10

Norwegian cider. Well, I don’t have high hopes, but it would be nice to pleasantly surprised.

It started with a bang. Literally. I know I called the Polgoon Aval “too sparkling” at first, but this is something else entirely. The bottle is corked “champagne style” and the moment I had unwound the wire sufficiently, cork, wire and cap disappeared heavenwards. Maude knows what our upstairs neighbour thought when it hit the ceiling with a loud bang. A good 10 cl decided to leave the bottle and bubble over, prompting a rescue operation on the blanket I happened to have under the bottle. Pouring it was an adventure in itself, and yes, if I stuck my nose in before it had settled down I got that rather unpleasant co2-sting in my nose.

Nose: Green apples. And, eh, green apples. And you have to almost touch the liquid with your nose to get even that. Not a big nose, then.

Palate: Sweet apples. A tad too sweet for me, but not so much as to call it cloying or anything like that.

Conclusion: Rather boring, though. Not much happening on the nose or the palate. Too much like Mozell (a cider-like Norwegian soft drink). I’d like to know the sugar content, if it’s not soft-drink level then I could see the point of this, if it is, well, then I’d rather drink the non-alcoholic version. Still, it’s not not good, to put it that way, I’ll be quite happy to finish the bottle.

Tasting the tail end of the bottle. We picked this up when we visited the distillery in 2005, so it’s been open for a while.

Nose: Varnished oak. Spice and chocolate.

Palate: Port. Now there’s a surprise. Woody, but pleasantly so. Spice and dust, like an old spice chest. Dark chocolate.

Conclusion: One of the best wine finishes I’ve tasted. It doesn’t wow me, though, but it’s “eminently quaffable”, just like it says on the label (fact).

Score: 6.5 out of 10

Nose: Pears, vegetation. I’m also getting something like grilled meat, but it may be the husband’s dinner (though that shouldn’t appear more forcefully the further I stick my nose down the glass, surely?). Liquorice. Road dust.

With water the vegetation becomes more apparent, with a sweet, flowery note.

Palate: Pleasantly woody, reminscent of a timberyard. A sweet, baked goods kind of note, vanilla and custard. Somewhat grassy, too. Quite complex, but well-rounded.

Conclusion: One I want to drink again. And again. How nice to get a whisky out of Campbeltown that I can wholeheartedly approve of. Massively impressive for being only five years old. It will be interesting to see if age will improve it or if I will want them to keep bottling it young.

Score: 7 out of 10.

I was going to do notes for a couple of (really great) Caperdonichs this evening, but I was more in the mood for cider, so cider it is. This is another bottle we picked up in London and this is what the producers have to say:

“Made from selected English apples, the fruit is pressed and fermented to produce a light dry cider. Then we use the ‘Methode Traditionelle’ of secondary bottle fermentation, which the French have used for years to produce some of their finest sparkling wines! The end result is a refined sparkling cider, to be enjoyed with lunch, light foods, shellfish, lazy Cornish days, friends and family.”

Well, I’ve had a lazy day, though not nearly as Cornish as one could have wished, but I’m foodless and companionless, as the husband has the late shift. Still, I’m pretty sure cider ought to work in any case.

Nose: Immediately upon having been poured it is way TOO sparkling. The effect of sticking your nose in the glass is reminicent of drawing too deep a breath out of a washback in full fermentation, it stings! However, it settles down and becomes pleasantly sparkling with a light, quite dry nose with clear, clean apple notes.

Palate: Uhm. Ok, my first impression is of slighly rotting apples. This is not a good thing. The second sip is much better, but without much character, really. It’s dry and light and apply, but a little boring. The rotten sidenote comes and goes, but it’s not going away.

Conclusion: Well, I’m halfway into the glass, and really, the verdict is No, just No. I’ll cork the bottle up and let the husband have a taste to see it it’s just me. I’m hoping the rotten note is a sign that there’s something wrong with this particular bottle, but who knows?

Luckily I have a chilled bottle of Boulard’s Cidre De Normandie in the fridge, so I’m going to get my dose of cider (it’s not the bees knees, but it’s very drinkable, and reasonably available since they have it in Sweden).

“A traditionally light Devon cider from 100% organic Devon apples, Sugar Bush, Quench, Devon Crimson and Pig’s Snout.”

Firstly, it caught me off-guard by bubbling over when I opened the cork. Ok, so it’s been hefted along in a suitcase from London and driven along bumpy Norwegian roads for hours, but it’s been resting comfortably for over 24 hours by now. I’d dispute the “lightly sparkling”, therefore.

Nose: Apply and ever so slightly vinegary.

Palate: “Tart” is the first thing that springs to mind. Very tart. Almost vinegary, in fact. It also, somehow, manages to be sweetish. Distinctly apply, which is good.

Conclusion: Too vinegary to be wholly successful. Not unpleasant, but bordering on being just that.

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.