Mirthful's Comestibles

(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.)

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

Nose: Green apples and (artificial) lemon. Green wood.

Palate: Green apples, certainly, but other than that my thoughts go towards white wine.

Comments: Fundamentally different from the Thatcher’s. It’s a bit odd, actually, but not at all unpleasant. If it were sweeter it could almost be a simple white wine with lemonade.

Score: Ach. 6 out of 10.

Nose: Fresh and green apply, but very “commercial cider”-ish.

Palate: Crisp and clear, but like the nose hardly exciting.

Comments: Why bother with a “vintage” when it’s this bland? There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, it’s easily drinkable and it’s not too sweet, but it’s boring, boring, boring.

Score: 5.5 out of 10 (though I should have tasted it against the Westons – but at least that had that tartness which rescued it from insipidness)

Edit: I’ve adjusted the score, after reflecting that the scale as described for whisky sets 5 as the breakoff for where I’d willingly part with money. As I even drink Magners if I feel like cider and that’s all that’s available (and in Norway, it frequently is), 3 for this stuff is unrealistic. It’s better than Magners, if only just.