Mirthful's Comestibles

(My apologies to any Norwegian-challenged readers, but all my notes for this are in Norwegian, as they are copies of those handed to the journalist, and I really cannot be bothered to translate all of it. Also, most of these beers are available in Norway only.)

På mandag fikk jeg en invitasjon på Facebook som jeg ikke kunne si nei til, så jeg hev meg rundt og fikset barnevakt, og tirsdag kveld møtte jeg forventningsfullt opp på Naboen for å være en av deltagerne i panelet i Adressas årlige juleøltest. Jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke helt var forberedt på omfanget, 41 øl var vi gjennom, men morsomt var det. Alt ble selvsagt servert blindt, og vi fikk ølene i bolker på 3-5, først alkoholfritt, så klasse D og til slutt klasse F.

Full konsentrasjon, selvsagt.

Totalresultatene ble publisert i Adressa, både på papir og på nett, på fredag, og på nett finnes også en TV-Adressareportasje. Til min store overraskelse var resten av panelet enig med meg om hvilken øl som var best, det er forresten også det jeg peker på som spesielt godt i reportasjen. Men for the record nekter jeg å ta på meg noe som helst ansvar for at Dahls poløl havnet nederst, jeg hadde nemlig det også som ett av de beste (men med litt mer forsiktig poenggiving enn en del andre jeg sniktittet på arket til).

Her er i alle fall mine notater:

Alkoholfritt

Aass jule uten – Lukt: Malt. Smak: Bismak av vått løv, litt malt, mest vann, litt bitterhet. Poeng: 1

Munkholm alkoholfritt juleøl – Lukt: Maltkaramell, nederlandske kaffedrops. Smak: Søtt og vandig. Poeng: 2

Santa Clausthaler – Lukt: Malt. Smak: Søtt, malt, litt bitterhet, litt sitrus. Poeng: 4

Klasse D

Borg Juleøl (boks) – Lukt: Malt, banan, litt syrlig. Smak: Litt tynt, moden banan, humle, malt, honningkake. Poeng: 3

Hansa Julebrygg (boks) – Lukt: Humle. syrlig, banan. Smak: Banan, humle, mindre sødme. Poeng: 3

Lundetangen Juleøl – Lukt: Kaffe, maltsødme. Smak: Syrlig korn, humle, brent malt. Poeng: 4

Mack Juleøl – Lukt: Veldig lite, brent sukker. Smak: Syrlig, tynt, metallisk, humle. Poeng: 4

CB Juleøl – Lukt: Brent malt, kaffe. Smak: Smaken skuffer litt, bittert, brent, vann. Poeng: 3

Dahls Juleøl – Lukt: Metallisk, apelsin, malt. Smak: Metallisk, sødme, litt humle. Poeng: 3

Tuborg Juleøl – Lukt: Brent, surt. Smak: Sur malt, sødme. Poeng: 2

Atna Øl til julemat (boks) – Lukt: Kaffe, malt. Smak: Syrlig, malt, litt fruktig, korn. Poeng: 5

Aass Juleøl – Lukt: Metallisk, tørt, støv, sødme. Smak: Syrlig, malt, humle. Poeng: 6

Hansa Juleøl En klassiker – Lukt: Malt, maling, syrlig. Smak: Malt, plastikk. Poeng: 2

Hansa Juleøl En klassiker (boks) – Lukt: Malt. Smak: Malt, søtt,vann, humle. sur humle. Poeng: 3

Lade Gaards Brygghus Juleøl – Lukt: Syrlig, smørsyre, nesten spy, banan. Smak: Syrlig, banan, merkelig. Poeng: 1 (1 trøstepoeng for å skille seg ut.)

Frydenlund Juleøl – Lukt: Malt, karamell. Smak: Malt, karamell, sødme, tørt. Poeng: 4

Ringnes Juleøl (boks) – Lukt: Malt. Smak: Maltsødme, kjedelig. Poeng: 3

Dahls Julebrygg (boks) – Lukt: Kaffe, mold/jord. Smak: Litt tynn, men kaffe, malt, brent. Poeng: 6

Grans Bare Jul (boks) – Lukt: Metallisk, litt surt. Smak: Metallisk, pils. Er dette juleøl? Tynt, helt greit, men kjedelig. Poeng: 3 (som juleøl, 4 som øl)

Nordlands Juleøl (boks) – Lukt: Syrlig. Smak: Søtt, malt, vann. Poeng: 3

Grans Juleøl – Lukt: Brent sukker, appelsin. Smak; Syrlig, søtt, litt (vag) spysmak, ostepop. Poeng: 1

Fredrikstad Juleøl – Lukt: Kaffedrops. Smak: Kaffe, sødme, humle. Poeng: 5

Grans Julebrygg – Lukt: Sirup, syrlig. Smak: Syrlig, surt, litt kvalmende. Poeng: 2

Klasse F

Nøgne Ø Underlig Jul – Lukt: Parfymert, menthol, fersken. Smak: Brent, kaffe, metol, parfymert, søtt. Poeng: 4*

Jacobsen Golden Naked Christmas Ale – Lukt: Bringebærdrops, fersken. Smak: Fersken, syrlig, humle, litt emmen sødme. Poeng: 5

Håndbryggeriet Nissemor – Lukt: Kaffe, sjokolade, brent. Smak: Syrlig, kaffe, sirup, brent ettersmak. Poeng: 4

Bocq Christmas – Lukt: Karamell, malt, vørterbrød. Smak: Søtt, malt, sirup, vørterbrød, nok syre til å gjøre det til godt matøl – favoritten så langt i kveld! Poeng: 8

Ringnes Julebokk – Lukt: Litt brent, lite lukt. Smak: Brent, surt, kaffe, noe urteaktig som jeg ikke finner ord for (arg!). Poeng: 4

Hansa Juleøl En klassiker – Lukt: Søtt, julekake, malt. Smak: Maltsødme, god drekka, men litt kjedelig. Kommerst. Poeng: 6

Hansa Julebrygg Ekstra Vellagret – Lukt: Søtt, urin, malt. Smak: Maltsødme, litt tynt. Enda mer kommerst. Poeng: 4

Nøgne Ø God Jul – Lukt: Kaffe, brent. Smak: Sjokolademalt. Poeng: 3

Berentsens Julefnugg – Lukt: Malt. Smak: Malt, brent malt. Poeng: 3

Dahls juleøl – Lukt: Malt. Smak: Malt. sødme, humle, syrlighet, banan. Poeng: 5

Fredrikstad Juleøl – Lukt: Syrlig. Smak: Syrlig (litt), malt (litt), kjeeeedelig. Poeng: 2

Borg Juleøl – Lukt: Malt, syrlig. Smak: Malt, litt humle, søtt. Poeng: 4

CB Juleøl – Lukt: Malt, maltkarameller, støv, melkesjokolade. Smak: Melkesjokolade og kaffe. Poeng: 5

Mack God Jul – Lukt: Sirup og brent sukker, kvae. Smak: Sirup, kvae, syrlighet, maltkaramell. Sannsynligvis god til mat. Poeng: 6

Ringnes Juleøl Sterk – Lukt: Malt, syrlig, kaffe, julekake. Smake: Malt, søtt, godt, men kjedelig. Poeng: 4

Haandbryggeriet Nissefar – Lukt: Brent/sjokolademalt. Smak: Sjokolademalt og surt. Poeng: 2

Berentsens Jule Avec – Lukt: Skole/tavlesvamp, løvtrær, malt. Smak: Surt, brent, malt. Poeng: 2

Aass Det originale Juleøl – Lukt: Malt, syrlig, kaffe. Smak: Syrlig, malt, kaffe, litt kjedelig. Poeng: 4

———————

* Her har jeg notert “Nøgne Ø?” Med andre ord har de i hvert fall oppnådd en gjenkjennbar stil. Jeg hadde også en ahaopplevelse i lunsjen dagen etter når noen kolleger drakk “te” med røde bær som smakstilsetning, da fant jeg bedre ord på den “parfymerte” lukta jeg fant i dette ølet: Twinings Four Red Fruits.

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.

Bourbon barrel #3839, bottled as 56.8% in 2008 for Whisky Owner.com.

Nose: Peardrops, spirit, tinned peaches, nail varnish remover, vanillin. Definitively pears, but not fresh – possibly one of those desserts made of pears marinated in spirits. And cloves. With a dash of water, some toffee and more spices appear.

Palate: A hint of smoke. But also something a little sour and nauseating. Quite like puke, in fact. Water does not help.

Conclusion: The nose is quite nice, but the taste is not at all pleasant. I could probably sit nosing it for hours, but it’s undrinkable to me.

Points: 3 out of 10

Tasted as a mystery malt (blind, that is).

Tasted as a mystery malt (NMWL Trondheims MM #6b).

Nose: Pears and tinned peaches. A hint of spice.

Palate: Somewhat disappointing, lacks intensity compared to the nose. Malt and malty sweetness, also red apples. Some spice or possibly a hint of peat smoke appears with a drop of water.

Comments: The nose disappeared almost completely with water added, but the palate becomes more defined. To start with I felt the sting of alchohol in the nose, but suspect this is because this is the first dram of the evening. Most factors indicate that this is 40-43% and of middling age, that is 12-14.

Guessing wildly I’d say it’s a Balvenie, something seemed to point in that direction.

Points: Decent dram, 6 out of 10

Comments after the reveal: Confirms my impression that I preferred the Flora & Fauna Clynelish, RIP. Balvenie was a bit off, obviously, but not embarrasingly so, I’d say, there is a certain likeness.

Tasted as a mystery malt (NMWL Trondheims MM #6a).

Nose: Smoked peach. Malty sweetness and toffee.

Palate: Toffee, smoke, ashes.

Comments: This is quite agressive, so I would imagine it’s cask strength. It might be a disguised Speysider, of course, but I’m fairly certain it’s an Ileach. Considering Snorre brought us this, it’s tempting to guess at Ardbeg, but that might be just a little too simple? It tastes like it could be an Ardbeg anyway. Not terribly complex, but very good nonetheless.

Points: 7.5 out of 10

These notes were written “blind”, that is: I had no idea what this was when I wrote the notes. We have a bit of a Mystery Malt thing going in the NMWL Trondheim group and this was one of those.

Nose: Immediate first impression was fruity (pears?), but that disappeared quite quickly, leaving toffee and malty sweetness in its place. I seem to find a hint of smoke. There is also something rather alien on the nose which I can’t quite place – something somewhat perfumy.

Palate: More smoke on the palate than nose, but still not an awful lot. Lots of sweetness and toffee. Some spices, a bit christmassy. Lemon or orange on the tip of my tounge. With water the taste develops a bitterness which doesn’t quite agree with me.

Comments: Better without water. The toffeeish sweetness dominates the nose and palate, and this is not bad, but not very exciting.

Score: 5 out of 10

(In case you’re interested I guessed at it being reasonably young, but not very, around 46% and possibly something rougher than a Speyside with the roughness concealed by the cask. Because of the element I characterised as alien, I guessed at a finished malt, and suggested Arran – simply because they do a lot of finishing – or Glenmorangie (ditto).)

Tasted as a mystery malt (NMWL Trondheims Mysteriemalt # 4a).

Nose: Clean, green grass, hay, malt, something floral and something citrusy.

Palate: Malt, something bitter, orange peel and something vaguely nutty. Woodchip on the aftertaste.

Comments: First impression is that this must be a Lowlander, but after tasting it I’m not quite so sure. I’m guessing it’s ex-bourbon and not cask strength, probably 46%. It’s got something of a split personality, the nose and taste do not agree at all. I’m not quite convinced, is it an independent from a cask they weren’t quite lucky with, or what?

Score: The nose alone would give it 7, but with that taste: 4 out of 10.

Comments after the reveal: Mortlach, huh? Who knew?

Tasted as a mystery malt.

Nose: The first word that comes to mind is just “strange”. Sweetness, some spices and wood penetrates without water. With water it opens, and I find new sneakers (that’s a first). After a few minutes in the glass someting vegetational emerges, berry bushes and green leaves.  Etter en liten stund i glasset kommer noe mer vegetalsk fram, bærbusk og grønne blader. It’s very familiar now, but getting the brain to connect to a distillery might not be so easy.

Palate: Eh. Also strange. Tart apples. Chemicals. Wood. Vegetational.

Comments: Smells better than it tastes (after it’s had time to open), but I like it.

Score: 7 out of 10

Tasted as a mystery malt (NMWL Trondheim Mystery Malt #3 – Sample B).

Nose: Malt more than anything. Something floral. Congeners. Quite pleasant. A faint hint of smoke once I’ve added water.

Palate: Smooth and rough (if that’s possible). A lot of malt, a very little smoke. Green grass (or sileage) and red clover. Some off-notes that I can persuade myself to ignore.

Comments: Could possibly be a (lightly) peated Lowlander. Probably not cask strength, but more than 40% - perhaps 46%? Ex-bourbon is my guess, as the cask seems to have done so little, and probably not very old, possibly just gone 10 years. Not the bees knees, but an ok dram.

Score: 4.5 out of 10

Tasted as a mystery malt (NWML Trondheims Mystery Malt #2).

Nose: The first impression is not entirely positive. It smells, hm, a tad rotten? Half-rotted apples, tendencies towards compost. With an effort I manage to ignore that and find a clearer apple scent – green apples – and porridge. A hint of something peaty is also there, though faintly.

Palate: Dry. The rotten apples are present, also dry wood and bark.

Conclusion: This is simply not particularly nice. I’m tempted to guess at a Mull origin, but there are other distilleries that make things I don’t much like, so that might be the wrong ocean entirely.

Comments after the reveal: It’s nice to see I’m somewhat consistent, I’ve written notes for this before and at that point I gave it a score of 3 out of 10.