I made up my blend as per the recipe in the previous blog entry and left it to "marry" in the flask provided as part of the kit (which I sealed with cling film) for about 8 hours.  With about 8 cl of total blend it was enough for my wife and I to taste and review.  The nose was quite salty and tangy, like sea spray (the Islay's clearly evident) and also quite peaty, but in an earthy rather than smokey way.  There was even a hint of maple syrup smoked bacon.  The taste was very smooth and sherry starts to come through, followed by spices like pepper and cinnamon.  There were also some sweet fruit notes, like a jam, but the kind of generic sweet red jam you might get in bed and breakfast.  There was some smoke in the finish and with a little water some oak notes also came through.  This was quite rich for a blend, but then this has only 25 % grain whisky, most blends today are probably closer to 50/50 grain to malt whisky, and I found the Islay influence dominant in the nose (even though it was less than 20% of the total ) but overall whisky was very drinkable and smooth.  Going to Master of Malt website if I was to make a bottle according to this recipe it would cost $83 for a 700 ml bottle and have an ABV of 40.75%.  Because I found the nose and taste a little disjointed I can only give this 2 stars and I will tweak recipe slightly.

Barnard Blend Recipe #2:  Speyside single malt (1 ½ cl of sherry matured) and 1 cl old Speyside single malt,  1 ½ cl of Islay single malt,  1 ½ cl of Lowland single malt, ½  cl old Highland single malt (sherry finished), 1 cl of single grain and finally 1 cl of very, very old single grain.

The idea here was to remove the very old Islay and increase the very, very old grain.  I also replaced the Highland with an old Highland sherry finished.  I will now blend this one and post a review.  I think this may balance out the nose and the taste but stay true to Alfred Barnard basic recipe. It also reduces price to $ 75 / 700 ml bottle and increases ABV to 41.1%.

I had not thought much about this until Master of Malt began offering home blending kits and it occurred to me that I might be able to recreate this blend (or at least something close).   Rather than describe that kit in detail here is link to the webpage.... http://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/the-home-whisky-blending-kit/.   I do have to make some substitutions, so I will use Speyside for Glenlivet and as there is no Campbeltown in the Master of Malt kit I will replace that with Highland malt.

Barnard Blend Recipe:  Speyside single malt (1 ½ cl of sherry matured) and 1 cl old Speyside single malt,  1 cl of Islay single malt and ½  cl of very old Islay Single malt,  1 ½  cl of Lowland single malt, ½  cl Highland single malt, 1 ½  cl of single grain and finally ½  cl of very, very old single grain.

If my mathematics are right that should be 8 cl (ie 16 x ½ cl parts) of blended whisky, which is enough for my wife and I to taste and write notes.  I received the blending kit (an early Christmas present to myself) this week and will make up the blend as above and review on my blog under Alfred Barnard Blend.   Happy Christmas everyone!

Scotch: Chivas Regal 25 year old over Ardbeg Uigeadail for the surprise factor.   I had a strong suspicion I would love the Ardbeg (and I did) but the Chivas Regal 25 really surprised me and despite its hefty price tag it stood out for me this year.   An honorable mention is deserved for both the Talisker and Bunnahabhain 18 year old expressions and the Sheep Dip blended malt as well.

Irish: Jameson 18 year old Limited Reserve gets slight edge for me over the Redbreast 12 year old.  Both excellent whiskies and the Red Breast is definitely still something I will go back to regularly, but the Jameson 18 year old has some additional complexity and depth the Red Breast doesn't. 

USA: I am going with Sazerac Rye 18 year old, but I really liked both the Rowan's Creek and Knob Creek bourbons.  For me the standard Sazerac rye completely redefined an entire genre of whisky.  I went from thinking of rye whisky as the stereotypical cowboy "rot gut whiskey" to a complex and fully paid up member of the great whisky club.  The 18 year old Sazerac is just great.

Rest of World: Forty Creek Premium Barrel (Canada) edges out Amrut Fusion (India), Nikka All Malt (Japan) and Yoichi 10 year old (Japan).  I accept that the Amrut and Yoichi may come out better if you were to rank them on taste alone in a blind tasting but the Forty Creek is staggeringly good value, easy to find (in the USA anyway)  and for me completely over turned my preconceptions of Canadian whiskey based on brands like Crown Royal and Canadian Club.

Whisky Family: It was close between Famous Grouse range (I really liked the Famous Grouse 12 year old Gold Reserve and Black Grouse) and Chivas Regal, but based on the averages scores I gave during the year, due in part to the Chivas 25 year old getting 4 stars; I am going with Chivas Regal.

As for whisky as investment, after 21 years in the oil and gas industry and watching oil prices rise and fall, it struck me that whisky is just another commodity to trade and the phenomenon of rising prices and the meteoric rise of the WM index in Whisky magazine, which if I am reading it right has increased by 300% in just 2 years,  has the potential to be another investment bubble as people are buying whisky which while in short supply or rare right now, it could be available in greater quantities in the future, and will be, if prices continue to rise.

This is the same phenomenon we see with oil, with the recent oil peak of $147 / bbl in 2008 then it dropped to $40 in a few weeks.  The market price of oil is driven by demand, and in general global energy demand is increasing, which in turn attracts speculative investment as commodity price rises, which in turn drives up demand, and with no short term supply available to suddenly meet new demand, leads to greater price escalation, further speculative investment and the cycle continues. 

Then of course the oil producers see the higher price, drill more wells and invest more capital to produce more oil (all which takes time, sometimes years) and eventually, often slowly, they increase production and the supply in reaction to the higher prices.  Once supply can meet demand then the inflation caused by speculation is reversed the price begins to fall again. 

The effect on price is even more pronounced if increased oil supply coincides with a drop in demand as happens in a recession and then price can literally collapse.  We saw $10 / bbl oil when the Asian economies slumped in late 1990s just as OPEC had ramped up production to meet what it thought was growing demand in the mid 1990's due to global economic growth and in particular the "Asian Tiger" economies.  As Time magazine said at the time, the world was "drowning in oil".  The same happened with the credit crisis in 2008. Global demand declined in part driven by the high energy costs, and oil price collapsed.

So back to collecting whisky.   If there isn't enough supply of collectable whisky today then prices become artificially inflated due in part at least to speculation as we see in the index, and like oil, it is not possible to increase the supply quickly.  However, just like the collectors, I am sure the distilleries will be looking at today's prices, and my guess is many of them will be laying down and planning more "collectable whisky" for that market in the future and saving casks to release later than they would usually to capture those premium (and artificial) prices, just like an oil company drilling more wells for increased future production, and eventually there will be over supply and prices will fall.   In addition, if the WM index continues to rise then the eventually costs will escalate to a point that they drive down demand (just as high energy costs drove down demand as people look to reduce their energy consumption) and reduced demand coupled with over supply means that the bubble will burst.  I think it is possible to envisage a scenario where the world is "drowning in collectable whisky" (which I have to admit would not be a bad way to go).   Bowmore can produce a lot of 50 year old Bowmore if they just wait long enough.

After 21 years in the oil and gas industry I think the potential for a whisky bubble is out there, and the more prices escalate and the WM Index rises, the greater the risk.   It seems I am in good company on this position as well.... here is a link to an excellent recent article by Ian Buxton on the same subject of whisky as a potential investment  http://www.just-drinks.com/comment/comment-spirits-is-investing-in-whiskey-as-good-as-they-say_id105625.aspx

I think it is fair to say that majority of the whisky community, who have expressed a preference, say they would prefer their single malt whisky came non-colored, that the producer did not add the coloring agents which are sometimes used to give a consistent color to their brand due to the slight inconsistencies that maturation in casks can create.  Some single malts in fact exploit this preference and take pride in claiming to be non colored.

So why then do so many formal tasting notes I read, often written by the same community members who express concerns about coloring agents, bother to state a color for the whisky?  Surely if color is not important and in fact a variation in color is fine with the whisky community do we insist on formally identifying the color.  This seems inconsistent and sends a very mixed message to the whisky producer that we associate certain colors with certain whiskies and therefore they need the consistency that the use of coloring agents gives them. 

I don't care about the color and I rarely comment on it during my tasting notes unless something jumps out as being at odds with expectations or even the taste.  But in general they are just tasting notes.  I have never "liked" a whisky because of its color, nor have I found a color so displeasing that I couldn't drink the whisky (but I then have never seen Loch Dhu).  So why do I care if others do comment on color?  Well I just think if we perhaps removed the reference to color from tasting notes and reviews altogether then producers would get a clear message that the whisky buying community doesn't care what color their whisky is – as long as it tastes good.

We know that you can sometimes tell or at least guess some taste profiles based on whisky's color, but we have also all been surprised that rich fruity but pale, light whisky or that dark mahogany whisky that was light and soft.  The description of a "blind tasting" to me suggests strongly to get the best possible taste description the color of the whisky should be ignored anyway.  I accept the term blind tasting is also used to refer to being blind to the producer and origin of the whisky as well, but it seems the root of the phrase is clear, that seeing something before tasting it can be misleading and set expectations or even suggest to the taster certain flavors before it is even sampled.

So I am suggesting that if the consumer demonstrates clearly they don't care what color the whisky is, by ignoring it, the producer then has no need to color it (no one would choose to spend the extra time and money coloring whisky if they didn't have to).  However by reviewing whisky and stating its color in numerous books and guides in many ways we are setting the expectation of color for that brand and expression that forces the producer to then color their whisky and the cycle continues.

Perhaps some blends targeted specifically at the whisky and lemonade brigade (not that there's anything wrong with that) would still require consistent color to prevent consumers concerns, but the single malts are targeting the more discerning whisky buyer and so we should perhaps just all agree to stop talking and writing about a whisky's color?

Knock, Knock.   Who's there?  Knocked.  Knocked who?  That's right, Knockdhu distillery, the makers of AnCnoc.

If you can do better then please email it to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or enter as a comment on the Blog tab.  Happy holidays.

You may have noticed the whisky countdown jump from 30 or so when the web page went live in early November to 45 as of November 20th.  I thought it was worth pointing out that I have still been catching up on tasting notes from the last year or so and entering them into my web page content management system.  However that exercise is now complete and I can start to look forward to the challenge ahead of finding the remaining 56 or so (which is slightly complicated by the fact the book was written in UK and I now live in the USA).  I also thought I would discuss my self selected "rules" for completing the task of trying and reviewing all 101 whiskies in Ian Buxton's list.

Firstly I must have tried the whisky since reading the book in 2010.  I can not claim a whisky I have tried before reading the book - ie Black Grouse or Laphroig Quartercask.  I have decided I must try them again and write a review with my tasting notes to complete the list.  Secondly I do not have to buy a bottle, (the book says I have to try them, not own them) and therefore for some of the more expensive and hard to find whiskies I am going to whisky bars and drinking and making notes there.  This is a more economical way to complete the task but it does get me the odd strange look in bars when I start sniffing the glass and writing notes.  Third, I am also allowing organized whisky tasting events to count, for example I am counting the five whiskies I tasted at Ian Buxton's tasting event in Aberdeen in 2011.  However I am not counting the "sample pours" handed out at whisky shows or distillery tours etc.  Finally I have discovered the world of whisky miniatures.  Some of the more common whiskies in the list can be bought in 5 cl bottles.  That helps a lot too, especially for ones I have tried before and I just want to remind myself of and write some notes. 

But even with those increased odds of success, and wide range available on the internet now (which feels way too easy sometimes and so I consider it my last resort, I much prefer to browse a good liquor store or airport duty free in major international hub) I still think the following whiskies are going to be hard to track down in USA and will probably be some of the last ones I find.  If you have any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Glen Breton  - Canadian single malt.  I have never seen this in US or in any whisky bars.

Hibiki 30 year old - Japanese blend.  Hard to find anywhere.  Will be looking for this one in a bar due to high price ($500+ / bottle)

Mellow Corn - US corn whisky.  They don't distribute this in Texas, will have to look in other states.

The Wine Society Special Highland Blend - You have to be a member of the UK wine society, which I am not, to order this one.

Seriously though is it just me or is the whisky world's interest with extinct distilleries and those that were extinct and have since been reborn a little misplaced?  I find myself asking this question more and more and as I taste some of these whiskies I find the questions don't go away.  Let's put aside the rarity question.  I fully understand that extinct whiskies are going to be collector's items and that itself creates an interest.  No I am talking about the simple fact, often ignored, that they were probably not always particularly good whiskies (not whether they are collectable).

In my mind a combination of free market economics and natural selection would suggest that in order for new and better whiskies to come along, less popular whiskies must improve or fall to wayside.  As popular as whisky has become it is still a finite market and therefore only a finite number of whiskies can exist.  If we want better whiskies shouldn't we want less popular or unsuccessful whiskies to perish?    Instead we seem to mourn passing of whisky distilleries or celebrate the re-opening of old ones without asking the important question – why did it close to start with?  Is the reborn distillery really remaking the old spirit and product, if so why?  Or is it using the modern equipment, standards and techniques, and in effect it's a new distillery in an old building.

The emergence of new distilleries and new whisky making countries suggests to me that in balance we as whisky lovers should welcome the passing of some tired old production that was never successful or large enough to survive and welcome the next whisky that will inevitably follow in footsteps, almost certainly a better product given the high standards of distilling and maturation today.  Simply put some of these whiskies weren't good enough or loved enough or viable for whatever reason at the time and for the good of the whole industry they had to die.  My guess is that they weren't the best whiskies and therefore the fittest survived.  If total whisky production or producing countries was falling I would understand, but clearly that isn't the case, so let's collectively move on.   

If you do come across a rare bottling of single malt from a closed distillery enjoy by all means, but don't try and tell me it is a loss to the industry.  My guess is it probably isn't, although I am sure from time to time some good production has been lost it has been more than outweighed by the good new whiskies added almost every day.  I am sure almost any distillery can produce, from time to time, a one off single cask bottling of exceptional quality but it doesn't mean that everything produced there was of the same standard.  Occasionally even a blind squirrel will find a nut.

So let's not mourn the passing of distilleries or worry about the rebirth of others, perhaps we should even encourage and welcome it, raising the standards of the global product for everyone, like a gardener pruning old tired flowers so healthy new growth can come through. 

My first comment regarding my whisky reviews, tasting notes, and whisky tasting notes in general, is that whisky, almost always, tastes like whisky. No-one ever writes that in their notes.

"Sweet whisky nose with strong whisky flavor and hint of whisky in the finish"

Whisky has it's own flavor, that why people add it to cakes, sauces and other foods. If chefs wanted the subtle soft fruit and cream flavors they would add soft fruits and cream to their recipe.

I think that some people may be confused and perhaps put off when they see whisky described as "apples on the nose with a taste of butterscotch and heather fading to old leather". I know I certainly was at first. I could understand concepts like smooth, silky, harsh but the flavor was just whisky flavor right?  

I like the taste of nearly all types of whisky (Scotch, Irish, bourbon and most recently rye). I always have. Some people don't and this probably isn't the website for them.  In fact the descriptors used in notes and reviews are simply the tasters attempt to break down subtle notes and tastes that may appear in the whisky to them (and often not to others who taste the same whisky) and the things that differentiate them from other brands and styles. They all taste like whisky, just like pretty much all cola drinks tastes the same, but the tasting notes are trying to differentiate what is different between Pepsi and Coke (to my palate Pepsi is sweeter).

They are just descriptions, highly personal, and the fun for me is in trying to identify the subtle flavors and to put those often delicate and fleeting sensations into my own words.

Some people might assume that if I don't like oranges, if the whisky has orange notes I won't like that whisky. Not necessarily true. I don't particularly like eating peat or old leather and yet some great whiskies have flavor notes that remind me of those things. So don't be put off by the descriptors.

Another thing to bear in mind is that occasionally the whisky is so well blended or balanced that individual notes are so subtle they are hard (or for the olfactory challenged like me) impossible to detect. I think that is perhaps the pinnacle of whisky making and so the reviews and ratings may simply reflect that. Sit back, pour a large measure and simply enjoy it, like anything well made there comes a time to stop over analyzing it and simply enjoy it. And yes that means that blends can be good whiskies. In fact they can be great. There I said it and I can sense the malt purists logging off now.

Never forget that these are simply my opinion and don't mean that you shouldn't try every whisky I review for yourself even if I choose to give it a low rating. My wife can confirm I am often wrong. In fact I find the most interesting discussions and debate around whiskies that received mixed reviews. Nearly everyone will agree that The Macallan 18 year old is great whisky, but people can argue and have completely different positions about a blend like Cutty Sark or an unusual expression of single malt like Glenturret or Ardbeg Blasda (isn't that right Jim?). That's often when it is the most fun.

If you interested in more detail on how to taste whisky try the link to the website below for one of my favorite whisky podcasts, The Scotchcast and there is also a short section on how to taste whisky in Ian Buxton's book, 101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die.

http://www.thescotchcast.com/howtotaste/

Rating System

I will use a simple 4 star system because of my own limitations and lack of ability of differentiate on the more common 100 point scale. I simply can't detect enough difference to rate one whisky 85 and another 86. Even if I could (which I can't) my rating does not mean you would rate the same way (in fact you almost certainly wouldn't) so I feel a simpler qualitative scale rather than quantitative scale is a more useful tool. I won't use ½ or ¼ stars either, that seems to me to defeat the simplistic, qualitative approach of a 4 (or 5) star system.

My "acid test" when it comes to a rating will be what I am calling the Party Test. That is hypothetical situation that someone hands me a glass at a party and says:

"I hear you love whisky, try this....."

Assuming that this person isn't someone you have to impress and you can't hand the glass back to (like your boss or prospective father in law) the system goes like this...

1 star

Not for me. Something about the whisky hits an off note in my palate or simply doesn't balance for me. At a party I might politely refuse the drink and ask for something else. If there is a bottle in my house it's just because I have been unable to even finish one I was given as gift or bought by mistake. These are rare. Ginger beer and whisky over ice with lime anyone?

2 star

Doesn't quite work for me. It is fine, nothing wrong with it but you would probably never find a bottle in my house. Perhaps some balance issues. Also some more expensive whiskies that simply don't deliver on value may also end up 2 stars as I would never buy them. If offered this whisky at a party I would drink it, but would ask if they had any other whisky perhaps rather than drink a second. Most whisky for me falls into 2 or 3 star category.

3 star

Now we are talking. Something about this whisky I really like. This would be a whisky I like enough to buy a bottle every now and again. Good value, good tasting whiskies would also fall into this category. At a party I would happily accept the glass, drink it and then ask the host for more.

4 star

I would accept the glass, complement the host and ask to see the bottle. I might then take the bottle, leave the party and go straight home and drink it. I never enjoy parties anyway. These are special whiskies (to me), favorites I will always go back to and high likelihood you will find a bottle or two in my house.