I would guess if you asked many whisky enthusiasts what their ultimate whisky dream would be, I am pretty sure owning a distillery would be very high on the list.  It certainly was at the top of mine.  The reason for this is, in part, that as someone who has worked in the oil and gas industry for over 20 years there is something more than a little familiar about the chemistry, tanks, pumps, heating equipment, condensers and even the use of barrels as a unit of measure.

This is why I am so excited about being one of the original 18 or so “A” shareholders in the exciting (forgive my enthusiasm) and new (that at least is very accurate) London Distillery Company.  I may not own a distillery, but thanks to the rather cool innovation called crowd funding I do now own a bit of one at least.  The UK’s first true “craft” distillery is now being built literally as I type this entry, in a former dairy cold room in Battersea, London and will start producing whisky (and gin) in next few weeks.  Interestingly TLDC is not only the UK’s first craft distillery, London’s first distillery in over 100 years but also one of the first 200 or so companies of any kind founded by internet crowd funding.

If that wasn’t exciting enough (and believe me it probably is) my enthusiasm was actually increased by my recent to see the site and meet the team of founder Darren, distiller Andrew and intern Marco.  They actually have an intern and he took the photo so he is not in the picture above.  As well as their exciting plans for gin and whisky I also learned about Ralph Dodd (1756 - 1822) who founded the original London Distillery Company.   I can’t wait until I return in December and see spirit running off the still.  I have a feeling this is going to be a very fun ride…

I have been considering my whisky reviews on my website recently and have dubbed them in a recent conversation as "whisky in the wild" reviews.  That is to say I taste the whiskey and write my notes wherever I happen to find the drink ... that can be in a bar, restaurant, sat in my living room or at a whiskey promotion or tasting event.  I am certainly not trying to write notes in a controlled environment where no "outside" factors can have an influence.  Instead I choose to write reviews at the time and place I encountered it and there is no doubt that has an impact on my notes.    I would argue that I am enjoying that whisky in its natural environment, experiencing it as it is meant to be experienced.  That is what I mean by "whisky in the wild".  It is the difference between taking a picture of a tiger in a zoo and seeing one in their natural habitat.  Is this how you are supposed to do it?  Well almost every guide to tasting and nosing whisky says no, but this is my website so I can do it if I want to and I happen to feel my approach does have some validity. 

 

In addition to location the sample size can vary.  Sometimes I get just a dram at a bar or a pouring at a tasting event, while other times I may have full bottle and take a couple of drams to formulate my notes and opinions.  I am not writing these reviews for anyone else and they are 100% my opinion, however as I have chosen to make them public I realized that it might not be fair to rate or score a whisky under these circumstances, even with my rather simplistic "4 star" scoring system as some situations will be more conducive to higher scores than others.   It has recently occurred to me you don't actually have to give a whisky a score, for example  www.thewhiskywire.com  has taken (or perhaps even started) this scoreless approach to reviews and having watched Aberdeen Football Club for two seasons I am actually very comfortable and familiar with the concept of "scoreless".

So as I am working on an upgrade of the webpage this month I have decided to remove all grades from existing reviews and from all future ones... I think a written review is good enough.  I believe my writing (usually) will leave you in no doubt as to whether I liked a whisky or not, and if it doesn't then that is OK too.  After all sometimes you are in the mood for a certain whisky, sometimes not and sometimes you feel like a mango margarita and so "scoring" them becomes irrelevant at that point, you want what you want.  Something so emotional does not lend itself to being scored and when coupled with my lack of consistency in how I review, I feel my ratings are meaningless.   I have much admiration for people have the discipline to taste whisky "properly" and assign scores based on a well structured system, and find those notes very useful when I am trying to identify a flavor or taste, but I prefer to experience the tiger running wild, not behind bars at a zoo.

There has been quite a lot of commentary (and online hand wringing) already about recent sale by Bruichladdich to Remy Martin so I thought I would throw in my 10 cents (not that I would get much of Bruichladdich for 10 cents based on selling price of over $90 million).  This deal should not be a surprise or shock to anyone.  This is a classic, often repeated story and the end was inevitable.  The only question was when and how much.  If the "how much" bit is right then the "when" is now.    I have no doubt that even the one director who did not vote for this particular deal would have voted to sell at some point for what he considered the "right price".

This is the way business and free market works.    If you have issues with capitalism and the free market (and many people do with some good reasons) but you also consider yourself a whisky person then I urge you to send me an email with all the quality brands and products (anything at all, I am not limiting this to just whisky) that have been developed in a non-free market economy.  Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea... it's your call.   I am more than willing to entertain an argument that the free market does not, without fail, produce the best consumer products.  However it won't last long and you will lose and look rather silly, but I am willing to entertain it.    This is the system that produces the products and brands we love at work in all it's glory, and we should celebrate it, not moan about it.

It is not as if Bruichladdich is going anywhere, in fact we can expect more of their product over coming years due to an agreed investment program so you would think the 'laddich lovers would be thrilled. 

More good news is the gap perhaps left in some people's hearts will be quickly filled by next new distiller to open up an old site (my money is on Glenglassaugh to be next "darling" of the malt whisky world) and that we can all fall in love with and idolize.  I have no doubt we will all collectively agree to overlook the inevitable "rushed to market", cash flow driven products and expressions that Bruichladdich were more than guilty of in their rise (they possibly even took that to new levels).  If we are being honest Bruichladdich have had more inconsistency and variation in their expressions than an Angel Hernandez strike zone!  (Holy cow did I just make a very obscure baseball umpire joke...  I rather think I did).  It seems likely to me that some stewardship and steady cash flow under a global quality brand will likely produce a better product and the mantle of "innovator" will quickly pass onto someone else.  This isn't the end of anything, there is nothing to lament or mourn here, the circle of life continues.  Hakuna Matata.  Can we move on now?

When I read Ian's first book in this series (I guess it is now a series) called 101 Whiskies To Try Before You Die I was immediately impressed by Ian's approach as it seemed so at odds with other whisky publications. The book was not about the 101 "best" whiskies, but instead celebrated and enjoyed whisky in all its many forms and styles and as a relative new comer to whisky that was exactly what I wanted to do.   Importantly for me it was also about accessible whisky, whisky you could buy in your local bar, shop or absolute worst case specialist retailer, and some, but not all, of it was even cheap.  Ian clearly believes that great whisky is not limited to a particular style like single malt or bourbon... and in 101 World Whiskies To Try Before You Die he not only explores the many different styles but also the many different whisky producing countries.  In fact there are whiskies from 21 different countries reviewed in the book.

Ian's writing style is engaging, often funny, and it makes a refreshing change from some of the pomposity that creeps into a little too much whisky writing today. He manages to keep the pace moving along and interest level high without delving too much in to the techy stuff but still shows a depth of knowledge in his subject. That is a hard trick pull off sometimes.  His previous book inspired me enough to find, taste and review all 101 over the last year or so and his 202 suggestions so far have also helped me with one of the major drawbacks of being a whisky fanatic.... the tyranny of choice. Sometimes standing in that store or bar you just don’t know where to start, but his books solve that problem (if you want to call that a problem and I admit as problems go that is not the worse). 

I don’t want to ruin the surprise too much but  I will say there are some choices I agree wholeheartedly with like Black Bush and Jim Beam Black, some I didn’t quite as much (there  are some flavored whiskies and whisky liqueurs in the lists) and one or two what  I feel are glaring omissions….for example still nothing from Forty Creek!  But these types of arguments are exactly what makes these lists so enjoyable!  Any complaints or niggles? Only that I did originally buy this book for my Kindle, but because I know I will reference it over and over again I don't think that Kindle is the best format for that and so I have now bought a hard back copy as well.  I am sure Ian didn’t mind that. 

I have already reviewed 26 of the whiskies in this book, that just leaves me 75 to find… I suggest you get a copy and start crossing off your list too.  Trust me, it's fun!

After trying all 101 whiskies from Ian Buxton's book I have compiled the list of my favorites based on my admitedly unsophisticated 4 star rating system.  The best whiskies, in no particular order, were Mortlach 16, Highland Park 21 and 40, Wild Turkey Rare Breed, Macallan 18, Chivas Regal 25, Jameson 18 Limited Reserve, Maker's Mark and Ardbeg Uigeadail.  Some of these were favorites before I read the book (Macallan 18 and Maker's Mark) so that leaves six whiskies that stood out for me.  

The Mortlach 16 may have been the biggest surprise in the book, a delicious example sherried Speyside whisky that could compete "toe to toe" with anything from Macallan and Glenfarclas.  I expected great things from Highland Park and Ardbeg and they delivered in a big way.  It was also no surprise to me that a Jameson blend was one of my favorites, my interest in whisky was sparked by a visit to Jameson's Midelton distillery in 2006.  Chivas 25 was the other big surprise.  I like premium Scottish blends however the Chivas family hasn't always been something I have loved.   The Chivas 25 year old was great though and I can still remember the taste of oranges.  That leaves the Wild Turkey Rare Breed as my favorite bourbon and again I can still recall the black cherry fruit notes.

I won't dwell on my two least favorites (this blog is just a personal opinion) and my feelings about Johnnie Walker Black need no further comment (you can look up review if interested) and the Glenglassaugh spirit was a "new make" that had some novelty value and never produced as a drink in it's own right.

There were some other tremendous whiskies that for various reasons, perhaps price or rarity, that I did not rate as 4 star but deserve an honorable mention, including Hibiki 30, Blue Hanger, Glen Rothes Select Reserve, Van Winkle Family Reserve Rye 13 old, Old Pulteney 17 and Thomas H Handy Sazerac Rye. 

 

My project to taste all “101 Whiskies to Try Before You Die” began and ended in the UK, so it was nicely bookended geographically.  It started with a tasting event hosted by Ian Buxton in Aberdeen in May 2011 and ended in June 2012 at my parent’s home in Devon sharing the last bottle with my father who introduced me to scotch in the first place.  Fittingly the last whisky was also perhaps the hardest to find in the book as you can’t buy it at any whisky shop or online retailer.  I had to join the Wine Society in the UK and order a society “members only” bottling.  The year also included some rather hefty bar bills in Singapore, San Antonio (very hefty as I bought a round of Balvenie 30 year old’s without checking the price first), London and Las Vegas, as well as bars closer to home like the excellent Reserve 101 in Houston.  Some big bills for sure but that was still a much more cost efficient way to sample them all than actually buying the 101 bottles.  I also owe the @masterofmalt website with its award winning Drinks by the Dram offering a debt of thanks as well. 

I think there are some not bad pieces of writing (from someone who was accurately described by his English teacher in a 1982 school report as having a “tendency to make basic mistakes”) but that is not to say there isn’t plenty of banal, repetitive and other poor writing for which I apologize. 

There was certainly some good whisky… some I knew about, some I didn’t and some that better be good for the price I had to pay.  There was also some that should have been a lot better for the price they charged.  I will write about particular favorites (and the disappointments) in a later blog.  I also learned a lot about value.  I learned there is some good, even great, whisky at low prices, and that paying a lot will almost always get you a very good whisky.  The problem for me usually lies in the middle, overpriced and over hyped brands and products.  People want to charge more than the whisky is really worth and try position their perfectly good whisky as premium product, often simply by putting the average whisky in fancy packaging and charging accordingly.

It’s a cliché but people always ask so I will answer…. no I don’t have a favorite whisky so far.  This has always been a journey and an education so even the bad ones were good in that respect and therefore I answer the cliché question with a cliché answer, my favorite whisky is always “the next one”.

Will I try to taste everything in Ian’s latest book, “101 World Whiskies to Try Before You Die”?  The answer is I don’t know.  I want to look at the list, see how many I have already reviewed, and think about it what I would gain from that.  I will need to also try and determine how much it might cost and if I have the budget and my wife has the patience to continue this.   

I haven't changed the focus of this website to UK street dancing troops (for that see the website www.somanyukstreetdancingtroops.com) and I have not been sent to a series of classes after work following an unfortunate miscommunication with a colleague.  But I have now reviewed over 250 whiskies, as well the 101 I originally went in search of, and as I look back on those reviews something becomes very clear.   The diversity of tasting notes is much greater in scotch than in bourbon.  There seems to be many more flavor types that can be found in a typical scotch, or to put it another way there is no such thing as "typical scotch".  In fact that phrase is an oxymoron, like saying "happy Scotrail employee".

 

Various rules and regulations define what can be a called a scotch, as do similar standards in the USA and yet Scotland seems to produce more varied final product.   At first this seemed a little counter intuitive to me, after all bourbon has the advantage of more ingredient options.  It must contain 51% corn as a minimum, but rye, wheat and barley can all be used, where scotch is limited to just good ole John Barleycorn.  Surely a chef with four ingredients can make a wider range of dishes than a chef with just one?

The use of peat certainly helps create variety and as yet a bourbon made with peated barley (which I believe would still be perfectly acceptable under the definition) does not exist, and upon further reflection perhaps that is a good thing.  However it's not as simple as does the whisky has smoke or not.  The differences, in my opinion, are due to the wood options available to scotch producers.

I have been told by various sources that the cask will account for 60 – 70% of the final flavor, while the spirit will be 40% - 30% depending on age of spirit (longer maturation of course means more wood influence).   The bourbon rules are very specific on wood and barrel.  Bourbons must be aged for 2 years in American white oak, charred and of course most importantly, they have to be NEW barrels. On the other hand scotch regulations just requires the spirit to be aged in oak for 3 years.  And so the maturation, blending, finishing and vatting options for scotch are really endless.  American or European oak? Used or new? Charred or uncharred? Before being used to mature scotch they may have contained wine, bourbon, rum, beer, sherry, port and madeira and they can be reused and re-used (often filled 3 times before being retired as garden center planters).

This simple difference (new barrels versus used barrels) can explain the variety in the taste profile, scotch having the widest variety of flavors while bourbon has a much tighter grouping.  The scotch producer, while limited in ingredients, has more flexibility in wood and therefore can influence the "70%".  The bourbon producer has few options regarding wood but has more variety in the spirit production, but that spirit may only account for the "30%".  This is not to say more variety is good, or that the broad range in anyway reflects on quality, just think supermarket cola and Pepsi Cola... same basic  flavors but vastly different quality.   Quality is a whole different subject.

So considering the massive the impact on the final product I think it is clear that wood is an "ingredient" in whisky and the standard Scottish distillery tour should perhaps tone down the magical water source and location of warehouse rhetoric and other routinely spouted tourist babble and perhaps just say scotch whisky has four ingredients... barley, water, yeast and wood.

Am I the only person more than a little surprised by the recent Whisky Advocate article on summer cocktails?   I was really excited about finding new ways to drink whisky during the incredibly long and hot summers we "enjoy" in Texas because I was seriously considering taking my summer drinking business back to simple, cold beer.   Dave Broom did contribute a very nice piece on ice, water and soda with whisky and I will certainly try some of his recommendations, but the piece I was really anticipating on whisky summer cocktails was frustrating to put it mildly.  I am guessing the average whisky enthusiast has a well-stocked bar and could rustle up most common cocktail ingredients and even find a bottle of Angostura bitters in the back of cupboard somewhere.  However there was not one cocktail in the nine recipes offered I could make that did not require a visit to a specialty store to acquire a spirit, liqueur or mixer so obscure that when typed into Google would simply generate "?" as a reply.  In addition all the recipes required me to formulate some syrup or other "pre-drink" concoction (Rosemary-chamomile syrup or fresh peach juice anyone?) before I could even begin to assemble the actual cocktail.

 

The list of ingredients included the following:

Mathidle Peche liqueur

Lapsang Souchong tea syrup

Aperol

Fruitlab Hibiscus liqueur

Bitter Truth aromatic bitters

Rocky Mountain peach whiskey

Rosemary-chamomile syrup

My whisky budget is strained to beyond its intended breaking point and I can't be alone in refusing to buy a bottle of hibiscus liqueur even if I could find it in Texas , which I doubt, and if I did I would probably become the target of an state government observation program.  The subscribers and readers of Whisky Advocate are, I suspect, like me.  They are whisky drinkers not mixologists  and  I am guessing the numbers of actual subscribers who have actually made one of recipes in the magazine would be far less than 1% on a good day.   Was that really your intent?

On day 2 of my Kentucky Bourbon Trail  I made it to 4 more working distilleries, Woodford Reserve, Four Roses, Wild Turkey and Buffalo Trace and on day 3, just before I left, I visited a closed one; Sitizel-Weller. Favorites were Woodford Reserve and Four Roses (neither had a bottling hall) but the obligatory chocolate bourbon balls still made frequent apprearances.

Woodford Reserve:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/328-woodford-reserve-kentucky-usa

Four Roses:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/329-four-roses-kentucky-usa

Wild Turkey:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/330-wild-turkey-kentucky-usa

Buffalo Trace:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/331-buffalo-trace-kentucky-usa

Sitzel-Weller:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/332-stitzel-weller-kentucky-usa

I have finally got round to writing up Day 1 of my trip to Kentucky and have posted links to the distllery reviews.  I managed to make it to four distilleries on the first day, Jim Beam, Maker's Mark, Heaven Hill and Barton 1792 and I also got see the world largest whiskey barrel (which is the picture on this blog entry).   Best overall experience was probably Maker's Mark but Barton was "interesting" and generally there were lots of chocolates and bottling halls.

Jim Beam: 

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/322-jim-beam

Maker's Mark: 

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/323-makers-mark

Heaven Hill: 

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/325-heaven-hill-bourbon-heritage-center-kentucky-usa

Barton 1792:

http://www.somanywhiskies.com/distilleries/item/326-barton-1792-kentucky-usa