January 30th, 2009

New Glenmorangie “Private Collection” exclusive to Travel Retail

John Hansell

I just got this information today from my U.S. Glenmorangie contact. In a couple months, there will be a new Glenmorangie exclusive to Travel Retail (formerly known as Duty Free). I have an advanced press release on it, which I have included below.

Glenmorangie reveals new PRIVATE COLLECTION with Sonnalta PX

Glenmorangie’s NEW Private Collection is a range of rare, limited edition expressions from Glenmorangie’s award winning Whisky Creators. Glenmorangie Sonnalta PX is the first delicious expression in this Private Collection and is exclusive to global travel retail.

Glenmorangie Sonnalta PX takes its name from the Gaelic translation of “generous” (Sonnalta) and PX (Pedro Ximenez) where the elegant fruity, floral complexity of mature Glenmorangie is transferred to “PX” ex-sherry casks from Jerez in Southern Spain for a period of extra maturation.

Dr Bill Lumsden, Head of Distilling and Whisky Creation, comments;  ‘Glenmorangie Sonnalta PX is an extraordinarily rich, dark and absording malt whisky.  I take the twice yearly trip to Spain to select the very best PX casks to use alongside our mainstay bourbon barrels from the US. This is our first release for Glenmorangie’s Private Collection, with more rare, delicious releases to come in the future.’

No picture is available yet, and I still don’t have any more information or pricing on it. For those not familiar, PX sherry is incredibly rich, sweet, “raisiny” and dark. (For reference, the Lagavulin Distillers’ Edition is finished in PX sherry.) I’m looking forward to trying this one.

Category: Breaking news,New Releases,Scotch whisky 11 Comments

January 30th, 2009

Review: Gordon & MacPhail Strathisla 1963 Vintage

John Hansell

Considering that I recently rated a whiskey on this blog a 69, I thought I would end the work week on a happier note. This whisky was poured at our charity table at WhiskyFest New York last November and was very popular.

Gordon & MacPhail (distilled at Strathisla), 1963, 40%, $275
Some of these old G&M Strathisla whiskies are quite lovely, and this is one of them. It’s gently sherried, soothingly oily in texture, and complex, with notes of maple syrup, candied fruit, plum, roasted nuts, polished leather, and old oak, along with some damp earth, coffee bean, cinnamon, mint, and subtle, teasing kiln smoke. It’s soft, rounded and still holds up nicely for a 44 years old whisky. If you like old, sherried Speysiders that aren’t overly oaked or sherried, you’ll like this one. If only it was bottled at 43% or 46% (or at natural cask strength of it was less than 43%). It would give the whisky a little more backbone, and I might have bumped my rating up to the mid-90s.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 92

Category: Reviews,Scotch whisky 8 Comments

January 29th, 2009

WWOP? (What would Obama Pour?)

John Hansell

I try to avoid politics when writing about whisky, but I found this one too interesting to pass up. I’m reading this article by Ian Evans for Decanter magazine. He says that online magazine Slate.com:

“has slammed the White House wine policy – and urged President Obama to act swifty to redress the ‘shocking’ situation.”

He goes on: 

Describing the need for change as ‘shockingly clear’, Slate journalist Mike Steinberger said the White House’s current stock of 500 bottles was ‘a pathetic example of how America’s infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate’…The preference for ‘juvenile behemoth’ fruit bombs over wines with delicacy, finesse and ageing potential, is similar to the ‘shock and awe’ tactics of the Bush regime’s foreign policy, Steinberger says. ‘The White House needs a new wine policy. Wine service during the Bush era has been hostage to a profoundly misguided strategy that has turned wine into an unnecessarily crude instrument of statecraft’.

Wow! Puts a whole new spin on Bruichladdich’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”  Maybe, in the name of world peace, the Obama administration should make sure there are no Rittenhouse Ryes 100 proof or Laphroaig Cask Strengths on the after dinner drinks list, but rather a much mellower Maker’s Mark or perhaps a nice, soft Dewar’s 12 year old?  ;)

Category: Opinions,Rye whiskey,Scotch whisky 15 Comments

January 28th, 2009

How valuable are “expert” reviews?

John Hansell

I know that many of you enjoy reading my reviews of new whiskies coming on the market, so you might be a bit surprised when I tell you this: Don’t just take my word for it!

My reviews should just be one of several resources you use when making a decision on what whisky to buy. Let me give you some examples to prove my point.

I rated the new Canadian Club 30 year old 150th Anniversary bottling a “93.” Paul Pacult, in his Spirit Journal, gave it “Two Stars/Not Recommended.” Similarly, I rated White Bowmore a “94,” while he gave it “One Star/Not Recommended.” I rated “The Last Drop” blended scotch a “95″ and Jim Murray in his Whisky Bible gave it a whopping “96.5. Paul rated it “Two Stars/Not Recommended.” I could give examples going the other way, where Paul likes a whisky more than I do.

Jim Murray and I also differ on some whiskies. There are some very young American whiskies where Jim Murray rates in the mid 90s (Triple Eight’s Notch, Stranahan’s Colorado whisky, etc.) , where I rated these same whiskies in the high 70s or low 80s. I like the whiskies but can’t imagine calling them “Classics.”

I could cite similar examples between Dave Broom and Martine Nouet or Dominic Roskrow. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Nobody! I respect all of these people. They are great whisky writers. Each of us has our own opinions of the whiskies we taste. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don’t.

Now, if every one of us likes a whisky, there’s probably a good chance you will too. But only if you like that style of whisky. Nothing will ever replace you actually tasting the whisky before you buy.

 Whisky reviews are merely tools to use when you don’t have the opportunity to “try before you buy.” My advice is for you to find a whisky reviewer who you feel comfortable with–someone who has similar likes and dislikes. If that’s me great. If not, that’s great too. Maybe it’s a whisky buddy you trust. Maybe it’s they salesman at your local retail shop. Maybe it’s your dog! Hey, whatever works for you.

Just have the right tools to help you make informed, educated decisions when buying whisky. Then you’ll be more satisfied with the purchases you make.

Category: Opinions,Reviews 24 Comments

January 26th, 2009

WhiskyFest video and information

John Hansell

In my last posting, Tom Splitsberg was asking about WhiskyFest Chicago because he’s never been to a WhiskyFest before. I tried explaining it briefly in the thread, but we just put together a brief video of last year’s event (which looks pretty cool), so I though I would just include it here for anyone who’s never been to a WhiskyFest and is curious about what one looks like.

You can also check out our website here for more details and ticket information. We’re also preparing a blog devoted specifically to WhiskyFest (and a newsletter too). Details on both will be on the Malt Advocate website as they become available.

In the meantime, for those of you who have been to a WhiskyFest and want to offer Tom your take on it, feel free to comment.

Category: WhiskyFest 15 Comments

January 25th, 2009

Thank you!

John Hansell

I must say that the quantity and quality of your comments to my blog posting really are impressive. They are intelligent, very thoughtful, and honest. And you inject constructive criticism without stepping over the line.

Blogs are two-way streets. I am fortunate to have a direct line to the whisky industry and I want to share what I can with you. Unlike some of the other whisky “experts”, I want to be accessible to anyone who loves whisky and wants to learn more about it. (I put the word “expert” in quotes because I don’t consider myself one. I’m just someone with a passion for whisky who found a way to make a living out of it. Other than that, I feel like I’m just like you.)

For those of you who comment regularly, thank you. And for those of you who are still lurking (and I know there are a lot of you out there who are), please feel free to get involved. It can only make our experiences here better.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to post timely, accurate news information, helpful  and “ahead of the curve” whisky reviews, and topics of discussion that impact all of us. The blog is only a year and a half old, but we’ve come a long way in that time. Let’s keep it going.

Thanks again.  — John

Category: Opinions 15 Comments

January 24th, 2009

Review: Cascade Peak Oregon Organic Rye whiskey

John Hansell

I’ll post up one more microdistillery whiskey before reviewing more mainstream whiskeys. This one really shows promise. It has a lot more going for it than the Rogue Dead Guy whiskey I reviewed earlier in the week.

Cascade Peak Oregon Organic Rye (Batch #1), 50.2%, $52
This whisky is only 9 months old, made from 85% rye and 15% malted barley. It’s vibrantly spicy (cinnamon, mint, licorice root, nutmeg), fresh and clean. Bright citrus and peach also entertain. Rich, underlying vanilla notes try to tame the beast, but it’s really no match. Warm, spicy finish. There’s a lot going on here. Yes, it’s youthful, but far more mature than I expected. This whisky is certainly drinkable now (for those who like their rye whiskey young and bold), but I would like to see it develop some more on oak. That’s the only thing missing here. It shows great potential.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 77

Category: Microdistilleries,Reviews,Rye whiskey 3 Comments

January 23rd, 2009

Update on Michael Jackson’s “Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch”

John Hansell

If you’ve been following this blog over the past year, you will know that UK drinks writer Dave Broom and I were offered the job of continuing Michael Jackson’s “Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch” (Published as the “Malt Whisky Companion” in the UK). Dave and I were good friends of Michael, and we respected his work very much. We were honored to be asked to carry the torch after Michael’s passing.

The way we proposed it to the publisher is that I would review whiskies that came to the US, while Dave would review the whiskies that didn’t come to the US. We would split up the whiskies that went everywhere.

But we had a differing opinion with the publisher regarding the content of the revision. The publisher only wanted a minor “patchwork” rewrite, while Dave and I both felt that a major revision would be needed because so many of the whiskies in the book were obsolete and there were hundreds of new whiskies that needed to be included. I wrote about our reasons here.

All I can say now is that I know there are three writers involved with the revision. Two of them are from the UK and write regularly for Malt Advocate (Gavin Smith, Dominic Roskrow). The third individual, a whisky enthusiast, writer, and lawyer who specializes in criminal and traffic law, is from the US (Bill Meyers).

I don’t know the book’s scope, nor do I know exactly when the book will come out. When I was in negotiations with the publisher, it was going to be the end of 2009 or shortly thereafter.

I wish the guys luck with the project, and I hope they can keep Michael’s legacy going strong.

Category: Media,Scotch whisky 15 Comments

January 22nd, 2009

Why are there still disappointing whiskies?

John Hansell

This is my ”Worldwide Whiskies” column for the next issue of Malt Advocate, due out in about a week.  I’m posting it up here early for two reasons: 1) As a teaser to for those of you who aren’t subscribers to consider doing so. because you’re missing out on some great information (find out more here), and 2) I thought it would make a good discussion topic, so feel free to comment.

Whisky companies are much smarter these days. They know more about the science behind whisky-making now than ever before, and they’re using this knowledge to improve their whisky. I’ve met many of the people in charge of making the whisky. They’re really smart.
So why are we still drinking whisky that could be—and should be—better?

I just took a look at the whiskies that I have tasted and reviewed over the past couple of years that disappointed me, and I found a common thread with just about all of them. It seems that they were all trying too hard to be different or distinctive.

Call me a purist, but I thought the goal here was to make great whisky, not to be unique. If you can do both, great. But don’t be different just for the sake of being different. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

You are getting older
Just because you have a 50 or 60 year old whisky doesn’t mean you should bottle it and charge an extreme price for it. The goal here is to make a good whisky, not to see who can bottle the oldest whisky. I’ve had some older whiskies that were great, but I’ve had others that I would have been very disappointed with if I spent thousands of dollars on a bottle.

Déjà ew
There have been several replica bottlings that distillers have put out over the past decade, both in Scotland and the United States, attempting to replicate a bottle (or style) of whisky that was produced during a previous era. But what if the original bottle or style wasn’t good? Do you really want to replicate it?

I’ve been in whisky-makers’ blending rooms and had the privilege to taste some of the original bottlings, dating as far back as the mid 1800s, that were going to be replicated. Some were quite tasty. Others had serious flaws, like being too young, too woody, or too oxidized. Why would you want to replicate something like that?

Smoke for peat’s sake
If you make a Speyside whisky that isn’t peated, that doesn’t mean that you have to. Sure, smoky whiskies have been all the rage, and Speyside whiskies have been sorely lacking in smoke. I’m happy to see more peat smoke-infused whiskies on the market—from Speyside or anywhere else for that matter. But if you’re going to experiment and make a smoky whisky, give it enough time to age and mature properly, rather than rushing the product to the market just to follow the crowd. There have been a lot of new releases of smoky whiskies over the past few years from brands that never were smoky before. Some have been good; others have tasted too young and immature. Patience, guys! We’ll wait for it to get good.

(I would like to add the new record-breaking peated whiskies from Islay to this discussion: Bruichladdich’s Octomore and Ardbeg’s Supernova. I haven’t tasted either of them yet, but I sure hope that the purpose for doing this was to make a great whisky, not to see how smoky we can make a whisky.)

More wine-ing
I think it is great that so many distillers are thinking outside the box (or should I say outside the barrel) when it comes to the type of cask you’re aging or finishing your whisky in—especially all the new wine-finished whiskies. These days you really need to know your wine to be able to know your whisky. That’s fine. I’m game. I love wine, and I love whisky.

But it seems like for every good whisky I’ve tasted that was aged in an esoteric wine cask, there has been one that I was disappointed or indifferent with. And it’s not because it’s a new flavor that we just need some time getting used to. The flavors just don’t work. No one wants to spend their hard earned money being a guinea pig.

Amber waves, or was it chocolate?
I see the next trend coming. All the cutting edge distillers are now experimenting with the types of barley and the types of malted barley they use. Get ready for words like crystal malt, chocolate malt, roasted malt, and just about any other type of malt that brewers have been using for decades, if not centuries, but have been largely ignored by distillers.

I have just one word of advice for all of you distillers exploring this new frontier: don’t try to make a whisky that is different than everyone else’s. Try to make a whisky that’s better than everyone else’s. Then we’ll all be happy.

Category: Malt Advocate Mag,Opinions 22 Comments

January 20th, 2009

Review: Rogue Dead Guy Whiskey

John Hansell

I’ve been posting reviews of U.S. microdistilleries over the past week or two, so I thought I’d include another one. But don’t go too far out of your way to find a bottle of this one.

Rogue Dead Guy Whiskey, 40%, $40
I love Rogue beers as well as their attitude and philosophy. But this whiskey tastes just too immature—harsh, sweet and one-dimensional. Maybe with some additional aging this whiskey might come around, mellow out and develop, but it has a long way to go.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 69

Category: Microdistilleries,Reviews 11 Comments

Older Posts »


Whisky Advocate magazine is America's leading whisky magazine. It's the number one source for whisky information, education and entertainment for whisky enthusiasts.