First up is the first new permanent line extension from Woodford Reserve. They’re calling it Woodford Reserve Double Oaked (pictured). I just received this sample yesterday and tasted it last night. I really enjoy it. It’s richer and creamier than the standard Woodford Reserve. Smooth too, with a kiss of sweetness to it. But it will cost more than the standard Woodford too: $50.

Here’s some details on the whiskey which I pulled from the press release:

“Maturation in a new, charred oak barrel provides Woodford Reserve with all of its natural color and a great deal of its award-winning flavor. This Double Oaked expression has been uniquely matured in  two separate, custom crafted barrels,” said Chris Morris, master distiller for Woodford Reserve. “The second was deeply toasted before its light charring.  The double barreling of mature Woodford Reserve in this unique barrel allows the spirit to extract an additional amount of soft, sweet oak character.”

Some more good news on a line extension. I’m working my way through a bottle of the newest release of Colonel E.H. Taylor bourbon (“Warehouse C Tornado Surviving”), and it is my favorite of the three releases to date. (Picture below.) It’s more rounded and even-keeled than the previous two.

Some details from this press release:

It was a Sunday evening, April 2, 2006, when a severe storm tore through Central Kentucky, damaging two Buffalo Trace Distillery aging warehouses.  Fortunately, no one was injured and Warehouse “B” was empty at the time. However, Warehouse “C” sustained significant damage to its roof and north brick wall.  Warehouse “C” is one of the most treasured warehouses on property, built by Colonel Edmund Haynes Taylor, Jr. in 1881.  This historic aging warehouse stores more than 24,000 prized bourbon barrels in its ricks.

All of the 93 Tornado Surviving Bourbon barrels were located on the top two floors of Warehouse C, and were at least 9 years, 8 months old when dumped; many of them were as old as 11 years, 11 months old. Like the previous two E. H. Taylor, Jr. releases, the Tornado Surviving Bourbon is “Bottled in Bond” at 100 proof.  ($70)

Many of you will remember my glowing review (96 rating) of the single barrel of Elijah Craig 20 year old that was produced for the 20th Anniversary of the Kentucky Bourbon Festival and sold only at Heaven Hill’s Bourbon Heritage Center. Well, that bottling (Barrel #3735) sold out very quickly. But, they replaced it with another single barrel offering (#3742) which still is available at the time of this post.

That’s the good news. The bad news? The replacement barrel is not as balanced or as smooth. It’s showing its age more, with more aggressive oak on the finish. I will eventually rate this formally in the mid to high 80s, but not in the 90s. (Sorry about that for those of you who missed out on the original release. That’s how it goes with single barrel releases–especially older ones.)

Finally, I have two new offerings from Julio’s Liquors up in Westborough, MA. The first one is a Bernheim Wheat Single Barrel that wasn’t chill-filtered ($35). (It’s a straight wheat whiskey, not a bourbon.) My main issue with Bernheim Wheat is that it’s almost too easy-going, thanks to all that wheat. Not chill-filtering it, as it is with this bottling, really does help give it some extra character, which is nice to see. If only we could increase the proof from 90 to 100, I think we just might have Bernheim Wheat where it shows itself best.

The other offering from Julio’s is a Henry McKenna 10 year old 100 proof that’s also not chill-filtered. It’s not the most elegant bourbon I’ve ever tasted, but it’s nice and robust–and suiting me just fine on this cold winter’s day in Pennsylvania. ($32)

It was back in the early 1990s. I don’t remember which year, because I was traveling to Scotland quite a bit. I was in Edinburgh and paid my usual visit to the Cadenhead’s shop on the Royal Mile to see what Springbank whiskies they had for sale.

When I asked about Springbank 15 year old, Neil Clapperton, the gentleman who ran the shop, said that they were out of stock. But, by this time, he knew me because I had been in the shop several times before. That’s when he told me that he did have one bottle of Springbank 15 year old, but the proof is wrong on it. Instead of the usual 46% for Springbank, he said that this one was 50%. He then took out a marker and blacked out the 46% on the label and hand-wrote 50% next to it. (If you look closely at the over-exposed label, you might be able to see it on the lower right.) He said that if I was okay with it and wanted to buy it, he would sell it to me for the usual price.

100 proof Springbank 15 year old? Was I okay with it? Does a bear shit in the woods??

I happily purchased the bottle, along with some other cool Springbanks and Cadenhead’s whiskies, and held onto it for quite some time. It was worth the wait. It’s outstanding–a stunningly complex Springbank in a ex-bourbon casks. Nothing fancy. If you ever get a chance to taste Springbank that was distilled prior to their 1980s silent period, do it! If you think the current bottlings of Springbank are splendid (and many of the are), you just might be blown away with one of these earlier bottlings.

The only thing that frustrates me right now: Neil told me why this one was bottled at 50% ABV when I bought it from him and, after all these years, I forgot what he said!

Oh well. The whisky is great. That’s what matters most. And I’m drinking and sharing it with like-minded friends.

I’m not sure if you are a “New Year’s resolution” kind of person or not. But if you are, make a resolution to open up a bottle or two (or more) of your special whiskies that you’ve been saving for a special occasion. The whisky itself is reason enough to celebrate.

I have an emotional attachment to whisky, and I make no apology for it. Whisky isn’t just about the flavor or rarity. There’s more to it than this. It’s one of the reasons why I don’t always open a whisky that I buy right away. Instead, I’ll wait for a special occasion.

Maybe that’s why I have over 300 unopened bottles of whisky, with a room in my house set aside just for them. With all this discussion lately about whisky collecting and whether it’s a good or bad thing to do, the reality is that it’s just not that simple. Like many things in life, it isn’t black or white, but rather some shade of gray.

I don’t think of myself as a collector. I refer to what I have as an accumulation rather than a collection. And I fully intend to drink, share, and savor every bottle I have before I die.

Take this bottle, for example. It’s the whisky I am currently planning to open this Christmas Eve. It’s a Glenmorangie Distillery Manager’s Choice.  I’ve had it for 13 years. Every time I look at this bottle or hold it, it it brings back a very fond memory.

This whisky was bottled in 1998, but the story actually begins a year or so before this. My wife and I were visiting distilleries in the Scottish Highlands. We made an impromptu stop at the Glenmorangie Distillery on our way back from visiting other distilleries farther to the north. We went to the distillery office and asked if Bill Lumsden, then Distillery Manager (and friend), happened to be in. Well, he must have heard my voice from his office, because he came running out and gave Amy and me a big hug. Then, without skipping a beat, he said: “There’s something you have to taste!”

Bill grabbed some keys and we ran through the pouring rain to one of the Distillery’s warehouses. Inside, in the dark, damp, chilly warehouse filled with with heavenly whisky aromas, he took me to one particular cask. He pulled the bung out, stuck a whisky thief into the barrel, and poured me a sample of what was inside.

I nosed the whisky and then took a sip, nosed it again and took another sip. Bill then asked, “what do you think?”

I told him I thought that it was the best Glenmorangie whisky I ever tasted.

“I agree, John,” he said,  ”and it would be a shame for this one barrel to be blended in with some other Glenmorangie casks. I’d like to bottle this on its own, cask-strength and not chill-filtered, but I just have to figure out how to do it.” I said to Bill if he ever does bottle it, save a bottle for me. He said he would.

Shortly thereafter, the Glenmorangie “Distillery Manager’s Choice” was born, and this was the cask: distilled in 1981, aged in an ex-bourbon cask, bottled in 1998 at 54.5%, and sold at the distillery. Bill kept to his promise, saved me a bottle, and I’ve waited for the right moment to open it–this Christmas eve.

Thank you, Bill. And a big thanks to all of you who take time out of your busy schedule to stop by and read whatever happens to be on my mind at the moment. I wish you all the best in the New Year and hope it is filled with many memorable whiskies.

How about you? Are you opening anything special this holiday season?

Read his post. How do you feel about what happened in whisky in 2011? Was it a good year or a bad year? And why?

John Teeling, Cooley’s founder, was quoted saying that it will allow the brands “to reach their potential.”

What do you think? Is this good for Irish whiskey drinkers worldwide or not? And why?

Read what he has to say below. Do you agree with him? Disagree with him? And why?

WHISKY  ‘INVESTMENT’

By Ian Buxton

Can one invest in whisky?  And, if yes, should you?

There’s certainly a lot of excited chatter about this right now, perhaps a measure of the troubled economic times in which we live.  The idea seems to be creeping into the popular imagination that picking the right bottle is a worthwhile, not to say near essential part of your financial planning.

We can argue about the figures.  Elsewhere I’ve taken exception to sloppy journalism and the casual quotation of potential investment gains that ignore transaction costs – and can thus never be achieved in real life.  Call me old-fashioned but I believe readers should be able to trust what they read and citing illusory and unattainable rates of return is misleading at best.

What’s more, simple common sense suggests that returns of over 100% in just two or three years are never going to be sustained in anything but a feverish bubble. When you appreciate that those figures are being most enthusiastically trumpeted by people with a vested interest, such as distillers with a brand to promote, retailers with stock to move or auction houses keen to drum up business you might just want to look twice before committing your 401(k) pot.

But there’s a more fundamental philosophical point that the money men, with their hard, cold souls don’t seem to get: if the whisky you buy is just for investment, then – since it’s never going to be opened – the bottle may as well contain cold tea.  Today whisky; tomorrow pork belly futures.

Whisky is a drink, but it is more than that.  It is a metaphor for the spirit and soul of the people and place that produced it. The distillers of Scotland express part of the austere, Calvinist personality of their land; in Kentucky (as for Rabbie Burns) “freedom and whisky gang  the’gither” and for the brave new distillers in Brittany, France it encapsulates their Breton identity and culture, even their language.

Buying and hoarding bottles like some latter-day Ebenezer Scrooge while poring over spreadsheets to measure RoI and capital growth tears out whisky’s heart and spirit; confounds its generosity and desecrates the memory, skill and craftsmanship of the people who made it. And, call me a romantic, but that’s just wrong.

If you love whisky, set it free.  Mark my words: this ‘investment’ bubble will end badly and people – and whisky – are going to get hurt.

I’ve been tasting a lot of whiskies lately. Formal reviews will follow for most of them. But, in the interim, so you can get a jump on your autumn whisky-buying, I’ll let you know my informal thoughts now.

I was able to taste the new Bruichladdich 10 year old at WhiskyFest. (It’s not in the U.S. yet, but the importer brought me a sample.) As you may know, this is the first 10 year old whisky being sold that was produced by the current owners. It’s a new dawn for Bruichladdich, and I am happy to say that this whisky is very good. Most of it is from bourbon barrels, but there’s some sherry casks thrown in too. I just hope they can keep this profile consistant going forward. If they do, it could become the go-to entry level non-smoky Island whisky (competing with Highland Park 12 year old and Bunnahabhain 12 year old  for that honor). To me, it tastes like a 12 year old whisky.

Another whisky that surprised me was the Kilkerran WIP (Work In Progress) 3rd release. If memory serves me correctly, it’s 7 years old and tasted surprisingly fresh and also nicely mature for its age.

Dr. Bill Lumsden, after his Ardbeg seminar, let me sample a 1975 Ardbeg from a sample bottle (Cask #4714) from a refill sherry cask which I thought was outstanding! My favorite whisky of the night. He said they’ve been using so much from this cask at whisky shows, they won’t have much left when it is bottled. But let me put it this way: when it’s bottled, I am buying a bottle (if it doesn’t cost me an arm and a leg).

I tried some of the Samaroli releases. This independent bottler is new to the U.S. I tasted a 1967 Tomintoul and a 34 year old Glenlivet which were delicious. (The Glenlivet was not identified as such–it had a false name which I didn’t write down. I’ll try to dig that one up and let you know what it was called.). I’m not sure what the prices and availability of these whiskies will be at this time. Details to follow.

I have a bottle of the Shackleton whisky, which I have really been enjoying over the past couple of weeks. Very distinctive for a blend, and with plenty of character. Dominic Roskrow rated it in the lown 90s for us, and I would probably have given it at least a 90 myself if I formally reviewed it.

Another new blended scotch I really like for its drinkability and versatility is Compass Box’s Great King Street. It’s not going to set your world on fire, but it was never intended to do so. That’s what whiskies like Peat Monster are for. Whiskymaker John Glaser continues to impress me.

For the bourbon enthusiasts out there, I’ve been through the new Buffalo Trace Antique Collection a few times already. It’s just hitting the shelves now. The entire line is stellar–as it was last year, and they taste very similar to last year’s release. So, if you liked last year’s offering, you can be confident that you will like this year’s releases if you have a chance to buy them. (They are always hard to come by.)

Heaven Hill has two really nice whiskeys that just came out. This year’s Parker’s Heritage Collection is a 10 year old, 100 proof bourbon finished in Cognac barrels (similar to the old Beam Distillers’ Masterpiece bottling). The cognac doesn’t dominate, adds intrigue, and this whisky is dangerously drinkable for 100 proof. But, if you are a purist (dare I say stubborn?), and don’t want people meddling with your bourbon, you might think differently about this offering.

The second whiskey from Heaven Hill is a Elijah Craig 20 year old single cask bottling (Cask #3735). The good news: I love this whiskey, and will be rating it in the mid 90s. The bad news: it’s only available at Heaven Hill’s Bourbon Heritage Center in Bardstown, KY, and it will set you back $150.

Finally, for those of you who are budget-minded, I tasted my way through the Pappy Van Winkle line of bourbons (12, 15, 20 and 23 year old). My favorite? The 15 year old. Save your money and get this one!

One that came to my mind: Bruichladdich. I don’t know if the owners even have an interest in selling (I have never asked), but now that they have ten continuous years of whisky production behind them (which hasn’t happened in a while), it sure makes them more attractive.

What do you think will be the next distillery to change ownership? And why?

I feel that Michael Jackson was the person who came the closest. He was one of the the first to write prolifically about the subject, and he was very good at it. (Perhaps if he devoted more of his time to whisky rather than beer, and if only he stayed with us another decade or two?)

Right now, it seems like there are at least several individuals who are really doing great work covering whisky in their own way. There might be one or two people leading the field, but I don’t think anyone is so far ahead of the pack to have the power and influence of a Robert Parker.

What do you think? Do we have the equivalent of a Robert Parker in the whisky world? If so, who? And if not, why do you think there isn’t one?

The author says they are cutting corners to save time and suggests that it could lead to a decline in the entire industry.

Read it here.

What do you think?

P.S.  I think this article is significant because it shows that the issue is now being picked up by mainstream press, not just bantered about by us geeky whisky bloggers.

The good news: my dentists thinks 10 days of antibiotics will get rid of the infection.

The bad news: He told me “no alcohol while you’re on the antibiotics.”

The good news: I just might lose (what I jokingly refer to as) those “five pounds of fun” around my waistline.

The bad news: I’m going to miss drinking my whisky (and beer, and wine, and cocktails) for the next ten days.

The good news: I can still enjoy whisky over the next ten days (until August 6th) vicariously through you!

So, please feel free to post what you’re drinking here for the next ten days or so. I would appreciate it!

John

P.S. Fortunately, I reviewed a bunch of whiskies last week and will still be posting more reviews while I’m “on the wagon.”

That’s what happened this past Saturday night when I noticed this bottle of 1974 Longrow getting that low. As you can see, our mission was accomplished!

My #2 Rule is to use an inert gas spray to displace the oxygen in my open bottles. (I use a a product called Private Preserve.) It’s probably more important than my #1 Rule, but it’s not nearly as much fun. That’s why it’s #2.

These two practices combined work really well for me. I have not encountered any problems at all.

How about you?

But, looking at some of the comments over the past dozen or so whisky reviews (by me and the other Malt Advocate reviewers) here on this blog, I noticed something I felt I need to bring up and discuss.

Some of you seem to be making a big deal over a whisky review that is, say, 3 or 4 points higher or lower than what you feel you would rate it. You’re acting like you and the reviewer are so divided in how you both feel about a whisky.

In reality, you have more in common with the reviewer than you think. For example, if a reviewer rates a whisky an 83 and you think it should be an 87, they would both get an 8 on a ten point scale. And if it were a five point scale (or five diamonds or five stars or whatever), which is used by some reviewers, a whisky rated by one person as a 91 and an 80 by another person on the 100 point scale might both get 4 points. Instead of discussing how much we disagree with each other, we would probably be talking about how much we agree with each other.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, while I really enjoy using the 100 point system and am glad we can discuss and debate about whisky based on the 100 point system, let’s keep the proper perspective when when you and I (or one of the other MA reviewers) are four or five points apart in our rating of a whisky.

In fact, I think someone mentioned in my Ardbeg Alligator review, that ratings of 88-89 and 92 are effectively the same. (I’m not a statistician, so I don’t know for certain, but I think you get my point.)

I’d rather we discuss what we like (or dislike) about a whisky, and why. That’s when we all learn, grow, and mature as whisky enthusiasts.

I’ve been thinking about this recently because I’ve tasted a lot of whiskies over the past couple of years that were matured in smaller barrels. While it’s true that the big distillers are using them (e.g., Laphroaig Quarter Cask), their use seems to be more prevalent with the smaller, craft distillers. Why? They want to mature their young whiskey as quickly as possible and get it on the market.

Let me be clear right now and say that I have absolutely no scientific evidence to support what I am thinking. Indeed, I can’t even cite specific examples, because it’s not something I have been really taking notes on. So, take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

Still, what I have noticed on several occasions when tasting young whiskey aged in smaller barrels, is that the whiskey didn’t seem taste mature. It just tasted woody. The smaller casks provide for more contact with wood because of the larger surface area for a given volume of whiskey. But it still tasted “green,”  somewhat harsh, and very youthful in character.

So, I wonder: are we trying to cheat mother nature by using smaller barrels? Does it actually work, or are we just fooling ourselves?

Again, this is just a general observation. I have no facts to support my thinking here. But, I can tell you this: I was speaking with a very high official of a highly respected distilling company who is doing research on this topic, and their preliminary findings seem to support my thinking. Stay tuned for more information on this in a future blog post.

I respect (and embrace) the craft distilling movement and everything they do. I don’t want anyone to take this post the wrong way think I am accusing them of trying to pull a fast one on us. There are a lot of distillers using smaller barrels, not just the small guys. And like I said earlier, this is just a gut feeling of mine.

I do think that the use of smaller barrels as part of a mix of smaller and more standard size barrels can add a new flavor dimension and inject some extra wood influence into the whisky. Laphroaig Quarter Cask is an excellent example of this. But, I wonder what Laphroaig would taste like if all Laproaig was matured in quarter (or even smaller) casks?

My advice to you is this: make today that special day! Don’t wait. That’s exactly what I did last night, when I opened up this wonderful bottle of 21 year old Glen Garioch, distilled back in 1965.

It wasn’t my birthday. It wasn’t my wedding anniversary. I didn’t get a raise or win the lottery. It’s not even Father’s Day yet! I just pulled the trigger and opened it.

I certainly don’t need to open up another bottle of whisky. I have 100, maybe even 150, open already as part of my job. So, if I can do it, you can do it.

Why? For starters, I’ve seen too many whisky auction catalogs with pages of whiskies from dead whisky enthusiasts who never got to appreciate their special whiskies. And if you think you are going to live to be 100 and don’t need to worry about it, glance through the obit pages of your local newspaper for some perspective.

Plus, every year that bottle sits on the shelf increases the chances that the whisky inside will begin to evaporate or become accidentally adulterated somehow (by heat, light, etc.). Or worse: it gets dropped and breaks, it gets stolen, or your son’s high school friends open it up when you are out of town on business and chug it just to get drunk.

Please take my advice. Grab a special bottle and open it. Make it the special occasion. And while you’re at it, share it with as many people as you can. The best things in life are meant to be shared. Then I can guarantee it will be a very special occasion. And you will be all the better for it.