July 28th, 2011

Have a dram for me, please!

John Hansell

The bad news: a root canal procedure I had done last year has become infected.

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.”

Category: Health-related issues,Opinions,Ramblings 83 Comments

July 22nd, 2011

My #1 Rule to keep my whiskies from oxidizing

John Hansell

When a bottle of whisky in my bar gets down to only 1/4 full, I invite a friend or two over and we finish the bottle. No more worries about oxidation, and it guarantees a good stable of friends.

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?

Category: Opinions 48 Comments

July 14th, 2011

The 100 point scale: maintaining some perspective

John Hansell

Let me start by saying that I like the 100 point system. I use it. It’s the most commonly used system by the most highly regarded wine and spirits reviewers, and it’s the scale that most people are familiar with.

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.

Category: Opinions,Reviews 108 Comments

June 27th, 2011

Do smaller whiskey barrels mature whiskey faster?

John Hansell

Or do they just make whiskey taste woody faster?

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?

Category: Bourbon,Microdistilleries,Opinions,Scotch whisky 111 Comments

June 17th, 2011

Make today that “special day”

John Hansell

This applies to many of you–if not most of you. You have bottles of whiskies stashed away, waiting for that special occasion to open them up and enjoy them. Maybe it’s only a bottle or two, but I know some of you have dozens–perhaps even hundreds–sitting somewhere collecting dust.

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.

Category: Opinions 50 Comments

June 15th, 2011

What’s the best way to drink whisky?

John Hansell

Any way you damned well please! That’s the short answer.

Now for the long answer. 

If you only drink your whisky the optimal way to appreciate its aromas and flavors (say, with a splash of water and in a nosing glass), then I think you are missing out on whisky’s versatility. (And maybe your pinky is in the air just a bit too much?)

There are times when I want to get the most out of my whisky. Still, there are also times when my whisky is not the main focus of my attention–times when it just an integral part of a pleasant experience, but not the main part.

I’ll give you three examples that I experienced just this past week or so.

A few of my friends were together with me fishing over the weekend. After being in the hot sun all day, we wanted something refreshing to drink. We had been drinking beer for a while and wanted something different. The solution? A glass of bourbon and ginger ale on the rocks. Not some fancy bourbon. It was whatever I had lying around the house, and it did the trick. Our conversation was the main focus of my attention, not the bourbon.

On another occasion, I poured myself a measure of Ardbeg Alligator. Again, it was hot out. I also think the room temperature where the Ardbeg was being stored was slightly warmer than normal. I put a small ice cube in my glass. It cooled off the drink, added some water, and tasted great!

Finally, one evening, sitting around a campfire, I pulled out a fine cigar to smoke. But what to drink with it? I already had a coupe of beers, so I opted for a good bourbon (W.L. Weller 19 yr. old, if you are curious.) I poured a measure into a small “rocks” glass–no ice this time–and enjoyed it with my cigar. It was great!

In all three instances here, I wasn’t “John Hansell the whisky reviewer.” I was just someone enjoying whisky in a way that seemed appropriate at that given time. I think that if you drink your whisky with an open mind in addition to an open mouth, you will get more pleasure from it.

Category: Opinions 44 Comments

May 16th, 2011

Buffalo Trace’s new “Single Oak” project: Part 1

John Hansell

Buffalo Trace newest (and biggest) project was announced a couple weeks back. For those of you who haven’t heard about it yet (which is understandable given that the whiskeys are only now getting into circulation), here’s an excerpt from the press release:

Beginning in 1999, then Warehouse Manager Ronnie Eddins traveled to the Missouri Ozarks to hand pick 96 trees, consisting of fine grain, medium grain and coarse grain wood, based on the tree’s growth rings. Each type of grain indicates a different growth rate and will yield a different flavor profile.  From there, each tree was cut into a top and a bottom piece, yielding 192 unique sections. Next stop was the lumber yard, where staves were created from each section and were tagged and tracked. The staves were divided into two groups and given different air dried seasonings, 6 months and 12 months.  The air drying allows Mother Nature to break down some of the more harsh flavored characteristics commonly found in wood.  

After all the staves were air dried, a single barrel was then created from each tree section, resulting in 192 total barrels.

The next step in the process was to experiment with different char levels of the barrels. Two different char levels were used, a number three and a number four char. (The standard char level for all Buffalo Trace products is a number four char, which is a 55 second burn.

Then, barrels were filled with one of two different recipes, a wheat and a rye recipe bourbon. To further the variety of experiments, barrels were filled at two different proofs, 105 proof and 125 proof.  And if this wasn’t enough, two completely different warehouses were used, one with a wooden ricks and one with concrete floors.  In total, seven different variables were employed in Buffalo Trace’s ultimate experiment.

And then, the waiting began.  For eight years the Distillery continued with its tracking process, creating intricate databases and coming up with a potential of 1,396 tasting combinations from these 192 barrels!

The Single Oak project is part of a much larger, and noble, effort: to create the perfect bourbon. How? By asking consumers to rate the whiskey they taste and then provide this feedback to Buffalo Trace via this new website that has been established for the Single Oak project.  As the press release puts it:

On the website, consumers create a profile and after rating each bottle, will then see the aging details and provenance of each barrel. They can interact with others who have also reviewed the barrel, compare their reviews on the same barrel, and even use it as a learning process for themselves by discovering which characteristics they like in a bourbon to help them select future favorites.  

Participants online will earn points after reach review and most importantly, help Buffalo Trace Distillery create the perfect bourbon!

According to Mark, at the conclusion of the project, they plan to take the top rated barrel, make more of that product and launch it under the Single Oak Project nameplate. So, ultimately, the 192 unique barrels with 1,396 tasting combinations will lead to one style of bourbon. One damned good bourbon!

I say this is only part of a much larger effort to create the perfect bourbon because over the years, Mark Brown, President and CEO of Buffalo Trace, has told me of some of his other projects to achieve this goal. One of them is to critically deconstruct the tasting notes and ratings of key whiskey writers (including yours truly). Incidentally, he told me just last week that, even though each of us may differ the way we describe our whiskeys, there is common ground in our reviews too. (He didn’t go into detail, so I suppose we’ll save that for a later time.)

Will the lucky ones who actually happen to get their hands on a bottle of Single Oak Project whiskey take the time to rate it and record it on the Single Oak Project website? Only time will tell, but I hope so.

Here’s another snippet from the press release, describing the logistics of the first release (and future releases):

The first release of the Single Oak Project Bourbon is expected to hit stores nationwide in very limited quantities around the end of May. Each release will consist of 12 unique single barrel bourbons.

Every case will contain 12 bottles, each from a different barrel. The first release is made up of barrel numbers 3, 4, 35, 36, 67, 68, 99, 100, 131, 132, 163 and 164. Each of these barrels had the same entry proof, seasoning, char level and warehouse aging location. However, the  hope is to identify the differences in taste based on recipe, wood grain size and tree cut as these characteristics varied amongst this group of barrels.

There will be a series of releases over the next four years until all of the 192 barrels have been released.  All releases will be packaged in a 375ml bottle. Suggested retail pricing is $46.35. 

In Part 2 of my post on this project (which will probably be later in the week), I will get out my secret decoder ring and tell you about the first 12 releases and how each barrel of bourbon differs. Additionally, I’ve tasted all of them and, while I don’t plan on rating them formally, I will give you my general thoughts on them (including which ones I liked, the ones I would take a pass on, and why).

Stay tuned!

Category: American whiskey,Bourbon,New Releases,Opinions,Reviews,Rye whiskey Tags: 32 Comments

April 26th, 2011

Bill Lumsden, Pride, and some Alligators

John Hansell

As far as Mondays go, yesterday was a particularly good one. I lunched in New York with Dr. Bill Lumsden, brilliant whisky creator for Glenmorangie and Ardbeg (and long-time friend).

I always enjoy my time with Bill. The icing on the cake is that he usually has a few samples of something fun in his bag. This time it was samples of Glenmorangie Pride, Ardbeg Alligator, and a third sample with the secret code name “Son of Alligator.”

That should have your attention–especially for all of you Ardbeg enthusiasts. I’ll get to Ardbeg soon enough, but let’s chat about Glenmorangie Pride first.

Glenmorangie Pride

Glenmorangie Pride is the newest creation by the Glenmo team. There were a lot of great whiskies that came from the 1981 Vintage (including the first Distillery Manager’s bottling that was available only at the distillery which was outstanding!), so this particular whisky has a fine pedigree. After aging for 18 years in first-fill ex-bourbon barrels, It was finished in Chateau d’Yquem Sauternes casks for 10 years before being bottled.

For many of you, reading about this whisky is merely academic. With only 1,000 bottles produced, only 100 available here in the U.S., and retailing for approximately $3,600 a bottle, most of you will not be rushing out to your specialty retailer to order a bottle. (And, to be perfectly honest, neither will I.) But, I was fortunate enough to receive a review sample of it over a week ago, and also had the opportunity to try it yesterday with Bill.

(For those of you interested in my thoughts on Pride, read on. For those of you who are mumbling under your breath that you don’t care what a $3,600 bottle of whisky tastes like, you can continue on to my Ardbeg write-up below.)

The bottom line: Pride is a very good whisky (probably low 90s) and I don’t think anyone who purchases a bottle will be disappointed. Is it my favorite Glenmo? No. And I’ll explain why. (My favorite Glenmorangie whisky on the market is probably Astar, in case you were wondering.)

The two key influences in this whisky are: Chateau d’Yquem Sauternes wine and the French Oak casks the wine (and eventually the Glenmorangie) was aged in. The lovely sweet wine notes really impact the palate, especially up front, with sweet, lush, fruity notes (lemon custard, sultana, honeydew). Gradually, the resinous French Oak influence reveals itself, balancing the sweetness with a barrage of spice, tannin, and a gripping resinous finish.

This is a very textural whisky. It’s dynamic and always evolving. That’s what I like about it. The last thing this whisky will ever be is boring.

If I were being picky (I get paid to be picky, so I will), I would like to see Pride with a little less wood influence (especially on the finish). I completely understand why he bottled the whisky at 28 years and 9 months, rather than waiting until it was 30 years old to do so (which might have made the marketing department happy, but the whisky probably would have suffered for it).  That being said, I can only wonder how amazing this whisky could have been if it were bottled, say, after only  25 years? I would be willing to sacrifice some of the lovely sweet Sauternes influence for a whisky that might have achieved even greater balance, integration, and complexity with less wood impact.

Ardbeg Alligator (and the “Son of Alligator”)

Welcome to what is now becoming an annual occurrence: a new Ardbeg release. Last year it was Rollercoaster. This year, it’s Ardbeg Alligator. Why the name Alligator? Well, a portion of the whisky was aged in heavily charred barrels (that Bill refers to as an “Alligator” char).

As he describes it: “It’s similar to Ardbeg 10 year old, but with bells and whistles.” (I was waiting for him to say it’s  like the 10 year old, but a bit more hard-skinned and with a bite. :) )

The age of the whisky is also very similar to Ardbeg 10. It’s a combination of some “regular” Ardbeg with some of the Alligator char-aged Ardbeg which was then aged an additional year in refill casks to marry and integrate. (I promised Bill I wouldn’t go into any more detail than this, so please don’t ask.)

My thoughts?: It’s an aggressive Ardbeg (and will be bottled at 51.7%) with a good dose of smoked fish in the flavor profile. The nice thing about it is that there’s a good creamy vanilla underbelly to balance the aggressiveness and (at least partially) muzzle the Alligator. Alligator should be available here in the U.S. in June as an “Ardbeg Committee” release.

The third sample Bill pulled out, which he calls the “Son of Alligator,” was much different that Alligator. Bill hinted that this might be next year’s Limited-edition Ardbeg release. it was softer, creamier, and fruitier than Alligator, with a good does of creamy vanilla, custard, and stone fruits (peach, apricot, perhaps even nextarine.)

Would any of you (who are still reading this long post) like to wager why the good doctor is calling it “Son of Alligator?” Is Bill using the emptied alligator-char casks an additional time? I honestly don’t know. I’m just guessing. What’s your guess?

Category: New Releases,Opinions,Scotch whisky Tags: , 22 Comments

April 13th, 2011

Whisky recommendations for the new enthusiast?

John Hansell

I’ll be spending the rest of the week hosting WhiskyFest in Chicago (and attending a couple of the other events going on around it). While I’m gone, I thought maybe we could help the newer whisky (and whiskey) drinkers here with some recommendations. The combined knowledge of everyone here is enormous, so I am sure you can offer some suggestions.

Pick any whisky country or category. Just make sure that it’s a whisky that is a regular stock item and not a one-off or limited edition. Oh, and reasonably priced would be nice too.

So, what would you recommend? And why?

Category: Opinions,WhiskyFest 113 Comments

April 8th, 2011

“En Primeur” whisky ratings: good or bad?

John Hansell

It’s been a while since we had something really good to debate here. Here’s one that has been on my mind for a week now.

I was reading a story in Decanter magazine about a controversy centered around how special, highly regarded, wine critics are allowed access to taste–and rate–Bordeaux wines en primeur (in advance) of the wines being bottled and released.

(The story actually is more complicated than that. There is an official en primeur tasting of Bordeaux wines for wine writers, but a very select few are allowed access to those wines even before everyone else. They are immediately rating the wines and posting them up on their social media sites like Facebook–before the other wine writers even get to taste the wines.)

One obvious issue here (besides the fact that some writers are more privileged than others) is that ratings of these wines, prior to being released, will influence the wine producers regarding the price they charge for their wines. If James Suckling gives a First Growth Bordeaux a perfect 100 based on his en primeur tasting, you can be certain that the wine, when eventually bottled, will command a high price.

So, this got me thinking. En primeur whisky tastings are a regular privilege for the most highly regarded whisky writers. We have access to barrel samples when we tour distilleries. Even more so, we (on a regular basis) get samples of whiskies well before they are released to the public.

In this new age of social media, where we can blog, tweet, or post up on Facebook our rating as soon as we get a whisky (often months before a whisky is actually released to the public), what impact does this have on consumer demand? Equally as important, what influence does this have on the whisky producers when they decide what price to charge for their whisky?

This, in itself, is a good question. But I’ll take it one step further. Some whisky writers actually taste, rate, and publish ratings of the “new make” spirit–right off the stills and long before it is aged for three years and can legally be called whisky.  Are these ratings based on the quality of the whisky as it is, or is it based on its potential?

For example, in the 2010 Whisky Bible, Jim Murray rates two “New Spirit” Kilchoman samples from Islay (one from a bourbon cask and one from a combination of bourbon and sherry casks) a 93.5 and 94, respectively. Is this based on the actual whisky that was tasted, or its potential? I ask this question because in his 2011 Whisky Bible, he rates two actual whisky releases (including the inaugural release) and gives them an 85 and an 82.5.

I understand why wine writers rate based on potential. Wine ages and changes when aged in a bottle. And with some wines, they can “close up” and become worse before they get better and peak. Theoretically, whisky doesn’t change at all when it is bottled.

If we start rating whisky based on potential and not actual flavor, imagine what would that do!

So, I have two questions for you:

1) How do you feel about whisky writers tasting and rating whiskies long before they are released (and priced)?

2) How do you feel about rating a distiller’s spirit (or whisky) based on potential?

Let the discussions begin.

Category: Media,Opinions,Wine,Writers 37 Comments

« Newer PostsOlder 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.