November 22nd, 2011
I’m not sure exactly what I’m going to enjoy this Thanksgiving (I’m still sorting it out), but I can say with a high degree of confidence that it will include wine, beer, and some great American whiskey.
How about you? What will you be enjoying?
And before I forget, Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I’m thankful for so many things in life, including all of you reading this post.
August 8th, 2011
I don’t think so. (Although, there might someone out there who thinks he is.)
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?
April 8th, 2011
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.
November 5th, 2010
It’s fair to assume you are all whisky drinkers. But what else are you drinking? Do you drink more whisky than anything else, or does something else come first? And do you think that drinking other alcoholic beverages has made you a better whisky drinker?
I admit that I am what I call an “equal opportunity drinker.” I like nearly all beverages, as long as they taste good. I drink more beer than anything else, but it’s always the good stuff. (Malt Advocate was originally a beer publication many years ago.) I also love wine and maintain a wine cellar of a couple hundred carefully chosen wines. Rum, tequila, Cognac, Armagnac also get thrown into the mix, and my preference is for those that are nicely aged. I’ll even have some white spirits (gin, vodka) on occasion, when I’m in the mood for a martini.
And yes, drinking other beverages has made me a better whisky enthusiasts–especially being a wine drinker, with all the exotic wine-finished whiskies on the market these days.
How about you?
October 27th, 2010
The whisky (and beer) will have to wait for a few days. I also love wine. Plus, I think it has helped me be a better whisky writer.
My wife and I will be spending the next few days drinking some great wines and learning more about them at the New World Wine Experience, and we are very excited.
But no worries, I still have whisky reviews scheduled post Thursday and Friday. And I’ll be back diving into whiskies when I return.
June 21st, 2010
We enjoyed some great beer on tap (The Lost Abbey Carnivale), delicious wine (Shafer Relentless), and the Glenfarclas 150th Anniversary bottle that I opened up on Friday after our daughter Shannon’s High School graduation. I even finished the evening with one of my favorite cigars (an Arturo Fuente Don Carlos Robusto).
How about you? What were you drinking yesterday?
June 9th, 2010
Well, it was actually my 50th birthday–plus one day. My birthday was this past Monday, June 7th, but I didn’t celebrate until yesterday due to a nasty stomach virus on Monday. I waited 50 years. I figured I could wait one more.
Here’s the line-up. (In order of consumption, left to right, in the picture on the left. Click on the picture to get a larger view.) These were enjoyed over several hours during the evening with friends. I’ll tell you a little bit about what I drank, why I drank them, and how they tasted.
Framboise Boon Lambic (1986 Vintage)
I love Belgian beer and have been to Belgium several times touring their breweries. (I was a beer writer long before I became a whisky writer.) This was our aperitif beer, and what we enjoyed with our cranberry walnut salad. For those of you not familiar with lambic beers, they are spontaneously fermented beers, a Belgian specialty, aged in barrels, often with fruit added (in this case raspberries), traditionally bottled in champagne bottles and corked, and age very well. This one is one of my favorites. I purchased a case when they were brought into the U.S. back in the 1990s. It’s my last bottle, and it was still stunning. It has softened over the years (yes, you read correctly–it’s a 1986 vintage), and the raspberry influence has calmed down, but the balance of flavors and complexity were still there. Belgium’s answer to the finest champagne.
Chateau Lafite Rothschild (2001 Vintage)
Rather than going with the legendary 2000 vintage (which is still too young to drink for this First Growth Bordeaux) I opted for the excellent, yet more approachable, 2001 vintage. And it did not disappoint. After two hours of decanting and breathing, this gem of a wine was bold, yet complex, with great structure, solid tannins, and held up well with the amazing meat loaf (this was not your mother’s meat loaf, mind you), chipotle corn salad, grilled vegetables, and twice baked potato.
Chateau Rieussec Sauternes (2001 Vintage)
I would pay just to smell this outstanding dessert wine. It’s from the classic 2001 vintage, and I understand why the Wine Spectator rated this a perfect 100. Even my wife Amy enjoyed it, and she doesn’t like dessert wines. Sweet? Yes! But very elegant and floral, with complex fruit and just enough acidity to cut through the sweetness. We enjoyed it on its own, and then along with a variety of desserts (creme brulee, Key Lime cheese cake, and Belgian chocolate) just to see how they interacted with the wine. I decided that this lovely Sauternes was just perfect on its own, and needed no accompaniment.
A. H. Hirsch Reserve Straight Bourbon Whiskey (18 years old, 46.5%)
This is a whiskey blog, so I better start talking about whiskey.
And yes, this is not a typo on the age statement. For those of you who thought the legendary A. H. Hirsch (a.k.a. Michter’s) bourbon was only sold at 16 and 20 years old, think again. I purchased this rarity at Park Avenue Liquor in NYC back in the early 1990s. There appears to be a label behind the label that’s showing. From what I remember, I believe Herb Lapchin (who used the be the whiskey guy there at the time) told me that the whiskey was originally labeled as a 17 year old, but by the time the whiskey was finally bottled, it was past its 18th birthday so they slapped an 18 year old label over the original label. That’s what I remember, but I can’t say it is 100% accurate. Maybe someone from Park Ave can chime in here?
This whiskey is mellow, soft, and sweet with plenty of molasses and maple syrup to go around. A soothing whiskey, and very much a digestif. I have bottles of the 16 and 20, but none open right now. Eventually, I would like to compare this 18 year old to its two siblings.
(A side note: the cork fell apart when I opened it. I had to decant it, take out all the cork pieces, and re-cork it with a new cork. Some advice to the newbies here: save some of the corks from the bottles you empty. You might need them down the road.)
Longrow, 19 year old, 46%
We left the dining room and retired to a glowing campfire out back. The sun had just set, the wood thrushes were finishing their songs for the evening, and the stars were beginning to shine brightly.
I purchased this classic peated Springbank back in the early to mid 1990s at Sam’s Wine’s & Spirits in Chicago, from the legendary “Joe C.” (Rest in peace, my good friend. You will never be forgotten.)
Yes, this was a last minute change. You will recall I was contemplating drinking a 1973 vintage Longrow, which didn’t have an age statement. Well, I eventually opted for this one. This one is the opposite of the 1973 vintage. It’s a 19 year old, but there’s no vintage statement. (I’m not sure why some of the whiskies from the legendary 1973 and 1974 vintage Longrow, had age statements but not vintage declaration, why some had the vintage declaration but no age statement, and why some had both. Perhaps someone from Springbank is lurking out there and can answer this question?)
Regardless, I was completely blown away by this whisky. A complete stunner, and my favorite drink of the evening! Complex, dynamic, bursting with peat-infused brine. This is why I fell in love with Springbank’s whiskies, and why I fell in love with the peated Longrow. Indeed, this is why I fell in love with whisky! ‘Nuff said.
Thomas Hardy’s Ale, 150th Anniversary Edition (1987 Vintage)
From the legendary Eldridge Pope Brewery, in Southwest England, which I toured in the early 1990s, to the chagrin of my wife, who was with me for the duration. (Sorry, Amy.) I have a friend (Roger) who used to work at Eldridge Pope (and also at the Eaglesomes shop in Campbeltown where he helped me score the two legendary “Green” Springbanks. It’s a small world, isn’t it?)
Roger is the one who gave me this bottle when he came to visit me in the mid 1990s. He got it when he worked there. In fact, he helped me source many vintages of Thomas Hardy’s Ale, and I still have at least one bottle from most vintages, including the original 1968 vintage.
Unlike standard Hardy’s, this one actually had a cork stopper, not metal. Roger told me that it had a cork when he gave it to me, so I had been aging it on its side to keep it from drying out, but the cork still crumbled to pieces when I opened it up.
I’ll be honest with you. I’ve tasted over 25 different vintages of Hardy’s, and this is the finest one I have ever tasted. An absoluted stunner! The sweetness had softened. There were undertones of delicate sherry, cherry stones, and pit fruit. An alcoholic beverage that transcends category. It is what every Thomas Hardy’s Ale aspires to be, but rarely is.
Finally, we finished the evening, admiring the buring embers of the fire, with a Partagas Series D No. 4 Reserva 200o Vintage cigar, which I purchased on a trip to the Caymans two years ago. I slowly sipped some more Hardy’s, reflecting on 50 years of life.
As Jimmy Buffett sang: “…some of it’s magic, some of it’s tragic, but I’ve had a good life, all the way.”
Here’s to the next 50, my friends…
May 26th, 2010
Another drink on the agenda for my 50th Birthday celebrations is a great bottle of Bordeaux that my wife and I will share at dinner.
About eight years ago, I purchased one bottle each of the five “First Growth” Bordeaux Wines (Lafite Rothschild, Latour, Margaux, Haut-Brion, and Mouton-Rothschild) from the famed 2000 vintage, with the intention of opening one bottle every five years, beginning with my 50th birthday and ending with my 7oth birthday.
I haven’t done much research yet, but maybe one of you already has the answer. Which one do you think has matured the fastest and is most ready to be consumed first? And why?
I welcome your insights. Thank you!
May 24th, 2010
I’m now moving on to something less serious (but no less significant) than my post this past Friday. Yes, it’s true. I’m hitting the big 5-0 on June 7th. I’m going to be pulling out all the stops, drinking great beer, wine, and whisky! (More on the beer and wine at a later date.)
This is a very special occasion, so I’ve dug deep into the Hansell archives and pulled out three special whiskies. (Pictured, and click on the picture for a larger view.) One of them I will open up on my birthday. I need your help picking which one.
The first one: The very first vintage of Longrow, the peated expression of Springbank. It’s a 1973 vintage and it’s bottled at the distillery’s traditional 46%. There is no age statement.
The second one: An old distillation of Ardbeg. It’s a Cadenhead’s bottling, distilled back in October, 1965 and bottled almost 30 years ago in December, 1980. This one is also bottled at 46%.
The last one: An old distillation of Talisker. It’s a Gordon & MacPhail bottling, distilled back in 1973. There is no indication of age or bottling date. It’s bottled at 57%.
One final note: the level of whisky in each bottle looks good, so I don’t think there has been much evaporation in any of them. Therefore, this shouldn’t be a factor in our decision-making process.
So, which bottle do you think I should I open? And why?
(P.S. I have a few bottles of whisky distilled from 1960. I might open one of those up too in addition to one of the three pictured above. Stay tuned for that.)
November 27th, 2009
Decanter magazine reports here about a new study which shows the effect of the current recession on wine prices. One quote from the report says:
Wineries need to adjust to a ‘new normal’ of reduced spending power – among the very consumers who have driven recent growth in the market. For that segment of Baby Boomers who have seen their net worth drastically reduced and who have been the prime target of wine marketing for nearly 20 years, a US$50 bottle of wine is now permanently out of the question for a normal purchase.
It goes on to advise:
wineries to focus more of their marketing on the under-40s, pointing out that those aged 45-54 have seen their net worth fall by 45% over the past five years.
So, this leads me to wonder if the whisky companies will take the same approach to the products they produce and sell. Will we start seeing more lower-priced whiskies on the market? Will they ramp up their marketing efforts to a younger crowd who supposedly haven’t seen their net worth fall so much?
Or is the whisky industry more immune to the recession?
Your thoughts?
Recent Comments