February 11th, 2010

Malt Advocate Magazine’s “Top Ten New Whiskies” for 2009

John Hansell

Top Ten New Whiskies of the Year (listed alphabetically)

You will not be happy with the prices of some of these whiskies, but here’s our ten best new whiskies released in 2009 (keeping in mind that whiskies must have been for sale in the U.S. in the 2009 calendar year to be eligible).

The selection process for this list is based primarily on the whisky’s rating. All ten whiskies rated 95 or higher in Malt Advocate  magazine.

Ardbeg Corryvreckan, 57.1%, $85
Powerful, muscular, well-textured, and invigorating. Even within the realm of Ardbeg, this one stands out. There are many relatively young whiskies with no age statement on the market. This is a benchmark. Quite stunning!

Brora 30 year old (2009 Release), 53.2%, $400
This whisky shows all the good aspects of a very mature whisky (depth, complexity) without all the bad ones (excessive oak, one-dimensional). It’s very clean and polished. One of the best releases from this shuttered distillery.

Dalmore 50 year old, $1,500/100ml
Incredibly viscous and chewy, and thick on the tongue. Very complex too, with that classic Dalmore marmalade note as its foundation. The flavors evolve like waves lapping on a beach. It is a whisky you can’t drink slowly enough.

Gold Bowmore, 1964 Vintage, 42.4% $6,250
Surprisingly lively for its age. I like this whisky better than White Bowmore but feels that it falls short of Black Bowmore, because it’s a bit softer and less vibrant on the palate. (But, for most of you with limited means, I can understand if you don’t really care.)

Jameson Rarest Vintage Reserve, 46% (2009 vintage), $250
I love the pot still character and the lushness that some of the port-wood aging has imparted. If anything,  this 2009 vintage is even richer and lusher than the previous 2007 vintage I reviewed. Another classic Jameson Rarest Vintage Reserve.

Laphroaig 25 year old, 51.2%, $500
I love the way the flavors of this whisky evolve on the palate. I also like that it retains some of its youthful brashness, while showing the depth that maturity affords a whisky. A delicious, well-balanced, old-fashioned Laphroaig.

Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve (Bottle B1986), 23 year old, 47.8%, $220
My review of this whiskey a few years back indicated this whiskey was too woody and past it’s prime to be a stellar whiskey. This one is much better. (Yes, whiskey bottlings do change over time.) There’s great balance and the oak is in check.

Parkers Heritage Selection Golden Anniversary, 50%, $150
This is a fabulous whiskey: seamless, incredibly complex, with an impeccable marriage of youth and maturity. It’s also very even-keeled throughout. A classic bourbon that’s very complex and yet very drinkable.

Rittenhouse Rye 25 year old (Barrel #1), 50%, $190
Not as vibrant as the 21 year old Rittenhouse Rye released a few years back, but it’s more sophisticated, which more than makes up for it. I can’t speak for the other barrels in this lot, but I think this one is a great example of what a 20-plus year old rye whisky should taste like.

William Larue Weller (2009 release), 67.4%, $65
This whiskey has improved greatly over the past two years. (I thought that the 2007 release was almost too easy-going, as some wheated bourbon can be.) A little more oak spice has added balance, complexity and depth. Very clean on the palate too. Excellent!

Category: Awards,Bourbon,Irish whiskey,Malt Advocate Mag,New Releases,Reviews,Rye whiskey,Scotch whisky Tags: , , , , , , , , , 44 Comments

August 14th, 2009

My chat with Jim Murray last night about whisky ratings

John Hansell

Jim and I have mutual respect for each other. And, for the most part, we generally agree with each other when it comes to whiskies we like and whiskies we don’t like.

But there’s one area where we diverge. It our ratings of young whiskies. And when I say “young” I mean whiskies (and whiskeys) anywhere from new make spirit (not even whisky yet) to whiskies up to 8 years old. (I’m excluding bourbon and rye whiskey from this discussion, focusing more on single malt whisky.) Jim is clearly more generous than I am.

I brought up the topic with him last night after dinner (and over a beer). You see, we’re both here in Kentucky visiting Buffalo Trace distillery and attending Elmer T. Lee’s birthday party later today. We had dinner at the distillery last night with key distillery personnel and a few other writers.

So, Jim and I had a good chat about this. We actually agreed more than we disagreed about the topic.

We both agreed that some whiskies actually mature at a younger age (some at a very young age) and reach their peak before getting anywhere close to 10 years old. A lot of it is because of the climate. And sometimes it’s the distilling process.

Take Amrut, from India, for example. They put their whisky out at 4-5 years old. Stranahan’s here in Colorado is but a few years old. Penderyn, from Wales, is also only several years old. We both agree that these whiskies will be peaking well before 10 year of age.

We also agree that these whiskies are balanced, and balance is very important to us. But what I don’t see–that Jim does–is the depth and complexity in these whiskies like I see in a great 21 year old Springbank or one of those classic old Broras. Or the Parker’s Heritage Collection 27 year old, for that matter.

Yet, Jim rates these young  whiskies roughly the same (within a few points) as many more mature examples, like the ones I mention above. In fact, I believe in the most recent Whisky Bible, he rated Kilchoman spirit in the mid-90s, and that’s not even a whisky yet.

He sees depth and maturity in these whiskies that I don’t. Just because a whisky is peaking at 4 years old, doesn’t mean to me that it is just as complex as an 18 or 21 year old whisky.

Jim also told me that his respect and admiration for young whiskies stems from back when he first started getting into malt whiskies, back in the ’70s, when he said most of the whiskies available were 8 years old or less. I didn’t start to appreciate whisky until the 1980s, and there were plenty of older whiskies available by that time. So maybe our roots have a bearing in all this?

By the end of the evening, we agreed to disagree on this one point. With mutual respect. As it should be. And since Jim has reviewed far more whiskies than I have, I’m happy to defer to Jim and just say that he see’s something in these young whiskies that my “less experienced” palate doesn’t. That’s fine with me.

It is also another reminder to you to find a whisky reviewer that you feel comfortable with, and whose tastes line up best with yours, regardless of who that person may be.

What do you think about all of this?

I’ll be with Jim all day again. The topic might come up again later on tonight. If it does, I’ll add more to this thread.

Category: Opinions,Reviews Tags: , , , , , , 25 Comments

April 21st, 2009

Review: “Jewels of Scotland” Brora 1982 Vintage

John Hansell

Lombard “Jewels of Scotland” (distilled at Brora), 1982 vintage, 50%, $200
Bottled in 2004, but just recently put in circulation here in the U.S. (Very strange.) It’s worth the wait. It’s fresh (even at 22 years old), appetizing, spicy, and briny. There’s a sweet foundation of vanilla wafer and caramel, with a slightly oily texture. White pepper, seaweed, mustard seed, lime, gherkin and teasing gin botanicals add complexity. Spicy, salty finish.  A vibrant, dynamic expression of the shuttered original Clynelish distillery. Quite stunning, actually. Find yourself a bottle before they’re gone!

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 95

Category: Independent Bottler,Reviews,Scotch whisky Tags: 19 Comments



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