Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts

06 April 2022

02/04/2022 A day is wasted, in which you have not queued at least once

After, ahem, an eventful couple of years, culminating in a five-month closure for refurbishments, Cadenhead's London shop is reopening today. An event that was widely communicated via the Club newsletter. To make it more special, the company announced that they would release a forty-year-old Caol Ila for the occasion.

Also released today, in all Cadenhead's shops, is a charity bottling of Springbank 10yo, the proceeds of which will go to Ukraine relief. There are to be five hundred bottles spread across those shops.

The shop, they said, would open at noon, and close at 17:00. Staff from the head office in Campbeltown would be down to raprezents and pour good stuff.

Since he is in the general vicinity, and since there is nothing on the telly, tOMoH thought he would pop round the shop to say hello, see the new interior, and see what else is available.

Armed with the certainty that many things will be limited to one bottle per person and that there will be some crowd showing a certain level of interest, tOMoH braces himself for a reasonable wait before accessing the wares. No matter: the weather is clement, and the bus journey there is not only fast, it restores faith in Humanity (or in TfL's drivers, at least: the bus is ready to leave, yet a wave and a short trot results in the driver waiting for us -- yay).

It is 11:30ish when I arrive near the shop. From a short distance, there seems to be a decent crowd -- it is with no little surprise that, coming closer, I notice it stretches halfway up the street.


If you know the area, you know this does not look good


In the multitude of unknowns, familiar faces are spotted (JS, WK, MSo, SOB, soon SA too, then DW and JF), altogether weighing less than ten percent of the queue. Conversations start to fuse. 12:00 arrives in no time. The first few people in the queue have been there since 21:00 last night, we discover, probably feeling withdrawal symptoms from not being allowed to queue on Islay for almost three years, and making London pay for it. We estimate the queue is roughly two-hundred-people long, which is way more than I had expected. Anyway.

12:15 comes and goes, 12:30, then 13:00. It dawns on everyone that we have not moved one metre in that time. Passers-by, intrigued by the crowd, start asking why we are queueing. They will do so until the end. Tired of answering seriously, we start the comedy: "Justin Bieber concert tickets," "the new iPhone," "shoes," "I hope to find out at the end of the queue..."

The first customers come out with bags (or boxes, for some) full of bottles. The very first guy in will walk up and down the queue with those very bags for five hours, "doing the peacock," says WK. "There is no pea," fuses MSo's answer. He says he is waiting for a friend who is behind us in the queue. He will end up leaving alone regardless, shortly before we reach the doorstep.

But let us not get ahead of ourselves.


Long is the road


A little after 13:00, a police car arrives: Queues News Network informs us that they are here to disperse queue-jumpers. Soon, we progress a little bit (literally a couple of metres). Then we are immobile again for the longest time.

With impatience settling in, news slowly travels up the queue: the queue-jumpers, in hoodies and classy JD Sports bags, are back. The staff have made it clear they would not serve them or indeed allow them into the store, but they will not budge. The staff have therefore barricaded themselves inside and are waiting for the police to remove the nuisance. Said police, probably busy elsewhere and annoyed at having to intervene once again in something that, ultimately, does not concern them, are taking their sweet time. It is yet another hour before they show up, on foot, this time, and sporting an air I hope never to be the cause of (read: exasperated and clearly ready to use force).

Once on site, they appear to try to reason the queue-jumpers (who seem to be beyond reasoning), then trap them to have a, ahem, more-serious conversation. They trap them... inside the shop. That move prevents anyone from entering the shop, and also the punters inside from exiting. Great.

Regardless of the excitement that that causes, it feels like another eternity passes before anything happens. Eventually, they all come out and a kerfuffle erupts, ending with one of the misfits pinned to the ground by the cops, while the other miserably protests and films the scene ("He's not resisting, bro! You're getting fired for that!") People left, right and centre start filming on their phones, not just in the queue (that now looks like a blob), but from windows around the scene too. Shouts are uttered, and a general sense of adrenaline-fuelled excitement rushes through the crowd.


The queue-jumpers were just as interested
in that wedding dress


Click here and scroll through the comments to watch a video, because I do not see how to embed it.

In the meantime, it is long past 15:00, and we still have not really moved.

The weather has been variable, with a few drops, a few snowflakes, some sun rays. Fortunately, it is mostly dry, if cold. WK in particular is ill prepared, wearing just a sweater and not even a scarf.

A police van shows up, nicks the handcuffed bloke who was pinned to the ground, drives off as the other, who filmed the whole scene, scuppers, tail between his legs. The creaky shop door opens, and the "hostages" come out under a round of applause. I joke that the police are now on the same level as the NHS: unloved, unsupported, underfunded, but paid in crowd-clapping instead.



With those two mischiefs no longer around to cause mayhem, we are relieved that the queue will move at last.

It does not. 16:00 comes and goes; we have made two steps towards the front door. That is not a figure of speech.

Many pace up and down just to keep a little warmer; it helps strike up conversations. Friends come back with stories, most of which go like this: "Do you know what you are getting, once you are in?" "The limited one." "Which one is that?" "There is one for £1,000." A phone is then produced with a picture of the Caol Ila on it. It quickly feels as though at least sixty percent of the people in the queue do not know what they are queueing for. It kind of shows too: amongst the groups, mostly of Asians, are obvious wives, girlfriends, sisters, and even children in prams, who look like they walked out of a West-End musical to spend their London city trip queueing instead. Earlier, a couple of visitors from the Netherlands left the queue: one of their friends had asked them to pick up a bottle for them, and they let him know after a while that they were only in town for a few days and were not going to sacrifice one to pursue a bottle for someone else. Some are more dedicated.

Random acts of generosity are much welcome, on the other hand: MSo shares a pack of almonds, and JS visits a branch of Crosstown Doughnuts before sharing the bounty.

MSo also fetches a coffee from a local shop. He tells us how he heard the staff there talk about the queue: "They are queueing to buy the last-ever-bottled Ukrainian whisky!"

We are amused.

All that is well and swell, but we are still moving nowhere fast. With a promised closing time of 17:00, it dawns on us that we might not make it in at all: It is now 16:30, and there are still in excess of fifty people ahead of us. Quick mental calculation: there were one hundred and fifty, five hours ago. It took four-and-a-half hours to process one hundred of them. The remaining should then take two hours and fifteen minutes. That does not bode well.

The pace picks up for a bit, then it grinds to a halt again. Rumours start emerging that there is not much left to purchase.

A bearded guy sporting a cap comes out with a box full of bottles. "Yes, they still have the Caol Ila. I bought it. I'm not selling," he tells someone in the queue who may have offered to take it from him. "I'm buying, though. If you're selling, I'll buy it."


The end of the river


It is 17:40 when three customers exit and WK goes in -- alone. Up to this point, they allowed six people in at a time, operating a one-out-one-in policy. Now, and with no explanation whatsoever, it is down to one person at a time. The first customers were also offered a dram and a chat, we understand, as well as a more or less lengthy browse, delaying others getting in and resulting in there still being a healthy queue now.

WK goes and comes out. Halt again. Cameron McGeachy and Grant Macpherson come out: they have a taxi to take to the airport, now. Urgently. WK came down from his remote neck of the woods because those two were down from Campbeltown, and barely had a chance to greet them. Clearly, I will not even have that opportunity. They look mightily annoyed when they leave too. Brian Jackson, the new shop manager, recruited from the now-defunct London branch of Royal Mile Whiskies, locks the door behind them. For a while, it seems as though the shop is now closed for business, right as JS reaches the front of the queue, and I immediately behind her.

Eventually, BJ returns and allows JS in. Then it is my turn. It is 17:45. The atmosphere inside is tense. I do not feel welcome.

"What are you after," BJ asks me. "Well, what is left?" I ask. "Not much."

Allow me to point out, here, that the selection is not advertised anywhere that I can see. All this is on the back of an email announcing that one Caol Ila, a separate advertising campaign on social media about that Springbank for Ukraine, and rumours from the queue. Apparently, they released some aged Springbank, bottlings from a few months ago, when the shop was closed -- Longrows, Hazelburns and Kilkerrans -- and the most recent Local Barley. None of that is left, but one would not know if one did not know they were available in the first place.

Conscious that I am annoying more than thirty people outside who are waiting to get in, and, let me say it, at the tail end of my own patience, I dodge the opportunity to express my appreciation of this court exchange with the new manager. I give the names of two bottles which, fortunately, are still available, pay and leave. It is now 17:47.

Outside, the mob is eager to know what is left. In particular, if that "rare bottle that costs £1,000" is still there, picture at the ready, to make sure I understand which one they are talking about. Even now, almost an hour after the announced closing time of the shop, I am baffled at how desperate some people seem to be to get their hands on something they clearly cannot even name.

Well aware that the shop has a hard stop in just over ten minutes (their licence allows the sale of alcohol until 18:00 only), and no-less aware that a significant number of those still in the queue will not even make it inside in that time, I decide not to be there to witness the inevitable riot and bugger off. The bus ride home is easy and quick. Phew.

As a side note, I, like everybody I know, did go by the assumption that everything was limited to one bottle per person and self-imposed that limit, yet that was not explicitly advertised either. In hindsight, seeing the boxes others brought out, it cannot have been constrained in that fashion: at one point in the afternoon, a Tesla stopped in front of the shop and a bloke loaded five boxes of six bottles into the boot. Thirty bottles. Good for him if he can afford it; that is not the point. The point is: there were likely multiples amongst the lot; how many of those bottles were then no longer available to the seventy-or-so remaining people when he came out?

Impressions

Was it all worth it? No. Would I do it again. No. It reminded me, as if I needed it, why I do not attend Fèis Ìle. I take no pleasure in queueing for hours for dregs, thank you very much. If anything, it put me off going to that shop again.

It is frankly a miracle the kerfuffle with the two queue-jumpers was the only major mishap. Queueing on a Scottish island may be civil, courteous and good-spirited, but London has a collection of shadier characters who can spot an opportunity to cause disruption for their personal gain. It appears those things happen regularly upon release of mobile phones, watches, video-game consoles, trainers etc.

Even if we make abstraction of the fact I personally do not enjoy queueing for six hours, it is hard not to feel that the whole thing could have been handled differently. No-one ever came down the queue to explain the hold-up, the in-out policy, announce what was sold out, or even what was for sale in the first place.

It is equally hard to believe that many of these people who did queue will become loyal customers. In fact, it is hard to think that the shop sold much of the regular stock, today, and hard to imagine that they will have many customers for the rest of the month. They probably made a fortune in little time, but at what cost?

Sadly, it is almost certain many of those bottles sold today will be found on auction sites from next week onward. The only thing that was missing today were the auctioneers' vans waiting for the flippers to offload their bottles. If you think that is cynical, know that it is exactly what happens at Fèis Ìle, where the vans are next to the queues, ready to collect bottles bought sixteen seconds earlier.


And in fact...


Right. In keeping with my self-imposed discipline of never posting anything without a tasting note, it seems fitting to have some Springbank, after all that. We have it three days later, to be precise.


Two contrasted ones


Springbank 27yo 1993/2020 (51.3%, Whiskybroker for IAAS, Refill Bourbon Hogshead, C#26, 200b): nose: representative of that famous distillery, the nose has an earthy minerality to it. It is indeed a combination of fruit stones, ploughed fields and hay bales. Semi-hidden behind that is a drop of green-grape juice, adding a sweet fruitiness on what is otherwise a little austere, perhaps. In the fruit's wake is a pinch of ash and a dollop of hand cream. Unexpectedly, a couple of sniffs in, that all changes, and it is plump peaches that come to the fore, wrapped in their velvety skin. They merely announce the return of hay and ash, themselves precursors to woodier tones, such as lacquered chairs that are starting to gather patina. What a nose! A soft salinity emerges in the distance, a combination of iodine-laden air and rollmops, both equally subdued. The second nose seems to highlight the wood, and it adds freshly-dyed wool. Even later, a dash of liquid laundry detergent rocks up, which is quite the surprise. Mouth: robust and not a little rustic, projecting grape pips, toothpicks used to impale rollmops, hay bales and straw, and a dry bitterness that, for some reason, makes me think of ground flint and powdered peach stone. That is to say it just might be ashy, yet it does not have the sulphur-y or carbonated touch that one would associate with ash. Maybe soot? Some kind of dusty compound, in any case. Each sip seems dryer than the previous, reaching Muscadet levels. Sucking on rocks from a sandstone sea-cliff. Maybe someone spilled orange juice on that sandstone a week ago, leaving but a fading memory of fruit. It is dry. Finish: a tranquil force, it seems to disappear unnoticed. It is not soo, however: it simply purrs in the background until it catches the taster's attention. Then, it is an obvious powerhouse that blends the hay, fruit and fine ash to provide a comforting warmth. The second sip has a flash of honey, then swiftly mutates: now, it is burnt wax, mixed with the ashes of burnt peach stones. Further sips bring back more vivid fruit, but this is not one of those Brazilian-fruit-market drams at all -- oh! no. It is more intellectual than that. Cracking cask selection! 8/10 (Thanks for the sample, RG)


Springbank 19yo 1997/2016 (58.8%, Cadenhead Warehouse Tasting, Recharred Sherry Cask, C#606): nose: more different, this could hardly be. We have nail varnish and molten seal wax dripping from the glass, honey-glazed pineapple rings, a drop of surgical ether on baked peaches -- no! On tinned peaches that have been heated in the oven (the nuance is tiny, but important). All that before Springbank's trademark farm-y notes take off -- farmland, farm paths, muddy boots, rich soil and a shovelful of muck, sprinkled with ash. Oh! there are hessian sacks too, and Belgian White (a chalk-based floor disinfectant). Both are well distant, however. Inside the farm, breakfast is served: Weetabix. Far away, behind closed doors, yet still providing a distant note of cereal. The second nose sees firewood and sweetened latte, augmented with a dash of fruit juice, very comforting indeed. Mouth: nail varnish is first, promptly joined by dark pouring honey and metal -- a tin knife to spread the honey, no doubt. It is pretty lush on the tongue, and, if cereals are still present (honey pops), the farmyard takes a seat at the very back of the bus, if it has not entirely disappeared. The second sip has pineapple skin, freshly torn off the fruit, and an anaesthetising strength, it turns out. To call it medicinal would be a stretch, yet it absolutely has something antiseptic -- in a good way. Repeated sipping brings out a more austere facet, with bone-dry hazel and slate. Finish: !!! Where did this lovely milk chocolate come from? Out of nowhere, that is where! Ovaltine, chicory instant "coffee", lukewarm cocoa. Here too, it is augmented with a drop of fruit juice, which provides some acidity. Mind you, there is a tiny bitterness too, reminiscent of chococino. In the long run, the finish becomes dry, not quite ashy, closer to sucking on pebbles. Leafy spices come out too, combava or curry leaves, lemongrass, maybe even bay leaves, at a push. They are so diffuse and integrated that they are hard to identify. Unexpectedly, I prefer this one, today. It appears I tried it a few years ago already, but I like it more today. 9/10 (Thanks for the sample, WK)

14 September 2020

13/09/2020 Trip to Ayrshire

During the no-longer-so-recent closed distilleries tasting  the presenter observed that, if the whisky is officially bottled as Ladyburn, independent bottlers call it Rare Ayrshire.

Indeed, some do: Signatory, The Whisky Talker and The Ultimate do call it Rare Ayrshire, with the latter two probably using Signatory's stock anyway. Duncan Taylor and Gordon & MacPhail have both bottled Ladyburn under the name Ayrshire (not Rare), whilst James MacArthur has done a limited run of miniatures under the official name; it was but a re-bottling of an official bottling.

That leaves but Cadenhead and Blackadder, who both bottled Ladyburn under that name. Cadenhead probably did so before William Grant became so protective of their brands, and Blackadder tend not to give many fucks about what they are allowed or not allowed to do.


The above is so well known, these days, that (Rare) Ayrshire and Ladyburn are used almost interchangeably, outside of the legal mine field that is the label on the bottle. Case in point: as I was browsing the latest auction on the evening of 8 September, it was not even a surprise to see several lots advertised as Ladyburn-Ayrshire, alongside a brief description of the long-lost set of stills within the grain plant.

Being a ghost hunter, Ladyburn is of course a distillery I am fond of. One of the aforementioned lots had a reasonable highest bid. It was a Malts of Scotland bottling, which was interesting to me: one I have not yet tried and that is not on my shelves. I put the lowish bid down to the bottling not being well known (I did not know it, after all; I could not be the only one). I bid on it without thinking too much.

It took me several minutes to realise my mistake.

Looking a little closer, it turns out it was a 1991 distillation, bottled 2020. Ladyburn closed in 1975. Also, the cask number was on five digits. It did not add up. Looking even closer, the label read 'Single Grain'. The penny dropped.


I suddenly remembered that independent bottlers, Signatory perhaps leading the pack, had started bottling Girvan under the name Ayrshire (not Rare). Maybe William Grant asked them not to use the name Girvan any longer, now that they bottle it officially too, I do not know.

The result is that, on the market, one can now find:

  1. Ladyburn: officially-bottled Ladyburn single malt
  2. Ladyburn: officially-bottled blended malt that may contain Ladyburn single malt
  3. Ladyburn: independently-bottled Ladyburn single malt
  4. Rare Ayrshire: independently-bottled Ladyburn single malt
  5. Ayrshire: independently-bottled Ladyburn single malt
  6. Girvan: officially-bottled Girvan single grain
  7. Girvan: independently-bottled Girvan single grain
  8. Ayrshire: independently-bottled Girvan single grain
  9. Ailsa Bay: officially-bottled Ailsa Bay single Malt
  10. Images of Ayrshire: independently-bottled Ailsa Bay single malt

The lot I bid on, I thought was #5, but it was instead #8.


I immediately contacted the auction house and pointed out the confusion generated by their labelling a Girvan Ladyburn-Ayrshire. I expected nothing. After all, many auction houses tend to go to great lengths to shift the responsibility towards the bidder (what you see is what you bid on, and your bid is legally binding).

The auction ended and, of course, my bid was the highest. The previous high bidder was probably ecstatic that another absent-minded bidder saved them buying a 28yo grain whisky for the price of a 30yo Caol Ila. Especially seeing as said grain was still widely available in shops for a third of the winning bid.

I put it down to experience. Bitter experience.



Much to my relief (and surprise, let me be honest), the auction house took responsibility for the mistake the following day and cancelled the sale. For that, many thanks; it was a very professional gesture.


Clearly, I should have paid more attention and done more research. The thrill of the last-minute auction got the better of me. I was lucky, in the end: I noticed when something could still be done about the situation, and the auction house was willing to do that something to correct the situation.

With a name being used to designate so many different things, confusion is almost inevitable, even amongst the professionals, as illustrated by the above screen shot and my little tale. Vigilance is needed. Others may not take responsibility for the confusion and it may result in an expensive bottle of grain whisky indeed.


To celebrate, let us have the real thing (#3 above).


Ladyburn 20yo 1966/1987 (45.7%, Cadenhead): nose: it is bold, it is assertive, and it is welcoming. Waxy apple peel, pencil erasers, a sprinkle of dust, and old rags, crusty with dried beeswax. The nose becomes more floral shortly thereafter, with buttercups and daffodils, then geranium and tagetes (marigolds), and even more herbal tones of fresh sage and saxifrage foliage. The carousel of alternating flowers and waxes is nothing short of spectacular, really. Vine leaves, ripe plums and a drop of gentle ink complete the first nose. The plums become riper and darker over time, bordering on soaked prunes, eventually. The nose also carries something else, something discreet that may even be plasticine, rather than modelling clay or wax. Mouth: miraculously, the mouth is similar. It has plums, prunes, waxy apple peel and sweet flower nectar (daffodils, buttercups). The texture is thick and oily (extra-virgin olive oil), and there is a faint bitterness akin to when one licks a pencil eraser. The crusty rags are still there, the wax on them has lost nothing of its fragrance. The second sip sees a nutty side too, perhaps sweetened macadamia-nut paste, or cashew-nut-paste sweets (kaju katli), as well as dried fruits (dried apricots, dried figs). Every sip is chewier than the previous. The alcohol is perfectly integrated, yet maintains enough power to keep one engaged. Finish: a drizzle of milk-chocolate coulis punctuates the plums, daffodils and pencil erasers from previously. We also have waxy plants: geranium foliage, laurel leaves, schefflera leaves, and beeswax, though less of that last one than on the tongue. The dried fruits (apricots, figs, sultanas) are in the finish too, and they are well chewy, which makes for a lasting impression -- a good one. What a superlative whisky! 9/10 (Thanks for the dram, JS)

23 December 2019

22/12/2019 A story about Laphroaig

Recently, I bought a bottle of Laphroaig. The 31yo 1974/2006 OB for La Maison du Whisky, to be precise. I will not disclose the price or the seller to protect the innocents, but let us cut to the chase: it was a fake.

ruckus picked up the bottle for me from the seller's, brought it home and did some research (he is a bit of a geek too, and I suspect he wanted to find out the market rate). He warned me of the oddities he had spotted, for example the fact that the label was not smoothly glued to the glass and had some creases -- something I had noticed on the pictures the seller gave me, but that I had attributed to the Scots' occasional lack of attention to detail regarding what many north of the border still see as nothing more than a bottle of booze.

The other things were more difficult to spot on a collection of imperfect photographs. We discussed on the phone and decided we would look into it a couple of days later, when meeting at dom666's. The reason is simple: dom666 has that bottle. He bought it in 2006, when it came out, opened it immediately (as he does) and shared it (as he does). The authenticity of dom666's bottle suffers absolutely no doubt. With a side-by-side comparison, ruckus and I were confident we could put our suspicions to bed... or start crying.

As it turns out, I was about to start crying indeed.

In green, bottle #652, dom666's bottle, 100% genuine.
In red, bottle #554, my recently-acquired bottle, under scrutiny.

The shoulder label on #554 is creased

Front label of #554. Too much glue, too generously applied

#652
"1974" is shiny silver
"31" has a shadow
#554
"1974" is flat grey
"31" is solid black

Front label on #554 has a different font for "70cl e" (and a rogue space between "70" and "cl").
The paper is also a different grain

The font is different in many places.
The position of the text is different.
#652's "49.7%" has become "49,7%" on #554

"Bottle No." font on #652
"Bottle No." font on #554

Text position and font differ between #652 and #554

The back labels have rounded corners on #652, square on #554

Bottom corners of the back labels differ too -- rounded vs. square

Bottom code is "A10" on #652
Bottom code is "B23" on #554
It also does not bear the "UD" logo

Even the back-label's Grüne Punkt logos differ.
Most importantly, this shot shows the difference in colours.
On the right, #652 has spent 31 years in sherry casks and is accordingly dark.
On the left, #554 is clearly not the same juice: the bottle is full,
yet see-through

No confusion possible: bottle #554 was a fake.
If I were to venture a guess, I would say it is a 10yo Laphroaig with doctored labels. The neck/stopper seal is probably the most difficult part to believably counterfeit, and the 31yo has the same seal as the 10yo.

I spoke to the seller that very night and let him know. He was surprised and not a little annoyed at the discovery, having paid a hefty sum himself to buy it from a seller he trusted -- who, it turned out, would not accept that the bottle is a fake, despite the incriminating evidence above.

I was very fortunate that my seller agreed to take the bottle back and reimburse me, thereby avoiding complications on my end. All it cost me in the end is time, the embarrassment of sending a friend on an errand for no positive outcome, a lot of stress and a disappointment. The whole thing could have been much more unpleasant, had the seller not accepted his responsibility as a seller.
I do hope he gets compensation for his loss as well.

The morale of the story is this: whisky, in 2019, generated loads of money. It will probably go on in 2020. That attracts lots of people who want a piece of the action. Some will buy and hoard, some will buy and swap, some will buy and sell, some will make and sell counterfeits for those who are so keen to buy.
My point is not that everyone is out to rip you off. My point is that, in their quest for a return on investment, some will buy and sell things they do not fully understand. They will buy and sell things for large sums of money without being able to assess their authenticity.
Sometimes, the counterfeit is of such quality that it takes an expert to spot it. Sometimes, the counterfeit is vulgar, but the buyer lets their guard down, excited to find a bargain. Sometimes, an expert will overlook a fake bottle and mistakenly file it under the not-worth-counterfeiting category. Example: another fake once went through tOMoH's shelves, after being bought from a respectable auction house: a 30yo Strathisla bottled by Gordon & MacPhail, on which the label had obviously suffered a bit from rogue glue, and at the bottom of which the glass read: "Product of Barbados."
Ahem.

I have no advice to give, here. I feel simply obliged to call for attention and care -- nay! vigilance, when buying a bottle, especially an expensive one. Fakes do exist. And they do not only affect others.

Right. You will remember I vowed to never post anything without a tasting note, so here it is. It will not be the Laphroaig 31yo Sherry OB for La Maison du Whisky, as I do not have it. Let us have another Laphroaig for La Maison du Whisky from a Sherry cask.

Laphroaig 15yo 1998/2014 (61.6%, Signatory Vintage for La Maison du Whisky, Sherry Butt, C#700356, 554b): nose: obviously a peaty-sherry profile, with ash, petrol, lamp oil and pressed raisins. I suppose others would find it medicinal -- and indeed, it has a bit of germoline and iodine, -- but it mostly has oilskins, in my opinion. Oilskins left to bake in the summer sun for a little too long, rubbery and crackly, dusty computer cables from a forgotten 1990s box of tricks. The third sniff sees a touch of pencil erasers, watercolour and earthy tones that grow and grow; we are talking about mudflats and bogs, moss water and fresh peat. Although powerful at first sniff, the sherry influence takes a back seat rather quickly. After the first sip, the nose seems much dryer, with smoked-hard-cheese rind, burnt cherry stones and scorched earth. Mouth: woah! It is huge. Burning embers, white-hot metal, with a generous dose of exhaust fumes too. Soon, however, the sherry maturation becomes obvious again, with drinks cabinets and fortified wines aplenty (PX, Port, Madeira). Chilli-infused chocolate sauce... It does remind me of a Mexican recipe for chocolate-sauce chicken, so it would be tomato, cocoa powder and habañero chilli, maybe a couple of sultanas, thrown in for balance and burning Virginia tobacco. The chocolate note comes back, with dark pralines and chocolate-coated almonds. Finish: more subtle in the finish than the palate might have suggested, it is by no stretch of the imagination a shy whisky. Coal, chimney-sweep broom, peat reek, smoked-crab shell, smoked almonds, Brazil-nut oil and apple smoked cheese. The second sip feels softer, sweeter, with soaked raisins (soaked in mud, that is!), fresh peat, celeriac, earthy roots and all, moist tree-bark chips and smoked chocolate -- chocolate-coated smoked almonds, maybe? Well, it is not the 31yo (few things are), but it is a perfectly good dram, this! 8/10 (Thanks for the sample, OB)

31 December 2014

31/12/2014 Finishing in style -- The Old Man of Huy's ratings system

If one has more than a passing interest in whisky, one tends to rate whiskies. Two ways to look at this are why and how.

The why, you can likely work out. It helps you remember whether an experience was good or bad so you can reiterate or avoid it. It helps you decide whether to buy a whisky or not. To simplify: it helps you organise your dramming.

The how is a lot more complex. If one has been in this for long enough, one will either have adopted the prevalent ratings system (Michael Jackson's, supposedly), or will have had (heated) discussions on the matter with other enthusiasts, certain that their respective systems are better.
Of course, they are all wrong, seeing as the Old Man of Huy's method is the best. In fact, that system is so good that only the Old Man of Huy can handle it.

Before I explain this wonderful system, let us have a look at a selection of other methods.

The binary school

All is said.
Wherever there is a complex problem, trust someone to come up with a simplistic simple solution. This one is as easy as:

like not / like

In the words of a long-time SMWS member, 'I don't like this' / 'I'll have more of that.'

Pros: no waste of time, no headache.
Cons: your bottle of Tomatin 12yo is in the same category as your friend's Glenugie 1966. In other words: it lacks granularity.



The out-of-three cult

It is pretty much the binary school with room for uncertainty:

like not / leaves me cold / like

In other words, 'I spit this dram in your visage / I will finish my glass / don't put the cork back yet.'

Pros: no headache, has room for stuff you will neither enjoy, nor rave about.
Cons: still not much granularity.

The PS method

PS, a regular character on this blog, rates out of 5, including 0. My interpretation of his scale is as follows:

0 Undrinkable
1 Terrible
2 Meh
3 Good
4 Very good
5 Teh fenomenallz!!1

It all goes out the window, though, as soon as PS uses half-points, which is often. He really is an out-of-ten in denial.



Pros: manageable scale.
Cons: lacks granularity out of five, half-points are ridiculous.

The Whisky Mag style

You know Whisky Mag, of course: a periodic publication about agriculture and ornithology. Quasi-deities of the malt world such as Dave Broom and Michael Jackson have contributed to it at some point or another, often providing tasting notes for some drams. Next to the colour, nose, palate and finish, contributors give a rating out of five. And halves. And quarters, in places.

In this month's Whisky Mag...

Pros: manageable scale.
Cons: lacks granularity, quarter points? Go for /20, then!

The /20 militia

dom666's most prized possession
Having spent too much time in school, several people in my circles (led by dom666 and Psycho) insist on rating out of 20. That started during the whiskogs.com days, of course, where ratings were out of 10, and they were mostly teasing me about that. They hardly used whiskogs and even more rarely to rate anything. Still, dom666 and other heretics thought they needed the granularity of a 20-scale to rate their vast collections of Talisker 10yo from the local supermarket.

Pros: granularity at a manageable level, the last acceptable scale before silliness, familiar to everyone who has attended school.
Cons: only came about to piss me off, scale is on the verge of overkill.

The follow-the-mass hordes

A huge fraction of the world's whisky enthusiasts rate out of 100. Fact.
It is very amusing to ask those people why they do. It is as enlightening as asking a fifty-something clerk in a public function why they do this or that. The answer is inevitably, 'it is what everyone else does,' or 'it is what we've always done.' If you are lucky, you might even get a, 'this is how one does it.'

You know...

People have always died at the end of their life. That is not to say it is always the clever thing to do.
Slightly more seriously, a lot of it stems back to Michael Jackson, who single-handedly created whisky and the industry that accompanies it (sort of). In his Malt Whisky Companion, MJ rated drams out of 100. That was the first book a lot of today's authorities on the matter ever read about whisky and they adopted the scale. Of course, this refutes the fact MJ sometimes scored out of five (or 20) for other publications and that the Companion was not his first book about whisky (that honour seems to go to the World Guide to Whisky, the first book of his I read on the subject, incidentally).
But fair enough.

The biggest nonsense with it, in my opinion (which, of course, represents the universal truth), is that the scale is only fully used between 70 and above. Occasionally, a famous whiskylluminatus will drink something terrible and rate it 31/100, you know, 'just to prove the whole scale is necessary.' Really? What is the difference between 31 and 34, then? Other whiskylluminati, in their quest for the best and worst, sometimes come across something so vile it scores negative points. Indeed, a bottle of Dufftown from a wreck received a fantastic -20/100. Sort of defeats the purpose.

The next load of bollocks is how the scale is used in the upper echelon. Nothing is worth 100. We can find things that are below 0, but nothing reaches the top spot. Ever. Might as well rate out of 99, then. But even then, an 85 is an average whisky, while a 90 is supposedly stellar. And 90 vs. 91 is supposedly a much wider gap than 80 vs. 81.

The final load of rubbish is the granularity. What is the difference between 84 and 83 again? Of course, two drams might be in the same ballpark, with one better than the other. Unless you try ALL the whiskies of ALL times and rank them against each other, there is always going to be an outsider to come in between your 83/100 Bladnoch 1989 and your 84/100 Speyburn 10yo. Hundreds of thousands of bottles have come out over the eras. Even if you score out of a million, you will run into cases like that from time to time that will make you question your scale.
More exciting than a drought, though, eh?

Looks pretty exciting, though

Nah. The above is meant as tongue-in-cheek banter, but it is not for me, this one. Too popular anyway. I swim against the current, me.

Pros: everyone is using it, so it makes sense -- the gold standard.
Cons: everyone is using it, including those who don't know how to make sense of it, overkill on granularity, only the top 29% of the scale are really used, one would think each increment has the same significance, when it often does not.

Shame hat, different pershon

The Jim Murray technique

Mr. Murray, author of the yearly Whisky Bible, rates out of 100, but then uses quarter-points. If that was ridiculous on a scale of five, you can finish this sentence yourself. If Jim can accurately rate whiskies out of 400 (1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, etc. make up 400 different ratings -- try to follow), I envy his nose and palate.

Pros: sells books.
Cons: are you taking the piss?

The worshippers of the Fibonacci Sequence

This is what a drunkard looked like
in 13th century Italy
Some enthusiasts are clever. Their point here is that small differences in quality between drams do not really count. Only significant variations do. To illustrate that, the gaps between ratings are wider and wider as the sequence progresses. Also, there is no end to that sequence -- which is also smart: no matter how good that Port Ellen 1969 is, there will always be a Linkwood 1952 to beat it. No matter how good that Linkwood is, you are bound to drink something even better at some point (and by the way, it is likely to be a Bowmore).
For those who slept during math class, the Fibonacci sequence is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 etc., where each number is the sum of the two numbers immediately on its left.
Now, of course, you could drink something so vile it deserves a 1. Later on, you would try something even worse that does not qualify for a 1. Given there is no top end, one could twist the concept to take it below zero. In other words: 1, 0, -1, -1, -2, -3, -5, -8, -13 etc.

Pros: no nitpicking, no headache, granular enough, has no top end, a system so underground it can only be appealing to unconventional people.
Cons: it is not my own idea, since it has no end, this cannot be used to compare to the score of perfection (whether idealised or tangible).

The Old Man of Huy's system

I score out of 10. Why? Well, why not? It gives me the granularity I need without the use of decimals, is manageable a scale, provides my friends with teasing material, has an accessible maximum and I use all the ratings from 1 to 10. Is it infallible? Of course not! To be infallible, one would have to... No! It is simply not possible. Is it better than the others? Obviously! I came up with it, did I not?
What does it all mean, though?

1 Camel piss
2 Diluted camel piss
3 Camel piss that is diluted enough to be tolerable in pastry
4 Not good to drink
5 Vapid, dull
6 Not bad, this
7 Pour me some more
8 Where can I buy this?
9 Price does not matter
10 Quick! Another pair of trousers!

I see you coming, dear reader. You think that, by rating TWE's Lochside 1964 10/10, I have shut the door to any improvement on that.
Or you have been reading this blog for a while and noticed that sometimes, I score above ten, prompting you to think I have lost my marbles.
Wrong and wrong.

This guy was so arcore France had to build new mountains
Those who are familiar with the Tour de France will have heard of the mountains classification. 1979, on top of being a great year for Dallas Dhu, saw the advent of a new category for mountains in the Tour de France: Hors catégorie. It stands for a hill that is so tough to climb it does not fit in any of the four existing categories -- e.g. the famous Col du Tourmalet.

Well, sometimes on your whisky path, you come across a dram that is so spectacular, so mesmerising it shatters your preconceptions and does away with any scale you might have. The chicken's knee-jerk reaction is to act unfazed and quickly change your scale. The mature reaction, in my opinion (the only one that counts for me), is to acknowledge that you are experiencing one of the few instances in which some superior force is communicating with you by means of liquid gold. A whisky that defies all you thought you knew about life, the universe and everything. Something that, for a moment of bliss, opens a portal to the divine. Something that moves you so deeply that time stops. Until you wake up the next day in a puddle of ecstasy-goo with a smile on your face, thinking it might only have been a dream.
And yes, it is likely to be a Bowmore.

Let me illustrate this by tasting one dram. And since we might as well finish 2014 in style, it will not be just any dram.

Lochside 46yo d.1964 (42.1%, The Whisky Exchange, C#8970, 139b): at long last. Nose: fruit and wood. Let me see... Yellow fruit, at first (plums, apricots, Mirabelle plums, mangoes, papayas, jackfruit), then woody tones to an almost chemical level (varnish, lacquer). There is some vanilla in there, somewhere, with rhubarb compote. Yellow flowers make a late appearance with dark, juicy cherries. Mouth: finely balanced, delicate and elegant, oscillating between fruity and woody notes again. The texture is that of fruit juice, augmented with rhubarb compote -- fruity, velvety, yet slightly acidic too. Exotic fruits start to emerge at the second sip -- mango and maracuja on the front line. Finish: holy Molly! I will never tire of this. Vanilla pudding, butterscotch, rhubarb compote (insistent, today!) and custard. It is gently warming, elegant and pleasant, until... Wham! Bam! The fabled passion fruit roundhouse kick from below catches you off-guard, along with its acolytes -- mango punch and jackfruit tickle. The finish is long and leaves a creamy feel in the mouth. Fruit-bursting yoghurt. A capital dram, this, and the perfect illustration of a 10/10

The attentive reader will note I should need another pair of trousers, now. I saw it coming: I am not wearing any trousers -- HA! This whisky inevitably triggers a gigglefest at the Old Man of Huy's. Today is no exception. I will miss that bottle, now it is empty.

Happy New Year!