Side by Side Single Malt Tasting – Episode #1: Laphroaig Triple Wood + Scapa 16 + Bowmore 12

scapaSometimes it’s fun to take a wee nip from several bottles of single malt one after the other to accentuate the differences between them. I’ve done it many times and it often reveals something new in a single malt I’ve tasted many times before but on its own. Today I’ve chosen randomly from my cupboard: Bowmore 12, Scapa 16 (both at 40% alcohol) and Laphroaig Triple Wood (at 48%). I thoroughly enjoyed the burt wood peatiness of the Laphroaig. I have it decanted down to a 100ml bottle now and it doesn’t pack the same peaty punch it did earlier in the bottle, but it’s still a respectable dram. The Scapa 16 has been a disappointment. I tried it at a whisky show a few years ago and couldn’t get over its smooth honey and heathery flavour, a highly unusual and delightful dram. Since I got my own bottle, though, it doesn’t seem like anything exceptional, not at all other-worldly like it did at the whisky show. I picked up the Bowmore 12 a while back because I tried it at a friend’s place one night and found it pleasantly sweet and smooth. But it too seems unremarkable now that I have my own bottle of it. I’m not sure what’s happening there, but regardless, that’s a quick summation of my take on these single malts at this moment in time. So here goes. I’ll end with the Laphroaig because I know the peat will overpower everything else.
Continue reading Side by Side Single Malt Tasting – Episode #1: Laphroaig Triple Wood + Scapa 16 + Bowmore 12

Canadian Cask of Dreams: Single Malt Review

Another bottle of single malt scotch I’ve had opened in my cupboard for about a year is the Canadian Edition of Glenfiddich’s “Cask of Dreams” from 2012. $100 in Canada for the proper 750ml bottle, 48.8% alcohol, no age statement but supposedly no less than 14 years old. Limited to 20 casks, I bought a second bottle as an investment. So in ten years it’ll be worth $150 instead $100.

The whiskey spent its final three months in new American Oak casks and it’s not difficult to taste the young wood on the nose and palate. Chew on a leaf from an oak tree and sip some strong Darjeeling tea and this what you’d get. I’m probably not selling it well with that description, but it’s not bad. It’s a fairly well-aged quality scotch. It’s just a little sharp at first. I enjoyed the new wood smell of it and a few sips of it neat, but it needs some water. I went with maybe two teaspoons.

It’s a spicy single malt, no smoke, not much earthiness, a dry unsweetened baker’s chocolate feel on the tongue, curiously pleasant because of that unusual fresh oak influence that seems to give it a long almost clove-like finish. I liked it more on the nose than the tongue. The first few drams weren’t much different than the last few drams I got from the bottle. It didn’t open up much with water or time. Maybe a little more sweeter, but not much complexity. Was it worth my $100? Nope. But I would offer it up to friends because, although it’s not great, it’s interesting. I’ll give it that.

P.S.: As with most quality single malts, I could change my mind about this one (I still have a few drams left in a small decanting bottle), but my one-year-long overall impression boils down to yes, it’s an usual scotch, pleasant enough, though not quite in the realm of spectacular for my tastes.

First Impressions of Singleton 12 and Amrut Fusion

amrutA malt mate of mine, Peaty Paterson, sent me two 50ml plastic bottles of single malt that were poured from regular sized bottles, both unfortunately poured from the bottom of the bottles, which means the whiskies in the sample bottles were bereft of the fresh aromas and flavours that usually accompany a newly opened bottle. Sampling the heavily oxidized dregs at the bottom of the bottle is not a fair way to sample any single malt. Pouring the single malt into plastic bottles instead of glass doesn’t help either. But that’s what I’ve got, so bear with me…

First up is the Singleton 12 (of Glendullan) bottled at 40% alc. First impression: Nothing special. Not much complexity. Too bad it’s so oxidized. This sample tastes old and a bit flat. If I stick my nose deep in the glass, I pick up some sherry and citrus, a distant similarity to Aberfeldy 12 but not as smooth or rich. Not much happening in the palate or the finish. No exceptional smoke or peat. For complexity, it’s in the Glenlivet 12 territory but I’d probably think better of it if I wasn’t tasting the bottom of the bottle. Judging from this first impression, even though the sampling isn’t ideal, I wouldn’t seek it out.

Moving on to bottle #2: Amrut Fusion, a single malt whisky from India bottled at 50% alc. What the hell is that on the nose? I imagine it would pack a punch if the sample was taken near the top of the bottle. What a shame. An odd mix of beef barley soup and flowers. Maybe oak? None of the rounded sweetness I get from sherry, but not harsh. It’s sharp on the tongue but it doesn’t burn. I don’t know what I’m tasting. Unsweetened baker’s chocolate and cognac? A spicey but smooth finish. Lingers on the tongue. It just stays there and then takes on a roasted chestnut flavour. A splash of water opens up the nose, more floral, still nutty, smooth spice. Gets better in the glass after 15 or 20 minutes, more rounded sensations. I wouldn’t pay top dollar for Amrut Fusion just yet, but I like it.

NOV. 18/13: I picked up a bottle of Amrut Fusion a while back and it’s not as smooth or as complex as the dram I first sampled. It’s not bad, but even after getting half way down the bottle, it doesn’t seem to have the same barley soup and roasted chestnut flavour I noticed before. At 50% alcohol, perhaps I need to keep the bottle uncorked for a couple hours to mellow it out. I’ve tried it with varying amounts of water and I can’t get it to open up much. Strange and disappointing.

JAN. 30/15: I had some more Amrut Fusion last night. It still seems to lack the barely soup flavour it had the first time I tried it, but it’s not as disappointing as it was before. I added more water this time and left it for about ten minutes to open up. The nose was almost like apple cider. Although it lacked complexity, the flavour was slightly sweet and smooth. It’s a quality single malt.

Lagavulin 16, a Significant Drop in Quality

lagavulinAt first I thought my taste buds were changing, that for whatever reason my palate was no longer sensitive to the aromas and flavours of smoke and peat. I’ve recently acquired an unexpected and entirely pleasant appreciation for non-peaty, sherry influenced Highland and Speyside single malts, so temporarily losing a preference for peat in my scotches seemed reasonable. The earthy Islay scotches were my first love and have been my preferred scotches for years, especially Lagavulin 16 which I recently referred to as the king of kings and the holiest of holies, the earthiest, peatiest, smokiest of scotches, smooth and warm. But not anymore. I’m not sure what’s happened to Lagavulin 16 in recent years, but it’s not good.

I picked up a bottle of Lagavulin 16 a couple months ago that I would not have recognized as Lagavulin if it was given to me blind. It tasted like the bottle had been left open for a month and the scotch slightly diluted. It didn’t have the big blast of smoke and peat that I’ve come to expect from Lagavulin 16. The finish seemed weak, not at all complex, none of the delayed warmth and peatiness rising up that I’ve experienced every time from Lagavulin 16 in the past. For the first time since I discovered single malt scotch, I’m disappointed with Lagavulin 16.

A nice dram of it will open up after a while with a small splash of water, but even then it’s nowhere near as smooth and warm as it used to be. It even burns a bit and Lagavulin 16 never used to burn. I’m not sure if I got a bad batch, but from what I can gather from other comments on whiskey forums, Lagavulin 16 has dropped significantly in quality in recent years. If the bottle I have is any indication, current bottlings of Lagavulin 16 should be avoided. It’s not what used to be and it’s certainly not worth the price they’re asking ($101 at my local store).

I’ll have to get my peat fix from Laphroaig and Ardbeg for now on.

Glenfiddich 12 vs 15

I recently bought some Lagavulin 16 which has always been the king of kings and the holiest of holies for me, the earthiest, peatiest, smokiest of scotches, smooth and warm — but I was underwhelmed. The big blast of smoke and peat I’ve come to expect from Lagavulin was gone. It was as if the bottle had been left open for a month and diluted. Is it possible I got a bad bottling of Lagavulin? A huge disappointment.

My current #1 single malt scotch experience is the honey and vanilla smoothness of Aberfeldy 21. I had the impression that sherry was the dominate flavour but apparently that’s vanilla I’m tasting. The jury is still out on that one. Whatever it is, I love it because it’s opening my appreciation for the non-peaty scotches like Glenfiddich 12, a scotch I never expected to get into. I sampled the Glenfiddich 12 and was so impressed that I decided to go for the Glenfiddich 15. After reading mostly favourable reviews and watching Ralphy’s review of the 15, I expected to like it even more than than 12…

…but I don’t. If the Glenfiddich 12 is like biting into a big block of milk chocolate, then Glenfiddich 15 is like biting into an orange with the peel still on it. Perhaps the Glenfiddich 15 is part of a scotch family that I just don’t get yet. I don’t know.

The 15 is solera matured and I’m pretty that’s why it doesn’t work for me. The solera process more or less siphons off older whiskey during maturation and replaces it with younger whiskey, supposedly to create a marriage of flavours that keeps the whiskey fresh and spicy. It’s not a bad whiskey, but I can tell I don’t like spicy. The 12 has a slight bite but warms while it goes down. The 15 burns compared to the 12. The 12 has a sweet softness in the mouth and a slightly delayed old oak, aromatic sherry finish. (I appreciate any scotch that hits me with a delayed pleasant after taste.) The 15 has a sharp citrus delivery, overwhelming the sherry that barely makes it through to the finish. The 12 smells like an old musky log cabin where someone’s baking a chocolate cake. The 15 smells more like sap, though there’s a touch of sweetness hiding in the corner. I’m sure there’s more complexity to the 15 if you reach for it, but it doesn’t register on my palate. The Glenfiddich 15 seems only slightly more exceptional than, say, a Glenlivet 12.

A 750ml bottle of Glenfiddich 12 is $44 at my local store. The Glenfiddich 15 year old Solera is $56.

UPDATE (March 22/13): I had more of the 15 last night and it was a different experience. None of the citrus burn was present in the nose or palate. That seemed to allow room for a soft sherry sweetness to seep through, much like the 12. I’ll have to remember to hold off on judging a single malt until after I’ve let the bottle breathe a bit. I had a similar experience with a Glenlivet 18. The whiskey left a hard liquor burn on the tongue when I first opened the bottle, but it smoothed out considerably after about a week and three or four drams had been removed. I’ll update again after I’ve given the 15 another go.

UPDATE (June 25/13): I didn’t think I would buy another bottle of the Solera 15, and I haven’t, but it’s not at all a bad scotch, definitely one I’d be glad to try again (and I’m pretty sure I’d would choose it over the unusual though not complex Canadian “Cask of Dreams” Glenfiddich). My first impression of the 15 wasn’t exactly a glowing review, but I’ve since learned that most single malts open up significantly after four or five solid drams have been removed from the bottle and that is clearly the case here. The Solera doesn’t have a long complex warming finish, but the nose is sharp and sappy yet sweet and deep, so pleasant that I want to keep smelling it. In the mouth, I taste toffee and fruit and fresh wood that melts into the tongue without burning. I understand now why Ralphy likes it so much.