stats:
Scapa 14 Year: Single Malt Scotch, Islands,
40.0%, $40
Scapa 16 Year: Single Malt Scotch, Islands,
40.0%, $74
My attention was drawn to the nearly depleted bottle of
Scapa 14 Year languishing on the back of my whisky shelf when I mentioned the
distillery in my Ledaig 10 Year post about a month ago. Not long after that I
was trying to decide which single malts to get my father for Christmas. And
then it came to me; if I got him the newer Scapa 16 Year we could have a little
post-holiday, side-by-side tasting of the two.
Located on Orkney’s Mainland (the largest island of the
archipelago collectively known as the Orkney islands), the Scapa distillery
lies just a half a mile south of Highland Park which is Scotland’s northernmost
distillery.
There was a time when most of the whisky produced at Scapa
went to blends; Ballentine’s being the main recipient. But in recent years they
have been putting more emphasis on promoting their single malt and seem to be
making an effort to step out from the shadow of their much more well-known
neighbor to the north. According to their website, only a minimal amount of
Scapa goes to blenders these days.
When Alfred Barnard visited in 1886 (the year after the
distillery was built) he noted that the malt kiln was “heated with peat in the
ordinary manner”. The distillery stopped using their traditional floor maltings
in 1962 and has been buying unpeated malt since then. It is likely that the
peat level was reduced (perhaps gradually) somewhere between 1886 and 1962, as
I’ve seen references to bottlings of Scapa from the early 1960’s that were only
mildly smoky.
While the more modern bottlings are made from unpeated malt,
they do all have a heathery / peaty (but not in a smoky way) character that is
said to come from the source water which is piped in from springs that are more
then half a mile from the distillery. The water originates on the local
hilltops, percolates through sandstone and then passes through a layer of
“live” peat (I assume this means the organic material is still going through
the process of decaying) before being drawn off to the distillery.
The distillery was purchased by Hiram Walker & Sons in
1954, and that is likely when it became a major component in the Ballantine’s
blends, which had been under Hiram Walker ownership since 1937. Later changes
of ownership at Scapa have been the result of larger acquisitions rather than
the distillery itself being sold. Hiram Walker & Sons was taken over by
Allied Domecq in 1987, and they were subsequently bought out by Pernod Ricard
in 2005.
As I’ve said many times before, the 1980’s were a tough time
for the Scotch industry. Many distilleries were lost in that decade, and the
repercussions were still being felt in the 1990’s with several distilleries mothballed
for many years and teetering on the brink of extinction while others closed
forever.
A victim of the times, Scapa fell silent in 1994. Production
did resume in 1997 on a limited basis, with the crew from Highland Park coming over to breath life into
the place for about one month each year. This may have been to fulfill
contracts with blenders or simply to give the equipment and annual workout to
keep it from falling into a state of total disrepair.
Finally, in 2004, the prognosis for the industry was good enough
for the owners to embark on a program of extensive refurbishment. Full
production resumed in November of that year. The distillery was shut down again
in April of 2005, but only briefly as the second phase of the renovations
commenced. Later that year Allied Domecq was acquired by Pernod Ricard, but the
distillery owner is often listed as Chivas Brothers as they are the subsidiary
of Pernod Ricard that is in charge of the company’s Scotch whisky and premium
gin holdings.
As for official distillery bottlings, Scapa has largely been
a one-horse show. For many years their only bottling was a 12 Year old at 40%
abv. Toward the end of 2004 the 12 Year was discontinued, giving way to a new
14 Year old, also at 40%. Late in 2008, that 14 Year was replaced by the new 16
Year, which retains the same alcohol level. For a time in the early 90’s there
was also a 10 Year old at 43% abv, but that was only available in a 1 liter
format and sold exclusively in Duty Free outlets. There was also a 25 Year old
Cask Strength at 54% abv which came out in 2005, but that was a limited release
of just 2000 bottles.
Scapa is certainly not the only distillery that has had to
work through a gap in their whisky stocks caused by a period of closure and/or
limited production lasting upwards of 10 years. Other recent examples include
Ardbeg, Bruichladdich and Benromach. There are several ways to deal with the
issue. Limited edition releases of young whisky and no-age-statement vattings
of young and old whisky have been two common solutions. Distillers that feature
a lineup with a range of age statements will usually drop one or two at a time
and bring them back eventually as the gap works past those ages. In some cases
the age on the label remains the same but the whisky in the bottle gets older.
Ardbeg is said to have done this with their much-loved 17 Year in order to keep
loyal fans from thinking they had to switch to an older version that they may
not be as fond of. I’ve heard that the 17 Year was well over 20 years old by
the time it was dropped from the lineup.
Scapa 14 Year
color - pale straw
nose - floral (heather) with a hint of vanilla and a malty
background
palate - grassy / floral, with subtle heathery peat notes.
the malty / biscuit-like core adds some weight
finish - soft and gentle, of moderate length
Scapa 16 Year
color - light brownish amber
nose - same malty background and hint of vanilla, but a
little less floral and a bit more fruit forward
palate - a bit more robust on the palate, with the grassy
floral and heathery peat notes taking more of a backseat to increased fruit
(dark berry / cherry) and just slightly more oak as the maltiness remains about
the same
finish - slightly more bold, with a bit more heat and it
goes a little further
First I’ll mention that they are both well made single malts
with no obvious flaws, but my personal preference does lean toward the flavor
profile of the 16 Year. Beyond that, my initial reaction was that these two
were surprisingly different from each other. It may not be a “night and day”
difference, but it is quite noticeable and more than I would expect from just
two additional years of aging (that extra two years represents a mere 14.3%
increase in aging time). I suspect that the 14 Year is aged primarily (if not
entirely) in Bourbon barrels and that a significant proportion of the 16 Year
has been aged in Sherry casks.
A look at the Scapa website revealed some interesting
information. A page detailing the process notes that all of the spirit is
filled into Bourbon casks. In another place they talk about the 14 Year being
replaced by the 16 Year and mention that it has seen “an extra two years in
first fill American oak casks”. My theory about the 16 Year having a Sherry
cask component may seem shaky, but I’m not ready to give up on it yet. You
can’t take everything on a distiller’s website as gospel; it is after all a
tool to paint an image of the brand.
The statement that all of the spirit goes into bourbon casks
may be true today, but that doesn’t mean it has always been that way. In a
historic section of the website, the son of a former Scapa distillery worker
talks about stenciling fill volumes onto butts and hogsheads in the 1930’s and
a photo from the late 1940’s shows a cask labeled with a fill volume of 109.
That would have been Imperial gallons at the time, which equals 495 liters.
Clearly the casks in the photo are butts. 250 liter Hogsheads and 500 liter
butts are the domain of Sherry, while Bourbon is always stored in smaller 200
liter barrels.
As for the statement about the 16 Year spending two more
years in American oak, that does not necessarily mean Bourbon barrels. Oak
trees are much more plentiful in North America than Europe
and many Sherry casks (perhaps the majority of them) are now made from American
oak. With a little more digging I was able to find a listing for a 1993 Scapa
bottled by Gordon and Macphail which was aged in refill sherry casks. We now
know that the distillery had a long history of using sherry casks and was still
using them to some extent when they started distilling the spirit that would
eventually become the 16 Year old.
Next I want to look at how the age statements and release
dates line up with the distillery closure. Keep in mind that the whisky in the
bottle can be older than the stated age on the label, but never younger. I was
able to find an independent bottling of Scapa that was distilled in the spring
of 1994, and I also uncovered a reference to the Highland Park crew operating Scapa for four
weeks in late June / early July, during their maintenance shutdown. This
happened annually starting in 1997, so we know the actual production gap lasted
for just about three years.
The 12 Year was discontinued at the end of 2004, so it would
have been distilled late in 1992 or earlier. They switched over to the 14 Year
at that point and it was produced until late in 2008. That whisky would have
been distilled from the end of 1990 through the closure in mid 1994 (assuming
that the whisky in the bottle wasn’t much older than the age on the label).
The timing of the 16 Year is where things get interesting.
It was first released late in 2008 (their website says 2008 on one page and
2009 on another, that former is correct) and was still being bottled at the end
of 2013. That would put its range of distillation dates at late 1992 through
the end of 1997, right across the three year closure.
There are two likely scenarios. They could have set aside
enough casks from the second half of 1993 and first half of 1994 to get them
through three years and just kept bottling progressively older whisky while
keeping the 16 year age statement on the bottle, until mid 2013 when the
distillate from 1997 reached the proper age. Or, they could have taken that
allotment of casks from the last year before the closure and, once they reach
16 years, dumped them into large stainless steel tanks and bottle from them
over the next three years. It’s basically the same thing, but the latter method
will produce a more consistent product.
When they switched from the 12 Year to the 14 Year the price
remained the same, in the $35 to $40 range. The release of the 16 Year saw a
big jump, going up to the $70 to $80 range. I think this was done to temper
demand as they knew that the last year of production before the closure would
be spread over four years of sales (16 Year sold from mid 2009 through mid 2013)
and for the next seven years after that the 16 Year would come from just four
weeks worth of annual production. Perhaps the addition of some available sherry
cask whisky was an effort to change the flavor profile and make the consumers
feel like they were getting something for the big price hike.
I think we will see the 16 Year carry on for many years to
come. If it does, it will be interesting to see if the sherry cask component is
eventually phased out of it. Since full production resumed in November of 2004
I think the 16 Year will be joined by a 10 Year at the end of this year, or a
12 Year at the end of 2016, either of which should be more modestly priced.
No comments:
Post a Comment