Glenfarclas 25yr

stats: single malt scotch, Speyside, 86 proof, $110

Well, so much for my vow to update the blog at least once a week. It’s been a hectic, stressful month, and I don’t like to force a post when I’m feeling uninspired – the quality just isn’t there. And, I’m diverting from my plan to alternate between writing about the whisk(e)y laws of various countries and reviews of related whiskies. Why? Because the motivation to write has come upon me in the form of a bottle of 25yr Glenfarclas.

Glenfarclas is one of the few independent single malt distilleries left in Scotland, and has been owned by the same family since 1865. It caught my attention a few years ago when I noticed favorable reviews in Michael Jackson’s Complete Guide To Single Malt Scotch, and some very reasonable prices. I’ve been fortunate to sample the 21yr, 17yr, Cask Strength and 12yr since then, and my latest acquisition is the 25yr. Many Scotch fans are unaware of Glenfarclas due to a minimal investment in marketing. Of course, that allows them to keep prices low even though the quality is stunning across their line. By contrast, the heavily marketed Macallan has their 25yr priced at $600 a bottle.

The nose is dense and chewy, with malty aromas. On the palate it is unexpectedly fiery up front, but backed up with lengthy flavor development. This is a rich, viscous Scotch, with the longest finish that I’ve experienced in a whisky that isn’t at cask strength and/or heavily peated. It has great density with a balanced interplay of malt, oak and sherry influences. It manages to come across as being sophisticated, while at the same time retaining plenty of backbone. This bottle may evaporate a bit more quickly than many of the others in my collection.

White Whiskey

stats: Death's Door - white whiskey, 80 proof, aged 3 days, $30

        Georgia Moon - corn whiskey, 80 proof, aged less than 30 days, $10

First a brief correction of what I wrote last week. Under U.S. law, certain types of whiskey cannot be distilled above 160 proof, but distillates of grain are considered to be whiskey up to 190 proof. At or above 190 proof it becomes “neutral spirits” (of which vodka is a sub category).

On to the white whiskey. Un-aged whiskey has many nicknames – hooch, white dog, white lightening, new make, etc. This used to fall mostly into two categories, illegal moonshine and tasting samples of what comes off the stills at large commercial distilleries given during tours, neither of which you’d find in a retail store. Corn whiskey (sort of the legal relative of moonshine) must be made from at least 80% corn, and requires no aging but it can be aged in un-charred oak barrels. It has been around for a while, but was traditionally hard to find outside of the southern markets. It has become more widely available in recent years. Other un-aged whiskeys have popped up in recent years with the boom in micro-distilling as these new companies try to turn a profit in the early years before their aged whiskeys are ready to go to market.

Death’s Door is a white whiskey from Wisconsin, made from 80% wheat and 20% malted barley. It is distilled to 160 proof, and finished in un-charred oak barrels for 3 days. I like that the bottle has sort of an ominous look that made my mother stop and say “Death’s Door, what the hell is that?” when she saw it sitting on the coffee table.

The nose is quite intense - it is unique, but hard to describe. I guess a combination of floral and perfumey aromas is the best I can do. Nosing a wheated bourbon that I have on hand, I do detect similar aromas. But they are more background notes, barely able to stand out among the heavier wood/leather/vanilla scents imparted by the oak. On the palate there doesn’t seem to be much up front until you swallow it, then there is a quick explosion of flavor. It is similar to the nose, but with a fruit component too, perhaps apple. As the flavor recedes, a bit of a burn builds. As the burn slowly fades, a mostly perfumey finish emerges and lingers on for some time. In spite of the burn, it is fairly smooth overall. I bought this bottle in my quest to sample all things whiskey. I do like it, and not just because it is interesting and unique, I just enjoy drinking it. But I do have to admit, I would probably reach for an aged whiskey first most of the time.

 The Georgia Moon definitely has a sharper, more industrial nose to it. The aromas from the Death’s Door are more intense, but also far more pleasant. On the palate, it’s not quite as bad as the nose might lead one to believe, but still not too impressive. The flavors are somewhat restrained (which is good, because they are kind of weird). It starts off with floral and grain notes that are almost acceptable, then becomes reminiscent of some sort of wax candy. It goes through a bit of a burn before the long finish sets in. I usually love a long finish, but when the flavor is undesirable (similar to the nose in this case), it becomes a burden. I would avoid this headache in a bottle unless you enjoy using peer pressure to make your friends drink unpalatable liquids from a mason jar.

Whiskey Laws

First an apology to anyone who follows this blog regularly. It has been my intention to put up new posts at least once a week, twice if possible. Updates have not been that frequent over the last few weeks, but hopefully I can be a little more consistent from here on out.

I know that when I did the Whistle Pig review, I said I would go over the differences between American and Canadian whiskey regulations next time around. But as I started in on the research, I got a little overwhelmed and realized it would be better lay out some basic definitions, then take one country at a time. Once I've covered the five major whiskey producing nations, I'll do an overview and highlight the differences between them. I'll alternate with reviews to keep it interesting as well. Also, keep in mind that whiskeys are made in certain ways sometimes by laws and regulations, and sometimes just by tradition. I'll try to differentiate as I go along.

I should really start with the most basic definition - whisk(e)y: a distilled spirit made from grain (basically beer which has had its alcohol concentrated by a still). Barley, corn, wheat and rye are the most common grains found in whiskey production, but really any grain can be used to make whiskey. Some people might ask "Belvedere is vodka and it's made from wheat, what's the difference?". The logical answer is that it's not whiskey because it's not aged in oak barrels. And that is the wrong answer. Most whiskeys are aged in oak, sometimes by law, sometimes by tradition, but not by definition. White (unaged) whiskeys do indeed exist. What is important is the level to which the spirit is distilled. A vodka (which can be made from anything fermentable, including grain) will be distilled to a very high proof, up around 190. But a whiskey will typically not be distilled above 160 proof. Sometimes this is by law, sometimes it is tradition, but it is part of the basic definition of whiskey. At a maximum of 80% alcohol, whiskey will retain much of the flavor and character of the grain it was originally made from. Vodka on the other hand has almost all of the flavor and aroma literally distilled out of it, reaching 95% alcohol before water is added back to it when it is bottled. Why is this done? Well, vodka was originally made from the cheapest possible ingredients (potatoes, etc) and tasted so bad that it made sense to distill the flavor out of it. In fact it was still so awful tasting that people added botanicals (like Juniper) to it to mask the flavor, making gin (which is really the original flavored vodka). So, you can probably see why I have no respect for vodka in general, and especially expensive ones that start with quality ingredients. While I'm covering basic definitions, I should go over the other distilled spirits as well. Tequila comes from the Agave plant (commonly mistaken for a cactus, the plant is a succulent, more closely related to yucca). Rum is made from sugar (cane sugar, molasses, sugar beets, etc). Brandy is made from fruit (most commonly grapes, and certain types of brandy, such as Cognac, can only be made from grapes).

Another item to take note of is the still. There are two types, the pot still and the column still (sometimes known as the continuous still for its method of operation, sometimes known as the Coffey still for one of its inventors). The pot still is the original method and works in a batch process. A vessel is loaded with an alcoholic liquid and heated. The alcohol evaporates first, and passes out through a tube at the top of the vessel. Once it cools, the alcohol (along with some other liquid) re-condenses in a separate container, and is now concentrated away from the liquid left in the still. For most whiskeys, this process is run through two or three times (double distilled, triple distilled). The column still, which was invented close to 200 years ago, is a little more complicated, and I won't go into the details of how one works. It operates on a continuous process - as long as steam and alcoholic liquid keep being pumped into it, concentrated alcohol and waste liquid (water from the steam and the liquid the alcohol was separated from) will continue to come out. The column still is more efficient, especially when producing highly concentrated alcohol (such as vodka, or denatured alcohol). The pot still has a greater mystique, and many believe it to produce a better product. That may be partly because the column still seems more industrial, and its operation is harder to understand. But at the end of the day, quality whiskey can be made from either type of still. In recent years, with craft (or micro) distilling growing rapidly, hybrid stills that are a combination of pot and column have become popular too.

Whistle Pig

stats: 100% Rye Whiskey (distilled and aged in Canada, bottled in the US), 100 proof, 10 year, $70.

In 2009 Raj Bhakta, an American entrepreneur from Pennsylvania, bought a 500 acre farm in Vermont. He soon realized that the best way to turn a profit was to take the agricultural output of the farm and create a finished product from it which could be sold for a much higher price. Being a whiskey lover, he chose to grow rye on the farm, and distill it into whiskey, with the lofty goal of being a single estate distillery (producing whiskey only from the grain grown on the farm). Shorty after the purchase, Raj was introduce to Dave Pickerell, former Maker's Mark master distiller of 14 years. The two decided to collaborate on the project, and a business partnership was begun. Of course quality whiskey has to age for quite some time, and no one wants to own a business that doesn't sell anything for several years. In this situation, there are two paths that can be taken: start off making unaged products like vodka and gin, or source aged whiskey from larger distillers to sell in the near term. Raj and Dave chose the later, and with Dave's industry connections, he was able to source some fine 100% Rye out of Canada. So, technically this is Canadian Whiskey which is bottled in the US, which brings up an interesting point - the US and Canada have different definitions of Rye Whiskey. By US law, to be called Rye it must have at least 51% Rye in it, but in Canada, a whiskey can have very little Rye, and still legally be called Rye. I don't want to go off on a huge tangent, so I'll follow this post in a few days with one that covers the differences (technical and legal definitions) between American and Canadian Whiskey.

One obvious question is, can you buy this or something like it in Canada? The answer is not really. The 100% Rye from Canada is what they refer to as a flavoring whiskey. A tiny percentage of it is added to the fairly pedestrian base of something like Canadian Club or Crown Royal to give it a backbone of flavor. Sure, the Canadians could sell this on its own, but that's just not what they do. It is simply outside of the range of what they normally sell. The next obvious question is, what is a whistle pig? It's just another name for a groundhog, for a sound it sometimes makes. After an amusing encounter with a Frenchman in Vermont, Raj decided to name his farm and his whiskey after the critter.

Okay, enough of my ramblings, on to the whiskey. Rye is a spicy spirit by nature, and this is a big intense one. Sometimes it's hard for me to identify individual flavors, but most Rye whiskeys have a unique but common profile of spice flavors. Also, a typical Bourbon will have somewhere between 10% and 40% rye, so they can taste similar. But at 100% rye, and 100 proof, the Whistle Pig is all about the Rye flavors. The nose has dry spice notes with floral hints. On the palate it seems mild up front, but don't be fooled, the flavor grows rapidly with an explosion of fiery spice which quickly builds in layers of intensity. The classic rye flavors eventually reache a crescendo of mouth numbing proportions. Then the long finish tapers off pleasantly and slowly. A light floral hint runs through the background. What it lacks in complexity, it makes up for in depth and intensity.

Canadian Club 6 yr vs Canadian Club 10 yr

stats: Canadian Club 6 yr - blended Canadian Whisky, 80 proof, $15

           Canadian Club 10 yr - blended Canadian Whisky, 80 proof, $17

I know that when I did my Crown Royal roundup a few weeks ago, I said there were no other Canadian whiskies that I really even considered. Most of them get lumped into the unfortunate category of "brown vodka". But in 2008 Canadian Club celebrated its 150th anniversary with a limited release 30 yr old bottling. While it wasn't something that I'd pick up on a whim at $150 a bottle, when Malt Advocate declared it the 2009 Canadian whisky of the year, I certainly took notice. After observing that the standard CC caries an age statement of 6 years, and that a 10 year can be had for just a few dollars more, I decided to give the two a try and see if there was anything here worthy of my attention.

I was pleasantly surprised when I tasted the two. While I certainly wouldn't regard them as great whiskies, they were far better than I expected, especially when you consider their price point. The 10 year is balanced with enticing notes of teaberry and gingerbread and an oaky background. Not a lot of complexity, but still quite pleasant with a respectable finish. The 6 year has a similar flavor profile, but lacks the depth and character of the 10 year. While there's nothing seriously wrong with the 6 year, it just comes across as a meek version of the 10 year. These aren't whiskies that I would get terribly excited about or go out of my way to purchase, but I do have a good bit more respect for them than before this tasting. Given the minimal price difference between the two, I would reach for the 10 year every time.

I've noticed that CC also makes a 12 year and a Sherry Cask version, both of which are in the $20 range. Now I'm very curios to see how those compare to the 10 year. Definitely fodder for a future review.

 

Tiny Bottles

I guess it goes without saying that I’m obsessed with whiskey, and I’m on a mission to taste any that are new to me. But buying more 750ml bottles than I could possibly drink gets expensive, and it’s getting harder to find bars that carry whiskeys that I’ve never had before. This has brought about my infatuation with small format whiskey bottles. Sadly, their rarity can rival that of Unicorns. They seem to go in and out of availability quickly, so I always snap them up when I stumble upon them. The four most common sizes are 50ml, 100ml, 200ml and 375ml. The 50ml (standard nip size) is too small for me to sample on two or three occasions, as I like to do. The 375ml seems to be the domain of mainstream whiskeys and special limited production items. With something like the Buffalo Trace Experimental Collection, where a limited number of barrels may only produce a few thousand bottles, it makes sense to use the 375ml format and double the number of bottles available to curious consumers. Often, the little bottles are bundled into sample packs. While I’m happy to find anything new and unique in a small bottle, the 100ml and 200ml bottlings are what I’m really after. So far my finds have included the 200ml Walker Blue, a trio of 200ml Bruichladdich bottlings (10yr, 15yr, 17yr), a trio of 50ml bottles from the Balvenie (10yr Founders Reserve, 12yr Double Wood, 15yr Single Barrel), a sampler pack of four 100ml offerings from Glenmorangie (The Original, The Nectar d’Or, The Quinta Ruban, The Lasanta), a three pack of Glenrothes 100ml’s (Select Reserve, 1998 Vintage, 1985 Vintage), and nips of Jim Beam Rye, Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel, and Gentleman Jack. The ones that are known to exist but have eluded me thus far: the Talisker 200ml trio (10yr, 18yr, Distiller’s Edition) and a variety of Glenrothes 100ml trios of different vintages. I’m sure others are out there, but like I said, they tend to come and go. So, be sure to buy any of these little gems as you come across them.

William Larue Weller

stats: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, 125.3 proof, no age statement, $60

Buffalo Trace is the largest, most progressive bourbon distiller in the U.S. The company sells whiskey under countless brands, many of which have been acquired through the company's history. Some of the brands are a joint venture, where Buffalo Trace has a partial ownership, and some of the brands may be distilled under contract. Since 2000, the company has put out an annual release of a series of whiskeys called the Antique Collection. William Larue Weller is the barrel proof, wheated bourbon of the lineup (which has changed a bit over the years), along with the Sazerac 18 yr Rye and Thomas H. Handy Rye reviewed below, and the Eagle Rare 17 yr and George T. Stagg bourbons.

In the 1970's, the bourbon industry essentially collapsed, and while it has made a tremendous comeback in recent years, worldwide demand is still somewhat weak relative to supply. Which is good, because it means bourbon is a tremendous value (unlike Scotch, which has seen prices skyrocket over the last five years). But there has also been an effort in the bourbon industry to keep prices from rising too much, which will certainly help maintain a steady future growth of the brand. The downside is that some products are released on an allotment, or only to certain core markets. The Antique Collection is a prime example of this situation, being released in limited quantities mid October every year, in most locations it is sold out in a matter of weeks. These are special whiskeys, aged many years in the finest oak barrels - they can't really just crank up production. Sure, they could make these available year round (and make a lot more money), if they jacked the price up to $250 a bottle, but that is not the business model they have chosen. And my wallet thanks them. So, my point is, if you happen to come across one of these bottles, snap it up while you can!

Now, on to the tasting. The color is a fairly dark amber. The nose is big and concentrated, with notes of leather, cocoa and fossil fuels, it is quite masculine. Even though "wheated" bourbons are typically softer and sweeter than their more common "ryed" counterparts, at this high proof, the flavors are densely packed and intense. Medium in body and seemingly mild up front, the intensity builds quickly and can sneak up on you. Be weary, this is a slow sipper. Spice notes (the back of the bottle says vanilla, teaberry and cinnamon, I concur) and a slight alcohol burn push the sweet grain core into the background. It has an exceptionally long finish, which transforms as it advances along and eventually fades out. Big and powerful, but still graceful and balanced, one of my favorite bourbons.

Scotch and cheese

I know, Scotch and cheese, it sounds like an unlikely combo. In the last 10 years there has been an explosion of artisanal cheese producers throughout Vermont, whose outstanding products I am always eager to sample. Combine that fact with a couple of whisky shelves brimming with single malts, and the two were bound to collide at some point. I'd love to say that there is an art and a science to pairing Scotch and cheese, but I'll be honest, it's more of a crapshoot. And the undertaking can be a bit of a minefield, with some of the unsuccessful pairings leaving you gasping for air and teary eyed. But when you find a combination that really works, the results can be nothing short of magical. The finest union that I have stumbled upon so far has to be Laphroaig Quarter Cask and Bayley Hazen Blue from Jasper Hill Farm in Greensboro VT.

When this unlikely duo comes together, each brings the other to a whole new level. The Bayley Hazen has a rich, creamy texture (unlike any other blue I've tasted), which is punctuated by its intense, pungent flavors. The Quarter Cask also has a thick, creamy, velvety mouthfeel. With its sharp peaty depths wrapped around a malty core, its flavors reverberate on the palate. The interplay of the two flavor profiles is quite astonishing. Both have salty, earthy qualities, with the cheese bringing a nutty character to the table and the Scotch adding its biting smoky elements.

Each of these two are quite special in their own right. But when the two come together, it creates a synergy that provides a unique culinary experience.

Crown Royal, part 2

stats: Crown Royal Reserve - blended Canadian Whisky, 80 proof, $40

         Crown Royal Cask No. 16 - blended Canadian Whisky, 80 proof, $80

And now on to the upper end of the Crown Royal lineup, the Reserve and the Cask No. 16. The Reserve has actually been around a lot longer than I realized, originally introduced in 1992 as Crown Royal Special Reserve. It was re-branded as Crown Royal Reserve in 2008, two years after the introduction and the Extra Rare. I'm guessing that the reason  for the name change was the confusion caused by the abbreviations for the names of these two whiskies, SR and XR, which sound very similar. Bar patrons who think they are getting an SR and end up with a drink that costs three times as much tend to get a bit grumpy. The Reserve starts as the same base whisky that makes up the flagship Crown Royal, but the better barrels are set aside and aged longer. The Cask No. 16 likely starts off in a similar fashion, but before bottling, the whisky spends additional time in casks that previously held cognac for 12 years. This variant of Crown was first brought to market in 2007.

The color of the Reserve is noticeably darker than the standard Crown Royal. There doesn't seem be a big difference in aroma between the two, perhaps the Reserve is just a bit richer on the nose (again, I'm probably not using the best glassware for nosing). On the palate, like the standard Crown, the flavors of the Reserve are fairly mild up front, then come on strong in the finish, which is quite long. They have a similar flavor profile, but where the original is a bit one-dimensional, the Reserve gains depth and complexity. It has more intense spice notes, but retains that elegant, drinkable Crown Royal quality. There's actually less of a difference between the two than I expected. Tasting them side by side has actually elevated my opinion of the original Crown and my appreciation of its long finish. The Reserve is a superior whisky, but only by a small margin.

The Cask No. 16  has a unique label. There is a wood grain printed on the inside (bottle side) of the back label, which is visible through the whisky as you look at the wording on the front label (which has a clear background). It's hard to see unless there is a bright light shining on the front of the bottle. I only noticed it when I was photographing the two bottles. The nose, while again being a bit weak, is definitely different. It reminds me of isopropyl alcohol along with some fruity qualities (that makes it sound like it smells bad, it really doesn't). Up front, the Cask No. 16 seems like it might be a lot like the Reserve, but the flavors from the cognac barrels quickly come into play. The flavors that dominate are slightly sweet and perfume-like. The quintessential Crown Royal spice notes are still there, but they drop into the background, only showing up late in the finish and tempered by the influence of the cognac barrels.

Over the years, I've come to realize that tasting whiskey (in a scientific, analytical way) can be a tricky endeavor. The palate is a fickle beast. One day it can love something and the next, not so much. And worst of all, the taste of one whiskey can have a great impact on my opinion of the next whiskey when they are sampled in close proximity. And that seems to be the case with the Reserve and the Cask No. 16. I've had the Cask No. 16 on several occasions, and have always enjoyed it. When I first tasted it tonight, I thought that the cognac cask finish added a new layer of flavor to an already great whisky, making it more well rounded and complex. But after drinking copious amounts of the standard Crown and the Reserve to sort out the differences between the two, the flavors of the Cask No. 16 seemed peculiar and garish. I still rate the Cask No. 16 quite highly, but this experience highlights the need to sample any whiskey with a fresh palate, and to be willing to give a second chance.

Crown Royal, part 1

stats: Crown Royal - blended Canadian Whisky, 80 proof, $25

           Crown Royal Black - blended Canadian Whisky, 90 proof, $30

I've always considered Crown Royal to be the king of Canadian whisky, but there really weren't any other Canadian whiskies that I even considered, so I guess that doesn't mean too much. The lineup from Crown Royal has slowly grown over the years, with the addition of the Black last year bringing the total up to 5. I tasted the Extra Rare (XR) a few years ago, and wasn't too impressed. I don't have access to any right now, and I'm not going to hunt down a $100+ bottle of something that I don't really like just for the sake of comparison. So tonight I'll check out the standard Crown and the Black, my next post will cover the Reserve and the Cask No. 16.

The flagship Crown Royal (sometimes referred to as the Deluxe) has a medium amber hue and pleasant nose. On the palate, it is smooth and well balanced, with a surprisingly long finish. It definitely has some Bourbon-like qualities, similar to a fairly mild Bourbon, but with a bit less sweetness. Most of the flavor comes on late, but it hangs on for quite a while with nice spice notes. While many whiskies with long finishes have great complexity and meander through a spectrum of flavors as they linger on, that is not the case here. I hate to make up words, but I'm at a loss, so I'll have to call it mono-flavorisitic. But I like the flavor, that's really not such a bad thing. While I consider it to be fairly mild, it does have enough backbone to stand own its own and be sipped straight. Maybe not my first choice of beverage, but if I was at a bar with a limited selection, I'd be happy to have this as an option.

Next up is the Crown Black. A darker, bolder, higher proof Crown Royal. The aromas are definitely more potent, but less pleasant. The color is significantly darker, but that could be from a number of factors (caramel coloring, new oak barrels, more heavily charred barrels, being put into the barrel at a lower proof - i.e. more water added before it goes in the barrel and less water added before it goes in the bottle). It has a bit more body than the standard Crown, a more viscous mouth-feel. The flavor comes on stronger and more quickly. There's a bit of sweet maltiness up front, but that gives way to more harsh flavors. The spice notes are there, but they are mingled with unpleasant sooty notes. Late in the finish it gets a bit hot (as in alcohol burn without flavor to balance it). I've certainly tasted worse, but $30 a bottle is a bit pricey for something that I would relegate to mixing with cola. The standard (and less expensive) Crown is more delicate, elegant and most important, drinkable.