Silent Stills part 2: Gordon & MacPhail, Littlemill 18yr

stats: single malt scotch, Lowlands, 80 proof, $50

When I first became aware of the phenomenon of closed distilleries and their finite stocks of whisky which would eventually disappear forever, I viewed the situation with a sense of tragic loss. Something special, something unique and irreplaceable was being lost to the tumultuous up and downs of an unpredictable industry.

But over the years my outlook has grown to be much more philosophical. When stills go silent, their whiskies gain a certain mystique. Some of these malts would go unnoticed by most, with the bulk of their production ending up in blends, were it not for the attention drawn to them by the closure of their distilleries. This really adds to the intrigue and allure of Scotch whisky, in my opinion.

I now view these losses as an integral part of a cycle, and with endings come new beginnings. Mothballed stills have been relocated and repurposed in new endeavors or restoration projects. Long defunct distilleries have come back into operation, decades or more after closing, even if only in name. The expansion periods can even give birth to entirely new distilleries.

Littlemill was a Lowland distillery with many owners over its long history, possibly going back as far as the mid 1700’s. The Lowland tradition of triple distillation was practiced until the short closure of 1929 – 1931. Upon reopening under new ownership, the switch was made to double distillation. The operation was supposedly mothballed from 1984 – 1989, but the bottling I have claims to have been distilled in 1985, so there is a slight discrepancy there. Littlemill was modernized and reopened in 1989, but only made it to 1994 before closing again when its owners went bankrupt. The equipment was dismantled in 1997, and plans to restart production never came to fruition. The remaining buildings were lost to fire in 2004.

Straw in color, it is ever so slightly lighter than the Rosebank reviewed in the last post. The nose has a good amount of density, going a bit floral / piney. This is rather big on the palate, surprising considering its modest 80 proof. The flavor profile starts off fruity then it drifts into the realm of cat pee, but not to the point of being detrimental. It eventually turns to warming oak flavors. Good complexity, it evolves nicely from the start through the lengthy finish.

Silent Stills part 1: Gordon & MacPhail, Rosebank 12yr

stats: single malt scotch, Lowlands, 80 proof, $50

The Whisk(e)y industry is one of expansions and contractions, booms and busts. And with the long lead time between production and maturation, especially for Scotch whisky, forecasting future sales levels is a black art at best. With these two factors at work, it is no surprise that every once in a while a distillery will fall silent. During tough times some distilleries manage to get through by cutting production back to one or two days a week. Others cease operations entirely, sometimes just for a year or two, sometimes they are mothballed indefinitely, and occasionally they just close permanently.

When the stills go silent, whether it is an independent distillery that has gone out of business, or a single malt brand with weak sales which doesn’t fit into the portfolio of distilleries owned by a large conglomerate, there will usually be a significant quantity of aging spirit left in a warehouse – a valuable asset to be sold off over time. With the distillery closed, this product typically becomes the domain of blenders and independent bottlers. The independents will bottle it as single malt, and the legacy of a lost distillery can live on for several decades. Blenders will typically utilize the remnants of closed distilleries in one of two ways. Inferior barrels which aren’t up to snuff for bottling as single malt can be blended in with several hundred other barrels of whisky, cheap filler if you will (at least it doesn’t go to waste). The higher quality liquid can be used as a marketing tool to help top-shelf blends command greater prices. One example of this is the King George V version of Johnnie Walker Blue, which claims to contain some of the highly sought after Port Ellen malt, and fetches around $550 a bottle.

As the stocks of any brand dwindle over time, prices are certain to rise, but typically independent bottlings from closed distilleries fall into one of two camps: those that were highly regarded to begin with and whose loss was much bemoaned, and the lesser known brands that remain as more of a historical curiosity. The former will sell for top dollar, while the latter can represent tremendous values. Either way, selling a taste of liquid history is one of the independent bottlers’ greatest assets.

Many consider Rosebank to be the finest example of a Lowland malt, and it is one of the more sought after silent distilleries. But, probably due to the lack of interest in Lowland whiskies in general, there seems to be a good supply of Rosebank out there, and it can still be had for a reasonable price. Up until the distillery’s closure in 1993, Rosebank was produced in the Lowland tradition of triple distillation, a practice which has all but disappeared since.

Straw to very light amber in color, it is lightly fruity, with dry grass / grain on the mild nose. It’s kind of light and grassy on the palate, with a bit of malt to back it up. Not terribly complex, but it has some backbone and a respectable finish. This is fairly easy-drinking single malt, but still quite enjoyable.

Murray McDavid, 1995 Highland Park 15yr, Lafite cask

stats: single malt scotch, Islands, 92 proof, $90

Over the last century the scotch industry has slowly migrated from ex-sherry barrels to ex-bourbon barrels as the vessel of choice for aging its spirit. With bourbon barrels being far more plentiful and coming in at 1/10 the cost of sherry barrels, it stands to reason that they currently account for 90% of the containers used to age Scotch whisky.

While a handful of brands are exclusively sherry aged and quite a few are exclusively bourbon aged, many will marry the two together (normally with bourbon taking the higher percentage of the mix) to create their house style. There are, however, many other cask options available to the more adventurous distiller. At their disposal are barrels which formerly held a vast array of libations, such as port, various sweet dessert wines, rum, cognac and a variety of red and white wines, among others.

It is not unheard of to age whisky in one of these alternative barrels from start to finish, but the more common practice is to age in bourbon barrels primarily (say for 5 to 10 years or so), then transfer the spirit to the alternate barrels for a finishing period (typically for a few months to a few years). But the term “finish” seems to have gone out of favor for this process in recent times, with Bruichladdich using “additional cask enhancement”, or “ACE” and Glenmorangie preferring “extra matured”.

That leads us to another arrow in the quiver of the independent bottler – the option to explore an alternate cask finish on the spirit of a distillery that doesn’t normally partake in this practice. When wine barrels are employed, typically the grape varietal is specified, but for wines of a higher pedigree the appellation or even the producer may be given credit. I was lucky enough to recently stumble across just such an example.

Independent bottler Murray McDavid has taken Highland Park distilled in 1995 from its original bourbon barrels and at some point in the latter part of its 15 years of aging, transferred it to Chateau Lafite casks. For those not familiar with the red wines of France, Lafite is one of only five First Growth Chateau in Bordeaux. With their wine selling in the neighborhood of $1000 a bottle, I’m sure their used oak doesn’t come cheap.

I’m a big fan of the official bottling of Highland Park (at least the 12yr and 18yr that I’ve had), but the whisky has truly been transformed here.

It is a dark ruby-amber in color, with a hue more typical to bourbon.

The nose is big and bold, with a complex assortment of fruit, oak and peat elements. And that nose is only a prelude to what it has in store for the palate.

Great depth and length, with a labyrinth of intertwined flavors layered upon one another. It pushes the limits of sensory overload, and I feel I won’t do this one justice if I try to rattle of specific taste descriptors.

What really strikes me about this whisky is that it can keep such a level of intensity through the incredibly long, evolving finish.

This is clearly a heavyweight, but it refrains from going over the top and in spite of being so immense, it retains a certain gracefulness. I’ve tasted significantly more expensive whiskies that can only aspire to be what this one is – it’s well worth the price tag if you are lucky enough to come across one of the 1900 bottles from this limited release.

Gordon & MacPhail, Ledaig 16yr

stats: single malt scotch, Islands, 86 proof, $50

The Johnnie Walker post was a nice diversion, but it’s time to get back on track with the subject of independent bottlers. This time around I’ve gotten into a bottle of 16 yr Ledaig (pronounced led-chig) from Gordon & MacPhail.

As I’ve stated before, single malt scotch must be produced and aged in Scotland, with malted barley as the only grain component, and all of the whiskey in the bottle must come from one distillery. However, the whisky is not required to be named for its distillery of origin. Such is the case with Ledaig, which is produced at the Tobermory distillery on the isle of Mull. 

Located in the coastal village of Tobermory, the distillery has had a difficult 200 year history. Originally a brewery, distillation began there in 1823, but the stills went silent for the long periods of 1837-1878, 1928-1972, and 1975-1990, with many changes of ownership along the way. The village was once named Ledaig, as was the distillery for much of its past. Since 1990, the distillery has gone by the name Tobermory, and that is also the name used for their principal (unpeated) single malt. The name Ledaig is now used to differentiate their secondary (heavily peated) single malt.

This example illustrates some of the distinctions of independent bottlers that I talked about in the Glenturret post below. The only bottling of Ledaig currently furnished by the distillery is a 10 year old. But with most of the spirit produced there going into blends, and Ledaig being far less well known than Tobermory (which isn’t all that well known itself), the official bottling is quite rare. In this case the independent bottler is able to make an obscure single malt available in many more markets, and at a greater age than the distillery bottling, all while maintaining a very reasonable price (I paid $50, but I think it was on sale from $60. Looking online, the 10 yr seems to average around $45)

A pale-to-medium golden-amber in color, it has minimal peat on the nose, with more pronounced fruit notes (along the lines of raisins and fruit cake) and comes across slightly floral.

The whisky has modest levels of peat on the palate. It’s fairly weighty, with a rich, malty base lending a good bit of body. A perfumed floral quality takes over the latter part of the finish as the peat and malt components settle back.

Perhaps this is what a more heavily peated version of Balvenie Double Wood (which starts with lightly peated malt) might taste like.

I’ve seen Ledaig described as “extremely peaty” and “heavily peated”, but that is not the case with this example. I was expecting peat levels comparable to Ardbeg or Laphroaig, but this is really what I would consider moderately peated, similar to Highland Park or Springbank. Further research led me to a reference of Ledaig’s “peatiness gradually being increased” since the distillery’s latest re-opening. This bottle is comprised of spirit that was distilled in 1990, so it is possible that a current bottle of 10 yr that would have been distilled in 2001 or 2002 could have much higher peat levels.

And what do I think of it? I’ve come to the most challenging aspect of reviewing whisky – differentiating my personal preferences from the quality of the spirit (or lack there of). I’m really not a big fan of whiskies with a strong floral component in their flavor profile, especially when they go to the perfumed end of that range of flavors. That being said, and trying to remain objective, this really is a very well made whisky, with nice depth and complexity, and a solid, enduring finish.

Johnnie Walker, Black Label vs. Double Black

stats: Johnnie Walker Black Label, Blended Scotch, 12 year, 80 proof, $36

          Johnnie Walker Double Black, Blended Scotch, no age statement, 80 proof, $42

The world of blended scotch whisky is all about consistency. Even when faced with supply interruptions of key component whiskies, among other challenges, the blender is tasked with composing a product that tastes very consistent from bottle to bottle. Yet, in spite of this fact, the flavor profile of a blend is occasionally changed on purpose. This is typically done to cater to evolving consumer demands – in simple terms, make the whisky taste more like what is currently popular. This can be a dangerous game - you want to put out a product that appeals to a new, younger generation of customers, but at the same time not change it so quickly or drastically as to alienate your core consumers.

I’ve been told that at some point in the mid 1990’s Johnnie Walker Black Label saw a fairly dramatic change, rapidly becoming significantly less smokey. I’m guessing that may have turned away some long time devotes. With heavily peated whiskies growing in popularity in recent years, the time was nigh for Black to change again. But, it appears that a lesson was learned, and rather than changing what many know and love, they chose to introduce a new, smokier version alongside the original. Once you get past the marketing double speak and stop trying to figure out what the "double" in the name refers to, it appears that some of the whisky in the new blend is also aged in barrels that are more heavily charred than normal.

Let’s see how the two compare.

Black

Color - light to medium amber

Nose  - slightly floral, light on its feet

Palate - not too heavy, the floral notes quickly come to the fore, with the other balancing elements dancing in the background

Finish - it picks up some steam early in the finish, gaining a bit of depth. But later in the finish the floral notes begin to dominate again, pulling it out of balance a bit.

Overall - a respectable blend, but I’m not a big fan of whiskies with a strong floral influence (personal preference). Given the choice, I would drink Chivas 12yr or maybe even Famous Grouse first.

Double Black

Color - almost the same as the Black, maybe just a touch darker

Nose - a little more dense, doesn’t reveal itself as easily as the black

Palate - The floral notes are still there, but kept in check by a more substantially malty base and a smokey, peat element that is absent in the Black

Finish - this one proceeds through the finish with much more continuity, and is smoother late in the finish.

Overall - a much more cohesive whisky, very well integrated from start to finish. For the modest price increase, I would pick this over Walker Black every time.

Gordon & MacPhail, Glenturret 11yr

stats: single malt scotch, Central Highlands, 92 proof, $60

As I gaze across my collection of whisky bottles, queued up and waiting to blogged about, I notice that there are several from independent bottlers. In my early days as a whisky consumer I viewed independent bottlings with a suspicious eye, assuming that they came from inferior casks which the distilleries had unloaded on little companies that didn’t produce any whisky, to be sold at discounted prices. While my old assumption may hold true at times, it would very much be the exception rather than the rule.

By the simplest definition, an independent bottler is someone who buys casks of whisky from distilleries (and possibly ages it for some additional time), then bottles and sells it themselves. This is a phenomenon that is fairly, though not completely, unique to Scotland. In the United States, contract distilling is much more common – a situation where one has a whiskey company but no facilities, and hires a distillery to make their product from start to finish. In this case the client would specify the details of production throughout the process.

Modern independents represent a vast array of business models. Some of the largest firms have a connection to a distillery, with Gordon & MacPhail acquiring and resurrecting the defunct Benromach in 2002, and the owners of Springbank distillery purchasing Cadenhead in 1972. At the opposite end of the spectrum there are companies like James MacArthur and Deerstalker, which essentially operate as one-man-bands. Between these extremes there are many mid sized independents, such as Signatory, Hart Brothers, and Murray MacDavid. Some independent bottlers have their own warehouses and/or bottling lines, others may pay a fee to keep their casks in someone else’s warehouse and contract out the bottling process.

In spite of these differences, they all have a common origin. In the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, malt whisky in Scotland was primarily sold by distillers in bulk (usually in barrels) to grocers and wine merchants, who sold it on to consumers. Around 1830, the column still was invented and grain whisky became a cheap alternative. By 1860, many of the whisky merchants began blending malt and grain whisky. Several of these brands grew in size and popularity, and live on to be a common sight on store shelves today. But some merchants stuck with malt whisky, and they are the ancestors of the modern independent bottlers. Currently, most malt whisky produced in Scotland (upwards of 90%) is sold in bulk to blenders. That was even more true 50 to 60 years ago, before the malt distilling companies began to tap into the unexploited market for single malts. For many decades, independent bottlers were the only source of single malt from most distilleries. That has changed over the years since WWII, but even today a few distilleries do not market an official single malt bottling.

So the independent bottlers are buying in bulk alongside the blenders, just at a much smaller volume. In times of low demand, they occasionally have the opportunity to buy excess stock from the blenders as well.

Aside from offering single malts from distilleries who do not market their own, what do independent bottlers do to differentiate themselves? Well, there are distilleries that offer an official bottling, but with minimal production levels and limited distribution. The independents add greatly to the availability of these more obscure brands.

They also frequently offer single cask bottlings. Distillers strive for consistency from bottle to bottle in their official releases, so they typically marry together several hundred barrels to come up with a vatting that is uniform in flavor from batch to batch. Independents don’t have to do that, and they will often seek out odd barrels – of fine quality, just deviating from the standard house flavor profile – and bottle them individually to produce a unique product. Distiller bottled single malts typically end up being bottled between 80 (the legal minimum) and 86 proof. Independently bottled single malts often end up at a higher proof, from 92 right up to undiluted cask strength. The independents also have the flexibility to bottle their whiskies with a greater variety of age statements than their distilling counterparts do. Additionally, since they offer their products to a niche market, they see smaller swings in demand levels, and are often able to bring older whiskies to market at much more attractive pricing levels than the distilleries can.

There are also two practices that are far less common in independent bottlings – artificial coloring and chill-filtering. It is legal to add caramel coloring to scotch, but the practice is frowned upon by critics. It is usually done to give consistent color from batch to batch, but can be detrimental to the flavor. When whisky gets cold (by adding ice, or any other way), it gets cloudy. The compounds that cause this haze can be stripped out by chilling and filtering the whisky – chill-filtering. Sadly, much flavor gets stripped out at the same time. The industry as a whole is slowly moving away from these practices due to media criticism and the demands of increasingly savvy consumers. Still, these practices are far less common amongst independent bottlers.

The independents have a few other tricks up their collective sleeve, but I’ll save the details on those for some reviews that will be following in the coming weeks.

And now on to the 11 year Glenturret from Gordon & MacPhail.

Dark amber to medium brown in color. A rich, malty nose, with very little in the way of sweetness or fruitiness. Dense and chewy. Like a liquid desert (in flavor, but not with sweetness), with notes of toffee, caramel and cocoa powder / unsweetened chocolate, possibly balanced by a hint of cinnamon. The finish is relatively long and dry. Quite unique, unlike any other single malt I’ve tasted. I’m curious to know how this compares to the official distillery bottling.

Whisky Hunter

I hope I’m stating the obvious when I say that I really enjoy drinking a good glass of whisky. But what is likely less apparent, is that I also enjoy the thrill of the chase just as much. The world of whisky retail sales is complex and dynamic – there are new products introduced with limited distribution, seasonal releases of rare items which are only available for a few weeks each year, certain brands which only make their way to a few select regions, and existing stock of items which are no longer produced can linger in hidden pockets of the market for some time, not to mention the obscure items that a less informed consumer might pass up for something equally good but more commonplace. Whether I’ve made a concerted effort to hunt one of these whiskies down, or just happened across one randomly in my travels, I find it quite satisfying to end up face to face with a bottle from my wish list, add it to my collection, and have the opportunity to sample something outstanding that wasn’t so easy to come by.

Living in a liquor control state (as well as being bordered by another) means that a typical trip to the local liquor purveyor is unlikely to result in a special purchase. Don’t get me wrong, these can still be fertile hunting grounds, but it takes time to figure out the inner workings of each state’s system, and then most of the leg work is done online. When I travel to states where the liquor business is in the domain of the free market, I’m always on the look out for a store with a serious whisky program. One good source for leads is the Specialty Retailer Guide found in the back of Whisky Advocate magazine.

It was here that I noticed a listing for Town Wine & Spirits in Rumsford, RI (claiming a collection of 300+ single malts). Being just an hour from my parents’ house, it seemed a little road trip was in order during my visit to the Boston area. Soon enough my father and I were exploring the wilds of East Providence and the hunt was on.

When I spotted the sign for the store, I was a bit surprised. We were in the heart of a mid-grade retail strip. Sure, it wasn’t a ghetto, but there was certainly nothing upscale about the area. And my surprise morphed into disappointment as I got a closer look at the exterior of the store, a modest cinder-block structure. No way were there 300 single malt scotches here, not in this neighborhood, not in that building.

But I’d come all this way, so I reminded myself not to judge a book by its cover, and headed in with lowered expectations. The store did look much more promising inside, but the limited square footage kept my hopes dampened. I glanced around and noticed some bourbon bottles against a far wall. As I made my way over to them I caught some familiar boxes and bottles in my peripheral vision. My head spun to the right, and I was overwhelmed by the sight of an alcove densely packed with scotch. Boy was I wrong about this place. As I took in the glorious scene, I made note of ample selections from Springbank and Glenfarclas (my litmus test for the legitimacy of a retailer’s whisky endeavor).

Standouts in their well rounded selection included Mackinlay’sHighland Malt Whisky, the Buffalo Trace Single Oak Project, 40yr Glenfarclas, several types of Hudson Whisky, and 21yr Auchentoshan, just to name a few. 

After selecting a young scotch from a new distillery, an esoteric single malt from a low profile distiller, and a hard to find limited edition bourbon, we prepared to head home. My father was asking an employee for the fastest way back to the interstate, and when he mentioned the distance we had come in search of rare whiskies we were asked if we had met Elliot. Who’s that? The store owner and resident malt fanatic. After talking shop for a few minutes and discussing my purchases with Elliot, we were invited out back for an impromptu tasting. No need to ask twice, let’s go!

First up was a 15 year Highland Park from independent bottler Murray McDavid, which was aged primarily in bourbon barrels and finished in Chateau Lafite casks. Mind-blowing, no way I could walk out of the store without a bottle of that. Next up were the anCnoc 12yr and 16yr. They were notably different from each other as the elder was aged in bourbon barrels and the younger in sherry barrels, but both were quite enjoyable. Lastly we tried out the new Johnnie Walker Double Black – very impressive, and a vast improvement over the standard Walker Black. All in all, it turned out to be an exceptionally successful outing.

Buffalo Trace 2011 Experimental Collection

stats: 

  1993 Barrels: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, 90 proof, 17 yrs 7 mos, $47 (375ml)

  1991 Barrels: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, 90 proof, 19 yrs 1 mos, $47 (375ml)

  1989 Barrels: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, 90 proof, 21 yrs 1 mos, $47 (375ml)

Buffalo Trace Distillery has been on a mission to experiment since 1987, going so far as to construct a micro distillery within their main distillery just for conducting small scale whiskey research. They claim to have over 1500 experimental barrels aging in their warehouses. In 2006 they began bottling some of the more successful examples and releasing them to the public annually. Every year since has seen 2 to 4 different bottlings. Since these are limited production specimens, Buffalo Trace chose to put them in 375ml bottles so there would be more to go around. None the less, these whiskeys are pretty rare and hard to come by. When I came across all three examples of the 2011 release priced well below the suggested retail level listed above, there was no way I could pass up the opportunity to try them out.

I was really excited when I picked these up, but I was a bit disappointed when I learned that this year’s release was from "rediscovered" barrels, and didn’t actually originate from an experiment. In 1998 Buffalo Trace acquired the Old Charter brand, along with their inventory of 150,000 barrels of aging whiskey. A small number of these barrels were lost in the shuffle, forgotten about, left hiding in a dark corner of one of the massive warehouses until they were recently discovered during an inventory audit. I suppose the “hey, look what we found when we did inventory collection” isn’t very marketable, so I can kind of see why they were included in the experimental collection.

The three bottlings were distilled in 1993, 1991 and 1989, and were bottled at 17 years 7 months, 19 years 1 month, and 21 years 1 month, respectively. In my last post I talked about whiskey evaporating out of the barrel during aging, referred to as “the angel’s share”. What’s really cool about this group of bottles is that they have a lot of technical information printed on their labels, including the percentage of liquid lost to evaporation at the time of bottling. The 1993 lost 43.6%, the 1991 lost 62.1%, and the 1989 lost 75.9%. These numbers help to explain the high prices of older whiskeys.

Okay, these Bourbons didn’t originate as experiments - but they are unusual, have a unique history, and it is uncommon to see Bourbon in this age range. So I am still excited about them.

All three are bottled at 90 proof, and they are the same shade of medium amber, with the older examples maybe each getting just slightly darker.

1993 – The most lively of the three on the nose, but still quite thick and masculine. Surprisingly floral on the palate, with notes of Lavender standing out, and balanced by moderate spice notes.

1991 – Something on the nose reminds me of Play-Doh. The wood flavors become more prominent, with spice and vanilla coming to the fore. The floral notes are still there, but quite subdued.

1989 – The nose is similar to the others, but a bit restrained. Now the wood is starting to dominate on the palate, to the point that even the spice notes give way to hints of pencil shavings and leather.

I like all three of these overall, and each one has a respectably long, engaging finish. I really appreciate the unique flavor profile of the 1993, but the traditionalist in me gives a slight edge to the 1991. The 1989 is quite enjoyable, but just falls a little short of its younger siblings in my opinion.

George T. Stagg

stats: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, 141.4 proof, no age statement, $70

While I was researching my last post, I came across an interesting bit of information that resolved a longstanding conundrum. I restrained myself from expounding on it at the time because I have a bad habit of going off on tangents, which could easily turn a good blog post into a rambling diatribe if I’m not careful.

Years ago, I had read about heavily aged (40 to 50 years) single malt Scotches, which needed to be bottled before they dropped below the legal minimum alcohol content of 80 proof (Scotch typically goes into the barrel around 127 proof). I knew that aging whiskies lost 2% to 3% of their volume annually to evaporation. This loss is commonly referred to as the “Angel’s Share”. If the proof of the whisky was dropping significantly over the years, obviously it was primarily alcohol that was evaporating out of the barrel.

Then, a few years ago, I finally managed to hunt down a bottle of the elusive George T. Stagg. This is a beast of a Bourbon, bottled at a whopping barrel proof of 141.4 (the bottle I have is from the 2009 release, and the proof changes from year to year, with somewhere in the low 140’s being typical). But wait, by law Bourbon cannot go into the barrel for aging above 125 proof. So, how was it that the proof of this whiskey could increase during the aging process, while at the same time other whiskies were known to decrease in proof while in the barrel?

And this question lingered on in the back of my mind, until last week. While I was poking around the web, trying to make sure I had my facts straight on the details of barrel aging, and I came across this paragraph in a wikipedia article. Finally, the enduring enigma had been resolved.

Although the bottle carries no age statement, most releases of Stagg are said to be aged in the neighborhood of 15 years. This Bourbon is an incredibly dark shade of amber, looking almost black in the bottle if there is limited light behind it. The nose is dense, and while being quite aromatic, it is also highly alcoholic. Nose with caution. Modest sips are recommended, as the intense flavor and alcoholic heat battle for dominance on the palate. It has incredible density and intensity of flavor, with notes of dry spice, polished leather, and roasted nuts coming to the fore. In spite of its brute force, it is actually incredibly drinkable when you consider its amazingly high proof. It actually becomes even easier to drink after the palate is broken-in by the first few sips. If you are going to consider yourself a serious Bourbon connoisseur, the Stagg is something which must be sought out and experienced.

George T. Stagg (along with the rest of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection) is released in late September every year. They sell quickly, but with a little persistence and some luck you may still be able to hunt down a bottle from the 2011 edition.

Four Roses Yellow Label

stats: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, 80 proof, no age statement, $20

 

I guess I got excited by my last blog post – I went out a few days later and tracked down a bottle of Four Roses Yellow Label. Before I get to the tasting, I’d like to talk about the aging process for a bit.

At first glance, it seems like a simple operation – new make comes off the still and goes into an oak barrel for several years, after which it comes out transformed into mature whiskey, ready to be enjoyed. Of course, it is much more complicated than that when you dig into the details.

Oak is the wood of choice for aging because it has the most beneficial effect on flavor, the correct porosity, and lends itself to the barrel making process. But, there are several species of oak to choose from, and each has unique qualities. Next, the oak staves must be seasoned. This can be done in a kiln, but the time-intensive open-air method will result in better flavor. Then there is the degree to which the wood is charred when the barrel is being made. The range of charring for wine barrels is usually lighter than whiskey barrels, and described as toasting instead. Many whiskies are aged in former wine barrels. The barrels can also be made un-toasted, in which case they are heated with steam instead of an open flame when the barrel is shaped.

Traditionally, Bourbon was shipped down the Mississippi river to its biggest market, New Orleans. Since oak trees were abundant in America, it made sense to ship the whiskey in new oak barrels, rather than glass bottles which were very expensive to make at the time. Eventually, aging in new oak defined the style, and later it became a requirement of the laws which govern the making of Bourbon.

Concurrently in Scotland, it made economic sense to re-use oak Sherry barrels for aging Scotch, since those barrels were already coming into the country in large quantities, carrying the Sherry that was being imported from Spain. As Scotch production grew, and the popularity of Sherry dwindled, it was inevitable that Scotch distillers would start using ex-bourbon barrels to age their whisky. Both barrel types are used in Scotland today, and it is common to refill the barrels two or three times before they are considered past their useful life.

The next big factor is climate. The aging process is driven by seasonal temperature swings pushing the whiskey in and out of the wood. The larger the temperature range the barrel encounters, the more quickly the whiskey ages. A certain amount of liquid will evaporate out of the barrel every year (2% is typical). If the humidity is low, mostly water evaporates out. But if the humidity level is high, more alcohol than water will come out of the barrel. So, the alcohol level can actually increase or decrease during the aging process, depending on the local climate.

And finally, the design and operation methods of the warehouse will affect the aging. Most Bourbon producers use large warehouses, up to nine floors high with the barrels three-high on each floor. Modest temperature control is achieved by opening and closing windows, and a few distillers heat their warehouses in the winter to add some control to one end of the temperature range.

Distillers who make single barrel and small batch bourbons will typically find the worthy barrels in the inner areas of the middle floors – the heart of the warehouse. The standard bourbons of their lineups will usually come from a marriage of barrels from a cross section of warehouse locations to ensure consistency. Maker’s Mark takes a different route, aiming for maximum quality in every bottle. And to that end, they go through the labor intensive process of rotating their barrels through the warehouse, ensuring consistent aging from barrel to barrel.

And then there is Four Roses. They rely on long, low, single story warehouses for consistent aging. While most producers rely on random warehouse particularities for their higher end offerings, Four Roses goes with consistent aging across the product line and uses the ten different flavor profiles at their disposal to differentiate their special bottlings (along with extra aging and higher proofs).

Now that I’ve finally tied it all together, on to the whiskey. There’s an air of familiarity on the nose. On the palate, a gentle fruitiness is quickly overtaken by warming spice notes, which grow in intensity as they transition into the finish, which lingers on and slowly fades away. There is more intensity than might be expected from an 80 proof bourbon. The spice notes are somewhat dominant, pushing other flavors into the background, but I’m okay with that as I find them quite pleasant. A very solid performer considering its proof and price point.

In comparison, the single barrel offering has more of everything, more depth, more character, more complexity. But, at twice the price, that should be expected.