Wathen's Single Barrel Bourbon

stats: Kentucky Straight Bourbon, no age statement, 47%, $35

In the recent Van Winkle 12 year post, I alluded to the fact that there are many American whiskey brands whose backgrounds quickly become cloudy as one starts to research them. The ambiguity can revolve around either the lineage of the brand or the source of the liquid in the bottle, but often both are suspect.

The Van Winkle brand is relatively transparent. The family has been quite open about their partnership with Buffalo Trace, and the changing sources of their whiskey over the last ten years. Their ancestral distilling lineage is also undeniable and well documented. It can be tough to tell which distillery an older bottle came from if it lacks the date stamp, but I’d put that down to a lack of modern technology on the bottling line rather than any attempted deception.

The story of Wathen’s Single Barrel Bourbon starts off much the same as that of the Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery. But as their histories progress they follow divergent paths, and in spite of Wathen’s having a clear lineage, the current source of the whiskey has become shrouded in mystery.

The brand traces its roots back through two families which were both heavily involved in the bourbon industry well back into the 1800’s. The Wathens and Medleys came together by marriage around 1900, although they may have been connected prior to that. At various points through the last 200 years the two families owned no less than half a dozen different distilleries, but only one is of concern here. The Green River Distillery, built in Owensboro, KY in 1899, was purchased by brothers John Medley and R. Wathen Medley in 1940. They changed its name to the Medley Distillery, and although the whiskey was bottled under several different brand names, the brothers began to pick the best barrels from the warehouse and bottle them as Wathen’s Single Barrel Bourbon.

The distillery was sold in 1959, but the Medley brothers stayed on to run the plant. Charles Medley, R.Wathen Medley’s son, took over the role of master distiller in 1969. The distillery changed hands several times before closing in 1987, but it was reopened in 1988 after being purchased by Glenmore Distillers, with Charles Medley continuing as the master distiller.

In 1991 Glemore was acquired by United Distillers, and in 1992 they closed the Medley distillery (as well as Stitzel-Weller and several others) upon opening the new Bernheim distillery. In 1995, United Distillers sold off the former Glenmore assets. Many of the brands and some of the properties were sold to Barton Brands. Charles Medley was able to purchase the distillery, changing the name to Charles Medley Distillery, and much of the existing stock of whiskey he had distilled. There’s a bit of confusion on this point, Charles made whiskey at the Medley Distillery while working for Glenmore Distillers. They also owned a distillery named Glenmore, which was in Owensboro, but production there had stopped before Glenmore (the company) purchased Medley (the distillery). Since Charles was listed as the master distiller for Glenmore, many people assume he made whiskey at the distillery of that name, but this is not the case.

With a supply good quality whiskey, warehouses to store it in, and a bottling line, Charles was able to resurrect Wathen’s Single Barrel Bourbon. Through the latter half of the 1990’s Wathen’s enjoyed a stellar reputation; Charles Medley had made some top notch whiskey after all. But at the start of the new millennium things started to slowly go adrift. We know that the Charles Medley Distillery stopped producing whiskey in 1992, and although each bottle has a “bottled on” date printed on the label it is still impossible to know when it was distilled since the whiskey carries no age statement. I’ve seen some speculation that it is a 7 year old, or at least it was when the whiskey Charles had made was still being bottled. So in all likelihood those original supplies ran out sometime in 1999.

It was about the same time that they (Samuel, Charles’s son, had also joined the business) outgrew the capacity of their bottling line and contracted the bottling out to a company in St. Louis. In 2004 they had a brief supply interruption while switching the bottling and distribution over to a company in San Jose, CA. I believe the Medleys had hoped to eventually restart whiskey production at their distillery, but those plans never came to fruition. The facility was finally sold to Angostura (the company that makes bitters) in 2007. They announced plans to restart distillation there, but after investing quite a bit of money in renovations over the course of two years everything came to a halt when Angostura's parent company, CL Financial, had a liquidity crisis. They still own the dormant distillery, which has been for sale for several years now.

So, what we do know is that more than 20 years after the Medley distillery fell silent it is likely that all of the whiskey produced there was put into bottles long ago. It is probable that Wathen’s Single Barrel Bourbon transitioned to a different source sometime around 1999. The problem with a sourced whiskey that carries no age statement is that the source and the age can change at anytime and the consumer has no way to know, unless the company decides to reveal that information. I’ve seen some speculation from 2011 that the whiskey was being sourced from Heaven Hill, but that was just speculation based on the flavor profile. It’s anyone’s guess if the age is still around the presumed 7 year mark, or if it has drifted downward. 

Unfortunately the information I have laid out above was quite difficult to put together (hence the two and a half week gap since my last post), not to mention all of the incorrect and conflicting stories that had to be sorted through. The worst part though is that the Medleys have chosen to obfuscate much of the true information rather than being forthright with the details of their whiskey. It starts off subtly with the way the wording is laid out on the label: “Eight generations, 250 years” is presented in a way that misleads many people into thinking that the bottle carries an 8 year age statement. The tag that hangs from the bottle’s neck has text laden with terms such as “exacting standards”, “family yeast” and “hands-on expertise”, all of which do a very good job of making it sound like the Medleys are still actively distilling this bourbon. And then there is the website: with a page titled “our distillery” featuring a picture of the distillery that they sold six years ago, and a picture titled “bourbon in the works” showing frothy liquid in the fermentation tanks (presumably taken in 1992); deceptive is the only word that comes to mind.

Going back and reading old threads on bourbon discussion forums can be quite informative. It seems that Wathen’s was well liked in the late 90’s and still had its fans in the early 2000’s in spite of a slight drop in quality. It was speculated that Charles had the ability to select good barrels, regardless of their source. In a 2011 discussion the reputation of Wathen’s was still intact for the most part, but in more current reviews it seems to be drifting closer to mediocrity. Maybe Charles’s palate is not as discerning as it was in his earlier years, or perhaps he is letting his less experienced son choose the barrels now.

I tasted a bottle from Barrel number 745, bottled on Jan 18, 2013. Here are my impressions:

The color is light golden amber.
On the nose I get dusty grain and mild earthy spice notes. The aromas are densely packed, but with mild to moderate intensity.
The palate is mild up front but quickly becomes fairly robust. Sweet vanilla, fruit and grain are the main components with just a slight off flavor in the mix, though it’s not terribly complex.
Toward the end it smoothly transitions into a warming spice laden finish which lingers for some time as it gently fades. As all the other flavors fall away, the slight off flavor from the mid-palate re-emerges at the tail-end.

Overall it’s a decent bourbon. I’m a little indifferent to the early/mid flavors, but it comes to life on the finish, with just a hint of disappointment at the very end.

Looking online I saw a huge range of prices for this bourbon, from $25 to $60, but it generally seems to run around the $35 mark. It’s not a bad whiskey, but I think many better options are available at that price point, and I’m really bothered by the deceitful tactics used to market it.

Springbank Whisky School bottling, 2012

stats: Single Malt Scotch, Campbeltown, no age statement, 48.4%, $1560*

I’ve been spending a good bit of time on the discussion forum of straightbourbon.com lately, sometimes participating and other times just doing research for blog posts. As one would imagine, most of the topics there revolve around American whiskey. But there’s a decent amount of general whiskey talk happening there as well.

One recent thread that caught my attention was titled “Threshold for cracking open a special bottle”. While there were a few people who noted special occasions such as the birth of a child or a 50^th birthday as the motivation to open one of their most prized bottles, the general consensus was that merely being in possession of an extraordinary bottle was reason enough to break the seal.

The group of people represented in that discussion had a few serious collectors and a few people who never keep more than a few bottles on hand, but I think most of the participants shared my situation; we buy bottles faster than we drink them and end up with a collection even though we would not consider ourselves collectors per se.

In this case it is normal to delay opening a newly acquired bottle simply because one already has too many open bottles. I find myself sitting on more and more unopened bottles these days as I try to push through some of the ones I opened years ago.

I made the point that I’m happy to open a special bottle anytime without reason, other than the fact that I feel like drinking it, and if I feel like drinking something exceptional on my birthday I usually have at least a few special bottles already open.

The whole conversation got me looking over my collection (the unopened ones anyway) and the standout was the bottle I was given upon graduating from the Springbank Whisky School. It’s been a year since my epic journey to Scotland and I’ve definitely been feeling nostalgic about the trip lately. In spite of my disinclination to commemorate significant events by opening special bottles, I decided that it would perfectly appropriate to crack open my graduation bottle on the one year anniversary of having received it.

Being the diligent blogger that I am, I committed myself to getting some background information on the whisky itself. I remember Frank McHardy (Springbank’s Director of Production) being a little cagey when pressed for details about the whisky at the graduation ceremony, only noting that it was a vatting of whiskies ranging from 10 years to 18 years.

I sent an email off to Janet Blair (Springbank’s PR person, among other duties), and she said she’d look into it. I didn’t hear back for a few weeks so I sent a follow-up email. She emailed me back with the unfortunate news that Gavin McLachlan (the Distillery Manager) only said that it was “special” and wouldn’t give up any details. At her suggestion I emailed Gavin directly. It’s been about four days now and no response so far.

I have to say that Whisky School was a wonderful experience, but after receiving a special bottle to commemorate such a momentous event it is massively disappointing to be unable to elicit even the most basic of details about the whisky.

Now I’m left to speculate and theorize as to the origins of the graduation whisky. First I poked around online to see if I could learn anything. I wasn’t too hopeful as there aren’t many of these bottles out there, but I did find three Whisky School bottle images: one from 2008 at 57.0% abv, one from 2010 where the abv is hard to read but it looks like it starts with 47 and another from 2012 at 48.4%, the same as the one I have. So it does appear that they make a unique bottling each year.

48.4% abv, that’s kind of an unusual number. Most of the official distillery bottlings from Springbank’s standard lineup are at 46%. They do plenty of single cask bottlings as well, but those are always (as far as I know) at cask strength, which generally falls in the range of the low 50’s to the high 50’s. The only recent exception that I noticed was Springbank Rundlets and Kilderkins (those are small casks, in the 60 liter to 80 liter range) which was at 49.4%, but that carried an age statement of 10 years, so I don’t think there is any connection.

One thing I remembered from Whisky School was that for a normal bottling run a group of casks, maybe up to a dozen, wound be dumped into a large tank and enough water adding to bring it down to roughly 48% abv. After a good mixing it is put back into casks to rest, but not the same ones. The whisky now resides in very old casks that have been used for many years and will simply act as neutral vessels. This step lasts somewhere in the range of a few weeks to a few months and allows all of the flavors to meld together ensuring a consistent product. Bigger operations have a large number of tanks so the whisky can stay in one until it is ready for bottling, there are no such luxuries at Springbank.

The group mingled of casks will be brought back out to the bottling hall when they are ready and dumped into another tank. Now precise measurements will be taken and water added to bring the whisky down to 46% abv before it makes its way into the bottles. It is done this way because most of the water needs to be added before the resting stage, but the abv may change once it is back in casks, so they leave a little water to be added at the end. This is when the abv number has to be accurate; there are government mandated regulations that give little tolerance between the actual percentage of alcohol and that which is listed on the label.

But these bottling runs are usually for a set number of cases and the amount of whisky coming out of the group of casks that were pulled is unlikely to match up. We were told that the excess whisky from a run would go back in a cask and be held for the next run of the same type of whisky. I actually don’t remember if that surplus whisky was set aside when it was at exactly 46% or at 48-ish percent, but the 48.4% abv of my bottle got me to thinking; maybe this is the extra whisky from a group of casks that had gone through the resting phase.

The most likely candidate would be Springbank CV, as it is already a vatting of several cask types and ages. Luckily I have a bottle of Springbank CV to compare. But there was no need to even open it, the colors are so dramatically different (the CV is light the graduation whisky is very dark) that there is no way they are of the same ilk.

As I pored over online databases of Springbank single malt bottlings looking for clues I noticed a few things. The distillery puts out a lot more single cask bottlings than I realized. A quartet of 14 year old Springbanks, each from a different type of sherry cask, came to the U.S. this year. There are several single cask Springbank Society bottlings each year. I’ve seen a 2009 Amontillado Sherry butt bottle on a store shelf. I also found reference to a 13 year old single bourbon barrel bottling that was exclusive to the Belgian market. Oh, and K&L wines in California recently had a Springbank Madeira cask bottled just for them. Those are just a few examples.

As I was looking through all of the information, I realized that the single cask bottlings that had production quantities listed were all in multiple of 6. This makes sense; most whisky is packaged in cases of six bottles. These cases are neatly packed on palates for shipping. They are not going to send out 50 cases and two loose bottles.

So, that brought me to my final theory. There must be some leftover whisky from each single cask bottling, could the Whisky School bottling be a bunch of “leftovers” all vatted together? Well, I’ll have to work through some math to see if this is even reasonable. There were 10 sessions of school in 2012, each with six students. That means there were 60 bottles, each at 48.4% abv. All of the single cask Springbanks seem to be at cask strength, typically between 50% and 60%, so I’m going to say they are at 55% on average.

60 bottles at 70cl each equals 42 liters total. Multiply that by .484 and we get 20.328 liters of alcohol. If there are 20.328 liters of alcohol in a volume of whisky at 55% abv, that works out to 36.96 liters of whisky (20.328 x 100 ÷ 55). This shows that if they had 36.96 liters of “leftover” cask strength whisky at 55% abv and they added enough water to bring the abv down to 48.4%, it would yield 60 bottles.

Since everything seems to go out in six bottle cases, it stands to reason that the remaining whisky from a single cask bottling would be somewhere between zero and six bottles, so 3 bottles on average, which is 2.1 liters. 39.96 liters divided by 2.1 liters per bottling run gives us 17.6 runs. Rounding up, you would need the excess whisky from 18 single cask bottling runs to for this to work out. Given my research, that seems like a reasonable number of single cask bottlings for Springbank to put out in a year.

The majority of their single cask offerings come from casks that previously held sherry, port, Madeira, red wine, etc. That would explain the exceptionally dark color of this whisky. Of course this is all just a hypothesis based on my observations and I could be completely wrong. Either way, it’s time to stop thinking and start drinking.

* You may have noticed the star next to the price of this bottle up top. The only way to get one is to attend the Whisky School, so that price includes tuition, lodging and three meals a day for five days.

The color is a dark golden amber. The nose is fairly unique. It has a typical Springbank characteristic, but there is something more to it. I find the aromas to be approachable yet intriguing; they carry a certain breadth and density. The liquid is fairly viscous on the tongue. It almost seems meek right up front, but the flavors and intensity build quickly.

A lot of dark flavors are in the mix: raisins, dried figs and molasses to name a few. This range integrates nicely with the underlying fruit notes and dry spiciness that builds as it moves into the lengthy finish. The peat smoke that is a normal (although not major) contributor to the Springbank flavor profile is very restrained in this example. The whisky is well behaved, with smooth transitions and no off-notes; a complex single malt that begs contemplation (I think I have more than obliged).

Gavin is right, it is special; I just wish someone would tell me what it is that makes it so special. I imagine that anyone who is willing to travel great distances and make the effort to see the innermost workings of their favorite distillery would feel the same way.

Van Winkle Special Reserve 12 Years Old

stats: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 90.4 proof, $52

This post is the continuation of what I started last week, if you haven’t read the Pappy Van Winkle 15 Year post yet, please go back and start with it.

The lineage and history of many American whiskey brands can be convoluted at best. The up and down cycles of the industry have prompted many mergers, acquisitions and consolidations over the decades. The fact that the history of some brands is further clouded by deceptive marketing stories only adds to the confusion, not to mention that brands, distilleries and existing stocks of aging whiskey can be split up and sold as separate entities. Many brands have had the source of their whiskey change through their lifespan, often more than once, and unfortunately this industry isn’t usually very transparent about it.

And that brings us to dusty hunting, hobby of the most fanatical core of bourbon consumers. I’m sure many of you have wandered into a small convenience store or gas station somewhere well off the beaten path and seen canned/packaged food items on the shelf with a thick coating of dust, looking as if they have literally been in that same spot for years. You’re left to think the place must make all of its money on lottery tickets and ammo, or perhaps the store is a front for a drug ring, because certainly no one is buying the food.

Believe it or not, in some parts of the country, the whiskey equivalents of such stores actually exist. In these places there are bottles that have been on the shelf for 20, 30, even 40 years or more. They were ignored in the 70’s and 80’s when bourbon went out of favor, and in the 90’s the brands were likely unfamiliar to the average consumer and passed up for the Jim’s and the Jack’s. In antiquated outlets, where no one pays attention to inventory or thinks to put long-idle product on sale, bottles could sit on the shelf for eons. And sometimes these liquid time capsules are valuable gems hiding in plain sight; bottles with whisky from highly regarded distilleries that were lost to history long ago.

Dusty hunting is not an easy sport though; it requires a combination of knowing where to look and what to look for, along with a good bit of luck. You have to know the desirable distilleries and the brands came from them during which time periods. The easy ones will carry a dsp number (distilled spirits producer) on the label, clearly identifying where it was distilled. Of course you still need to know which numbers represent the distilleries you are after. In the absence of dsp numbers, you can hope to find labels that carry a vintage, but often you have to date them in other ways. Knowing that bottle sizes switched to metric in 1980 can be an important clue, and some bottles will have the year of manufacture embossed in the glass on the bottom. The label might also list the city of distillation; if the brand switched distilleries at some point and you know the location of the more desirable one, that will be the information you need to look for.

Such bottlings do occasionally emerge from a forgotten corner of someone’s basement and end up in an auction. If you prefer your hunting to involve less leg work, less dust, and considerably more money, there is always that route.

Of the closed distilleries that dusty hunters consider worth their time and effort, Stitzel-Weller is the top prize; the bourbon fanatic’s ultimate conquest. The distillery put out several brands, but the most prominent (and now the most hunted) were Old Fitzgerald, W. L. Weller, Rebel Yell and Cabin Still. The Stitzel-Weller distillery stopped producing whiskey in 1992, 57 years after it was opened by Julian “Pappy” Van Winkle in the early days of the post-Prohibition era.

In 1908 Pappy took a controlling interest in W.L. Weller and Sons, a liquor wholesaler he had been employed by since 1893.Much of the bourbon sold by Weller under various brands had been sourced from the A. Ph. Stitzel Distillery. With a license to produce “medicinal whiskey” the distillery was able to survive Prohibition. After a long and mutually beneficial relationship, the A. Ph. Stitzel Distillery and W. L. Weller and Sons joined forces in 1933, forming Stitzel-Weller. The original Stitzel Distillery was closed in 1937, two years after the opening of the new Stitzel-Weller Distillery, the building of which was overseen by company president Pappy Van Winkle.

With an eye on quality, the company flourished in the post WWII decades. Pappy remained at the helm until he handed the leadership role off to his son, Julian Jr., just one year before passing away in 1965 at the age of 90. Unfortunately, bourbon sales went flat in the 60’s and took a major downturn in the 70’s as the national palate turned to vodka and rum. A group of family members who were shareholders in the company but not involved in its day-to-day operations forced Julian Jr. to sell the distillery and associated brands in 1972.

Julian Jr. was however able to retain the rights to one brand, Old Rip Van Winkle, which the company had only used briefly in the years leading up to Prohibition. He was also able to purchase existing stocks of Stitzel-Weller whiskey and set up and agreement for a continued supply of whiskey going forward.

The Old Rip Van Winkle brand was taken over by Julian Van Winkle III in 1981, after the death of Julian Jr. In 2001 Julian III was joined in the business by his son Preston.

The Stitzel-Weller Distillery and its associated brands changed hands again in 1984, this time going to a large conglomerate (DCL, which later became United Distillers) who closed Stitzel-Weller in 1992 along with several other bourbon distilleries after opening the new Bernheim Distillery.

By 1997 United Distillers had become part of Diageo, and in 1999 they sold off many of their American whiskey assets. Heaven Hill, whose distillery was destroyed by fire in 1996 ended up with the Bernheim Distillery and the Old Fitzgerald label (Heaven Hill had already bought the Cabin Still label back in 1993). The Weller brand was bought by Buffalo Trace, and the dormant Stitzel-Weller Distillery, along with its offices and warehouses (and some remaining whiskey) were retained by Diageo.

It was Julian Van Winkle III who transformed the Old Rip Van Winkle brand in the 80’s and 90’s by putting out progressively older bottlings. After the Stitzel-Weller Distillery closed in 1992 the new Bernheim Distillery started producing some bourbon with a similar recipe (using wheat instead of rye) to supply the Weller and Old Fitzgerald labels. The Van Winkles had access to some of this whiskey, but also sourced some bourbon from Buffalo Trace, who had produced wheated bourbon sporadically from 1991 to 1999. From 1999 on, Buffalo Trace made bourbon with that recipe on a regular basis and became the Van Winkle’s sole supplier. Finally in 2002 the Van Winkles entered into a joint venture with Sazerac, the owners of the Buffalo Trace Distillery, in order to ensure a future supply of quality bourbon.

As we move further away from 1992 it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain bourbon that was produced at the much vaunted Stitzel-Weller distillery. The typical age range of the Weller and Old Fitzgerald brands would have the Stitzel-Weller liquid fade out of them between the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. But with the Van Winkle bourbons being aged much longer, they became the last man standing in terms of regularly bottled Stitzel-Weller product.

For much of the first decade of the new millennium, devotees of the that legendary distillery had two choices; engage in the painstaking art of dusty hunting or simply buy a Van Winkle bottle when the came across one. As the brand’s popularity has recently reached its zenith, many who have arrived late to the game know nothing of the history and heritage; they just know that Van Winkle whiskeys are the most desirable “must have” bottlings.

For those in the know, during the past 5 years or so everyone has been trying to figure out which Van Winkle bottles still contain the magical Stitzel-Weller liquid. The subject has been hotly debated and it is not always a clear cut matter of “when was it bought?” and “how long was it aged?”. Some releases have contained a mix of whiskey from two or three distilleries, and in that case the Stitzel-Weller component could be older than the age statement on the bottle. Also, there have been a few instances where the Van Winkles have bottled a large quantity of a particular whisky and released it over several years.

For at least the last five years the Van Winkle bottles have had a code printed on them that reveals the exact bottling date. It’s usually on the glass, below the back label, but I’ve seen them in other places; some on label and others under it (you have to look through the bottle and read it backwards). There is a post on Sku’s Recent Eats blog that describes how to decipher the code. Also, Chuck Cowdery recently wrote an informative piece detailing the makeup of the fall 2012 release (be sure to read through the comments, there are some important clarifications).

And that brings us to that last group of people, the ones who have decided that with only the two oldest Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve bottlings still containing Stitzel-Weller juice, prices spiking and unprecedented scarcity, the stuff just isn’t worth hunting down anymore. They view the brand as a nice diversion, distracting many people away from the other objects of their thirsty desire.

So, what of the Van Winkles that I have had over the years? My 20 year Family Reserve was most likely from the fall 2006 or the spring 2007 release, definitely 100% Stitzel-Weller. My 15 year Family Reserve was possibly from the spring 2008 release but more likely spring or fall of 2007, I’d say there is a very high likelihood that is was 100% Stitzel-Weller. The first 10 year 107 proof I had was either from 2003 or 2004, I think it is very likely it had at least some Stitzel-Weller bourbon (that would have been 11 or 12 years old) in the mix as they transitioned over to other sources. I bought another 10 year 107 proof bottle that had a code dating it to mid 2008, that one should be either Bernheim, Buffalo Trace, or a combination of the two. The 12 year Special Reserve that I am about to taste has a bottle code dating it to January of 2012 and should be made up of both Bernheim and Buffalo Trace whiskey (my assumption is based on the fact that this is the makeup of the fall 2012 release of the 12 year).

The color is similar in tone to the dark medium amber of the 15 year, though slightly lighter.

The nose is also similar to the 15, but toned down, with much less density.

Candy corns, soft vanilla, gentle oak char flavors and just a whisper of spice all play nicely together on the palate. It is incredibly balanced, smooth and well behaved from start to finish. I find it to be very easy drinking. A little sweetness comes to the fore in the mid-palate adding depth, followed by a touch of heat as it moves into the reasonably lengthy finish.

It’s a fine bourbon in its own right, but it does seem somewhat docile while standing in the shadow of the 15 year.

Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve 15 Years Old

stats: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 107 proof, $77 

Van Winkle. The name is one which has become iconic in bourbon circles over the last decade. The Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery’s product line-up consists of five bourbons and a 13 year old rye. As you move up the age range of their bourbons they become more elusive, more expensive and above all, more highly coveted. Even though the Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve bottles (15 year, 20 year and 23 year) command most of the attention, the Old Rip Van Winkle 10 year 107 proof and the Van Winkle Special Reserve 12 year are both still quite hard to come by these days (there was also a 10 year 90 proof, but it was dropped from the line last year).

My introduction to Van Winkle bourbon came in the form of a bottle of 10 year 107 proof that was given to me as a gift (I think sometime in 2003 or 2004, all I know for sure is that I had polished it off by April of 2005). At that time everything I knew of good bourbon was limited to Maker’s Mark, Knob Creek, Booker’s, and possibly Baker’s and Basil Hayden’s. The Old Rip Van Winkle had opened my eyes to the fact that there was a whole universe of bourbon out there that I had previously been unaware of.

A few years later I suggested to my sister that a bottle of 15 year Pappy would be an appropriate gift for me – back then these bottles could actually linger on store shelves for several months or more after one of their semi-annual (spring and fall) releases. I try to give my sister the benefit of the doubt, but I really wasn’t sure if it was through generosity or stupidity that she picked up the 20 year Pappy for me (at that time they were priced at $50 and $90, respectively). Of course I had no choice but to go out and buy myself a bottle the 15 year. I don’t recall the exact timing of these acquisitions but one of my early posts, where I reviewed the 20 year Pappy , was originally written in May of 2007. I don’t think I waited too long to get the 15 year, however the earliest I specifically remember it being in my possession was June of 2008, when I let a friend taste both Pappy’s.

The popularity of the brand has exploded over the last two or three years, and nowadays all things Van Winkle practically vaporize off of store shelves, if any bottles even make it that far after waiting list requests have been fulfilled. For many people these bottlings have become the Holy Grail of American whiskey purchases. But for some aficionados the cost of and effort needed to obtain a Van Winkle bottle outweighs the value of the liquid inside. To this group the Van Winkles have become somewhat of a sacrificial lamb amongst great bourbons; while still commanding a much respect, they serve to distract the hoarding masses away from other highly desirable, limited release whiskeys which garner far less media attention.

In order to explain this divergence of opinions and dispel a few misconceptions I’m going to explore a bit of history and delve into a topic that few people, aside from bourbon’s most ardent enthusiasts, are even aware of.

But those details will have to wait for the next post. This had started off as a comparison piece with the Van Winkle Special Reserve 12 Years Old, and then it began to snowball. It was growing into an unwieldy literary blob until I finally made the executive decision to split it in two. I’ll tie everything together soon enough, and even explain the relevance of my rambling recollection of when I procured my Van Winkle bottles.

As a quick footnote I should mention that this bottle somehow got shuffled to the back of the whiskey shelf where it sat 3/4 consumed for several years. In past posts I’ve detailed my observances of some whiskeys improving after time spent in a partially full bottle and others deteriorating under the same circumstance. I recently polished off my Murray McDavid 15 year Highland Park bottle which had spent maybe a year with just 10%-20% of its original contents: it was a mere shadow of what it had been when I first opened the bottle. My fear was that the same fate had befallen my Pappy and I wouldn’t be able to give it a fair review. But then I remembered that a few years back I used to regularly spay a preservative gas mix into my open whisk(e)y bottles. Perhaps the remaining bourbon in this bottle had been protected by an invisible blanket of Argon.

There’s only one way to tell, time to open her up. It actually did taste a little peculiar at first, but I think that was just down to the fact that I’ve been drinking way more scotch than bourbon lately. A few more sips confirmed that we were good to go.

The color is a deep medium amber.

The aromas are dense but not overly intense, with sweet corn and deep oak notes riding up on a gentle cloud of alcohol vapor.

The whiskey is fairly viscous on the tongue and quickly brings the palate to attention. Gentle spice notes mingle with the heat of the alcohol as a backbone of oak inspired flavors rise up. The wood is prominent but not out of balance and as it moves along hints of sweetness emerge.

Many different flavors individually come to the fore as the whiskey progresses through its lengthy finish, which gently fades ever so slowly. Even though the whiskey is driven by strength and intensity, its character retains a certain quality of softness.

Overall, it embraces you like a firm handshake and shows great depth throughout. I can see what all the fuss is about.

Kilchoman, 2006 Vintage Release vs. Machir Bay (2012)

stats: 2006 Vintage Release, single malt scotch, Islay, 46%, £50 ($80)

          Machir Bay (2012), single malt scotch, Islay, 46%, £45 ($72)

For the last post I tasted some very young examples of Kilchoman, and now it’s time to sample the two slightly older miniatures of the four that I picked up at the distillery. But before I get into the technical details and tasting notes, I’d like to talk a little bit about the relevance of the distillery’s location.

While many of Scotland’s malt distilleries have been around for hundreds of years, many more have come and gone over the last two centuries. When a new distillery is called for, many factors are taken into account when choosing its location. As the decades have marched on, circumstances have changed and different locations become more desirable.

In the 1500’s and 1600’s distilling was the domain of Scottish farmers. Whisky was a value-added product that they could make from their barley without too much trouble, and with a much longer shelf life than the grain it was made from, whisky could also be used as a hedge against poor future growing seasons.

Distilling became more commercial in the 1700’s, but unreasonable tax rates drove distillers to the remote locations of the coastal islands and mountainous highlands, where they were out of the reach of the excise men.

When the tax rates on whisky were finally lowered in 1823 the commercial distilling industry saw explosive growth and Campbeltown was the epicenter, with 28 new distilleries popping up by 1835. It had all of the essential elements: local farmers growing plenty of barley, a nearby coal mine producing fuel for the stills, abundant peat with which to fire the kilns, a reliable water source in Crosshill Loch, and a good harbor from which to ship the whisky to nearby Glasgow.

While the lower tax rates brought the highland distillers out of the hills and closer to the prime water sources in the Spey River valley, it wasn’t until the late 1800’s that Speyside saw massive growth in distilling. It was then that the railroads connecting that remote region the major urban areas were developed. With the infrastructure in place to bring the whisky to market (as well as bring back any raw materials that were lacking), Speyside, with its abundant water supplies, was the place to set up a new distillery.

By the 1960’s the situation had changed again. With distillers starting to buy malted barley from large commercial malting operations, being close to farms and peat sources was no longer important. And with most distillers moving from coal fired stills to indirect steam heat (usually produced with fuel oil or natural gas), being located near a coal source was no longer an advantage. You could really put a distillery anywhere, as long as there was a good water source and access to electricity and transportation infrastructure.

In the past two decades, we have witnessed a further evolution. Prior to the 1970’s almost all malt whisky went into blends, and what little was bottled as single malt was sold domestically. Marketing was irrelevant to the individual distilleries; as long as they had a good reputation with the blenders sales were almost guaranteed. While the majority of Scotch sold today is still in the form of blends, single malts have grown into an important segment of the market. A few distilleries are even dedicating their entire production to single malts now.

So, marketing and tourism have grown into important aspects for Scotland’s malt whisky distilleries, and distillery location can be a critical factor for both. Let’s look at marketing first. From the perspective of building a brand image, Speyside is probably the last place you would want to set up shop these days. With more than 50 malt distilleries packed into about 2000 square miles it would be hard to stand out from the rest, and you’d really risk becoming just another Glen-something-or-other, lost in a sea of distilleries.

But give your distillery an island unto itself, and now you’ve set yourself apart from the crowd. Talisker has long been well marketed as the only single malt from the Isle of Skye, and while Tobermory (on the Isle of Mull) isn’t all that well known, it was my curiosity of island malts that drove me to seek out their bottlings, and ultimately to visit the distillery. I suspect that a lack of proper marketing keeps Tobermory from capitalizing on its uncommon location.

One of Scotland’s newest distilleries, Abhainn Dearg, which began production in 2008, is situated on the Isle of Lewis. Although the island is probably too remote for the distillery to draw in many tourists, it does have the distinction of a very unique location and as far as I know it is the first ever licensed distillery in the Outer Hebrides. Hopefully the difficult to pronounce name (ah-veen jeer-reg) doesn’t prove to be too much of a handicap.

Tourism is the other big driver for new distilleries, both in terms of the direct revenue it can generate and the brand loyalty that can be created through positive experiences during visits. As much as Speyside is a whisky tourist destination with its dense concentration of distilleries, any individual one would have to do something pretty special to draw my attention above the others in the region.

Of all the distilleries in Scotland, Auchentoshan may have the most ideal location for drawing in sightseers – less than a 15 minute drive from the airport in Glasgow. Just 30 minutes further outside of Glasgow, Glengoyne is an obvious destination for any malt fanatic heading north or west from the city. I can certainly attest to the fact that my awareness of each of these distilleries was raised greatly as a result of the memorable experiences I had while visiting them.

Another relatively new distillery named Daftmill began producing spirit in 2005. Located midway between Perth and St. Andrews, it is the first new Lowland distillery to open since the 1960’s. The operating costs of the distillery are being funded by revenue from the 1000 acre farm it is located on, and they don’t intend to bottle any whisky until it is aged at least 10 years. They currently have no visitor facilities, but should they choose to develop them once they have single malt for sale, they are ideally situated to tap into the steady stream tourists who fly into Edinburgh and travel north from there.

The Arran distillery, which came online in 1993, has a location (on an island in the Firth of Clyde) that is beneficial for both tourism and marketing. While Arran may seem a little off the beaten path at first glance, a short drive from Glasgow and a quick ferry ride will put you on the island with minimal effort. A ferry off the other side of the island will conveniently put you on the road to Campbeltown or a very short drive from the ferry to Islay. That is a tempting shortcut for the whisky traveler who’d rather not drive all he way around Loch Fyne. With island malts enjoying a rising tide of popularity, the distillery also enjoys the notoriety of being the only one on the Isle of Arran.

And that brings us to Kilchoman. The fame and popularity of Islay whisky has grown dramatically since the mid 90’s, and it could easily be argued that this has driven interest in the single malts hailing from other Scottish islands. Even though Kilchoman competes with 7 other distilleries for tourist visits, the iconic island has become the whisky tourist’s ultimate destination, and most visitors spend enough time there to see most, if not all of Islay’s distilleries. The timing of their whisky coming of age has coincided perfectly with the swelling consumer demand for all things Islay. Combine that with the ability to tout themselves as the first new distillery on the island in 124 years and you have the perfect opportunity for a young distillery to get its whisky into the hands (and minds) of consumers in an unprecedented way.

Again, my 50ml bottles are pictured but the prices listed typical for 700ml bottles.

Machir Bay (2012)  – A vatting of 3 year (60%), 4 year (35%) and 5 year (5%), all from first fill bourbon barrels, with the 4 year being finished for a further 8 weeks in Oloroso Sherry butts.

The nose is full and peaty with a touch of sea spray, I think some of the “new make spirit” aroma is still coming through as well.

On the palate, there’s a backbone of peat smoke running throughout, but it’s less assertive than I expected. A wave of floral/grassy notes comes to the fore on the mid-palate, which subsides as the whisky moves through a lull in flavor intensity before it turns hot (in a spicey/floral way) on the finish. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it immature or poorly integrated; perhaps “angular” is a more appropriate descriptive term.

2006 Vintage Release – The first 5 year old from the distillery, a vatting of first-fill bourbon barrels (80%) and refill bourbon barrels (20%).

The peat aromas aren’t as robust (as the Machir Bay), and there’s a bit of a dry, earthy quality on the nose.

On the palate, the first thing that strikes me is how different the flavor profile is from that of the Machir Bay. The peat is certainly there, but running along with it is something I’m having a hard time putting my finger on; something along the lines of some sort of dry, earthy middle-eastern spice.

It does evolve as it moves through from the start to the finish, but in a very subtle way. While it lacks some of the complexity of the Machir Bay, it comes across as being much more well-composed.

I managed to hold back just a bit more of the Spring 2011 Release to compare. While I still give it the edge, these two expressions come much closer than their younger counterparts. As much as I loathe assigning numerical ratings, I’ll go 85, 87 and 88 respectively, just to put things in context with the last post.