I don’t check my email all that frequently. Work related emails are few and far between and internet access is very limited when I am at work. Consequently, I didn’t see an email that came in at 3:00 in the afternoon a few weeks ago until 11:00 the next morning.
I’m on the mailing lists of several whisky bars, liquor stores, state liquor commissions and a few distilleries, so I often get emails promoting whisky events. These are never really close to home though; only the truly special ones will warrant the time and effort it would take for me to attend them.
I was still lying in bed and only half awake as I scanned through the above mentioned email. It was for a whisky tasting at Gordon’s Fine Wines in Waltham, MA (a suburb just west of Boston). When I got to the part of the message that showed the event lineup and saw a couple of 41 year old whiskies that had been distilled in the early 1970’s, my attention suddenly became undivided. Then I scrolled down further and saw the $200 price tag and quickly lost interest. Then I saw the next line noting that the price included a $200 gift card to the store.
Wait! So it’s a free tasting with rare, expensive whiskies and I just have to buy myself a $200 gift card to a liquor store with an incredible whisky selection? Being the skeptical sort that I am, I read over the email five or six more times to make sure there wasn’t some catch or caveat that I was missing. Next questions; when is this and do I have to take time off from work? It was on Friday evening the next week, and while not exactly convenient, I could slip down there between my Thursday night and Saturday night shifts. It was even close enough to my parents’ house that I could stay there and not have to spring for a hotel.
Of course, I knew an event like this would be limited in size and sell out quickly. If I was going to go, I’d have to get on the ball and sign up without hesitation. It turned out to be a 35 person event and when I reserved my spot just 22 hours after the email went out, there were only eight spaces left.
The main purpose of the tasting was to introduce Gordon’s customers to a new, single cask bottling of 21 year old Miltonduff that was done exclusively for the store by Gordon & MacPhail. Five other single malt offerings from the independent bottler would be tasted as well.
The additional bonus was that the event was hosted by Richard Urquhart, Gordon & MacPhail’s Export Director and part of the 4th generation of the family that owns the company. The business began in 1895 when it was established by James Gordon and John Alexander MacPhail as a family grocers, tea, wine and spirits merchant in Elgin. John Urquhart joined the company within its first year and was made a Senior Partner in 1915. By that point the Gordon & MacPhail brand name was well established and it didn’t make sense to amend it by adding Urquhart to the moniker. The same logic applied later when the Urquhart family eventually took full control of the business.
John developed Gordon & MacPhail’s whisky broking business and got them started bottling single malts under license for several distilleries. This soon led to the company having their own casks filled with new make spirit, which were left to age at the distilleries where the whisky was produced; this is the mainstay of the business today.
George Urquhart, John’s son, joined the business in 1933 and became a senior partner upon his father’s death in 1956. In the 1960’s Gorge launched a range of single malts from different distilleries under the “Connoisseur’s Choice” brand and offered them for sale in export markets, which included Italy, France, America and the Netherlands.
Four of George’s children joined the business between 1967 and 1981, and the fourth generation includes at least six of their collective offspring who are now part of the company. Getting to hear Richard’s insights into the history of Gordon & MacPhail and his family really made this a very special event. Richard started his talk, then paused and mentioned the look that he sees on everyone’s faces when he speaks too much before anyone has tasted any whisky.
He suggested we jump in with the first one right away. I’ll alternate between the topics that were discussed and the whiskies which we tasted. Keep in mind that the pours at this type of event are small, about ½ an ounce, and that it’s not the best environment for contemplating detailed tasting notes.
We started with a 10 year Miltonduff which was aged in refill sherry casks, bottled at 43% and selling for $56. It was fresh and elegant, with delicate malt notes, soft tree fruit and a hint of minerality. The overall style was clean and approachable, but it seemed to have minimal sherry influence.
We started off talking about casks types and filtration. Richard explained that it used to be common practice in Scotland to re-cooper Bourbon barrels (200 liters) and Sherry butts (500 liters) into hogsheads (250 liters). The barrels would be shipped as “knock downs” (disassembled) to save on transport costs. They would need to be re-coopered to weed out faulty staves so the labor cost was already accounted for. A full butt weighs around 1000 pounds, so making them smaller made them less difficult to manage. The hogshead was the happy medium size that both types of casks were often reassembled into.
Things are different today. Bourbon barrels are manufactured to a much higher level of quality and don’t need to be re-coopered before they are put into service in Scotland. It’s more cost effective to just ship them whole now. Spain banned the export of bulk Sherry back in the 1980’s; it is all bottled in the country now. The vast majority of the Sherry casks that come to Scotland these days were produced specifically for the whisky companies and seasoned with Sherry in Spain for a few years at most before being sent over to the distilleries.
All of the G&M whiskies bottled at 46% and above are non-chill filtered. Whiskies that the company bottles at 43% are filtered at 5° C (41° F), where the industry standard is much colder, as low as -4° C (25° F). This will keep the whisky from forming a haze in the bottle, but not if ice is added. The process is sort of a compromise that allows more flavor to be retained.
Next we moved on to the Gordon’s exclusive 21 year Miltonduff which was bottled at 53.8% and priced at $150 (I missed the details on the cask type). It had similar aromas to previously tasted 10 year old, but with more oak presence. The palate showed subtle tropical fruit notes, a grain-forward character and warming spice notes. This was the only whisky of the night that I added water to. That allowed the aromas to open up a little and brought out more floral notes. More fruit, vanilla and toasted oak notes came out on the palate.
The company’s business model has evolved over the years and while they do still have a retail store in Elgin, being an independent bottler of single malt Scotch whisky easily represents the largest part of their business today. That is all that they have bottled for at least a few decades, but Gordon & MacPhail did bottle other products in the past, including Sherry, wine, rum, vodka and even Coca-Cola for a short time during WWII. They have been approached by whisky producers from other countries more recently, but declined the offers.
Gordon & MacPhail is also unique among independent bottlers in that they only lay down newly filled casks from the distilleries that they work with. All of the other bottlers buy most, if not all, of their whisky from brokers who sell casks that already have a good bit of age on them.
All of the casks that they use are first-fill or second-fill, and the Sherry casks they use are manufactured to their specification before being seasoned with the fortified wine in Spain. Richard noted that they use staves on these casks that are a little thicker than the industry standard. Since Gordon & MacPhail tend to age many of their whiskies for an extended period of time, the extra stave thickness gives the casks more longevity and slows down evaporation rates.
Tastings normally end with the most heavily peated whiskies, but we sampled those in the middle to save the rare and special offerings for the end. First up was the 10 year Caol Ila which was aged in first-fill Bourbon barrels, bottled at 46% and priced at $64. The nose showed unadulterated peat smoke with sea spray and coastal minerality. The palate was full of weighty, meaty peat smoke with a touch of mint and engaging spice notes. This is classic Caol Ila, where the peat character takes center stage with minimal distraction. Most, if not all of the official bottlings of Caol Ila are chill filtered, so it’s nice to have non-filtered options from independent bottlers.
Richard also emphasized the relationships that G&M has built with the many companies they have worked with over the decades and the importance of maintaining those relationships, even if they don’t currently do business together. He mentioned that the Sherry producer who seasons casks for them is the same one that they used to work with as a bottler back in the 1970’s.
While G&M does have a bonded warehouse in Elgin capable of holding up to 8000 casks, they prefer to have the whisky that they buy age in the warehouses of the distilleries where it was produced, as that contributes to the unique character of each whisky. I believe that they could legally use the names of the distilleries where the whisky is distilled on their labels without permission, but they choose to work out licensing agreements with the companies instead. I’m sure that goes a long way to ensure they are able to fill casks in the future and age them on site.
G&M have filled casks from 103 different distilleries over the years. They now fill casks from about 70 distilleries, but are still laying down more whisky than any time in the past. Caol Ila is one of their biggest filling partners, currently supplying about 100 casks per year.
Next we moved on the Caol Ila 2003 Sassicaia Finish. This Caol Ila was aged for a total of a few months less than 13 years. It started off in first-fill Bourbon barrels, where it spent roughly 10 years. It was then transferred to Sassicaia (red wine from Tuscany) casks for another 33 months. It was bottled at 45% and priced at $86. The dark, brooding peat smoke aromatics were layered with dark red berry fruit notes. On the palate it was meaty and smoky with notes of chocolate and mulled red fruits adding complexity. There was a bit of sweetness up front, but it turned more dry and tannic as it moved into the finish.
Richard also took a little time to talk to us about the company’s biggest development in the modern era; their purchase of the Benromach distillery in 1993. The distillery had been closed since 1983 and was in a state of disrepair. After five years of refurbishment it went back online in 1998. The ambition to own and operate a distillery of their own had actually gone back to the first generation of the Urquhart family that was involved with Gordon & MacPhail. John Urquhart had tried to buy the Strathisla distillery in 1950 after its owner was jailed for tax evasion and the court ordered an auction of his assets. Urquhart was outbid by Chivas Brothers, who paid £71,000 for the distillery. According to the story Richard was told as a child by his grandfather, George, they had been outbid by a mere £5 (he conceded that may have been an exaggeration, though).
After the Caol Ila samples we took a moment to drink some water, let our palates refresh and prepare to taste offerings from Gordon & MacPhail’s “Old & Rare” and “Speymalt” ranges.
First up was the 41 year Coleburn, which was distilled in 1972, aged in refill, remade American hogsheads, bottled at 46% and priced at $725. The aromas were fascinating, showing classic notes of the old school distilling methods, with an oily character and paraffin wax coming through. On the palate caramel and shoe polish showed over a subtle floral backdrop.
At this point the conversation drifted to the older bottlings released by Gordon & MacPhail. In 2015 they bottled a 75 year old Mortlach, which is the oldest single malt bottled by anyone to date. Richard talked about the connection to his great-grandfather, who he never met. This first-fill Sherry but was laid down by John Urquhart in November of 1939, and 75 years later the fourth generation of the family running the business took part in its bottling and release.
As questions came up about their older casks, Richard cryptically revealed that the oldest cask they have in their possession now dates to 1940. It will be interesting to see how long they let that one go before it is bottled. Talk of a 1950 Talisker that was bottled at 60 years of age brought up the topic of how whisky can morph as it ages. The phenols that contribute the smoky character break down over time, and that 60 year Talisker had no discernable peat smoke flavors. Then Richard mentioned the company’s “liquid library”; a collection of samples taken from many of their casks at various points through time. He was able to go back and taste the very same Talisker cask as it was with just 10 years of age, from a sample pulled in 1960. And of course it had the signature peat smoke that Talisker is well-known for.
Finally, we moved on to the 41 year Macallan, which was distilled in 1973, aged in European Oak first-fill Sherry casks, bottled at 43% and priced at $1260. The aromatics had layers of complexity, with saddle leather, raisins and dark, oxidized sherry fruit being the most obvious notes. On the palate there was a lovely evolution of flavors. It was big and masculine with dark, sinewy sherry fruits along with hints of unsweetened chocolate and coffee beans. Baking spice notes took the spotlight on the finish.
Someone questions the price difference between the last two, given that Coleburn is a silent distillery which hasn’t produced whisky since 1985 and is unlikely to ever again. Richard indicated that it mostly came down to the cost of the licensing agreements to use the distillery names.
We talked a little more about the company’s past and the fact that G&M continued to fill many casks during the 1930’s and 40’s when the industry was seeing some of its worst times. This probably seemed risky at the time, but it helped to ensure Gordon & MacPhail’s future success. Richard mentioned that back in those dark days Macallan had actually requested that G&M fill their casks ahead of schedule to give the distillery a much needed infusion of cash. Times have changed though, and Macallan has been unable to supply whisky to Gordon & MacPhail for some years. I believe Richard said 2006 was the last time that happened.
As I mentioned above, maintaining good relationships with their distilling partners, both past and present, is of great importance to the company. Gordon & MacPhail still hosts an annual dinner with representative of all of the distilleries in Scotland. Macallan is on the cusp of opening a new, much larger distillery; if the industry takes another downturn I’m sure the Urquharts will be ready to buy whisky from them again.
Overall, this was really a great tasting event. As for my opinions of the whiskies, I was a little indifferent toward the Miltonduffs. The 21 year was more interesting than the 10 year, but I think the subtleties of the house style might be lost on me. The Coleburn was intriguing, but I found it more appealing on the nose than on the palate. I have a feeling that Coleburn is a whisky I really wouldn’t care for at a much younger age, and that is probably down to my personal preferences. I really enjoyed the 10 year Caol Ila, but for me the two standouts were the Macallan and the Caol Ila Sassicaia Finish, even though they were very different from each other stylistically.
stats: whisky, distilled and partially aged in Scotland, finished and bottled in Spain, 41.3%, $40
Back in the spring I had the opportunity to nick a sample out of a bottle of whisky that I’d never heard of before; Nomad, Outland Whisky. The information provided on the label was somewhat lacking in detail, but a little online research did shed some light on its background.
The label vaguely notes “A unique ageing process, beginning in Scotland and finishing in González Byass’ PX casks in Jerez……” While it is marked as a product of Spain, that’s a technicality; the vast majority of its production process did happen in Scotland.
The Nomad website gave more details, and related press releases filled in the gaps. This is actually a collaboration between González Byass and Richard Paterson. Byass is a prominent Sherry producer and many of his casks have made their way to Scotland for whisky maturation. Isle of Arran, Tobermory and Glenfarclas are just a few of the single malts that have employed his casks. Byass had already added gin and vodka to his portfolio of products, but this was his first foray into whisky.
Paterson is the well-known Master Blender who works for Whyte & Mackay. In addition to overseeing the Whyte & Mackay branded blend (which sells over 1 million cases a year, primarily in its home market), he also manages the bottlings of the company’s single malts; Dalmore, Fettercairn, Isle of Jura and Tamnavulin. Paterson’s most noteworthy project was the Shackleton blended malt. When 11 bottles of Mackinlay’s Scotch Whisky, which had been abandoned in Antarctica by explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton in 1909, were recovered from their icy resting place in 2010 Paterson was tapped to extract a sample and create a replica whisky by blending together modern Scottish malts.
In the case of Nomad, Paterson has assembled a blend of 25 single malts (40% of the blend) and six grain whiskies (60% of the blend), sourced primarily from the Speyside region of Scotland. Those 31 whiskies range in age from 5 years to 8 years. After being vatted together, the blend is filled into Oloroso Sherry butts for another three years of aging in Scotland. It is then shipped to Spain, transferred to old Pedro Ximenez casks and aged for a minimum of 12 months in the hot, humid southern Spanish climate of San Fernando, in the cellars of the Byass bodega.
They claim to have experimented with the final finishing period in Pedro Ximenez, Oloroso and Fino Sherry casks, before settling on Pedro Ximenez casks as having the best result. Nomad debuted in key Asian markets in mid-2014 and made its way to Europe and the United States shortly thereafter.
You’ll note that this is not labeled as Scotch whiskey; it legally cannot be, as it was not matured exclusively in Scotland. Furthermore, this type of ageing scheme would not be possible with a single malt from Scotland, regardless of how it would be labeled; since 2012 it has been illegal to export single malt whiskey from Scotland unless it is bottled for retail sale.
Anyway, let’s see how it tastes:
The nose is an interesting dichotomy; delicate, fragrant tree fruit notes typical of Speyside malts are layered across the weightier, complex, dark berry fruit character from the heavy Sherry cask influence. The aromas are quite appealing.
It’s full bodied, with big, brash sherry fruit on the palate. The flavors show good range, with raisiny sweetness and slightly oxidized nuttiness. Things get a bit wonky from the mid-palate onward though, with a lack of integration and a bit too much heat.
But it does pull itself together on the finish as the flavor profile becomes more dry and earthy.
stats:
12 year – single malt Scotch, Highlands, 40%, $42
21 year – single malt Scotch, Highlands, 46%, non-chill filtered, $137
When I decided to write a post comparing Old Pulteney 12 year to Old Pulteney 17 year, I thought it would be a good idea to get the 21 year old in the mix too. It’s somewhat of a pricey bottle though, so I was trying to avoid buying one. I am, however, always looking for a reasonable excuse to visit some of my favorite whisky bars in Montreal. That was all I needed to head north one more time before the busy summer season got going at work.
I’ll pick up where my last post on this distillery left off, with a little more history. After being established in 1826, Pulteney operated continuously for more than 100 years and remained in the control of its founding family up until 1920. James Watson & Co. Ltd., the new owner, sold it on to John Dewar & Sons Ltd. in 1923. Just two years later it was sold to the Distiller’s Company Ltd.
With the Herring boom at its peak, there must have been some wild times in the port town; local authorities enacted a prohibition on alcohol, making Wick a dry town from May 1922. Diminished local demand combined with global factors detrimental to the whisky industry caused DCL to close the distillery in 1930.
The local prohibition came to an end in May of 1947 and four years later the distillery was purchased and resurrected by Robert Cumming, a lawyer from Banff. In 1955 he sold the distillery on to Hiram Walker & Sons Ltd. They renovated and modernized the operation in 1958-59, bringing an end to its use of traditional floor maltings (though worm tubs continue to be used to this day). This is likely also when the original pair of 9,092-liter spirit stills were replaced by the single 17,343-liter spirit still that is in use there today.
Pulteney was sold on to Allied Brewers in 1961. That company later changed names several times through a series of mergers and acquisitions. Finally, the distillery was purchased by its current owners, Inver House, in 1995. They released the official 12 year old bottling in 1997. The 17 year old was introduced in 2004, originally at 40% or 43% abv (depending in its intended export market), but the alcohol level was raised to 46% in 2006. The 21 year old was added to the core lineup in 2007 or 2008.
There have also been limited releases of older bottlings, including a 30 year old in 2009 and a 40 year old in 2012, as well as several non-age stated bottlings that were special editions or sold only in duty-free shops.
Looking to clarify some information about the cask types used to mature Old Pulteney’s core range, I came across their online shop which had different product descriptions than their main website. The pages on that site have links to the online shop, but shipping is only available to the UK, so I doubt very many people click on over for a look.
For the 12 year old the cask descriptions are identical; “Matured wholly in air-dried, hand selected ex-bourbon casks”.
For the 17 year old the main web site gives the rather vague description of “Aged in both American and Spanish oak casks”. But the online shop goes into more detail, noting that it “…..predominantly features ex-bourbon maturation, with the addition of spirit that has been wholly matured in Spanish wood ex-sherry casks, predominantly Pedro Ximenez and Oloroso”.
Unfortunately, for the 21 year old the two descriptions contain conflicting information. The main site notes that “…..with this expression we marry together Old Pulteney matured in ex-bourbon casks with spirit from ex-Oloroso sherry casks. We mostly use second fill American oak, plus some Spanish oak first fill. However, there is a higher proportion of ex-Oloroso sherry cask compared to the 17 Years Old”. But the online shop states that “As with the 17 year old, with this expression we marry together Old Pulteney matured in ex-bourbon wood with spirit from ex-sherry wood casks. The crucial difference, however, is that the ex-sherry wood in this case is made from American Oak (mostly Fino Sherries)”.
If I can get any official clarification from the company, I’ll post an update in the comments below.
So, I bellied up to the bar in Montreal and ordered a glass of Old Pulteney 12 year to calibrate my palate. On my first sip I immediately knew that something was off. After a brief instant of self-doubt, I took a closer look at the bottle and noticed that this was the 40% abv bottling rather than the 43% abv bottling that gets exported to the U.S.
I usually harp on the difference in flavor that can be realized when distillers stop chill filtering; a move that usually goes hand-in-hand with the alcohol level rising to 46% or more. I found it very interesting that a three point drop in the alcohol percentage with no change in filtration was so obvious to me, even when I hadn’t tasted the higher proof version for several months.
The 12 year old shows biscuity malt aromas with some subtle tree fruit and briny coastal notes.
Somewhat full bodied, the palate has a good balance of malt and oaky spice notes with a touch of sea spray.
It gets thin on the finish, falling a little flat after a respectable start.
The 21 year old is much darker, with a beautiful mahogany color.
The nose is somewhat restrained, without much volatility. But the aromas that are there are full of complexity, with mature oak-driven notes and briny minerality.
The palate is very oak-forward, but not out of balance. Long-soaked staves, shoe polish, maple and warming spice notes all come through.
The finish is long and evolving with a coastal character reminiscent of old fishing nets emerging. Everything is very well-integrated.
Overall it is well-composed, and while bold and assertive it doesn’t get unruly.
Back in November I came across a bottle of the 21 year old in MA for $130, which wasn’t much of an difference over the 17 year old. Knowing how much I enjoyed it after my sampling in Montreal, I was tempted but decided to wait until I was back in the area a few weeks later. When I returned to the same store, that bottle had a price tag of $175.
I questioned someone working there to see if it had been marked in error. He did a little checking and found that the price from the distributor had jumped dramatically with their latest delivery. He actually offered to sell me one for $150, noting that their cost was now $144. I appreciated their effort to keep a customer happy in the face of quickly rising prices, but I passed and drove a few miles down the road to a store where I had recently seen the 21 year at $137. Fortunately they still had a few bottles on the shelf.
These are both stores with pretty aggressive pricing, so most places will probably have it priced in the $180’s, if not a bit higher. Looking at prices online, I got the sense that the 17 year is jumping from around $110 up to the $130 neighborhood. I haven’t seen any indication of the 12 year’s price rising at this point. If you come across any of the 21 year Old Pulteney at the previous price, snap it up while you can.
Back in October of 2015, a question about the ownership of Glenrothes (both the distillery and the brand) led me to write a post where I compiled a list of all of the malt distilleries in Scotland and who they were owned by. I only included the ones that were currently distilling at that time and had been running for at least three years. A major purchase of three Scottish distilleries in 2016 necessitated an update of the list, which I’ve just done. I’ll take a moment here to detail the backgrounds of the buyer and the seller, as well as the distilleries involved
Billy Walker, a veteran of the Scotch whisky industry since 1971, began his career as a distillery chemist at Inver House (which was owned by Hiram Walker at the time; no relation). By the late 1980’s Mr. Walker had stepped into a management role with Burn Stewart, and was part of a management buy-in in 1988 that gave him a 3% stake in the company. Burn Stewart was established in 1948 as a whisky blending, brokering and export business. During Walker’s tenure there, the company acquired two distilleries; Deanston (1991) and Tobermory (1993).
When Burn Stewart was bought out by CL Financial at the end of 2002, Billy Walker was left with a pile of cash and no job. Rather than retire, he went on to look for his next challenge. Along with two South African funding partners (South Africa was one of Burn Stewart’s major export markets), Walker began the hunt for a distillery to buy. In April of 2004 they purchased the BenRiach distillery, with the new owners forming the BenRiach Distillery Company Limited. The group went on to purchase Glendronach in 2008 and Glenglassaugh in 2013.
BenRiach was established in 1898 in Speyside, a bit south of Elgin. But it closed down after just two years, in the wake of the bursting of the industry bubble of the late 1800’s at the turn of the century. The floor maltings at BenRiach continued to be used though, supplying malt for the nearby and co-owned Longmorn distillery. This was made practical by the new private railroad which had been constructed between the two distilleries.
BenRiach was purchased by Glenlivet in 1965 and completely refurbished before reopening in 1966. It was taken over by Chivas Brothers in 1978 and a second set of stills were added in 1985, but its production was dropped to just three months per year in 1999. When Seagram’s, the parent company of Chivas Brothers, broke apart in 2001, Pernod-Ricard acquired many of their assets, including BenRiach. The distillery was closed entirely in August of 2002.
When Walker’s group took over the distillery in April of 2004 its greatest asset was in the warehouses; a continuous stock of aging whisky dating back to 1966. In September of 2004, five months after the purchase, the distillery was up and running again.
Glendronach was established 1826 in Speyside, just outside of Huntly. The distillery went through a series of owners over the course of its history. It was rebuilt after a fire in 1837, fell silent from 1916 to 1920, had a second set of stills added in 1966-67, and was closed again from 1996 to April of 2001. After being taken over by Pernod-Ricard / Chivas Brothers in 2005, the stills were converted to steam heat, ending Glendronach’s reign as the last distillery in Scotland operating with coal fired stills.
Likely needing to free up some capital for their purchase of Absolut, Pernod-Ricard sold Glendronach on to Billy Walker’s group in 2008. In spite of the five year gap in production, there were still 30,000 casks aging in the warehouses; plenty for the new owners to work with as they rebuilt the brand.
Glenglassaugh was established in 1875, near Scotland’s north coast and just west of the modern boundary that delineates Speyside, making it a Highland distillery. In 1892 it was acquired by the Highland Distillers Company, which was in turn acquired by the Edrington Group in 2001.
The distillery saw long silent periods, which lasted from 1907 to 1931 and from 1936 to 1960. It was renovated during 1959-60 before going back into operation, but the next downturn for the industry caused Glenglassaugh to close down again in 1986. The Scaent Group, a Dutch investment consortium, purchased the distillery 2008 and with a healthy investment, had it reopened by November of that year. In 2012 Scaent sold the distillery to Lumiere, an Amsterdam based private equity group. Glenglassaugh was then purchased by the BenRiach Distillery Company in March of 2013. Walker invested even more in the distillery, with the goal of getting it up to full production as quickly as possible.
Just 26 years of production had been followed by 22 years of closure, and during that time the distillery’s owners had used most of the aging stocks in the warehouses for blended Scotches. By the time of the 2008 sale, there were fewer than 400 casks still in the warehouses. This led to the current situation of the distillery offering rare older bottlings (they have ranged from 28 to 51 years old) at very high prices, as well as younger, non-age stated bottlings created from distillate produced after the reopening.
Then, on June 1st of 2016, the BenRiach Distillery Company (all three distilleries, a bottling plant in Newbridge and the company headquarters in Edinburgh) was purchased by the Louisville, KY based Brown-Forman Corporation.
The roots of Brown-Forman date back to 1870, though the company didn’t take that name until 1890. Its original flagship Bourbon brand, Old Forester, was introduced in 1873. The company acquired its first distillery in 1902, and survived Prohibition by obtaining one of the few licenses to bottle and sell medicinal whiskey during that period. Brown-Forman also purchased Early Times, which was a major Bourbon brand, in 1923.
In 1933 a new distillery and corporate offices were constructed in Louisville. In 1940 the company acquired two more Kentucky distilleries, one in Shively and the other in Versailles. The Shively plant was modernized and expanded in 1955, which led to the Versailles distillery going silent in 1957 and eventually being sold off. Distilling ceased at the Louisville plant in 1979, though that location continued to be used for bottling and warehousing. Brown-Forman also established its own cooperage in 1945.
What ended up being their most significant acquisition, though, was the 1956 purchase of Jack Daniel’s. While Early Times had become the number one Bourbon in the US by 1953, Jack Daniel’s would fuel most of the company’s future growth. Its Lynchburg, TN distillery has been expanded many times, and the brand has grown into the best selling American whiskey in the world.
With the whiskey industry on a downward trend in the 1970’s and 80’s, Brown-Forman diversified through the 1980’s and 1990’s, substantially growing its wine business and acquiring Lenox (makers of fine China, among other things) in 1983.
Then, with annual sales topping $2 billion at the start of the new millennium, the company took a new direction. It began to sell off many of its wine assets and in 2005 announced the sale of Lenox. At the same time, it diversified within the spirits realm, adding vodka, rum and tequila to its portfolio.
Plans for a second cooperage were announced in 2012. In 2015 Brown-Forman purchased Slane Castle Irish Whiskey Limited with the commitment to build a $50 million distillery in Ireland.
Finally, in March of 2016, Brown-Forman had completed the sale of its Southern Comfort (which it had owned since 1979) and Tuaca (a brandy-based Italian liqueur) brands to Sazerac Co. Three months later came the purchase of the BenRiach Distillery Company.
What I found interesting were the prices involved in these acquisitions. Since we’re dealing with a mix of currencies, I’ll convert all of the figures to Pounds Sterling so they are relatable.
Billy Walker and company purchased the BenRiach distillery in 2004 for £5 million. The 2008 sale price of Glendronach wasn’t confirmed anywhere, but I’ve seen speculation / rumor that it was in the neighborhood of £30 million. The 2013 sale price for Glenglassaugh was also not disclosed. But we do know that the distillery sold for £5 million in 2008 and the new owners immediately invested £1 million to get it up and running again. I found one article saying that the distillery was sold to Walker for a “tidy profit”, but I found another where Walker stated that he got a great deal on it as the sale went under the radar and there were no competing bids. Keeping in mind that the distillery had almost no stock of whisky with significant age on it, I’m guessing that it went for between £10 million and £15 million. Let’s say £50 million total for all three distilleries.
I’m sure investments were made in all three of the distilleries after they were purchased. There was also the addition of a bottling plant and a company headquarters. I’ll take a wild guess and say £20 million for all of that, which puts the total at £70 million. The 2016 purchase of the company by Brown-Forman was for £285 million. So, the three founders probably quadrupled the money they had invested over the course of 12 years. It’s pretty amazing what you can do with an underutilized / undervalued distillery if you are good at managing the product, marketing and brand building.
While some people scoffed at the sum paid by Brown-Forman, they had just sold Southern Comfort and Tuaca for the equivalent of £373.4 million. That seems like a really high valuation to me for two brands that are probably past their prime (if Tuaca was going to rise with the tide of the craft cocktail movement I’d think it would have happened by now, and I just don’t see So Co having a Pabst Blue Ribbon-like resurgence). But hey, maybe the folks at Sazerac know something that I don’t.
stats:
Bernheim; Kentucky straight wheat whiskey, 7 years, 45%, $28
Parker’s Heritage Collection; Kentucky straight wheat whiskey, 13 years, 63.4%, $90
Unexpected circumstances will occasionally prompt me to open a special bottle of whiskey without much forethought. I was in a mood to open something interesting on New Years Eve, but a grueling 10 hour shift at work followed by a few last-call drinks at the local pub resulted in me being down for the count as soon as I hit the couch that night.
When I read about the recent passing of Parker Beam about two weeks ago, I knew it was time to open my bottle of Parker’s Heritage Collection 13 year old Wheat Whiskey. The bottle of Bernheim Wheat Whiskey I wanted to compare it to would also tie in nicely with my last post (more on that later).
The Beam family is as massive as their participation in the Bourbon industry is pervasive. Several branches of the family tree through many generations have been involved with the operation of countless distilleries. I’ll try to simplify the lineage as much as I can for the purpose of this post.
It starts with Johannes Jacob Boehm, a miller and distiller of German descent who had changed his name to Jake Beam. He moved from Pennsylvania to Maryland to Kentucky and was distilling there, alongside his son David (one of 12 children) by 1795. Three of David’s sons (out of 11 children) went into distilling; Jack, Joseph B. and David M. Beam. The latter two brothers each had two prominent distiller sons, all four of whom gave birth to more sons who would go on to work in the industry.
David M. Beam’s two sons were Jim, who the famous brand that we all know today is named for, and Park. After Prohibition, they established the Clermont, KY distillery that still makes Jim Beam Bourbon today, although the company was bought out by one of its original investors after World War II. Park’s two sons, Earl and Carl “Shucks” Beam were distillers at that plant.
Joseph L. Beam, one of Joseph B. Beam’s sons started the Heaven Hill Spring distillery after Prohibition, but he had to sell out early on for financial reasons. He still played an important part in Heaven Hill’s first decade and his son, Harry Beam, was the original master distiller there. When Harry left the company in 1946, he was replaced by Earl Beam (his 3rd cousin, David Beam was the grandfather of both).
Earl’s son, Parker, started working at the distillery in 1960 and took over the master distiller position in 1975. Craig Beam, Parker’s son, started working at Heaven Hill in 1982 and worked his way up through the company, becoming the assistant distiller by the early 2000’s and joining his father as co-master distiller by 2006. Parker Beam still had the title of master distiller emeritus at the time of his passing.
Parker’s most notable achievements were the development of Elijah Craig Small Batch Bourbon in 1986, Evan Williams Single Barrel Bourbon in 1994 and the Parker’s Heritage Collection, a limited annual release of unique, one-off bottlings which began in 2007. Parker was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) in 2010. When he went public with the illness in 2013, he decided to use the Heritage Collection to raise awareness and funds for the cause. The 2013 release was named the Promise of Hope and $20 from each bottle sold was donated to ALS research. Subsequent Parker Heritage Collection releases have donated $5 from each bottle to the Promise of Hope fund.
Jumping back to January of 2000, Parker Beam began distilling a wheat whiskey at Heaven Hill. This was America’s first commercially produced wheat whiskey, which would be introduced as a 90 proof straight whiskey in September of 2005. It bore no age statement, but was obviously about five and a half years old. The mash bill is not often mentioned, but reliable sources state that it is 51% wheat, 37% corn and 12% malted barley.
Wheat whiskey is clearly defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 27, Part 5.22), but it took some digging to figure out when this definition came into being. The Bottled in Bond Act of 1897 defined a new class of whiskey, giving consumers an assurance of quality if it was so labeled. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 brought more rules and regulated what could be called Bourbon. Further clarification was provided by President Taft’s “Decision on Whiskey” in 1909, which specified that Bourbon must be made from a majority of corn. I couldn’t find a copy of that document, but as far as I could tell it did not define wheat whiskey. In 1935 the Federal Government created the Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits. In addition to a more detailed definition of Bourbon, the SIDS also defined several other styles of whiskey; rye whiskey, wheat whiskey, malt whiskey, rye malt whiskey and corn whiskey.
At that time the definition required wheat whiskey to be distilled to no more than 160 proof, bottled and no less than 80 proof and made from a mash of at least 51% wheat. The requirement for aging in new, charred oak (and possibly the requirement for a barrel entry of no more than 125 proof as well) was added in 1938.
But American whiskey distillers, by tradition, had primarily been making Bourbon and Rye for a very long time. Even with this newly defined style officially spelled out, it would be 65 years before anyone made a wheat whiskey. Heaven Hill’s Bernheim Wheat Whiskey was an interesting new product and got some attention, but never really caught on in a big way. I picked up a bottle of it early on, probably in 2006. I polished that bottle off long ago, so clearly I didn’t dislike it, but it doesn’t stand out in my mind as being overly remarkable.
Then some interesting things happened in 2014. The Parker Heritage Collection bottling that year was a 13 year old, cask strength wheat whiskey, which came from the original batch that was distilled early in 2000. By the end of the year, the packaging for Bernheim Wheat Whiskey had been redesigned and the new label had picked up a seven year age statement. In the midst of whiskey shortages (for certain brands at least), price spikes and age statements dropping like flies, this was quite unusual.
As I said above, this is a product that never really caught on in a big way. If they were consistently selling 20% less than the volume of sales they had projected for, the whiskey would gain two years of age over the course of 10 years. It’s probably been slowly creeping up in age and was likely a six and a half year old by 2009.
I mentioned up top that this post would tie into my previous post, where I discussed the dropping price of the Hudson brand of whiskeys. When I first saw the seven year age-stated Bernheim Wheat Whiskey in a store it was at $28, much less than I had ever seen the NAS bottling for. But a little research showed prices ranging from the mid-$20’s to the lower-$40’s through the past five or six years. When Bernheim debuted in 2005 the suggested retail price was $40. I finally found evidence of an official price drop for this product starting around mid 2010, but apparently it sells so slowly in some markets that there has been a huge disparity in its retail pricing for many years.
Unlike the Hudson Whiskeys, Bernheim Wheat Whiskey was made at a reasonable cost from day one. Its price drop was simply a function of its sales volume failing to live up to expectations for the first five years it was available. The increased age is pretty solid evidence of that fact.
Here in Vermont, a liquor control state where the prices usually reflect what the producer would like the product to sell for, Bernheim is still $42. Of course, we still have the NAS bottling; sometimes it takes forever to move through old stock around here. Hopefully we’ll get the lower priced, age-stated bottles before too long.
Anyway, on to the whiskey; I’m excited to try these. It’s been a long time since I’ve tasted the standard bottling and I’ve been sitting on the PHC bottle for a few years now.
Bernheim
The nose is fairly aromatic, with a dense richness. Some sweetness comes through and there’s plenty of clay-like earthiness. Vanilla-forward oak notes show too. Spice notes are the obvious no-show (as one might expect with no rye in the mix).
The dry earthiness wins out over the sweetness up front. It’s approachable while maintaining some backbone, though a little one-dimensional up front. It does evolve as it progresses, with flavors subtly reminiscent of Jim Beam’s funk and George Dickel’s Flintstone’s vitamins note.
The finish has a slightly warm burn, but it seems to be strictly from the alcohol, rather than that along with a contribution of spice notes.
I like it, but I don’t love it. I can kind of see this as being a good backdrop for a respectable cocktail.
PHC Wheat
The nose shows more depth and a shift in the profile of its aromas compared to the 7 year old, but it’s less volatile than one would expect for the given proof. The clay-like aromas are toned down significantly and the oak is more obvious and mature, with notes of old books and a hint of maple syrup.
It’s quite full bodied and a bit rambunctious on the palate. The sweetness that briefly fights its way to the fore up front quickly gives way to an intense dryness. Warming spice notes take over as it moves through the mid-palate, but in this expression they are primarily oak-driven. More time in cask seems to have effectively diminished the funk-and-Flintstone's notes.
The finish provides a wild ride of fiery spice notes which are exceptionally dry, but there’s enough underlying mature oak character to keep things interesting.
A doubling of the age and a big jump in proof has proven quite transformative for this whiskey. It took me a little while to wrap my head around this one and really get into it; well worth the effort though.
From all accounts Parker Beam was much loved and highly respected throughout the Bourbon industry. I’m grateful to have a glass of some of his finest work with which to acknowledge his passing.
You’d be hard pressed to find a whisk(e)y whose price hasn’t gone up in the last 10 years. While some have risen up a little, others have gone up a lot. Many have crept upward incrementally over several years, but some have leapt dramatically overnight. When a whisk(e)y price goes down in the current environment, that’s something which certainly catches my attention.
Scanning the shelves of some of the New Hampshire state liquor stores during the latter months of 2016, I noticed an interesting price disparity. Sitting right next to each other were two bottles of Hudson Manhattan Rye; at $45 was the 375 ml sized bottle that the brand has been known for since its inception, and at $50 was a recently introduced 750 ml sized bottle. They also had both sizes / prices for Hudson Baby Bourbon.
In an ideal world these two bottles of whiskey would not have been sitting on the shelf next to each other, but there is only so much influence that producers can exert in the retail space. When a distiller doubles the size of their whiskey bottles and the price only comes up by 10%, they are clearly serious about selling a lot more whiskey. Let’s take a look at some background and see what’s going on here.
Tuthilltown Spirits was established in 2004, but it was born out of a failed business venture that dated back to 2001. That was when Ralph Erenzo purchased the Tuthilltown Grist Mill property in upstate New York with a vision of turning it into ranch for visiting rock climbers. Three years of legal challenges from neighbors who opposed his plans crushed that dream.
Looking for an alternative business use for the place, he came across some state regulations that could work to his benefit as a distiller. Right-to-farm laws that protected agricultural concerns would beep the pesky neighbors at bay and a new class of state distilling license introduced two years prior meant that the fee to start the business would be $1500 instead of $60,000, as long as he made less than 35,000 gallons of spirit each year.
Erenzo partnered with Brian Lee, an engineer and technical designer, and they spent the next two years building the distillery, figuring out how to distill and experimenting with aging in small barrels. By 2006 they were selling the first bottles of Hudson Baby Bourbon. Eventually three other aged whiskeys joined the lineup; Hudson Single Malt Whiskey, Hudson Four Grain Bourbon and Hudson Manhattan Rye Whiskey.
Tuthilltown Spirits was noteworthy for being the first distillery to open in New York since Prohibition and for being the first producer of Bourbon in the state, ever. The brand caught on in the New York City craft cocktail scene, and they quickly built a small but strong following. Then in 2010 they sold the Hudson Whiskey brand, along with the rights to its distribution, to William Grant & Sons (yes, the one that owns Glenfiddich and Balvenie). Erenzo and Lee still own and operate the distillery.
I did a little digging and found some interesting information about their maturation regime. An article from 2011 stated that the Baby Bourbon was aged for four months in three gallon barrels. A 2014 article noted that the barrel size used for these whiskeys ranges from two to 14 gallons. A comment on a blog post from someone who had visited the distillery in 2014 mentioned that the whiskeys were being aged for about a year.
I do take issue with the fact that the Hudson Whiskeys have carried (and still do) age statements of “aged less than four years”. They may be honest about their short aging times in interviews or on distillery tours, but the label is misleading at best. It’s also illegal. TTB regulations for most American whiskey styles (and certainly the ones made by Hudson) state that they must carry an age statement if they are aged less than four years and that the age shown on the label must be that of the youngest whiskey contained in the bottle. Quite honestly, I’m shocked that the TTB approves labels with such flagrant violations of their rules.
Digressions aside, an article from 2013 stated that the Hudson brand had sold 6500 bottles in 2012 and was on track to sell 60,000 bottles in 2013. While that’s a big increase, it’s still not that much whiskey. Remember, those were 375 ml bottles, which translates into 2500 9-litre cases (the industry standard for measuring sales volume). Just to put that into perspective, Glenfiddich sold 1 million cases in a year for the first time in 2011.
William Grant & Sons obviously would want to grow the brand, increase sales and see a good return on their investment. Aging the whiskey for a longer time in bigger barrels will help them do that.
Smaller barrels have a greater surface area of wood for a given volume of liquid compared to larger barrels, allowing them to age the whiskey much more quickly (many would argue that oak flavors are imparted more quickly, but that maturity can only come with time). But that greater surface area means there will be more loss to evaporation, even when aging times are taken into account. I don’t have exact numbers, but I’ll make some up to give you an idea of what I mean. Let’s say a three gallon barrel requires four months of aging. Its total loss to evaporation might be 40%. If you scale up to a 10 gallon barrel it will have to age for a full year to get the same effect on flavor, but it might only lose 30% of its content.
Since labor is a big part of the cost of a barrel, small ones cost much more, proportionally. A four gallon barrel might be around $75 where a traditional 53 gallon barrel can be had for less than $200. Small barrels will get a new distiller’s product to market more quickly, but their cost effectiveness in the long term is terrible.
Once a producer grows their operation to a certain point, everything gets less expensive. Buying grain by the truckload rather than is 50 lb bags costs a lot less. Buying barrels, bottles, labels, packaging, etc in larger quantities will get you volume price breaks. Shipping rates are going to be much better on all of these items if you can take a whole cargo container of them at once rather than paying to ship one palette at a time. The fixed costs of a distillery’s overhead (property taxes, heating the building, etc) all take a smaller percentage out of the bottom line when you start dealing with bigger sales volumes.
Once they had grown to the point that they could reduce the cost of making the Hudson whiskeys significantly, it was time to drop the price, which would fuel further sales growth. In Tuthilltown’s early years, consumers were much more likely to try the product if it was in a small bottle that didn’t break the bank. With a much lower price, it makes sense to shift to bigger bottles which means twice as much whiskey going out the door with each sale.
It will be interesting to see where they go with barrel size and aging time over the coming years.
stats:
12 year (2015 release), single malt Scotch, Islay, 56.8%, $135
Distillers Edition (2016 release), single malt Scotch, Islay, 43%, $100
I was fairly excited by the prospect of Lagavulin’s 8 year old, 200th anniversary bottling and the opportunity to compare it to their flagship 16 year old. One thought that crossed my mind was to hunt down a bottle of 12 year Lagavulin and taste all three together to get a sense of the age progression.
With the 16 year at 43% abv, the 8 year at 48% and the 12 year at cask strength (usually around 57%), I’d have to make some adjustments. My plan was to bring the latter two down to 43% with the addition of precise amounts of distilled water. Cask types represented another variable; the 12 year is aged exclusively in American oak ex-Bourbon barrels, but the 8 year and the 16 year both see a small percentage of Sherry cask whisky in their vattings. Lagavulin is known for working with fairly heavily used casks though, so I wasn’t too worried about this added influence.
I had seen Lagavulin 12 year on liquor store shelves in the past, but not too recently. I did recall seeing it in the New Hampshire state liquor stores in the $90-something range, maybe about three years ago. Knowing that it is part of Diageo’s annual group of special release bottlings, I figured it would make an appearance some time in the fall as they all come out together at that time of year. I kept checking the New Hampshire liquor commission website to no avail, then started checking some of the bigger stores in the greater Boston area. When it finally popped up in a few places I was kind of shocked to see it going for $135 to $140.
I thought there might be a bit of special-release price gouging going on, so I was holding out that it would appear at a better price in NH, where prices are very likely to be close to the msrp. No such luck – it never showed up there and a little research revealed that the price of this bottling had gone through a series of increases over the last four years. I understand that whisk(e)y prices are going up all around, but sometimes as a consumer you just have to take a stand on what you are willing to pay for something. For me, this was one of those times. This particular whisky was just not worth that much money to me.
Hoping to make lemonade out of lemons, I went with “plan B”; a quick trip up to Montreal, which was long overdue anyway, where I could sample Lagavulin’s 12 year cask strength as well as their Distillers Edition, without having to buy a whole bottle of either. Diageo started producing the Distillers Edition bottlings of their original six “classic malts” (Lagavulin, Oban, Cragganmore, Dalwhinnie, Glenkinchie and Talisker) in the late 1990’s and included them in their annual group of special release whiskies. Caol Ila and Clynelish were added to the DE offerings in 2006, as was Royal Lochnagar in 2008. The Distillers Editions of Clynelish and Royal Lochnagar were discontinued after 2012, however.
Each of the DE bottlings starts off as the same whisky (in terms of maturation) as the flagship bottling of its respective distillery. It is then re-racked into some type of fortified wine cask for a finishing period of six months to two years. Different types of finishing casks are used for each brand, but they do not change from year to year. In the case of Lagavulin, Pedro Ximenez casks are used and the finishing period is on the shorter end of the aforementioned range.
After a short walk from my conveniently located hotel in Montreal’s Latin Quarter, I bellied up to the bar at Pub L’Ile Noir and ordered the Distillers Edition Lagavulin. This was the latest release, having been distilled in 2000 and bottled in 2016.
The nose is dark and brooding with plenty of depth. The peat smoke aromas are densely packed, but not too assertive.
It’s full-bodied, and some dark, fruity sweetness from the PX casks does come through on the palate, but it’s really well balanced by the dry, earthy, mineral-driven coastal character.
The peat smoke builds through the mid palate, and then rides along in slowly fading waves as it moves on. Floral notes emerge late in the finish, rounding things out.
This is an interesting take on the Islay classic.
Next, I moved on to the 12 year cask strength Lagavulin which was last year’s release, having been bottled in 2015 at 56.8%.
The peat smoke on the nose is relatively assertive, but a briny, coastal edge and floral / grassy notes come through as well.
A blazing inferno of fiery peat smoke jumps out immediately on the palate. Some secondary flavors dance around on the periphery, adding complexity, but this is really all about the smoke-laden peaty intensity.
It evolves nicely, becoming drier with burning spice notes as it evolves through the long, smoldering finish.
I could add a few drops of water, but I won’t; it’s a wild ride, but an enjoyable one.
Not quite ready to move on to dinner, I decided to have one more whisky. It can be hard to turn back once you’ve gone down the peat road, so I decided to satisfy my curiosity about the relatively new Laphroaig Lore. I was ready to sit back and sip rather than scrutinize and take notes at this point, but I will say that it was quite exceptional.
I had opted for the ½ pour option with all three drinks, which I have a sneaking suspicion is a bit more than half of L’Ile Noire’s standard 1.25 ounce pour. Factoring in the favorable exchange rate, my tab came to about $22 plus tip. I think I made the right choice in taking a little road trip instead of adding to my bloated whisky collection for this post.
The new “What’s on the Shelf?” series of posts are normally reserved for items which I’ve seen in retail settings and wanted to comment on, even though I didn’t purchase them; I’m making an exception in this case. I purchased a bottle of Glendronach 12 year last week which I may not open anytime soon, but I wanted to mention it here now, as time is of the essence.
The current bottlings of Glendronach’s flagship 12 year old mark the end of an era. Historically, the vast majority of the pot stills used by Scotland’s malt whisky industry were coal fired. Most of them converted over to indirect steam heating (via internal steam coils) in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Today, there are four distilleries that continue to use direct heat with a live flame under at least some of their stills; Macallan, Glenfarclas, Glenfiddich and Springbank. But each of those four switched over from coal to either natural gas of fuel oil decades ago. Glendronach was the last holdout in Scotland to continue the tradition of making malt whisky with coal fired pot stills; until 2005 when they converted to steam.
Since 2016 is rapidly coming to a close I decided I should pick up a bottle of Glendronach 12 while I could still be assured that it was distilled no later than 2004. Of course, older bottlings of Glendronach that were distilled in the coal fired stills will be available for many years to come. Also, When I got this bottle home, took it out of the canister and gave it a good looking over I was happy to see that the bottling date was clearly printed on the glass, The year was even there with all four numerals and the date wasn’t embed in a complex bottling code that I’d have to figure out how to decipher. It was, however, in the slightly unconventional format of year/month/day; 2014/02/18.
Yes, that is correct; this one was bottled nearly three years ago. I guess there may be opportunities to buy Glendronach 12 which was distilled prior to 2005 for some time to come; as long as you are willing to take the bottle out of the packaging while you’re in the store and hold it up to the light to look for that date.
If you wanted to hunt for a bottle of Glendronach that was even more rare and special, you’d be on the lookout for something that was distilled prior to 1996. That’s the year that the distillery decommissioned its floor maltings. I’m not sure if they were supplementing with commercial malt back then, but they had been using local peat in the kiln to dry the malt they made themselves. In those days the average peating level ran up as high as 14 ppm. Most of the malt they buy today is unpeated, but they did come out with a lightly peated bottling last year. It is non-age stated and aged primarily in Bourbon barrels rather than the full Sherry cask maturation that Glendronach is known for. I’d much rather search out one of the older bottlings.
My intention is to sit on this bottle of 12 year for a while, until I can get another example that was distilled after the conversion to steam heat to see how they compare. We’ll see if I can hold out that long.
stats:
12 year – single malt Scotch, Highlands, 43%, $42
17 year – single malt Scotch, Highlands, 46%, non-chill filtered, $110
Since my last post mentioned that Wolfburn had recently overtaken Pulteney’s status as the northernmost distillery on the Scottish mainland, I thought I should follow up with a long overdue Old Pulteney post.
The Pulteney distillery is somewhat unusual on a few fronts. You may have noticed that I’ve already been inconsistent with the use of the word “Old” preceding “Pulteney”. Keep in mind that a single malt Scotch is not required to bear the name of the distillery where it was made. Just one example of this is Springbank, which also produces single malts under the Longrow and Hazelburn brands. In this case Pulteney is the name of the distillery and Old Pulteney is the name of the brand of single malt whiskies which are produced there. It’s a small point of distinction, but one worth noting if you’re a stickler for details.
Most of the malt distilleries in Scotland have names that are mildly anglicized derivations of Gaelic words which describe their location or the water source they use. Pulteney is the only one in Scotland I’m aware of that is named for a person, albeit in a roundabout sort of way.
Wick is a fishing village on the eastern shore of the northern tip of Scotland which was at the heart of the Herring boom from the late 1700’s until the start of WWI. The town straddles the mouth of the Wick River as well as Wick Bay, into which the river feeds. The original village was solely on the north side of the river and bay. In the first few years of the 19th century a major initiative to develop a new harbor in Wick Bay and a new fishing town on the south side of the river was led by Sir William Pulteney.
Pulteney was a British Member of Parliament and the governor of the British Fisheries Society. He commissioned Thomas Telford, Britain’s preeminent civil engineer at the time, to design and supervise the construction of these major projects. Pulteney passed away in 1805 though, a few years before his vision came to fruition. The harbor was completed in 1808, and a decade later more than 800 boats were operating out of the port. The new town, built along the south bank of the Wick River and the south shore of the bay, was established by 1810 and named Pulteneytown in Sir William’s honor. Although originally considered a separate town, it has been part of Wick since 1902.
With a rapidly growing population, demand for whisky would soon necessitate a local distillery. Founded by James Henderson in 1826, the Pulteney distillery was named for the new town in which it was located, and indirectly for the man who was responsible for the development of Pulteneytown.
In addition to the distillery’s uncommon name etymology, it is also one of very few urban distilleries in Scotland. That is a term which could be somewhat open to interpretation, but even if you include distilleries with small amounts of dense development in close proximity to them, the only ones that come to mind are Auchentoshan, Oban, Highland Park, Bowmore, Tobermory, Springbank, Glengyle and Glen Scotia.
Old Pulteney’s core range consists of a 12 year, a 17 year and 21 year (which I’ll taste in an upcoming post). The 12 year, which is at 43% and presumably chill filtered, is aged exclusively in ex-Bourbon barrels. The 17 year, which is at 46% and carries an “unchill-filtered” statement on the label, is aged primarily in ex-Bourbon barrels with the addition of some spirit aged wholly in Spanish oak ex-Sherry casks. The 12 year is noticeably darker in color, though neither bottling has a statement claiming natural color.
12 year:
nose – The aromas are gently malty, with hay and beach grass, a touch of vanilla and slightly briny minerality.
palate – It has decent weight, and a nice balance of malt and tree fruits with a touch of vanilla.
finish – The malt carries through, joined by grassy notes and a soft spiciness. The coastal, briny character is well integrated throughout.
overall – Lively and thought provoking with a nice evolution of flavors.
17 year:
nose – The aromas show more maturity than those of the 12 year. There’s still some maltiness and coastal character, but notes of clay and old books overshadow them.
palate – The weight is still there, but it kind of falls flat on the palate. Malt is the obvious character but it’s fairly one-dimensional, with just a bit of salinity coming along.
finish – Generous spice notes join the malt and sea spray, but it still feels like something is lacking.
overall – I don’t dislike the 17 year, it just fell short of my expectations and pales in comparison to the 12 year. If I didn’t know better, I would think this was the lower-proof, chill filtered one out of the two expressions.
I should note that I’ve had this bottle for nearly five years (I tend to ignore the ones that I find underwhelming), so more recent incarnations of the 17 year may have improved. I tasted it close to the time of purchase and not long after thumbed through Jim Murray’s Whisky Bible, noticing that he was lamenting the use of tired old casks to mature Old Pulteney 17 year. I tend to agree.
Last winter I traveled to Florida to host a Scotch whisky dinner which had a theme focused on malt distilleries that had gone online since 1990. At that time the list included 20 facilities, but only nine of them had been operating long enough to have distillate that had aged for three years; the requisite minimum to legally qualify as whisky. Three of the nine were yet to bottle any of their whisky, at least not as single malt, and several of the others were very hard to come by. Needless to say, it was a bit of a challenge to round up four different whiskies to support the chosen topic.
All of that being said, I was excited to see another distillery from the list have its whisky come of age and appear on retail shelves this fall. The post I linked to above is kind of lengthy, so I’ll re-post the list of 20 distilleries here with the years that they began production shown.
(1990) Speyside
(1990) Kininvie
(1995) Arran
(2004) Glengyle
(2005) Daftmill
(2005) Kilchoman
(2007) Ailsa Bay
(2008) Abhain Dearg
(2010) Roseisle
(2013) Strathearn
(2013) Wolfburn
(2014) Annandale
(2014) Ardnamurchan
(2014) Ballindalloch
(2014) Eden Mills
(2015) Arbikie
(2015) Glasgow Distillery Co
(2015) Dalmunach
(2015) Kingsbarn
(2015) Isle of Harris
The Wolfburn distillery went online early in 2013, so the whisky they are selling now is just three years old, or perhaps slightly older.
There are some interesting points of note, both geographically and historically. Located in the town of Thurso, Wolfburn is now the northernmost distillery on Scotland’s mainland. In becoming so, it unseated the Pulteney distillery, which is in the nearby town of Wick, from that title. The only distilleries situated further north in the country are Scapa and Highland Park, both of which can be found on the largest island of the Orkney Islands archipelago.
The new Wolfburn distillery was constructed very close to the site of the original Wolfburn distillery, which was founded in 1821. All that remains of the original is its foundation and unfortunately it ceased production before Alfred Barnard made his tour of all of Scotland’s distilleries in the 1880’s, so our knowledge of it is quite limited. What little is known comes from tax records and Ordnance Survey maps. The distillery seems to have stopped operating some time in the 1850’s or 1860’s, but at one point it was the largest in Caithness County.
I first became aware of the fact that Wolfburn was being bottled and shipped to the U.S. when I saw it on a Florida distributor’s list of products in late September. Since then I’ve seen it on store shelves in NH and MA.
The Wolfburn website makes claims of long fermentations and slow distillations. They are also bottling their whisky without chill filtration or artificial color. All of this bodes well for a quality product. I’ve tasted some very impressive young whiskies from Kilchoman and they have noted that part of their strategy was to use small stills to maximize copper contact during distillation. The stills at Wolfburn are bigger than Kilchoman’s (5500 liters wash and 3600 liters spirit vs. 3230 liters wash and 2070 liters spirit), but nonetheless relatively small in the grand scheme of things.
$60+ may seem a bit expensive for a young whisky, but that’s the price of admission to sample the work of a new distillery when they’re trying to generate some cash flow early on. I’ve been trying to reign in my whisky spending somewhat recently and I hadn’t heard anything about this bottling yet, so I held off. But I am curious about it now so it’s probably just a matter of time before I get around to tasting Wolfburn.
