60 - 01/11/2000 - MALTS & MEALS
- What's wrong with eating and drinking? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 60 - November 1, 2000
Brrrr. It's getting colder here in Holland. Let me explain.
Anyway, I digress. Over the last few months lots of people on the So, what's my attitude on eating and drinking? SERIOUS sampling is an entirely different matter, of course. Thanks to my mutated stomach, I usually don't feel the need to feed during or after dramming. Note the word 'usually', because now we get to the part why part of me dreads
the coming winter. During the cold season, I DO get the urge to feed sometimes and I don't like it. Even when I'm not doing a simultaneous H2H-session, I like to 'compare' the whiskies to one another. When you try one malt directly
after another the differences between the two palates are magnified, making it's easier to put your experiences into words. Eating between drams always seems to wipe the memory of my papillae clean. If I can't resist the urge to
feed I usually go for plain white bread. It's fairly neutral and doesn't dehydrate my mouth like some crackers. But then again, cold hard 'analysis' is only part of the fun. You don't have to be a kitchen prince or princess to enjoy whisky as an
ingredient of a more elaborate experience; you can make up your own 'on-the-run' combinations as well. And what about single malts to accompany the courses of a meal? Of course, there's one important factor that has got little to do with personal preferences: the simple fact that whisky has an alcohol percentage of at least
40% while most wines come in at around 15%. To me, the numbing effect of the alcohol on my tongue and palate tends to interfere with the taste sensations of the food, especially during later courses. That's the main reason I don't
usually drink whisky during a meal. For me, the time for a single malt (or a cognac) comes during or after the last course.
And then, it's time for a good cigar. Bon appetite! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 61 - November 15, 2000 It's been a few weeks since I enjoyed a glass of whisky. I started the session with a stiff dram of the Bowmore NAS 'Darkest'
(43%, OB). Opened almost three months ago, this bottle keeps puzzling me. After some of the glowing comments I've read on the web, my expectations were pretty high. Sadly, the first few glasses were a major disappointment. The Ben Nevis 8yo 1990/1999
(43%, Signatory Vintage, aged in sherry butt) is the first big bottle of Ben Nevis I've tried. It is an 'unofficial' bottling, so it probably doesn't represent the real distillery 'style'. The Ben Nevis
moves to my bottom shelf - but first I've got to make some room. Let's check the last few glasses of the Glen Keith 1983
(43%, OB) to see how it has progressed over the last few months, before I empty the bottle to make way for the Ben Nevis. Now there's an empty spot on my middle shelf where the Ben Nevis used to be. I decided to fill it with the fresh Aultmore 11yo 1985/1997 (43%, Signatory Vintage) from my reserve stock. Now I have a yearning. My eye fell on the bottle of Macleod's 8yo
(40%, bastard malt). This is a generic bottling that is rumoured to be nothing less than... my long-time favourite: Lagavulin. Klaus Everding brought it as a gift from Hamburg when he visited three months ago. Now, I usually wait at least six months before I declare a final rating. But the heavy traffic between my shelves over the last few months has left very few bottles on my middle shelf that have been there long enough. The Macleod's won't go into any of my 'official' lists
because I'm not completely sure about it's origins. Most likely, it's a Lagavulin, but I still haven't excluded the possibility that it could be a Talisker. The bottle doesn't say, so I can't give it any kind of 'official' status. Let's give it a premature final rating to make room on my middle shelf.
So now I get to open the fresh bottle of
Glencadam 1987/1997
(40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice) I bought a few weeks back. I've avoided this malt up until now because it scores only 69 points in Michael Jackson's book. The fact that my respect for Michael Jackson's opinion has been diminishing (and I simply have to sample at least one bottle of Glencadam anyway) made me pick up this bottle.
And I might as well have a dram from my bottom shelf as well. My nose and palate were still fresh. And thus I get to open a fresh bottle from my reserve stock. By now, my nose and palate were pretty much burnt out. - - - mAddendum 61A - Second Delivery
I've just picked up the second batch of 'free' bottles from my malt monger in exchange for some work on his website. I got these 10 bottles:
Oh boy - Five of these bottles are from distilleries I have never tried before, and the other ones are unfamiliar versions of familiar malts. A big step forward in
my search for the perfect single malt. And let's not forget there
are 10 more bottles on their way. I'm already having problems with the storage of my reserve stock and I'm trying to figure out how I could possibly find any room for new bottles. I guess I'll just have to drink a lot over the next few weeks.... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 62 - November 22, 2000 With all the good stuff coming into my reserve stock these days, I find myself drinking
a lot more than usual - just to speed up the traffic between my shelves. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it... First candidate for a final rating: the surprising Arran NAS
(43%, OB); a relatively fresh addition to my middle shelf. If I'm not mistaken, the distillery is the youngest one in Scotland, founded in 1995. The distillery itself is only five years old, so that's also the maximum possible age of this malt. They've been smart enough not to put an age statement on 'the jail bait of single malts' (forgetting the Drumguish 3 for a moment).
I was on a roll, so I proceeded directly with the Strathmill 10yo
(43%, Scottish Wildlife) - my first bottle in this series by Signatory Vintage. This bottling has a raggedy red squirrel on the label that doesn't look particularly appetising. But I'll have a go at it anyway. Both
bottles are definitely bottom shelf material (meaning I probably won't ever purchase a second bottle), so in addition to opening two new bottles from my reserve stock I will have to finish two of the bottles currently on my bottom
shelf to make room for the new ones. I selected the Glenesk and Craigellachie from my reserve stock and the Tullibardine 10 and Glen Elgin from my bottom shelf. Like many independent bottlings, the Glenesk 1984/1997
(40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice) had a cheap tin screwcap that would have caused me to avoid it if it hadn't been produced by one of the distilleries from uncharted territory. Now I simply had to pick up a bottle in order to cross one more distillery from my 'Unknown' list.
Moving swiftly along with the Craigellachie 1983/1994 (43%, Vintage Choice). OK - That's the 'pioneering' part of the session over with. All that's left to do is finishing off the bottles of
Tullibardine and Glen Elgin NAS. The Tullibardine 10yo (40%, OB) comes in a plain, unattractive bottle. A bit like the malt it contains, really. Finally, there's the
Glen Elgin NAS (43%, OB, 75cl). Something occurred to me while was
finishing the last few glasses from the bottle of Tullibardine 10. Thanks to the mysterious process of oxidation, there is one distinct advantage we malt aficionados have over wine lovers. After a bottle of fine wine is opened, you
have to finish it quickly. The wine geek can enjoy a great bottle of wine for just one night, we malt geeks can go back and back to the same great bottle of single malt whisky for month after month; year after year in some cases.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 63 - November 25, 2000 Some whisky loving ex-collegues had planned to join me for tasting session at home yesterday, but this plan fell through due to some last minute crises at work. I had been saving two bottles
on my top shelf especially for this occasion; The Laphroaig 15 that Davin got me almost a year ago and what must be my tenth bottle of the Balvenie 12 Doublewood. My ex-collegues could not help me finish those nearly empty bottles
to make room for some of my more recent acquisitions, so I had to do it all by my lonesome self. I put a little out of each bottle aside in special miniature bottles to share with my brother and a friend in a few days.
I started with the Balvenie 12yo Doublewood (43%, OB). I was on a roll, so I finished another one of my 'favorite-but-sadly-almost-empty' top shelf malts; the wonderful Laphroaig 15yo
(43%, OB). This is a friggin' good dram. I wonder if 86 points do it justice. Time for a final showdown between myself and the older and wiser brother of 'the ultimate peat monster', Laphroaig 10. Two empty bottles on my top shelf already, and it's almost past my bed time. - - -
mAddition 63A - Final 'Free Malts' Delivery A few days ago, Ton Overmars dropped by to drop off the last batch of free bottles he
promised me in exchange for building his website. Sadly, some whiskies on my original wish list (Like Ardbeg 1975, Longrow 1987 and The Macallan 1874) were not available anymore. Meanwhile, some other interesting bottles had come
in, so after some creative wheeling and dealing (and the exchange of around 1000 guilders in cash) these eighteen bottles were added to my collection:
Bugger me with a fish fork! I already know what my new year's resolution for 2001 will be: Finding bottles from these three remaining distilleries and tasting them, along with the undiscovered malts in my
collection. After tasting and rating at least one bottling from each active distillery, I will shift my focus towards 'parallel bottlings' like Longrow and Old Roshdu and closed or mothballed distilleries like Balmenach, Glen
Albyn, Glen Flagler, Glenglassaugh, Kinclaith, Ladyburn and Millburn. And with the way my career is going lately, I might also be able to afford a few older and overpriced bottlings from some of my favourite distilleries as well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 64 - November 29, 2000 Oh, boy.
Tonight, my brother Franc and 'Alcoholic Par Excellence' Eric came over to assist me in advancing the emptiness of some of the bottles in my collection. I had the foresight to save small tasting quantities of the
Balvenie 12yo Doublewood (43%, OB) and Laphroaig 15yo (43%, OB) in a few tiny 'blanco' bottles I keep especially for blind tastings. Tonight, they were used for the preparation of our palates. Comments: If we want to open a bottle from my reserve stock, we will first have to declare a final rating on a
bottle from my middle shelf. Let's go for the Bowmore NAS 'Darkest' (43%, OB) that has thoroughly disappointed me so far, but seems to be revered by some other malt lovers. I've seen a lot of glowing recommendations on the web, so I was curious about some 'beginners' perspectives on this Bowmore. As far as my own comments are concerned: The nose has
obviously grown in complexity over the last few months. Sadly, most of the interesting nuances (sherry, caramel, sour sweets?) were overpowered by the strong, overly smoky character that again reminded me of 'Buysman'; burnt
caramel some people use in their coffee here in Holland. After fifteen minutes, the nose gets sweeter. While the nose had improved, the taste hadn't changed one bit. A lot of heavy smoke and tar, not balanced by any other tastes.
Some sweetness or freshness would have really helped here. Now the taste is strictly one dimensional - and not very pleasant at that. The finish sucks ass too. Final rating for the Bowmore Darkest: 65 points
- and that's just because the nose has become quite interesting over the last few months. Based on just the taste, it would have scored below Glenfiddich Special Reserve. Now it barely matches the score of Glen Grant (no age statement) - a malt that costs about a quarter of this heavily overpriced and over hyped Bowmore Darkest. Eric agreed on my observations and suggested this malt would be better suited in some kind of 'potpourri' setting - Good for nosing, bad for drinking. Please note that Bowmore Darkest is a single cask malt, so bottlings from other casks may be better - or even worse for that matter. I'm not planning on finding out anytime soon.
The difference between nose and taste in this malt started a discussion about the very nature of my ratings. For malts like the Bowmore Darkest it could be
useful to keep separate ratings for nose and taste. In this case, 65 points is the result of something like a 77 points nose and a 53 points taste. Anyway - the Bowmore Darkest moves to the back of my bottom shelf,
making room for a fresh bottle from my reserve stock. Franc and Eric Our findings:
Let's not forget we have to empty a bottle from my bottom shelf as well. I felt creative and went for a diversified approach. For Franc, who likes the heavily peated malts, I poured a dram of the
Caol Ila 1981/1995 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice). Eric, who is blessed with sissier sensibilities, received the Littlemill 8yo (40%, OB) and I decided to join him. For our final dram of the evening, we picked my new bottle of Glenmorangie 18yo
(43%, OB, 'Maltman's Special Reserve'), which wasn't actually a bottle at all. The Glenmorangie Maltman's Special Reserve 18yo. old (to give it it's full name) comes in a beautiful ceramic decanter. The decanters are even individually numbered - I got number 4465 - and come with a separate cork with a ceramic top. Sadly, all this pump and circumstance backfired when I tried to remove the (temporary) cork from the bottle. The corkscrew tore the cork to shreds and the only way to reach the liquor was to push the broken cork into the bottle and to pour the contents through a filter a few times to separate the whisky from the little pieces of cork. I can't believe this treatment is good for the whisky - it comes into contact with air much more than it ordinarily would, so I suspect oxidation will take a bigger toll than usual. I guess I will have to finish this bottle a lot quicker than I had planned.
Nose: Some sherry, some mint. More creamy and nutty after a while.
And this is where I stopped making notes. The rest of the evening is pretty vague, but I remained sober enough to limit the rest of our drinking to Connemara, Johnnie
Walker Green and Chivas Century of Malts. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 65 - December 2, 2000 A few nights ago, I emptied the bottles of
Laphroaig 15 and Balvenie 12 on my top shelf. Ah... Sweet memories. Time to replace them with the best bottles from my bottom shelf. That would be the Tomintoul 12yo and the Scapa 1985/1995, I guess. With the introduction of my
new stock system, every bottle of single malt that is rated, emptied, promoted or
demoted causes traffic between my shelves. If you don't understand the logic behind my system you'll just have to take my word for it: I will have to fill the empty spots on my bottom shelf by declaring a final rating on two malts
from my middle shelf. And they can't be top shelf candidates either. Furthermore, I get to open two bottles from my reserve stock that will consequently be moved to my middle shelf with unrated malts. Geddit?
The first candidate for a final rating is the Oban 14yo
(43%, OB). I usually wait at least six months before giving a final rating, but given the fact that this is my third bottle (I tasted the other bottles before I started taking serious notes) I think I can safely pass judgement on it after three months and around a dozen drams.
And then there's the Lochside 10 (40%, MacNab, 75cl); on my shelves for about 6 months now.
Two vacancies on my middle shelf. The other bottle that gets 'promoted' to my middle shelf is the Old Pulteney 12yo
(43%, OB). This bottling is quite widely available, but it still has managed to elude my greedy little hands - up until now, that is. The content of my shelves is balanced once more; I can go to sleep now. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 66 - December 8, 2000
Last week's session offered only slight relief for my current stocking problem. I feel ready for a final rating. The Ardmore 1981/1995
(40%, Gordon & MacPhail) comes in a classic bottle with a very nice label. Shame about the tin screwcap.
Who has to move from my bottle shelf? The official 15 beats the nose of the SigVint 9 decisively, but on the taste front the difference in quality isn't as obvious - although the 15 is slightly better. Both palates are just too darned sherried and woody for my personal taste. The nose of the official 15 is great, though. Lot's of interesting development. And when you give it time, the taste shows some interesting sides as well. Based on this first dram, the preliminary rating of the 15 is *** (Upper 70's). If the taste improves over the next few months it might even reach the lower 80's. The final rating of 71 points for the SigVint 1987 stands. I finished the evening with the last drams from the Signatory Vintage bottle of Glendronach 1987 - one more casualty in my quest for the prefect single malt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 67 - December 9, 2000 It's 23:55 and I've just finished work on the Malt Maniacs Matrix. It's an overview of
the ratings on almost 100 different 'commercial' single malts by the Malt Maniacs. I decided I deserved a few honest drams after an honest day's work. To prepare my nose and palate I started with the Old Fettercairn 10yo
(40%, OB) from my middle shelf. To determine the final rating of the
Caol Ila 1981/1995 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, on my shelves for half a year now), I tasted it in a H2H-session against the fabulous Caol Ila 21yo 1975/1997
(61.3%, UD Rare Malts) from my top shelf. I've been leaning towards increasing the current rating of 87 points for a while now; this is as good a time as any to verify my sentiments and suspicions.
CC81 Nose: Peaty with a hint of sherry. Relatively restrained, but interesting.
No contest, really. Both are very good malts, but the 'Rare Malts' 1975 just has more personality and 'ooomph'. And it's a cask strength to boot, something which increases my enjoyment of a single malt considerably. The final
rating of the Connoisseur's Choice 1981 is 82 points, while the UD Rare Malts Caol Ila 1975 jumps to a whopping 88 points. It may not respond to water as well as the Macallan 10 100 Proof, but it tastes surprisingly
good at cask strength. A terrific single malt that shows new facets every time. Let's face it, the Glenturret 19yo 1978/1998
(43%, Ultimate) doesn't really deserve a place on my top shelf, even though it was a Christmas 1999 present from my former employer. Now I get to open a bottle from my reserve stock. The Bowmore NAS 'Cask Strength' (56%, OB, 100cl) is the lucky one; let's find out how it compares to the other bottlings in the wide Bowmore range. I finished the evening with the last drams from the bottle of Glenturret 1978 that got pushed off my top shelf. No punishment drinking a
little too much of this... - - - mAddendum 67A - More Malts This morning, I visited one of my other liquorists (Menno
Boorsma) to pick up another six bottles for my quickly expanding reserve stock:
The Allt A' Bhainne and Glen Albyn were obtained compulsively; I haven't tasted anything from Glen Albyn before and Allt A' Bhainne is very rare here in Holland. I just HAD to buy these bottles. With the Aberfeldy and
Breas of Glenlivet on order from Klaus, I'm on the verge of completing phase 1 of But then again, it may very well be that I've
already stumbled upon the greatest whisky in the world in the form of Lagavulin 16. If that would be the case, there's absolutely no point in spending more than 80 guilders (a little over 30 U$ Dollars) for a bottle of single malt
whisky. With that in mind, I selected the rest of my purchase based on my 'bang-for-my-buck' expectations. If this bottling of Dalmore 12 is as good as the previous ones, it'll move to my top shelf as soon as a spot becomes
available. Based on Louis's reports and my experiences with the 1985, I expect the Glenrothes 1987 to do well also. And the Tomintoul 10 doesn't have to be nearly as good as the 12 (76 points) to achieve a reasonable position on my
'bang-for-your-buck' list. I bought the Scapa 12 so I could add my own rating to the Malt Madness Matrix soon. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Log Entry # 68 - December 26, 2000 Yesterday, I prepared my traditional Christmas feast for my family, back
in the woods. My brother had bought a bottle of Lagavulin 16 for the occasion. We we're quite alarmed when we discovered that the nose of this particular bottle was much more reserved than we had grown to expect. Less complexity in
nose and taste as well. Still a nice whisky, but it wouldn't have scored over 85 points. I hope that this isn't a trend! Could there be some truth to the rumours that the quality of the Lagavulin 16 is dropping?
Well, I'll have to investigate this later. I started with the Glenmorangie 18yo
(43%, OB, ceramic); a bottle I have been tasting intensively over the last month. I found that I quite like it, but I wonder if I would have liked it quite so much if this hadn't been a free bottle. The price is quite steep while it doesn't seem to perform significantly better than the ordinary 10yo. old version.
I proceeded with a close examination of the Tobermory NAS
(40%, OB). The first thing that meets the eye is the bulky, green bottle. It's a thin line between distinctive and ugly. Seems good for whacking people over the head with, though... But now I have to finish a bottle from my bottom shelf to make room for the Tobermory. I chose the Glen Grant NAS
(40%, OB). Not a lot better than the Tobermory (it scores 65 points), but at a price of less than 30 guilders I don't have a problem with that. I'll spare you the details of the tasting; nothing much had changed since my previous reports.
I'm feeling great! Great enough to open the Glenfarclas 12yo
(43%, OB, 100cl) from my reserve stock. This particular bottle seems to come from Germany, given the text 'mit farbstoff - zuckerkulor' on the label. Well, this was pretty obvious from the deep, almost reddish colour. Right now, I call it a night. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Log Entry # 69 - December 29, 2000 After a few busy weeks
and a few more busy weeks to come, I feel like I'm in 'the eye of the storm' - so to speak. A great opportunity to dip into my collection for some Yuletide tasting experiences.
To prepare my nose and palate for some serious nosing and tasting, I poured myself a stiff dram of the Ardbeg 17yo
(40%, OB). After all, the fact that this is almost the last night of the year 2000 qualifies as a special occasion that deserves a special malt. I proceeded with the final rating of
Royal Lochnagar 12yo (40%, OB) - a pretty 'standard' malt in a pretty 'standard' bottle with a label that must have been designed before WWII. Now there's an opening on my middle shelf. The Macallan 10yo
(40%, OB) from my reserve stock seems to fit that opening perfectly, so I opened the bottle, and compared it to three different Macallans in a 'Triple Head-to-Head' session. The other contestants were the Macallan 10yo 100 Proof
(57%, OB) and Macallan 12yo (43%, OB, 100cl) from my top shelf and the last drams of the Macallan 1990 'Speymalt' (40%, Gordon & MacPhail) I found in a cupboard I hadn't opened in at least six months. Macallan 10yo vs Macallan 10yo 100 Proof: Obviously, the cask strength version had a much more
concentrated nose. Both have a distinctive sherry character, but it's more apparent in the c/s. The c/s seems sweeter, too. On the other hand, due to its relatively restrained nose, the 'normal' 10 initially shows a lot more more
different components over a malty, nutty base. The taste of the normal 10 starts off very sherried, but opens up into a long sweetness. The c/s is sweet from the start, with more obvious wood tones. Both have a very long finish. Macallan 10yo vs Macallan 12yo: Can this be right? At first sight, the 10 seems to have more nose than the 12! After a little while, the 12 grows in 'volume', while the 10 grows in complexity. It isn't long before the 12 has overtaken the 10. After a few minutes, both noses seem to grow towards each other. The taste profiles are quite similar as well; sherried with a long, sweet finish. At first sight, the difference may be no more than a point's worth. Macallan 10yo vs Macallan 1990 'Speymalt': Phew! After the previous tastings, the Speymalt is hardly recognisable as a Macallan. What a disaster. The Macallan 10 is sherried, sweet, complex and stylish; the Speymalt is... not. The less said the better. I used the last three or four drams of the bottle of Speymalt for my 'special blend'. The fact that I found this old bottle seems to be kind of a mixed blessing. Why on earth did they decide to release this bottling? As a whisky it's very nice, as a single malt it's acceptable but as a Macallan it's substandard. Conclusion:
The new 'sissy stregth' Macallan 10 moves to my middle shelf, where the Royal Lochnagar used to be. The Lochnagar takes the place of the Glentromie 12yo
(40%, OB) on my bottom shelf, which is nearly empty anyway. Let's finish the job.
For the 'Grand Finale' of tonight, I pulled out the Glenmorangie 18yo
(43%, OB). The Maltman's Special Reserve, to be precise, with little pieces of cork. I poured a glass of the Glenmorangie Cellar 13 next to it for comparison. Almost 20 tastings after the cork incident I find myself with a bottle that's nearly empty. Because of special procedure next few months - see bottom of this report for more info. See 'Bypass operation' -
I will use the rest of the
bottle on new year's eve for the decadent purpose of warming me on my traditional 'New Year's Eve Midnight Woodwalk'. After last year's disaster, I will make sure to bring a flashlight. My night vision isn't what it used to be and
I'm all out of carrots. That's it for this year, folks. - - -
MAddendum 69A - Introduction Euro As you may know, the countries in the European Union are switching to a common currency in January 2002. After a lot of
creative thinking, they came up with name 'Euro'. This means the Dutch guilder (+/- 0.45 Euro's; +/- 0.40 U$ Dollars right now) will disappear soon. That's why I will start listing all the prices on Malt Madness in Euro's from now
on. - - - MAddendum 69B - Bypass Operation I'd like to inform you that the coming months will be particularly interesting. You may know that at any given time there are 48 open bottles in my collection
- distributed over three different shelves. With the enormous number of new bottles that have been coming in lately, my middle shelf (freshly opened, unrated malts) is filled with 16 relatively fresh bottles, the most of which are at least 3/4 full. I usually wait for a minimum of six months before I decide on a final rating, because (contrary to popular belief) some single malts do change after the bottle has been opened. Some need a few weeks to 'break in', while others lose or gain some specific characteristics after a longer period of time. For the most part, these changes are minor, but I still like to wait a while to determine if a particular malt can stand the test of time.
At the same time, there are now almost 50 unopened bottles in my And then there's a number of more 'mundane' malts
I'm especially curious about. In most cases, this curiosity stems from the fact that I've never tasted any product from that particular distillery yet. Over the next three to four months, I plan to do intensive and extensive
research on the following single malts currently in my reserve stock: Ardnave 10yo ('Malts of Distinction') Of course, I will still be sampling the occasional malt from my top, middle or bottom shelf (especially when I'm entertaining visitors), but right now I plan on concentrating
my research on these, soon to be opened bottles. The rest of the bottles in my 'Reserve Stock' will remain unopened for at least a few months. - - - MAddendum 69C - System Refit Sometimes you encounter a drink that redefines your
perceptions of good and bad. At a birthday party I encountered the infamous 'Toreador Tequila' - a drink that's EVIL
compared to the plain 'revolting' drinks that occupy the bottom of my ratings list. Since my rating system encompasses all the alcoholic drinks I have tasted in my life, this has affected some ratings at the bottom of my scale, including the
Loch Dhu 10 which rises to a new rating of 11 points. Still a 'whisky' that makes your tongue hurt and your nose cry, mind you... After the In my slightly recalibrated rating scale some 'medium' benchmarks are:
The revised rating of 50 points for the ordinary Teacher's blend makes it easier for me to rate whiskies in the middle segment. This is a very decent and consistent blend, so all I have to do to come up with a final rating is
determine how much I like it more or less than the Teacher's blend. Nevertheless, I like the average single malt a lot better than the average blend. It may very well be that I just have a dislike for grain whisky. - - - MAddendum 69D - Preliminary Ratings My first impression of a malt isn't always accurate. ***** = Amazing (90 points and above) And as long as I'm refitting my system, I might as well start an experiment with ratings that take the 'price/value' factor into account. Let's start by dividing the prices I'm willing to pay (at the moment) into six layers; ***** = Cheap (< 25 Euro's) Because this is still an experiment, there may be some discrepancies with my 'Bang-for-your-Buck'-List. I'm the first to
admit that my serious case of malt madness may grow even more serious in the future, forcing me to pay more than I actually want to satisfy my insatiable lust for new discoveries. Using these temporary benchmarks for now, my
personal Q/V indicators for some high profile single malts would look something like: Lagavulin 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <<< Previous 10 entries - Next 10 entries >>> (Or check out the overview of all log entries) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
60 - 69
