Well, when I write this it is still winter - both 'meteorologically' and weather-wise...
But is it the winter of 2007 or the winter of 2008? Well, given the fact that it started on December 21 of 2007, most of it falls in 2008 - which means that I'll have to mark this first page of my 2008 entries 'Winter 2008'.

As seasonal reviews go, I'm afraid this is a fairly poor one; just two log entries...
I've spent most of my time reconstructing part of the Distillery Data section and decided to 'freeze' this log for a few months. That approach paid off, because I managed to finish the distillery profiles for all the 'A' distilleries;

Aberfeldy - a malt whisky distillery in the 'Midlands' region of Scotland, not far from Edradour and Blair Athol.
Aberlour - located in the heart of Speyside, was founded in 1879 by entrepreneur James Fleming.
Allt A' Bhainne - closed by Pernod Ricard when they bought it in 2002, but it was re-opened in 2005.
Ardbeg - located on the isle of Islay. The owners claim that Ardbeg distillery was founded in 1815.
Ardmore - founded by Adam Teacher and located at the edge of the Grampian mountains.
Arran - located on the island with the same name, just East of Islay and Campbeltown.
Auchentoshan - one of the very few remaining distilleries in the Lowlands of Scotland.
Auchroisk - bottles of this single malt whisky were sold under the name 'Singleton' in the 1990's.
Aultmore - the distillery started producing whisky in 1897, but was forced to close shortly afterwards.

So - 'freezing' the liquid log allowed me to make some proper progress.
Because the measly two log entries below would make this page feel a tad 'anorexic' compared to most of the other pages on Malt Madness and Malt Maniacs, I've added my responses to some comments and questions of one of our distinguished readers below...
 

Entry #325 - The Little Ice Age

December 28, 2007 - Here's the view
from my balcony just before Christmas.
No snow, but a thick layer of frost on
all the trees which brought me into
a christmassy spirit - which is rare.
 
It also brought along lots of cheer and
inspiration - but I have to admit there
was some frustration as well. The ice
on the canals and ponds reminded me
of last year's 'big freeze' during which
I froze all the old pages of the website
to give me time to work on two brand
new websites; this one & Malt Maniacs.
The new sites are now up & running,
but both still require a LOT of polishing.
 
Well, the good news is that we've now
launched the Malt Maniacs & Friends
group on Facebook, so I now have a additional 'platform' for my rants and
raves besides the mailinglist and this
liquid log. You know what that means?

It means I'm 'freezing' this liquid log again.
Not permanently, mind you - just long enough to partly refurbish the 'Distillery Data' section.
That's going to be a lengthy process, but I will try to keep everybody informed about the progress (and perhaps publish the occasional preview) on the pages of the Malt Maniacs & Friends group on Facebook. You can find my recent log entries for the Spring, Summer and Autumn of 2007 on separate pages. I'll kick-start this liquid log again once the new DD section (or at least a significant portion of it) is finished.

So join the the Mixed Messages Mailinglist or join us on MM&F if you want to stay informed...

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

Entry #326 - Catch 'Em While They're Gullible...

March 18, 2008 - This liquid log has been 'frozen'
for almost three months, but recent developments
have inspired me to 'unfreeze' it again. Why? Well,
for one thing, I've received a very interesting press
release from Bruichladdich's Mark Reynier. It points
out some proposals that the SWA (Scotch Whisky
Association, an industry group led by big players
like Diageo) wants to turn into law. Basically, the
new rules could legitimise the use of the distillery
name for a 'vatted malt' - a blend of malt whiskies
distilled at different distilleries. Or does it???
 
Those who have been dramming for a few years
may remember the upheaval Diageo caused a few
years ago when they tried to replace their Cardhu
single malt with a vatted malt in the same package.
Under these new rules they could get away with it.
Well, at least those were my initial thoughts when
I've read the 'paraphrased' press release...

You can find the full text of the press release on the Malt Maniacs & Friends group on Facebook.
You can also follow the link to the text of the draft, which may or may not shed a different light on Mark's claims. Whatever the case, we got a nice discussion out of it - and some quick responses from the SWA.

After I sent Mark's press release to the members of the 'Mixed Messages Mailinglist' I received a rapid response from somebody representing an SWA member. He felt that my message was 'a bit misleading'. Well, I have to admit that I spiced up the press release with a few inflammatory observations from my end, but that was just to express my concerns. My command of 'legal' English isn't sufficient to interpret law language and fine print with any degree of certainty or authority. Fortunately, I have nerves running straight from my eyeballs to my guts, and my guts told me there could be reason for concern amongst consumers... 

The response continued with a few interesting comments;
 
'... Market research was carried out to find out what consumers understand from the term, Pure Malt which is not allowed in the USA and is believed to be equivalent to Single Malt in the mind of a majority of consumers worldwide. The industry as a whole after two years of discussion decided in 2006, to drop the term Pure Malt and replace it by Blended Malt Scotch Whisky. It was believed that the term Vatted Malt was not known or understood by a majority of consumers to be an acceptable alternative to Blended Malt.'

Well, I would certainly love to see the results of that market research. I happen to know a little bit about market research myself, and the truth of the matter is that you can get pretty much any results you would like if you are the one deciding on which questions are asked from which people in which context. In some cases the goal of market research is indeed getting actual information from the market, but these days it is also often used to legitimise a policy. So, unless I've seen the full study myself, I'm usually not convinced by market research if the source of the research could have a (hidden) agenda.

Besides, I think consumer groups like Malt Maniacs have been fighting against the confusing term 'pure malt' since the 1990's because it could indicate both a single malt and a vatted malt. (If you're already confused by these phrases, check out chapter two of the Beginner's Guide.) So, we're actually very happy to see that 'the industry' finally decided to stop using the phrase 'pure malt' which was indeed confusing.
However...

There already was a perfectly viable alternative to describe a mixture of malt whiskies from different distilleries. That was the phrase 'vatted malts'. For some mysterious reason the SWA decided two years ago to introduce a new concept 'blended malt whisky'. Despite the fact that around 100% of the whisky consumers I've talked to find this much more confusing, the industry (or at least the SWA) is still pushing for the new phrase.
Anyway, I was also intrigued by some other points in the response;

'... Secondly, another important decision was taken to protect single malt.
The definiton of Scotch Whisky: new legislation, will also include the banning of single malt exports in bulk to protect the category. Just like other products such as Port, Madeira, Sherry. When the new law comes into force all single malt will need to be bottled in Scotland. This is good news for the consumer and for Scotland. It will insure constant quality of Single Malt Bottles. Old distillery names will be protected from misuse as well as regions. This is all good news as far as I am concerned. I do not see how the consumer would get misled by this, it is the opposite.'

Well, that's funny...
I didn't realise the 'quality' of a single malt whisky depended on it being bottled in Scotland ;-)
Come to think of it, I may have actually have tasted a few single malts that were bottled in Scotland where this particular system of quality control failed - Loch Dhu and Drumguish spring to mind. I actually understand that an industry has a need to protect itself from foreign competition, but I usually get a little anxious if they're trying to convince me they're doing all this for my benefit... That's the fox preaching before the hen house, me thinks...

Anyway, that's it for today. I've received more responses but I'll get to those in another entry.
Meanwhile, I've recently published the first refreshed distillery profiles in the new Distillery Data section.
The DD section now offers profiles for all distilleries with names beginning with the letter 'A'. Why? Well, because that's the first letter of our alfabet. That means that profiles for Aberfeldy, Aberlour, Allt-A-Bhainne, Ardbeg, Ardmore, Arran, Auchentoshan, Auchroisk and Aultmore are now finished. I initially planned to proceed sensibly with the 'B' distilleries, but with almost a hundred other profiles to finish I was already getting bored. So, in the foreseeable future I'm going to publish some of the profiles to match the dramming sessions for my liquid log.

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

(NOTE: THE 'SWA' DEBATE HEATED UP QUITE A BIT AFTER I WROTE THIS FIRST LOG ENTRY...)

= = = = =

And that was already 'it' for my reports for the winter of 2008.
But here are snippets from a message from Pat Halliday and my reply that you might find useful...

'Hello Johannes, as a newcomer to the world of single malts I discovered your site a few weeks ago and have been spending an unhealthy amount of time perusing its very informative, amusing and approachable contents ever since.. how's that for arse-kissing?! I mean it though. Over the years I've generally consumed vast amounts of beer and wine and avoided spirits, smugly telling myself that this policy excludes me from the possibility of becoming a textbook alcoholic - I didn't find this difficult because I'd never encountered any that I really liked (my knowledge of whisky was confined to the odd unpleasant experience with a bottle of Bells) and because my predilection for drinking quite quickly meant that if I did drink spirits in pubs I either spent most of the time waiting for my friends to finish their beers, or if I didn't feel like waiting, getting shitfaced at record speed!

Over Christmas, though, I tucked into a glass of 18 yo Glenmoranjie and found it delicious - I savoured the smell and the taste at length, rather than just chucking it down my throat. Then I discovered Highland Park, Glenlivet, Macallans and Talisker - all great-but it was when I found Laphroaig that I realized I'd had it. I have NEVER loved a drink so much. My experience of it to date is simply the 10 yo 40% variety, but no doubt like numerous others who have looked at Maltmadness, I am now champing at the bit to get my hands on a bottle or five of the cask strength stuff.

At the moment I'm on holiday in Vietnam, trying to make my bottle of duty free 40% last the holiday, but the moment I'm back home (Oxford, England) I will be hurrying into town to get some cask strength, as well as some quality glasses. What I'm finding slightly puzzling is knowing exactly which one to go for. The 2005 version which did so well at the Malt Maniacs Awards is 55.7%, as is the one on the Track Record, but the 2005 "expression"(am I using that term correctly?) on the Hit List (93 points) and in the BFYB section clocks in at 57.3%.

And when I look at the matrix, the 57.3% from 2002 looks even more tempting (as does the Green Stripe, obviously a favourite of yours, from 2000 - but I guess this is hard to get hold of now). I also noticed somewhere in your liquid blog that you weren't that impressed with the 2004 version, also 57.3%, which I think you awarded 86 points, although you thought that maybe you were having a bad nose day.

So I suppose my question is, how will I know what a year a given bottle is - there doesn't seem to be any obvious sign on the bottle - and in the absence of any information, is it most likely to be 2005? Following on from that, if there are indeed two 2005 versions, which one do you consider to have the edge? I guess the common sense answer is that whichever one or more of these I buy will be the best I've ever had and I needn't get too caught up in the details, but I just thought I'd try to maximize my chances of experiencing cask strength heaven by addressing these questions.

In the words of Columbo, just one more thing... when it comes to adding water, I notice you talk about adding ten drops to the Green Stripe of 2000. Do you do this with a pipette? Am I going to have to break into a school science laboratory and steal one to perfect my whisky kicks?!

I really enjoy your site and hope you can help me,

Pat Halliday'
 

Well, thanks lot for the meaningful arse-kissing, Pat ;-)

Good questions. First of all, I always like to stress the fact that MMadness is all about my PERSONAL taste - which may differ from yours. But it seems you've already browsed the site extensively, so I guess you already knew that. If you look on the Malt Maniacs Matrix you'll see that the maniacs are pretty much in complete agreement that the Laphroaig 10yo Cask Strength is a brilliant dram. Too me, its character combines the best characteristics of the 15yo and 10yo at 40 or 43%. And if you take your time, you can experience a wonderful landscape of fragrances while you add water, a few drops at the time. There are differences between the batches, but until now every expression (yes, you use the term correctly) I've sampled was superb.

That being said, the latest batches of the Laphroaig 10yo CS I've tried seem to be just a tad 'rougher' than earlier ones. You know about 'batch variation' - and that really goes in both directions; up and down. However, one of the great things about the matrix is that it sometimes allows us to see 'trends' in a certain direction over the years, because we distinguish between various batches. However, you are correct when you note that there are often no obvious signs on the bottle or label. On most official bottlings, the bottling year isn't specified. Sometimes codes printed on the bottle or label can give a clue if you know how to interpret the code (not easy because all bottlers use different codes) or deduct the general time of  bottling based on changes on labels, bottles or packaging - or the moment and place you bought it. And matters are made even worse by the fact that labels and packaging are sometimes changed halfway through a 'batch' of a dozen or more casks.
So, identifying batches of OB's is not an exact science...

Fortunately, collectively the maniacs have access to a great deal of information.
By looking at all the information on the label and packaging, printed batch numbers, etc. we can often either determine fairly exactly when a bottle was released or at least make an educated approximation. For example, Macallan's 'Fine Oak' series (and their new packaging) was first released at the end of the summer of 2004. So, we knew that every 'Fine Oak' bottling we tasted in the autumn or winter of 2004 had to be bottled in 2004. In other cases details like printed batch numbers or small changes on the label give us an indication.

However, as I said - batch variation is a relative 'short term' phenomenon; it occurs between the consecutive 'batches' of a particular bottling. Generally speaking, the difference between batches that were released within a few months of eachother are minimal. If the difference on the monitor between batches is one or two points, that's well within the 'margin of error'. That being said - the profile of the most recent batch I've tried (the '2006') had changed a bit, causing it to earn 'only' 88 points - as opposed to earlier batches that all earned scores in the 90's. But I'm a strict scorer, so a score of 88 points is still mighty impressive. So, don't worry too much about which version to get, just pick up whatever version you see. Multiple batches are released each year, so there's a chance none of the maniacs have tried the particular batch on the shelves of your liquorist anyway.

Last but not least: Yes, I use a plastic pipette that you can get in some whisky stores in Holland.
It works brilliantly, because you can really add your water one drop at the time. That's usually not enough to cause any noticeable effects, but it makes it easier to add exactly five or ten drops at a time. At the end of a heavy dramming session, pouring exact amounts of water from a cup could be challenging ;-)

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

87 - Ardbeg 30yo 1963 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, USA, Bottled +/- 1993) - from Dave Russo.
79 - Ardmore 12yo 1994/2007 (46%, The Single Malts of Scotland, C#578+598, 745 Bts.)
64 - Arran NAS 'Chateau Margaux Finish' (59.4%, OB, Bottled +/- 2005, 320 Bts.) - a failed experiment.
78 - Arran 1996/2005 Vintage (46%, OB, 6000 Bts.) - intriguing organics after a few seconds.
72 - Arran 11yo 1995/2007 (50%, DL OMC, DL REF 1375, 348 Bts.) - at 11 years it still feels young.
67 - Auchentoshan NAS 'Three Wood' (43%, OB, +/- 2006) - slipping rapidly after some decent batches.
76 - Auchentoshan 10yo 1992/2003 (46%, Murray McDavid, MM5458) - not bad for an Auchentoshan.
74 - Auchentoshan 11yo 1992/2003 (58.5%, Cadenhead's, 216 Bts.) - a little too sharp for my tastes.
80 - Auchroisk 15yo 1989/2005 (59.5%, Cadenhead's, Sherry, 636 Bts.) - a nicely polished nose.
82 - Aultmore-Glenlivet 10yo 1989/2000 (59.5%, Cadenhead's, 228 Bts.) - the nose needs water.
80 - Balblair 1989/2007 (43%, OB) - a new 'vintage' bottling from Balblair, along the lines of Glenrothes.
90 - Balblair 40yo 1965 (47.7%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Cask Strength, Bottled June 2007)
78 - Balmenach 1974/1998 (40%, Connoisseurs Choice) - very expressive for a 40% CC from the 1990's.
86 - Banff 25yo 1976/2001 (57.1%, James MacArthur, C#2260) - Banff starts to look like a hidden gem.
82 - Blair Athol 16yo 1990/2006 (50%, Douglas Laing OMC, DL REF 923, Distilled 05/'90, Bottled 12/'06)
81 - Bowmore 13yo (80 Proof, Cadenhead's, 1970's) - a miniature with clear signs of 'old bottle effect'.
79 - Bowmore 16yo 1989/2005 (51.8%, OB, 134 Bourbon casks) - just not quite recommendable.
81 - Brora 1982/2002 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice) - a nice Brora, but I'd like some more 'ooomph'.
73 - Bruichladdich 1991/2002 (46%, Coopers Choice, 3 years in port wood) - three years was too long?
82 - Bruichladdich 1990/2003 'Valinch Flora McBabe' (55.2%, OB, C#3666, 700 Bts., D. 9/'90 Btl. 12/'03)
89 - Bruichladdich 1989/2004 (57.9%, G&M Reserve, C#1957, 275 Bts.) - One of my favourites so far.
78 - Bruichladdich 16yo 1979/1995 (43%, Signatory, C#834-35, Dst. 23/3/1979, Btl. 8/1995)
78 - Bruichladdich 25yo 1968/1994 (50%, Cadenhead's) - showcases how much Laddie has improved.
86 - Bunnahabhain 27yo 1979/2007 (46%, The Single Malts of Scotland, Bottled June 2007)
78 - Caperdonich 1968 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, Old Brown Label) - but I tried it before.
82 - Caperdonich 1968/1999 (43%, Mackillop's, C# 813) - a little more 'body' than the G&M.
77 - Clynelish 10yo 1996/2007 (59.6%, The Single Malts of Scotland, C#2428, 666 Bottles)
80 - Cardhu 12yo (43%-86 proof, OB, Mid 1980's, Ivory label, Screw cap) - from the good old days.
80 - Clynelish 1989 (58%, James MacArthur, +/-2001) - Surprisingly fruity in the nose. Hint of smoke.
83 - Dallas Dhu 22yo 1982/2005 (43.0%, Signatory, hogshead, C#705, 407 Bts.)
76 - Erin Go Bragh 6yo (40%, OB, Ireland, Bottled +/- 2000) - handicapped by the finish.
76 - Fettercairn 1992 (60.5%, James MacArthur, +/- 2003, 5cl) - a powerhouse malt with little definition.
80 - Fettercairn 13yo 1993/2007 (59%, Cadenhead's, 318 Bts.) - a fairly rare IB from Fettercairn.
77 - Glenburgie 8yo (40%, G&M 'OB', code IC/DAH, Bottled +/- 1993) - surprisingly virile for an 8yo.
89 - Glencadam 32yo 1974/2007 (57.3%, The Whisky Fair, sherry wood) - excellent Glencadam!
78 - Glen Esk 13yo 1982/1995 (66.5%, Cadenhead's, D. 04/'82, Btl. 06/'95) - great for sipping.
82 - Glenfarclas 1977/2002 (43%, OB, Rect label, 1200 Bts.) - not that great for a 25yo, really.
82 - Glengordon 15yo 1974/1990 (40%, G&M for Spinola, Italy) - tasted with Davin & Michel at Schiphol.
63 - Glen Grant 5yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/-2004, Italian market) - hardly a superb malt, but very cheap.
83 - Glenlivet 1972 (59%, G&M Licensed, 'George Grant label' for Galvani Parma, +/- 1985)
86 - Glenlossie 17yo 1973/1990 (40%, G&M for Spinola, Italy) - one of my favourite Glenlossies.
71 - Glenmorangie NAS 'Quinta Ruban' (46%, OB, Port finish, 2007) - hardly their finest hour...
84 - Glenmorangie 1993/2004 Burr Oak (56.3%, OB, 1152 Bts.) - a pleasantly expressive surprise.
80 - Glenmorangie 15yo (43%, OB, +/- 2006) - not too impressive, considering the steep price.
83 - Glenmorangie 1977 (43%, OB, +/- 2000) - almost as good as the 'Burr Oak' - but twice as old.
77 - Glen Spey 15yo 1985/2001 (43%, Signatory, C#3045, 678 Bts.) - food for completists.
86 - Glenugie 1967/1997 (40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice) - one of my favourite expressions.
29 - Goldlys 3yo (40%, OB, Belgium, Bottled 2007) - ghastly stuff; what a way to introduce your brand.
62 - Goldlys 10yo (40%, OB, Belgium, Bottled 2007) - a big jump up from the 3yo, but not quite there yet.
74 - Highland Park 10yo 1996/2006 Ambassador Cask 2 (58.8%, OB, Refill, C#1071)
83 - Highland Park 22yo (80 Proof, Cadenhead's, Black label, 1970's, 5cl) - wonderful nose.
94 - Highland Park 32yo 1974/2006 (51.9%, SMWS, 4.109, 141 Bts.) - one point up after my 2nd dram.
75 - Isle of Jura 13yo 1988/2002 (59.4%, Blackadder Raw Cask, C#1639) - peat on the palate?
72 - Isle of Jura 1991/2004 (55.1%, James McArthur Old Masters) - another very oily expression.
62 - Isle of Jura 1988/2007 'The Delme-Evans Select' (59.9%, OB, Oloroso, C#1796, 757 Bts., Feis Ile)
94 - Lagavulin 12yo (43%, OB, cream label, Cinoco, 1979, rotation, 75cl) - a blast from the past.
86 - Laphroaig 18yo 1987/2005 (50%, DL OMC, DL REF 1762, 632 Bts., D. 11/'87)
75 - Lark NAS Distillers Selection (46%, OB, C#LD51, Black bottle, Bottled 2007, 50cl)
76 - Lark NAS Cask Strength (58%, OB, C#LD47, Clear bottle, Bottled 2007, 50cl)
80 - Ledaig 31yo 1974/2005 (47.2%, Signatory, C#3222, 217 Bts.) - surprisingly smooth palate.
84 - Linkwood 13yo 1990/2003 (46%, OB, Sherry, Whiskyclub Regensburg) - from Pit's club.
72 - Linkwood 20yo 1985/2006 (60.2%, Dewar Rattray, C#4544, 231 Bts.) - opinions differ...
72 - Littlemill 12yo (40%, OB, +/- 2005) - not a lot of well defined character traits besides the oil.
66 - Littlemill 12yo (40%, OB, +/-2007) - oil and veggy notes were more apparent in the recent bottling.
78 - Littlemill 16yo 1991 (53.8%, Exclusive Malts David Stirk, C#166, 251 Bts., 2007) - not too bad.
76 - Littlemill 20yo 1984/2004 (46%, Hart Bros.) - just above average, but I'm just not a Littlemill fan.
92 - Longmorn 18yo 1971/1990 (58.1%, G&M for Spinola, Italy) - tobacco, cedar wood & tertiary fruits.
90 - Longmorn 31yo 1974/2006 (49.8%, The Whisky Fair, C#3494, 135 Bts.) - a real beauty!
78 - Macallan NAS '1874' Replica (45%, OB) - Bottled around 2002, possibly a replica of a fake bottle...
85 - Macallan 14yo 1990/2005 (53.9%, Adelphi, C#10136, 211 Bts.) -
87 - Macallan 18yo 1979/1997 'Gran Reserva' (40%, OB) - one from the good old days.
77 - Mackmyra Preludium 04 (53.3%, OB, Btl. 11/04/'07, 9096 Bts.) - better than I expected.
90 - Miltonduff 23yo 1966/1990 (62.4%, G&M for Spinola, Italy) - symphony in polished wood & celery.
85 - Mosstowie 30yo 1975/2005 (49.4%, Duncan Tailor Rarest of Rare, C#5815, 175 Bts.)
77 - Port Ellen 15yo 1974/1990 (40%, G&M for Spinola, Italy) - the weakling in this series.
20 - Sigel No. 7 Barley "Good Old Germany" (40%, OB, Germany) - the worst whisky I've tasted in a while.
89 - Single Speyside Malt 40yo 1966/2007 (52.4%, The Whisky Fair, Oloroso, 150 Bts.)
92 - Single Speyside Malt 41yo 1965/2007 (53.5%, The Whisky Fair, Sherry) - an extreme beauty.
82 - Smith's Angaston 7yo 1997 (40%, OB, Australia) - a very pleasant surprise from down-under.
78 - Speyside 10yo 1993/2003 (46%, Hart Bros, Sherry cask) - possibly the best expression yet.
77 - Strathmill 31yo 1975 (48.1%, JWWW Auld Dist, Burgundy Chateauneuf du Pape, 150 Bts.)
64 - Teaninich 20yo (56.9%, James McArthur, Pot Still Label) - only try this if obscurity is your thing.
84 - Tomatin 22yo 1968/1990 (40%, G&M for Spinola, Italy) - extreme orange marmelade; great!
88 - Tomatin 30yo 1977/2007 (48.6%, The Whiskyfair, D. 02/'77, Btl. 02/'07, 223 Bts.)
 

After the big overhaul of this website in 2006 and 2007 I've switched to a 'seasonal' rhythm for the HTML pages in my Liquid Log. At the end of each season I send my scores to our French malt maniac Serge who adds them to the Malt Maniacs Monitor and Malt Maniacs Matrix - along with the most recent scores of the other maniacs. So, you don't have to take my word for it; the matrix and monitor offer tens of thousands of scores for thousands of different whiskies. The new 'Specials' section on Malt Maniacs (scroll to the bottom of the home page to find it) offers tasting notes for a few dozen recently released single malts. As far as my personal 'Track Record' is concerned; I've stopped updating it after I passed the 2000 malts mark, but the last time I checked malt mileage was +/- 2400 single malt Scotch whiskies seriously sampled & scored...

 
That's it for this dramming season - but here's a preview of some upcoming topics;