I'm running out of shelves to put my malts on. But even on a good nose day, it's impossible for me to accurately taste and judge more than six or seven malts.
That's why I decided to expand the tasting session I had planned for a few ex-collegues to a genuine four day head-to-head marathon. That should take care of my storage problems - at least for a while...

---------------  Night I - May 23; 2000 - Hidden Treasures

When I opened my bookcase a few weeks ago I was confronted with the fact that I don't read nearly enough. Inside, I found four almost empty bottles I had forgotten all about. Talk about your sweet surprise! I decided to postpone tasting of the 'major malts' to the last evening of the marathon and finish my tasting notes on Glen Scotia, Interleven, Coleburn and Glenallachie, using some clever juxtapositioning in head-to-head tastings.

1 - Glen Scotia 14 vs Springbank CV

The Glen Scotia 14 yrs. was something very special. I've searched for this malt for quite a while - partly because Michael Jackson rates it at 87 points, partly because the name sounds so very, very Scottish. The distillery has been closed for a large part of the 1980's, but this bottle is filled with the malt produced before the closure. This malt is from the Campbeltown region. I used 'the other Campbeltown malt' Springbank for comparison - the Springbank CV without an age statement, to be precise.

Nose: The nose of the Glen Scotia is amazing! The Springbank seems a lot sharper and oilier at first, but after closer inspection the Glen Scotia also shows some peculiar oily components. The Glen Scotia has a lot more salt too. With time, the Glen Scotia showed much more development and complexity than the CV - Even after 15 minutes the CV had hardly changed, but the nose of the Glen Scotia had completely transformed.
Taste: The Springer isn't bad at all; sweet with quite an afterburn for a malt that I suspect to be relatively young. The Glen Scotia is something else; sweet and salt on the tongue, with losts of interesting nuances - almost Top 10 material.

The Glen Scotia 14 is the best Campeltown malt I've had so far - it should have been one of the 'Classic Malts'. It has gone straight to my top shelf, but I have to stock up soon, because the pre-closure product is disappearing soon. Especially at it's reasonable price of around 35 Euro's, the Scotia beats the overrated Springbank all the way.

Verdict:
Glen Scotia 14 - 83 points
Springbank CV - 75 points

2 - Glenallachie 1985 vs Coleburn 1983

Two of the hidden treasures I've found in my bookcase go head-to-head.
Both are Signatory Vintage bottlings of mid 80's Speysides. Hmmm..... The Signatory Vintage bottlings are usually quite good, but the Glenallachie 1985 didn't really do it for me and the Coleburn 1983 was a genuine disappointment. The distillery closed down in 1985 - and I'm not surprised. Nor was I surprised when I heard it was used in the Johnnie Walker blend.

Nose: The bouquet of the Glenallachie 1985 was very nice! Clearly Speyside; Complex with citrussy overtones at first and more pepper later - and menthol after that. A lot of development. The Coleburn 1983 seems a lot simpler and more restrained. Faint hints of sweets, but not much else. It breaks up very fast.
Taste: The Glenallachie was very smooth and slightly oily. Cold menthol or eucalyptus in the finish; interesting, but not very enjoyable. Loses a lot of points here. The Coleburn was sweet and oily - warm, but not very interesting.

Verdict:
Glenallachie 1985 - 74 points
Coleburn 1983 - 66 points

3 - Interleven 1984 vs Bladnoch 16

And again I found a perfect partner in my collection for an interesting HTH.
Both are about the same age, both are lowlanders and as it turned out they were the best two lowlanders I ever tasted. I'm not a fan of Lowland malts in general, but the Bladnoch 16 (Ultimate bottling) that recently received a rating of 82 is stunning. It has been on my shelves for almost a year now, but since I discovered it as a perfect springtime malt it's going fast. The Interleven 1984 (Gordon & MacPhail bottling) was quite a surprise, too.

Nose: The Interleven had a very soft nose with some grassy sweetness. Light, with some sherry. The bouquet grows oilier after a while, and lasts for quite a long time. It alsmost seemed to get some nutty elements in the end, but I'm not quite sure about that. The Bladnoch was smoky and rich with a lot of development. Also oily after a while. Some mocca sweetness, then citrussy sourness. Amazing complexity.
Taste: The Interleven was very warm; extremely oily after a few seconds, especially in 'mouth feel'. A long, sweet finish ends on a dry note. One of the better Lowland malts I've tasted. The Bladnoch was soft and sweet - and a bit malty. Sweet lemons, very warm. Just great. It's a sad thing that this private bottling has been sold out everywhere I checked.

Verdict:
Bladnoch 16 - 82 points
Interleven 1984 - 74 points

Well, allright then... One final match. And what a great match it is....

Lagavulin 16 old - Lagavulin 16 new - Lagavulin 1979 DE

I've received continuous reports that the quality of Lagavulin 16 is changing for the worse. Of course, this is alarming news. Since Lagavulin is my number one malt and the touchstone for my entire rating system, I felt a re-tasting was warranted. I bought myself a new bottle and tasted a dram against the contents of my old bottle of Lagavulin 16 and the 1979 Distiller's Edition.

As it turn's out, the new 16 bottling is slightly less balanced than the old 16 bottling - both in nose and palate. Still full of Islay character, with some interesting sweet and sherry contrasts. There was just a little less 'cohesion'; one of the elements that made the old bottling such an unique drink. It is, in fact, a little more like the Distiller's Edition in character than the old 16. It's still the best single malt around, it still beats the 1979 DE by a nose length, but it loses two points. This may not seem very dramatic but the 'old' Lagavulin 16 was the touchstone for my quality and value ratings.
Well - I'll worry about that later.

Verdict:
Lagavulin 16 (old bottling) - 96 points
Lagavulin 16 (new bottling) - 94 points
Lagavulin 1979 Distiller's Ed. - 89 points

And thus the report of the first night ends.

---------------  Night II - May 24; 2000 - Free Fun - First Impressions

Wow, what a surprise. I'm helping out my liquorist (Ton Overmars in Amsterdam) with some Internet stuff, and yesterday he kindly offered to bring along a few bottles that had been used in a blind test. For free! The bottles were unlabeled, but I didn't mind! All bottles were at least 3/4 full - what a bud bonanza!
This is what he dropped off:

• Glenkinchie 1978 17 yrs. (60,8%)
• Glenlivet 21 yrs. (40%)
• Glen Mhor 1977 20 yrs. (?)
• Inchgower 1977 19 yrs. (?)
• Glenfarclas 105 (60%)

I didn't have a very good nose day, so tonight's impressions are rather vague.

Glenfarclas 105 (old) vs. Glenfarclas 105 (new)
Oh boy. This proved one of my suspicions. The last few glasses of my previous bottle of GF 105 had been relatively disappointing. It didn't seem nearly as great as I remembered. But this may have been the result of the fact that this old litre bottle had been on my shelves for over a year in a quarterly state of fullness. And since it had a cheap tin screwcap instead of a decent cork, it's feasible there was some illicit breathing going on - resulting in accellerated quality loss. (See Black Book) While I recently adjusted the tasting notes and rating (downwards to 76 points), the new bottle seemed closer to 80 points! Will have to examine further in the future - a re-rating might be in order here.

Glenlivet 21 yrs. vs. Glenlivet 12 yrs.
The Glenlivet 12 has always given me a funny feeling. It is a good malt - there's an undenyable quality there. Nevertheless, it has never really 'done it for me', which explains the 'just short of greatness' rating of 78 points. This is an interesting opportunity to see if an older version works for me.
The 21 has a lot more nose than the 12, with much more overwhelming sherry. Very full and complex. Compared to the 21, the 12 seemed almost sharp at first, becoming very nutty after a few minutes, and oily later on. The nose of the 21 had a lot more staying power, too. After about ten minutes, the 12 had stopped breathing, but the 21 kept developing. It had gotten some toffee tones. The taste of the 21 starts off very woody, but mellows out after a few seconds. Very deep, sweet sherry. The taste of the 12 seemed very poor in comparison. Tonight's rating of the 12 would be no higher than 76, the 21 scores 82-83 provisional points. Very, very nice!

Glenkinchie 1978 Cask Strength vs. ???
Hmm.... Hard to find a good match in my collection for this one. So I didn't, and sampled this 60.8% malt all by its lonesome self. The nose is pretty sharp, but doesn't really advertise the cask strength. Couldn't find a lot there. Sweet start, with a bit of artificial orange like in 'Fanta' lemonade at the end of every whiff. Some smoke after a few minutes. Seems very sweet and surprisingly drinkable for a cask strength at first, until it reaches your throat. Wow - What a burn. Time to add some water.
More citrus and sweetness in the nose; taste still full of sweet power. A bit more malty.
With an extra big splash of water (to about 30 Alc %) a lot more smoke in the nose, but very little sweetness left. The taste seems very soft at first, but explodes within seconds into a sweet burn. Very peppery finish. Woehah!
Somewhere around 82 points, I suspect - Very nice.

Because of my relative bad nose day, I decided to postpone the HTH of Glen Mhor '77 against Inchgower '77 to the last evening of the marathon.
01:35 - Bedtime.

---------------  Night III  - May 25; 2000 - Islay Hopalong

I just came up with an interesting new concept; the 'Hopalong Head-To-Head Session'.
A 'HHTHS' is a series of ordinary HTH's, but for every new HTH, one malt from the previous HTH is pitted against a new opponent. The latter one itself is confronted with yet another new malt in the next HTH, etc. Well - Just look at tonight's line-up and you get my drift. Needless to say; the tasting quantities have to be extra small to be able to detect any nuances whatsoever at the end of 10 glasses.

Islay Hopalong

• Ardbeg 17 - Ardbeg 10
• Ardbeg 10 - Ardbeg 1991 (SV)
• Ardbeg 1991 (SV) - Laphroaig 10
• Laphroaig 10 - Laphroaig 15
• Laphroaig 15 - Ardbeg 17

I was very curious about the new 'official' Ardbeg 10 yrs. old that reached our shores some two months ago. I decided to put a glass of the official 17 yrs. next to it for the first bout of the evening. Oohah! The Ardbeg 17 is still one of the greatest malts around right now. A lot sweeter and more balance in the nose than the 10. More complex, too, with a whole range of aroma's. The 10 seems a lot like Laphroaig 10 at first, with a lot of salt. Ammonia - but not as much nose as I've come to expect from Ardbegs - and less peat, too.. After a few minutes, it starts to develop quite nicely, though. The taste becomes sweeter and suddenly there's the 'delay', followed by an explosion of warmth.

Conclusion: Both Ardbegs show the amazing nasal development that I love, but the New Ardbeg 10 definately needs a few minutes to reach it's full potential. The nose disappears after 15 minutes or so, where the 17 keeps developing.

2 - Ardbeg 10 (Distillery) vs Ardbeg 1991 (Signatory Vintage)

The new Ardbeg 10 was more like the Laphroaig 10 in character than the older Ardbegs I've tasted. The same goes for the 1991 SigVint to some extent, but the first impressions were 'oily' and 'veggie'. Hmm; the official 10 certainly has more complexity in the nose, and shows some sweet elements that didn't show up against the 17. Both are salty, but in a different way. They are a lot more diverse than I would have expected. The official 10 has the longest lasting nose. The 1991 SigVint only reveals it's Ardbegness on the tongue after a few seconds.

Conclusion: The official 10 beats the 1991 Sigvint, in part because it's closer to the familiar Ardbeg style I love. It lasts longer too.

3 - Ardbeg 1991 (Signatory Vintage) vs Laphroaig 10

The Laphroaig 10 beats the Ardbeg 1991, no question about it. It's definitly more Islay, and there are just so much more different elements in nose and taste. Salt and iodine. Next to the aromatic Laphroaig, the 1991 Ardbeg hardly seems like an Islay malt.

Conclusion - On a personal level, I prefer the Laphroaig 10 over the Ardbeg 1991.
On the other hand, the extremity of the Laphroaig makes it not the most accessible malt, especially for beginners.

4 - Laphroaig 10 - Laphroaig 15

The 15 yrs. had more peat and less iodine in the nose than the 10 yrs.
More balance, too. Ammonia? Salt and sweet. One of the longest lasting noses I know - still great well after an hour. Taste: Salt and sweet with some liquorice. A lot rounder and sweeter than the 10 with a pronounced sherry finish. Great stuff. The 10 was as always extreme; Salt and iodine, and some smoke and peat.

Conclusion: Islay malts seem to need at least 15 years to reach the optimum balance between Islay power and mature sweetness and complexity. Think about the Lagavulin 16, the Ardbeg 17 etc. Nevertheless, the Laphroaig 10 earns extra points for its uncompromising youthful power.

5 - Laphroaig 15 - Ardbeg 17

The tasting against the Ardbeg 17 confirms it: There's a new top 10 malt in town!
First nasal impressions: The Distillery Laphroaig 15 seems very 'farmy'; the Ardbeg 17 almost 'flowery'. Both have plenty of Islay power in the nose, as well as a lot of development over time. Their noses are an even match; very different, but equally complex and intruiging. It's the wonderful palate of the Ardbeg 17 that makes it the overall winner - the taste of the Laphroaig 15 is also very nice, but just a few points less nice. Both malts have reached my top 10 - talk about your great nosing and tasting!

Final conclusion: These HTH's are just great to pinpoint the finer nuances in relatively similar malts. Have to do this more often. Davin proves to have an excellent eye for quality , since he has supplied two of the malts in my top 10 - The Lagavulin 1979 DE and now the Laphroaig 15.

The Verdict:
Ardbeg 17            90 points
Ardbeg 10            83 points  (provisional)
Ardbeg 1991         80 points
Laphroaig 10         83 points
Laphroaig 15         86 points  (new final rating)

Time to get some sleep - Big day tomorrow.

---------------  Night IV - May 26; 2000 - Extreme Differences

Before my guests arrived, I figured out a fiendish head-to-head scheme that would hopefully delight and surprise my guests and at the same time help to empty some of my current stock. The first six items on tonight's menu:

Macallan 18 yrs. 1976 - House of Lords 12 yrs. (blend) (To illustrate the difference between a good single malt and a blended whisky. Unfair by definition, but educational.)
Caol Ila 21 yrs. C/S Rare Malts - Cockburn 6 yrs. (To illustrate the difference between a good single malt and a bad single malt - or a young one and an old one.)
Lagavulin 1979 DE - Glenturret 1978 Ultimate (To illustrate differences in regional styles and the effects of different wood treatments. Both bottles were gifts from guests, so I thought it appropriate to share the last few drams with other guests.)

Well - as soon as my first guests arrived, this schedule went out of the window. Adwy brought a St. Magdalene 1965, Connoisseurs Choice bottling, and Reinier a Gragganmore Cask Strength bottling. (Gordon & MacPhail; from 1976 if memory serves) Of course, I had to work these malts into the tasting session, so I forgot about my original plans and decided to take my guests on a wild tasting ride. Around 20:00 my first three guests (Adwy, Reinier and Serge) had arrived, so we kicked things off with a nice 'Justus van Maurik' cigar Reinier brought and:

Glen Mhor 1977 20 yrs. vs. Inchgower 1977 19 yrs.
There's an interesting match! The two unlabeled bottles I missed out on two nights ago. Both are northern Speyside malts from 1977 I (and my guests) had never tasted before.
The first glasses of a tasting session are always difficult, but this matching proved to be especially confusing. Both malts appeared very strange and not at all what I've come to expect of a Speyside malt around 20 yrs. old. Both seemed a bit medicinal in nose, with very little sherry sweetness. Not very impressive, and the taste was no picknick either. Neither I nor my guests were particulary impressed.
If these impressions are right, neither will score much above 70 points, which is below par for a Speyside malt this old.

St. Magdalene 1965 (Connoisseurs Choice) vs. Bladnoch 16 (Ultimate)
What a treat! The St. Magdalene is a very rare bottle that I've never seen before. I picked the Bladnoch against the St. Magdalene because it's currently the oldest Lowland malt I have on stock myself. Wow! What a nose on that St. Magdalene! Overwhelming! Very rich, with flowery and perfumy notes. Very complex, but harmonious, with just the right amount of sherry. Especially at first, it completely knocks the Bladnoch off the table. Based on the wonderful nose, it would rate somewhere around 86-88 points. But then there was a complication:

After 15 minutes or so, the nose of the 'Magda' started to deteriorate quickly, but the Bladnoch kept developing. The palate of the St. Magdalene was quite a disappointment after the amazing nose. But then again, the Bladnoch doesn't do too well in that department either. This leaves the Bladnoch at it's original rating of 82, and the St. Magadalene at a provisional rating of 83 points overall. I can certainly understand why Adwy is in love with this bottle; I'll have to make sure to get one of my own soon - if I can find an affordable bottle, that is...

By now the other guests Frans and Jennifer had arrived, bringing with them a few more nice cigars - including my current favorite Romeo & Julietta. And this is where things start to get vague. I'm not quite sure about the order of the malts we drank after that. Tonights session was more about social alcoholism than technical analysis of the malts on offer anyway - hence the smoking.
The rest of the notes are in shorthand:

Lagavulin 1979 Distiller's Edition - Lagavulin 16 yrs.
Everybody present seemed in agreement that the new 16 yrs. bottling still beats the 1979 Distiller's Edition. These drams were the last from my bottle of DE - and at that price I won't buy another bottle myself soon. All present did like both malts a lot, and Adwy got inspired to share some vague stories about the Gaelic origins of his name (meaning 'void' or 'gap') and the 'Nomen est Omen' adage.

Caol Ila 21 yrs C/S Rare Malts - Cragganmore 1976 (?) C/S
Two Cask Strengths go head-to-head. The Gordon & MacPhail Cragganmore 1976 Reinier brought had a wonderful nose. A lot of marzipan and a little nutty. Almonds? The Coal Ila was wonderful, but still stays a bit of a mystery. The Cragganmore was surprisingly drinkable at around 55%, but worked also well with some water. The Coal Ila was just too powerful neat (over 60%), but can stand a pretty hefty dillution too.
Jennifer and Reinier liked both malts a lot - and so did I. I will keep my eyes open for my own bottle of the Cragganmore.

Around 22:30 we abandoned the HTH's in favor of plain tastings. No records were kept, but my guests were mostly disgusted by Loch Dhu 10 yrs. (burnt, ashy), mostly delighted by the last glasses of Macallan 18 yrs. 1976 and mostly surprised by the Japanese blend (Suntory Kakubin) and Irish malt (Connemara ) I poured them.

That's it - Check out the E-Reports section for more tasting reports.

May 'Head-to-Head Marathon'