The best news of all: we've built a Vacation Special and
plan to publish some of the highlights of our Feis Ile trip
during our stay (May 25 to June 5; twelve glorious days).
So, even if you are not able to attend the festival yourself
you will be able to sniff up some of the atmosphere through
our pictures and reports in the a Vacation Special on WF.
PS: The next issue of MM will be a 'Festival Special'.
Of course, it will contain reports about Feis Ile 2005, but
we'll report on Limburg 2005 as well. Furthermore, there's
our report about the trip Serge, Olivier, Luc and myself
took to Italy and
Whiskyshiff Zurich in the fall of 2004.
The Italian trip in november was great fun but we did a
lot of traveling as well, which made things a bit chaotic.
Now we'll be stuck on an island for a whole week!
Aah... Peace & quiet for some serious dramming...
Well, not that much peace and quiet - it looks like
we could be achieving 'critical malt mass' again on
Islay with no less than nine maniacs joining the fun.
I'll be traveling with Davin, Serge and Olivier, but we
plan to share as many drams as possible with all the
other maniacs on the island as well; Charlie, Martine,
Peter, Luc and Thomas. Oh, the fun we'll have...
And speaking of vacation...
The Islay Festival is just seven more weeks away and
this time I'll finally be able to participate in this legendary
event. I can hardly wait, and just like some of the other
maniacs I'm already worrying about how to safely smuggle
all the samples I want to bring with me into Scotland.
Well, as problems go, that's a relatively pleasant one
to worry about, wouldn't you agree? Looking at the list
so far, we'll be able to make some excellent progress
when it comes to the 'obscure' distilleries on the matrix.
Just a pick from the list: Allt-A-Bhainne, Balmenach,
Coleburn, Craigellachie, Glenburgie, Glen Spey, etc.
And guess what: there's some Port Charlotte too!
By the way, did you know Charlie has his own website?
On www.whiskymax.co.uk
you can find information about
Charlie's books (and order them directly if you want to),
his 'talks and tastings', various masterclasses, etc., etc.
Or how about this for a fun Scottish travel suggestion:
Charlie also hosts whisky tours on a train or yacht!
Seems like the perfect vacation for a malthead...
Anyway, as you may know by now you can find the full Sweet drams,
contents of Malt Maniacs #14 in the column at the right.
Over the course of two months the maniacs managed to
produce no less than 19 fresh E-pistles - not bad at all.
Join the mailinglist
if you want to know when there's
another major update of the site.
Johannes
The next debate in the 'Ask an Anorak' series
focuses on the bottle depicted at the left; the
new
Ardbeg 'Serendipity' - supposedly a vatting
of 80% Ardbeg and 20% Glen Moray. When this
issue was published we weren't entirely certain
if this bottling was for real or if it was all a very
elaborate april fools joke. Well, a few days later
Martine reported that she had just sampled it.
So, it's for real - what will they think of next?
We kick things off with a massive discussion
about the importance of yeast and barley for
the quality and character of a malt whisky.
It seems that the influence of these basic
ingredients is often overlooked these days.
E-pistle #14/01 - Ask an Anorak: Barley & Yeast
Compiled on 01/04/2005 by
Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Johannes: As so often when the malt maniacs engage in an anoracal discussion,
a seemingly innocent question (from Martine this time) ignited a heated debate.
Martine: Hello lads.
We had a very pleasant Burns dinner a while ago in Paris with the whisky club.
Euan Mitchell and Douglas Davidson from Arran were there. Euan risked a very
impressive speech in French. Very couragous and very appreciated. Our Scottish
friends from te industry rarely make the effort to hazard speaking in a foreign
language. We tasted the Robert burns blend 17 year-old (really pleasant), the
unchillfilterred Arran malt (so peppery and complex) and the beautiful marsala finish.
I must say I am really charmed by this one. Douglas released some interesting news
regarding the finishes : they will bottle at the autumn a château margaux one and
a champagne one. This is the first time I hear of a champagne cask finish. I wonder
whether this can give good results. I do not know a lot about champagne but I would
be concerned by the risk of secondary fermentation and the presence of yeast.
Olivier could you « light our lantern » as we say in French ?
Maybe my questions are just nonsense, I would not be offended if it was the case.
Dave
: Oh dear oh dear oh dear .. when (and where) will it all end??
Sparkling whisky? (Or, rather, the inference of same...)
Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I'd rather distillers concentrated on making good
whisky than trying to tart it up with spurious connections to famous wine producers/regions...
On a legalistic tack: Wonder quite how Margaux will feel about being linked with a whisky? and surely the notoriously litigious
Champenois will not allow them to use the C word on the label? If they haven't checked that, then they could be in big trouble.
Serge: Hi all, Fully agreed with Dave. I don't know why the Scots always need to 'use' or 'mimic' other products. Oh yeah, that's all long-term, right?
You had the Cognac or wine-shaped Aberlours or Glenlivet et. (but now you have some whiky-alike Cognacs), you had the nonsense
Glenmorangies (Tain-l'Hermitage finish - LOL - or grand crus from villages that don't have any etc.), the 'château' syndrom on Islay,
highly sulphurized Yquem casks, specially prepared casks, various pajarettes etc. Why the hell don't they tweak their own parametres
if they want to produce 'variety'? Yeast, barley, distilling speed, sizes of middle-cuts, hot or cool storing places, whatever!
And the bad or 'neutral' casks, you put them into the blends, please!
In short, can we have just good whisky????
Ulf: As you surely know, Martine, oak casks are only used for a short period of time in the process of making a Champagne. Such
casks has never contained a fluid legally defined as 'Chamapagne'. The grape juice, the precursor to Champagne, is traditionally
fermented in oak casks of various sizes, and for a short period of time (only 10 days to 60 days depending on the producer). Today,
this step is gradually replaced by fermentation in steel tanks and under temperature control. It is not until its second fermentation,
which always occurs in bottles, the fluid becomes a true Champagne. Hence, something like a 'champagne' cask does not exist! Only in the meaning that the cask have contained a 'table wine' from the Champagne area.
Santé, Ulf - Purist.
Serge: Ulf is right (once more),
Yet, many Champagne houses let their best cuvées mature for years into oak caks before the second fermentation (which happens in
the bottle), not just a few days. All the cuvées from various vintages which are meant to get blended one day are kept in casks or
vessels, the best ones in oak casks. The best maisons like Krug or Salon let all their 'tranquille' wines mature for years in some oak
casks (sometimes new oak) before they blend their cuvées. 3, 4 or 5 years are common, which is extremely rare anywhere else.
But as Ulf said, such casks aren't technically 'Champagne' casks - although I guess one could say they are casks 'from Champagne', as
Champagne is a region. I'm sure Arran got some of these casks. Now, as Dave said, the people out there are extremely pointillous as for the use of their 'Appellation Contrôlée'...
They actually make some 'still' wine in the Champagne region (vins tranquilles), either white, red or rosé, but as Ulf explained, they
can't be called Champagne but Côteaux Champenois (or Bouzy, rosé des Riceys etc.) But will that stop a Scot? ;-)
Davin: Hi All, two points:
1. I believe the most alcohol-tolerant yeasts die out at about 17% abv, so re-fermentation of whisky in cask is not possible. Vintners add brandy, for example, to stop the fermentation in wine destined to become Porto.
2. Following on Serge And Ulf's comments, I can't understand why distillers don't put more effort into selecting yeasts. I have tasted
the results of the same grape juice fermented using different 'designer' yeasts and the differences among the products are simply
amazing. They are totally different products, and not just one or two, but dozens of them. Different yeasts produce different
congeners and they could be easily manipulated by distillers who currently think only of using the yeast which produces the greatest QUANTITY of alcohol rather than the best quality wort.
Dave
: Turning that on its head Davin, that's exactly why the industry uses such a limited number of yeasts.
American whisk(e)y distillers put great stock in the different yeasts they use, as do Japanese, but when you ask the former why, the
answer is actually much the same as a Scottish distiller will give -- it produces a consistent character of spirit. The Japanese
however, because of the way in which their industry is set up (no swapping of fillings), have to produce a number of different makes
on each site and therefore see yeast as one way of doing that. I'd love to see yeast experiments taking place but accept that for the
vast majority of distilleries in Scotland it is simply not economical and, correct me if I am wrong Olivier/Serge, would there not be the potential for spoilage/cross-breeding if a whole mix of yeasts were used?
While wandering in my anorak along the beach I've sometimes wondered if one of the reasons for 'regional' character in the past was
down to a greater variety of yeasts being used (sourced from a higher number of local breweries, 'kitchen' yeasts etc). Enough - time for a dram methinks...
It knows that different yeasts will produce different congeners! It doesn't want variation, but a spirit which conforms to the same
template every single day and yes they want one which is efficient. Now, you could argue that is short-sighted, but it also commercial
reality. Though we might like to think of it as such, this ain't a boutique industry. Neither is it an issue of 'best-quality wort'. Indeed,
though a large distiller may only use two strains of yeast one will be better suited for one type of new make, the other for a different
type. Seeding rates will vary, the original gravity as well, as will ferment times and wort clarity. So.. it's a bit more complex than the industry lets on!
Davin: Dave, such passion!
1. Methinks; one word; methanks.
2. Fermentation time is short so it is very doubtful that residues of previous yeast strains could achieve sufficient populations during
fermentation to taint the yeast used to inoculate the batch, even if the residual strain is very prolific.
3. Yes consistency is a real commercial goal, but many distilleries vary their formulas for different makes which become different
whiskies. (Changing yeasts would be no different than changing peating levels for example). No it's not always a boutique industry,
but what of Springbank's "Local Barley", of Octomore and Port Charlotte? Granted Glenlivet may not be interested, but there are "boutique" distilleries out there that could afford to play a little bit with the yeasts they use.
4. If potential interbatch contamination is a problem his raises another question about current practices. If the heads and tails are
recycled in perpetuity, will an unpeated batch that follows a peated batch have residues of smokiness derived from the recycled heads and tails? Will the "organic" Bruichladdich be contaminated by non-organic heads and tails?
Is Springbank Local Barley really local?
Olivier: Yeasts.....I could write a book on this !
In the wine business, we clearly see an influence of 'local' yeasts that will pass from the grapes to the cellar. Of course, those yeasts
have to be alive and not killed by pesticids or chemicals (they are very fragile). I say 'grapes to cellar' because we noticed that all the
different yeast populations coming from all our vineyards have colonised our cellar, walls, floors and, most importantly, casks. As you
imagine, chlorine and other such products are forbidden in our cellar, only elbow oil is allowed ! We have noticed (three years of
intensive survey done by oenologists students in cooperation with the local university) that at the end, each wine chooses the group
of yeasts that will be the most acclimated to the wine's composition: some yeast perform better at low alcohol, other with higher pH,
other at cooler temp.... At the end, each wine ferment with about 9 to 12 different yeast strains, sometimes alltogether, sometimes
by goups of 2 or 3 together. The bigger the number, the longer the fermentation as each 'new' group has to destroy the existing one
before being able to develop correctly, before being attacked by an eventually better performing group. Any resemblance with human behaviour is purely fortuitious ! The studies are available if you want to get a headache on yeasts...
For me, these variations bring more personality to the wines and show more the real 'terroir' or 'local' factor. Oh, btw, wild yeast are just as 'efficient' in terms of transforming sugar into alcohol if you give them the time.
For my business, it is a crucial factor that allows me to increase the differences between vineyards and vintages. I fully understand
the whisky industry when they want the exact opposite: consistent, fast, no-risk of deviations and efficient yeasts strains. Is the
whisky industry capable of using 'wild' or indigenous yeasts: no, not the way the malts are grown and processed today.
I would love to see such practice in the malt whisky industry, but it would mean:
1) - locally grown barley, with no pesticids or chemicals (i.e organic). Wild yeasts have to come from somewhere !
2) - I know that in the wash the yeasts would be killed by the temperature, BUT, (read: a really big BUT) my guess is that if the
barley is malted in the distillery buildings (like bowmore, HP, Springbank, Laphroaig...), it would allow such wild yeasts to develop in the
building and eventually colonize the fermenting vats. One could also imagine starting a fermentation by using a small quantity of fresh malted barley.... as we do in the wine business.
3) - control the temperature of fermentation to allow higher quality flavours to develop.
Christ ! no one is doing it ! After 24°C, bye bye any interesting flavours!!!!
4) - no use of any commercial yeast ever. All the commercial yeasts have a 'killer' factor: it means that they have the ability to
destroy (eat) any other existing wild yeast population before developing alone. So, there is no co-habitation possible between wild
yeast and commercial yeasts in the same building. A distillery cannot say: 'OK, this week, we'll do our wild yeast run', because their
fermentation would be done by the same commercial yeast. A friend of mine, grower in Alsace, still has the same commercial yeast doing the fermentation of his wines 3 years after stopping using them !
5) - Wood fermenter to allow the yeast to stay (or perhaps, keep some lees or wash from the previous fermentation to inocculate the next one...)
6) - increase the fermentation capacity by 2 or 3 in order to let the fermentation last longer....
I see regularly better ratios (by 1 to 3%) with our wild yeasts. Any candidate ?
Cheers, Olivier, the annoying anorak
Serge: Bloody interesting, Olivier!
I can't see why longer and cooler fermentations would be a problem on the long term.
They should just double or triple the number of washbacks and add a few pipes, punto basta (hum).
The output of the distillery wouldn't get lowered in any way, nor, as I understand it, the yield in alcohol.
(Rather the contrary, right?)
Dave
: Thanks to you all for such educated and informed answers. I agree that this is best suited for a smaller operation (Benromach,
Edradour, Bruichladdich, Glengyle?) and is entirely possible to achieve (Japan being my case in point) and, sorry if I didn't make this clear, I would love to see it happen. It makes more sense than faffing about with dubious finishes.
Perpetuity, will an unpeated batch that follows a peated batch have residues of smokiness derived from the recycled heads and tails?
Will the "organic" Bruichladdich be contaminated by non-organic heads and tails? Is Springbank Local Barley really local?
Yes there is residual peatiness in the system. There are ways round this, such as when you run the unpeated which many do straight
after the silent season when the distillery is clean and the receivers are empty. In Caol Ila's case the intermediate whisky between
peated and unpeated will be marked and used in blending and not as a single malt. I'll ask Iain at Edradour how he gets round the 'problem' if you wish. I know he has though!
The organic issue is an interesting one. To be labelled organic the whole distillery has to be vetted by the Soil Association. They would
insist on it being made in a totally 'clean' environment (the equivalent of kosher vodka) "A bloody nightmare" as one distiller put it to
me. Certainly when Gordon & Macphail did it at Benromach they had to also source organic oak.
However .. take Springbank as an example. I've talked to Frank about greater experimentation and his line is to concentrate on making
'straight' Springbank because that is what the greatest demand is for -- and stocks are needed to match that demand. If there is an
opportunity to do something along these lines they have an option to try it --never say never -- but it would divert resources from
their main business which is building a brand. Local barley was a fantastic whisky (have you noticed how the Laddie have replicated
the Springbank template?) but it was a small batch and therefore extraneous to the core business. The issue for these smaller
operations is to build up sufficient volumes of a core brand range. That's how they will survive. That's where the cash flow will come
from. Only once that has been achieved, I'd argue, should they start experimenting... and don't get me wrong, they should, because that is their point of difference.
Was the barley local? Yes. Did it make a difference to the flavour? I have my doubts.
Ulf
: A few general notes regarding a snip from Olivier's very interesting words on the importance of yeast.
It is my understanding that this was a factor that really revolutionized the vinification process and initially gave the 'new world wines'
a competitive advantage over the 'old world wines'. Why this method of positive 'manipulation' is not accepted in the whisky trade is a
question I have asked a couple of times too. I have not got a good answer so far. Temperature control of fermentation, which was
introduced rather late in the 'history of wine' gave the winemaker a tool that enabled a better control of this phase in wine making.
The end result gave for instance fresher and crispier white wines with broader and deeper flavor profiles. The vessels used for this technique are usually double jacketed, for cooling water flow, and made from stainless steel.
Isn't it time to get rid of the wooden vats made from Oregon pine and other exotic trees and introduce stainless steel fermenters,
double jacketed for full temperature control? I would like to see such a move, at least in an experimental fashion. Gain; a method to
maintain and allowing higher quality flavors to develop and, not least, easier to maintain integrity per batch but also consistency over batches. Loss; an element of the 'romantic' production process, anything else?
<--->
Control the temperature of fermentation to allow higher quality flavours to develop (Christ ! no one is doing it ! After 24°C, bye bye any interesting flavours!!!!). <--->
Olivier
: ArgHHHH! NO! keep those old wood vessel, please no stainless steel !
It has horrible impact on fermentations, life, electric transfers and isolate the wash or wine too much from outside influences. It is
very very easy to temperature control an old vat, and actually cheaper, because double jacketed stainless steel tanks cost a fortune
! In vats, you can introduce some smaller stainless steel flags (or radiators, or coils...) in the middle of the tank: they are more
efficient as they act in the middle of the tank, you can take them out for better cleaning and the wood is a perfect isolant for not
loosing temperature at the end of the fermentation. And, as I said before, the wood as an extremely important role in keeping some wild yeast from one batch to the next.
Ulf: Great, Oliver! Thank you for enlightening me on this issue! a) Wasn't this the core question, to dress a scenario where you may:
b) And doesn't you achieve this, abolishing wild yeast, by using (yes I know, extremely expensive) stainless steel vessels:
c) Frankly, I ask you as an expert with the aim to educate myself, what is the objective value of these wooden vats favored by the
whisky industry, except to preserve the romantic aura and keeping the equipment costs down, that can't be achieved with but also excludes the usage of modern stainless steel vessels, with temperature control?
Some questions:
'... isolate the wash or wine (too much) from outside influences...', /brackets are mine/.
control the presence of different strains of yeast and by that different characters of the whisky?
And isn't this best done with modern stainless steel vessels? Doesn't these vessels contribute better than wood to each batch's
integrity (no inoculation from previous ones) but also enable a consistency over several batches (same strain or mix of strains are not contaminated with uncontrolled ones)?
'...the wood as an extremely important role in keeping some wild yeast (away) from one batch to the next...', (away) inserted by me as clarification.
Olivier
: Dear Ulf, Dave is absolutely correct when he says that the industry wants to control as much as possible the consistency of their batches, at the cheapest cos¥ and using as little labour as possible. Consistency?
What about quality? This after all what we are looking for. For my understanding, and I see no difference between must fermenting
and the wash. Some aromas come from the fruit or malted barley, but the majority (and more complex ones) are created by the
yeasts through the fermentation cycle (called the Kreps cycle). My belief is that most aromatics extracted by distillation are aromas
created/modified by the yeasts. Thus the importance to obtain as much as possible fine and complex flavour. Whatever ferments, the
more there are yeast strains working in it, the more interesting and complex the flavours will be. This is increased if it goes slowly and
at a reasonnable temperature.. Who cares if there is less alcohol produced (that has to be verified as it isn't true for wines) and if it
takes longer to ferment ? The solution is simple but costly: increase your vats capacity and tell tue staff that they know when it starts but they will not know when it will be finished.
Why is it (to my opinion) easier to recognise distillery character and personality from pre commercial yeast use ? I am convince that
more individual complexity was achieved after distilling more flavourful wash, as a result of more complex yeast activity. The
size/shape of the stills do influence the structure of the whisky, but they can only extract the aromatics that are present in the wash and after in tue low wines.
Yes, the way distilleries operate today, there is absolute no need of wooden vats. The fact that they are regularly sterilized and
massively innoculated means that the wood is more a problem than a asset (except for the traditional look). It works the same way in
the wine industry. My point is that, in the context of a distillery wanting to increase the complexity and individuality of their malts in
letting the indigenous yeasts making the fermentations , wooden vats would then become a fantastic asset as they would procure an habitat for those yeasts.
I would love to know when some specific distilleries have started to use commercial yeasts and what was the impact on their malts. Any idea for Macallan? Hopla!
Maybe there is a definite consistency as the spirit comes out of the stills, but what about consistency after a few years in casks? The
casks influence is big and you know that there is not such a thing as two identical malts from two different casks! So why does the
'industry' refuses inconsistency during the fermentation process and accept it after some age. Well, because it is an industry! In order
to optimize their work and labour organosation they need to know a exactly when a specific wash will be through fermentation, the
finished ABV, and total quantity. Can you see the mess that would a 'wild' batch create? You know when you fill up the vat, but you
would even not know after how many days it would start and even less when it would finish! For me, it is as basic as this: timing, so everybody knows when they can go home a few months in advance.
Serge
: Yes, very interesting... I've fermented various kinds of fruits to distil them later on, and I never, ever used any yeast - just
the natural yeasts that came with the fruits. Besides, as we distil only once a year, I doubt any 'indigenous' yeast lives in my cellar or
old garage. Now, it's true that, depending on the weather and the kind of fruit, the fermenting process can last either just three days,
or more than two months, and yes it's unpredictable because sometimes the same fruit starts quickly and is 'finished' after three days,
like I said, and sometimes it needs more than two weeks just to start. (experimented with marc, mirabelle, plum, pear, quince...)
Olivier and all, does barley itself carry its own yeast? I guess so because otherwise, why would the Scots make sure that the grist
doesn't get too hot when mashed? I know that they limit the temperature to 23°C, which is precisely 1 degree lower than the life limit
of yeast, as you pointed out. It's never hoter than 23°C when pumped into the washbacks - why would they do that if they didn't care about the 'wild' yeast? Am I missing something?
Olivier
: Humm, I think that the limit of 23C has nothing to do with the yeast, Serge.
It takes temperatures of 74C during 20 seconds to be sure that all the yeasts are dead (flash pasteurisation in wine). I thought that
the wash was eventually heated to 70C to extract the sugars. Regarding yeasts, don't worry, you have them inyour shed, on your
fingers has we speak... There are also plenty of them on barley, if cultivated without chemicals... In fact, the wash could also be
innoculated like bread: keeping a little from the previous batch to innoculate the new one. This would bring more consistency but would still allow a distillery character.
Davin
: Yeast is almost certainly found everywhere there is life, Serge, including your garage.
I am not sure why the temperature is kept low, or for how long. Perhaps it is to accommodate the wild yeasts, but more likely it is
because the enzyme maltase that is created by the barley seed during malting is a protein and thus would be denatured at high
temperature and would cease to convert starch to sugar. But, someone out there knows the answer to this so rather than speculate, Dave? Charlie? Anyone know the whys of temperature control?
I am quite interested in the idea of fermenting mash using wild or naturally occurring yeasts. This really would give a local, and most
likely repeatable, character to a whisky (as it does in Belgian beer for example). However, my original question had to do with
designer yeasts that would be inoculated in large enough quantities to overwhelm any wild yeasts or commercial residues.
At school we were sampling demonstration wines made using the same must, but different designer yeasts and the differences among
them were simply staggering. The same thing could be done with whisky. A distillery like Edradour, for instance, which in my
experience has difficulty getting two batches the same anyway could well afford to experiment with yeasts that give very well-defined characters. In this case it could be a plus rather than a minus.
Olivier, I would love to read a well thought out E-Pistle on the possibilities for and roles of yeast in fermentation.
Barley would almost certainly be covered in wild yeast, but don't forget that distilleries use huge quantities of commercial yeast to
cause fermentation and these would likely overwhelm any wild yeasts or residual yeast from past fermentations. An interesting aside
(interesting to me anyway): I have found when travelling that the orange juice at breakfast buffets is very often just ripe with yeast. This is particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa where the OJ almost tastes like bread.
I'd also be interested in your papers on the experiments that have been done on your domaine.
Charlie: Dave et al, some news from Islay about yeast.
At Lagavulin yesterday I discovered that the distillery had been obliged recently to go over to 100% distillers yeast - as is the policy
of the company, and in spite of the protests of Donald Renwick, Nick Morgan and others. The new make was quite different, and after
only a short time they reverted to a mix of brewers' and distillers' yeasts...! As for Islay barley: The excellent Iain McArthur informs
me that his father grew barley on the island for distilling (I am not sure at which distillery), but mostly the grains were too small and
did not germinate. I think some whisky was made from it, but the experiment was soon abandoned. Which makes me wonder how Mark
French will fair at Kilchoman, using his home-grown barley. By the way, Richard Forsyth (coppersmith from Rothes) has been sighted
on the island and local rumour is that the stills really will be in place by Feis Ila. Regarding temperatures: The reason why the first
water temperature is held to 64.5C in the mash tun (not 24C - I am sure this was a slip of the finger!) is to prevent the enzymes which convert the starch into sugar being killed off.
Serge
: Ah, yes, thanks for correcting me Olivier and Charlie but I was almost sure they were cooling the wort to 23°C (more or less), at least before they pump it into the washback... And I thought it was because they didn't want to kill the yeast.
Okay, I was wrong, you're the experts!
Martine
: Hello lads, I forgot to forward you this extract of the Ileach. I suppose Bowmore, Auchentoshan and Glen Garioch also share the yeasts. Of course it is not very sexy to confess that: Dave, re the local barley: I tasted Bruichladdich local barley new make. I propose a malt maniacs raid to the distilleries yeast rooms. Of course, this a male job.
The letter was published in the last issue. Interesting what happened to this batch.
Alistair Ross does not specify the number of casks that were filled with this malt.
30 tons of barley, that is quite significant. They may have vatted the casks…
If so, the Glasgow marketing team certainly regrets it now.
The company certainly uses the same for the 3 distilleries.
There is certainly a lot to research about yeasts.
Funny how distilleries hide or retain information on their raw ingredients.
They «drown» all the barley and yeast into the water folklore.
Much easier to communicate !
- barley comes from all over the world
- they use dried yeast
- they have given up brewers' yeast
- that they are price cut obsessed.
- etc.
It does taste different. But is it only due to the barley ?
Jim told me that they also had changed the run, leaving more heads than usual.
So…
We would creep in at night, face blackened with shoe shine, all dressed in black...
And then we would take a sample of yeast to compare.
I would just be the van driver or, like in James Bond films, I could try to be the vamp
who distracts the stillman's attention while you worm your way into the secret room…
Any volunteers ?
Johannes: Hehehe... Seems more like a scene from 'Casino Royale', Martine ;-)
On a more serious note regarding being 'price cut obsessed'.
I can't speak for the other maniacs, but I think enjoying the good life has made
'worming our way' into rooms a tricky task for some of the maniacs - we may
have to opt for a full frontal assault ;-)
Serge mentioned earlier in the discussion that changes w.r.t. yeast, barley,
distilling speed, sizes of middle-cuts, hot or cool storing places, etc. are all 'long
term' changes. I can certainly understand the industry's desire to influence the
product without having to wait a dozen years or more for the result, so why
haven't we seen more experiments with smaller casks? I imagine that the use of
smaller casks would speed up the maturation of the spirit. I understand that the
Scots can't be 'leading' in this because they use 'second-hand' casks, but I imagine
that faster maturation would be a good thing for bourbon or rum producersas well...
Decreasing 'time-to-market' seems to offer many obvious advantages.
I realise this may be a bit off topic, but I'm just wondering...
Dave
: there's been lots of experiments in Scotland with accelerated aging.
Just a few examples: heating warehouses, using new oak, inner staves in the cask, etc.
The most successful has been Allied's use of new oak quarter cask for finishing young whiskies.
Laphroaig is out and others to follow this year. Rum producers have fast enough aging as it is in the Caribbean -- twice the rate of
Scotland so the problem there for the premium end of the market is in fact to try and reduce the impact of oak. Much the same goes
for bourbon -- the pressure these days is to try and allow refill barrels for extended aging as this is where the market is moving and
where the profits are. You may also recall the 1959(?) Laphroaig made from local (GP) barley which was released a few years back. A
decent dram. That said, though it has a certain usp I'm a little wary about some of the more outre claims currently being about how local barley "proves" that there is an Islay terroir.
Johannes : Interesting, Dave! I tried that Laphroaig Quarter Cask a few weeks ago and that one definitely seemed a little more potent that the current 10yo. I just didn't realise it was a 'finishing' job. I have heard about most of the experiments for 'accellerating' maturation you mentioned, but not the heating of the warehouses part. Wow! That hardly seems energy-efficient in the Scottish climate. Greenhouses might be an interesting alternative in that respect, but I guess the sight of thousands of casks behind a thin sheet of glass would give too many good Scotsmen the wrong idea ;-) And anyway, if global warming progresses like many scientists claim it does you'll have a nice Carribean climate in Scotland in the forseeable future :-P
Ulf: Just for the protocol;
The Swedish single malt whisky maker 'Mackmyra' is capitalizing from the fact that the speed of maturing is faster in smaller casks
than in the standard hogsheads/barrels. Mackmyra operates with 30 liter sized (new oak) casks! You may learn more and also sample Mackmyra's different profiles at Whisky Live London 2005. They are running a Master Class there.
Davin
: Charlie, Dave and All, Pasted below is an article from today's Scotsman (yes I get the electronic version) concerning the loss
of another Scottish maltings and the likelihood the % of foreign barley in Scotch will increase. Any idea why the SWA does not defend
maximizing the % of Scottish barley used, yet will prevent Scotch from being bottled abroad, even if transported in glass or stainless
steel? I know Scotland does not produce or malt enough barley to meet demand, but if the SWA is so protective of other aspects of
production why not maximize Scottish content in the raw material? The main ingredient in Scotch may be produced anywhere but packaged only in Scotland? Is Scotch "of the land" or "of the factory"?
Farmers - and whisky - threatened by maltings closure (JIM BUCHAN)
ROBERT Kilgour Maltings in Kirkcaldy - owned by Muntons plc, one of the largest malting operations in the UK - is to close, with the
loss of a doorstep market of about 45,000 tonnes of malting barley a year for farmers in Fife, Tayside and Angus. For Muntons it
means "rationalisation" with a more concentrated effort from their maltings at Bridlington, Yorkshire. Tim Stonehouse, Muntons' malt
sales director, said: "Supplies of malt to distillery customers will continue from Bridlington, a modern cost-effective plant that was
originally built in partnership with two Scottish distillers." But Andrew Arbuckle, Liberal Democrat MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, said
the Kirkcaldy closure put the credibility of Scottish distillers at risk: "The closure of yet another malting facility in Scotland raises
major questions for the Scotch whisky industry. Scotch whisky should only be made with Scottish barley and most farmers support
that view. It should be used by the distilling industry as a positive selling point." He added: "The cost of barley used in making
whisky is very small and a premium for Scottish barley linked to the Scotch label would provide a profitable and sustainable future for both drinks manufacturers and cereal growers."
John Kinnaird, president of NFU Scotland, said: "We have long raised concerns about the threat to the integrity of the Scotch whisky
brand if Scottish barley is not used. We need guarantees that the Kirkcaldy closure will not lead to this." Campbell Evans of the
Scotch Whisky Association defended the possible use of malt from England, a flexibility that protected farmers and the industry from
crop failure or quality problems. What the Scotch Whisky Act specified was that the spirit must be distilled and matured in Scotland.
Dave: I would say you've answered your own question Davin. Scotland doesn't produce sufficient barely to satisfy demands. At the
moment it is estimated that the distilling industry uses 50% + of the malting quality barley grown in Scotland (the beer industry and
the japanese whisky industry will take most of the rest). That said, what is often overlooked is that in the 1960s and 70s the barley
used was predominantly English, so if anything the industry is using more Scottish barley than before for the simple reason that transport costs are lower. It is also of good quality. I know, penny pinching Scots at work again!
I'd love to see 100% Scottish barley being used, (so would the accountants!), but sticking to that recipe, while undoubtedly good for
PR, opens the industry up to the inevitability of variable quality and volume .. Scotland is, as you well know, often a driech kind of
place not conducive for getting cereal crops ripe every year. Even maximising the volume wouldn't help. Last year, for example, the
harvest was very poor and barley was sourced from the (English) west country as both the Northumberland and east anglian crops
were also hit. What are distillers meant to do? Shrug and accept they can't make as much whisky as they wanted to? Try explaining that to the booming Chinese market in 12 years time!!
So now we hit the awkward question: does the barley's place of origin matter? The brutal (reductionist) answer is, no. Though we can
debate at length over the particular flavour qualities of different strains (I'm inclined to believe that Golden Promise did have a
different flavour profile) it is generally accepted that while the processing of the barley is vital in maximising yield and allowing the
distiller to create a high quality spirit where the barley is from and what variety it is is of little import in the grand scheme of things.
Don't be seduced into thinking that this is another example of whisky's 'authenticity' and 'heritage' being diluted. During the
Campbeltown boom the harbour was full of barley boats from the Baltic. Bunnahabhain's first mash (in 1881) was done with a mix of
Scottish, Polish, Danish and Russian barley. It has been many many years since Islay was self sufficient in barley and many distilleries
there would have used Irish barley (again for simple transportation costs) There are plenty of accounts of Chilean and Australian
barley being used, though older maltsters shudder at the memory of the Danish stuff which was used in recent memory.
Sorry, this has turned into a rather long-winded answer. As for your provoocative question 'the land or the factory?' I don't believe for a second that you would ever want to call any of your beloved distilleries by the latter title!
Ulf: Hello Dave, some unsorted comments;
'I'd love to see 100% Scottish barley being used, (so would the accountants!)' 'So now we hit the awkward question: does the barley's place of origin matter? .... the grand scheme of things.'
And there are some, which I am sure you have experienced. Like the Springbank local barley. Laddie's 'Appelation Islay Controllé' and
not to forget some of Macallan's 100% local Golden promise (which does not go for all), to mention a few.
Agree. I do not believe in a 'terroir' concept (like Laddie) meaning that the growth places leaves a recognizable fingerprint in
genetically identical strains of Barley, especially when it ends up in a 'brutal produced' product like whisky. However, for me Barley
manifest a 'strain' concept where each version does carry their own flavour profile, genetically imbedded. Which may be more or less
pronounced and identifiable, even after going through a process that ends up in a product like whisky. That said, I have to add, it is
my staunch belief that the flavour profile of Barley is NOT the primary driving mechanism for distillers, in general, when selecting input
for their process. It's the yield, in litre of pure alcohol, per metric ton that counts. And has practically always been. And I am rather
sure we all agree to that the metamorphose, converting a mash to the golden nectar, in principal occurs by geometric shapes of pot
stills, their manoeuvring and careful cask management... and that barley species, water source, type of yeast and 'micro climate' plays
a much lesser role than the advertising agencies lets us believe. There are plenty of accounts of Chilean and Australian barley being
used, though older maltsters shudder at the memory of the Danish stuff which was used in recent memory. Yeah, the shrewd Danes
exported their 'chaff' to their former colonies, f.i. the Orkney's are technically still a part of Denmark (;.), and kept the best Barley for their Carlsberg and Tuborg beer...
Dave
: There's Morangie's Cadboll as well! All worthy efforts but all small batches, made for niche products.
Bruichladdich had enough for 6 mashes from its local barley (and where was it malted by the way?) . It is a neat marketing ploy and
ideal for the smaller distiller, but insisting on 100% locally (or Scottish) barely is simply not a commercially viable long-term strategy
for even medium-sized brands. It's noticeable that none of these distillers has switched to this option. Also, to the best of my
recollection, Edrington and Bowmore use Simpson's maltings based in Berwick-upon-Tweed a town which, though claimed by Scotland, is in fact in England! Where does that fit into the Scottish AOC rules? :-)
Davin
: Yes, Dave, 100% Scottish barley would be a nice romantic ideal, but I agree, unachievable.
I didn't intend to question the use of imported barley, only to raise a seeming disconnect in the SWA's logic of minimizing the
importance of the closing of another Scottish maltings, while working actively to prohibit the bottling of mature whisky outside of
Scotland. It seems to me, if we are going to value tradition, then using the most 'locally' (and you can define that as Scotland, British
Isles, or whatever) produced barley possible is more important than the container the whisky is shipped to market in. Does this new
rule mean Cadenhead's kegs in Amsterdam no longer contain whisky, or is it whisky if poured directly into a glass, but not if decanted into a bottle?
<SNIP>
Johannes: Oh boy....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maybe that's enough maniacal ranting and raving for now.
If this thread unravels any further I'm afraid this issue of MM will burst at the seams...
So, for now we continue our regular broadcast with...
E-pistle #14/02 - Ten Single Malts That Could Save Your Life
Submitted on 01/04/2005 by Peter Silver, USA
Most likely you have either been unfortunate enough to have experienced food poisoning or know someone who went through it.
Salmonella is an important public health problem in the United States and several European countries. A bacterium, Salmonella
enteritidis, can be inside perfectly normal-appearing eggs, and if the eggs are eaten raw or undercooked, the bacterium can cause
illness. Consumers should be aware of the disease and learn how to minimize the chances of becoming ill. Recently in the United
States a politician in New Jersey suggested local legislation to outlaw restaurants from serving eggs cooked over-easy or sunny side up, with the yolks still runny. It did not pass into law.
A person infected with the Salmonella enteritidis bacterium usually has fever, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea beginning 12 to 72 hours
after consuming a contaminated food or beverage. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without antibiotic
treatment. However, the diarrhea can be severe, and the person may be ill enough to require hospitalization. The elderly, infants, and
those with impaired immune systems may have a more severe illness. In these patients, the infection may spread from the intestines
to the blood stream, and then to other body sites and can cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. In 2002
health officials in Spain studied an outbreak of salmonella among people who had been exposed to contaminated potato salad and tuna
at a large banquet. Consumers of larger amounts of alcohol also had the lowest levels of sickness documented in earlier studies of large salmonella outbreaks in Spain. Their findings were published in the journal Epidemiology.
A 1992 study investigated an oyster-borne outbreak of hepatitis A and found that only drinks with an alcohol concentration of 10
percent or greater prevented or reduced the severity of the sickness. The effect may have something to do with alcohol's ability to
strongly stimulate gastric acid secretions in the stomach. So, a glass or two of wine will just not do the job!
In my own enjoyment of single malts, I have noticed a change in myself and some other whisky enthusiasts over the years. Rarely will
I purchase a 40% strength malt anymore. I am wary of 43% malts and really prefer cask strength bottlings. There has clearly been a
shift in my tasting framework where lower alcohol strengths don't cut it anymore. Of course this depends on the type of whisky and
there are always exceptions, but overall this has been true for me lately. Fortunately, there have never been as many cask strength versions of malts as there are today.
Here then are ten single malts that could quite literally, save your life! Whether you are dining on egg salad or oysters, it doesn't
matter. Food contamination can occur in many different ways. You have to protect yourself! All are cask strength and I would
suggest two or three drams over the course of a meal to fully insure your health, unless you are driving, of course. Hand your keys over to a friend and start drinking for your life! 1. Strathisla 35yo 1967/2002
(51.1%, Peerless Duncan Taylor, cask 1533, bottle 161/225) 90 points 2. Bruichladdich 15yo 1988/2003 Valinch
(59.9%, cask 930, bottles for visit of Middle White Pig Society) 92 points 3.
Ardbeg 25 yo 1975/2001 (58%, John Milroy) 94 points 4.
Glenlivet 26yo 1975/2001 (55.8%, Adelphi, Cask 5724) 94 points 5. Isle of Jura 15yo 1989/2004 Limited Edition
(57.7%, OB, Distillery only, Sherry Cask, 850 bottles) 89 points 6.
Bowmore 30yo 1963 (50%, OB, Anniversary Limited Edition, 42/600) 92 points 7.
Ardbeg 24yo 1975/2000 (50%, OMC, 1/392 Bottles) 90 points 8. Dalwhinnie 29yo 1973 (57.8%, OB)
92 points 9. Glenlivet 1971/2003
(55%, BBR, Cask 6448) 92 points 10. Brora 29yo 1972/2002
(59.5%, Old & Rare Platinum DL, 240 bottles) 91 points
This last malt was an impulse buy from my huge whisky haul three years ago. Peter Silver
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nose: vanilla, sweetness, malt
Palate: well balanced, sweet, complex
Finish: medium long, not woody
Nose: huge! vanilla spice, sherry, marshmallow, honey, heather
Palate: round, rich and voluptuous
Finish: long, best Valinch I have ever tried
Nose: iodine, seaweed, peat, waves of smoke
Palate: smoke with sweetness perfectly balanced
Finish: long, where can I get ten more bottles of this?
Nose: like springbank – old springbank- with coconut!
Palate: spicy, complex
Finish: rich and full
Nose: caramel, sherry, black cherry
Palate: black cherry – I love black cherry!
Finish: long – great sherry but not over the top, no sulphur
Nose: Vanilla spice, cigarette smoke
Palate: Peat interplaying with vanilla
Finish: medium, so smooth, so elegant, wonderful
Nose: smoke, honey – stereotypical Ardbeg
Palate: smoke, honey
Finish: long and luxurious, a thing of beauty
Nose: woodspice, vanilla, malt
Palate: spice, very complex
Finish: long, sweet, lip-smacking
The best of this bunch of older releases of the Classic Malts, a real winner!
Nose: sherry, rich
Palate: fruit, sherry, rich, wonderful mouthfeel
Finish: sweet and long. I'm really becoming a fan of old Glenlivet.
Nose: peat, iodine, hospital – I held this under the nose of a nurse and told him to inhale deeply, it smells just like your place of work!
He smiled and agreed, then grabbed for the bottle….
Palate: amazing rush of peat and iodine, perfectly balanced with sweet
Finish: like the energizer bunny – just keeps going!
I'm so glad that I have such excellent instincts! Ironically, this hospital styled whisky will help keep you out the infirmary!
E-pistle #14/03 - Ask an Anorak: April Fools Ardbeg?
Compiled on 01/04/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Serge
: Hi all, Dave was right with some of his comments in the 'dumbing down' discussion
in MM#13!
Today I got a mailpiece from Ardbeg's introducing a... Blended Malt Scotch Whisky. The name is 'Serendipity'
and it's 80% Ardbeg, 20% Glen Moray. The packaging is very Ardbegish. Roughly, they use the same trick as
for the Very Young (We did it, we're sorry, what do you think etc.) The revolution is en marche!
Olivier: The leaflet says that it is blended with some Glen Moray 12yo.
They make it look like it is a mistake from the distillery people. Now, I received this info on April's fool day !!!
I just can't believe it, but it is on their website at 29£9.
Luca
: I had the same doubt about a joke... but for curiosity I completed the order procedure, and they
asked for address, credit card number, etc... If it's a joke, it really is elaborate and well orchestrated!
Luc: And once again the marketing dpt did a great job.
I must admit who doesn't want such marketeers working for their company.
Brilliant, the way it is presented..........but if you look behind the marketing.......this is unbelievable.
Thé "Chateau d'Yquem" of whisky is putting this on the market and once again the consumers are going "bananas".
What is next ...................? "Glenmorangie Ardbeg finish" for sure, packaged with a Louis Vuitton handbag !!
The revolution is en marche !
Luca: Now, now, we shouldn't be too harsh agains Ardbeg...
After all they haven't put out a bad or simply uninspiring OB yet...
The thing that puzzles me is that I AM a member of the Committee, but I wasn't included in the ones who gave the green light for this
Serendipity (while with the VYA I had got a couple of bottles, loved the stuff and wrote them my impressions).
Lex: In defence of Ardbeg, you can't blame them for trying to sell whisky and to me the marketing around Serendipity clearly has a high 'tongue-in-cheek' level. They're completely open about what they're selling and even give the exact proportions of the constituent malts, which is a rare piece of openness. I must say I'd much rather see this type of humorous marketing than from some other companies whose name I won't mention now. So you could say I was taken in by the marketing 'trick' and I have no arguments to defend against that. But as I didn't order a bottle, I was clearly not taken in 'enough' (;o)
Serge
: Absolutely, their marketing is excellent, and so is their whisky. Yet, the last chapter is: 'too much is too much' - meaning 'stay credible'. It's like a rubber band, once it breaks, you get it into your
face. I think they should read that chapter before they launch the next campaign. Only true stories work (provided they look true, that is - all true stories do not look true). But if only they were all doing their jobs like Ardbeg does it!
In other words, congrats Ardbeg ('s agency).
Whether it's highly organized or spontaneous isn't an issue. Marketing is marketing, and manipulation is OK as long as it's positive (i.e.
when the product is good and fairly priced). It's just that as it's my job, I find Ardbeg's work funny and interesting, as it reads just like 'direct marketing for dummies':
- creating the demand
- building up loyalty
- animating
- giving some value to the consumer
- proximity
- involve the client
- the look of authenticity
- real people, real places
- using 'everyday' gimmicks (the dog)
- optimized contact frequency
- organize rarity
- small events, big audience
- make the client pay for the advertising he gets (mail order)
- novelties
- special operations (discontinued stocks, firesales, pannelizing the client, advanced launches, personnalized products etc.)
Etc, etc, etc.
Johannes: Yeah, I second that emotion. Ardbeg is a real success story, let's remember that.
Of course, the fact that they have a pretty brilliant product doesn't hurt them either. And speaking of 'Serendipity' - I just came back
from the woods where I had a little movie marathon with some friends. One of the movies we watched was... 'Serendipity' - with the
lovely Kate Beckinsale and the notably less lovely John Cusack. It was a movie in the 'romantic comedy' genre (in my experience often
delivering on neither romance or comedy); needless to say brought by one of the female guests. The male majority of the movie freaks quickly lost interest and spent the rest of the movie discussing 'hard romance' movies...
Anyway; crap movie - but a nice case of 'serendipity'.
Luca: There's one thing that reinforces the idea of the April Fools joke...
I'm glad that when I placed the order (just in case it was't a joke... after all, the peachy sweetness of Glen Moray would blend well
with the peaty character of Ardbeg) I added an e-mail with my comments, saying that I smelt April Fools and my congratulations for
the wicked minds in case the suspicion would prove itself true! At least I won't be completely considered as a fool tomorrow, when the joke will be revealed! ;-)
The Serendipity is blatantly advertised as CHILLFILTERED!!!!!!!!
Since when this is a thing to brag about in a product description? Especially from Ardbeg?
Something fishy here...
Serge: Luca, you're the one. It's all a big joke!!!
They even put a picture of a fish in the booklet, and a headline reads 'A whiff of fudge, a very long nose and vaguely fishy'. BOYZZZ!!!! Serge - Bursting into laughter (for once, it worked!)
Luc
: Mmm, an april fish........I don't think so, although Serge, your clue is again brilliant.
But but, I spoke to Mario from Corman Collins yesterday who is on Islay as we speak and he was tasting this Serendipity..... I don't
think they would go that far now, would they !! If so, this is the best of the best April 1 fish ever created in history !!
Lex: If this is an April 1 joke, then they surely got me.
But then they also took a huge gamble with the mailshots arriving exactly on April 1 ....
For anyone who's dealt with Royal Mail in this country, getting your mail to arrive that accurately is just nigh impossible ....
Johannes
: Hmmm... Good point, Lex - although things might work a little better on the continent ;-)
PS: As it turned out just a few days later, it's no joke... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This also reminds me that we're still waiting for a response from the UK customs people on activity at Ardbeg in 1988. It has been
several weeks and I'm starting to fear those civil subservients will actually live up to their reputation. But I'll give it a little while
longer. And as far as the 'Serendipity' being an elaborate April fools joke - we should find out soon enough... If it IS a joke, the maniacs who fell for it will henceforth be known as 'the april fools' ;-)
The Ardbeg Serendipity is for real - but not actually very good, it seems.
After Cardhu and Macallan, will Ardbeg be the third distillery to invoke the wrath of anoraks worldwide?
E-pistle #14/04 - Battle of the Provenances (Oostende, 15/3/2005)
Submitted on 02/04/2005 by Luc Timmermans, Belgium
How can one truly judge the difference between some Ardbegs? The setting of our tasting couldn't be better. Geert invited us in his EU : Ardbeg 1974 "Provenance" (55.6%, OB, European Edition, bottled 18/11/97) US :
Ardbeg 1974 "Provenance" (54.7%, OB, US Edition, bottled 09/04/1998) ASIA :
Ardbeg 1974 "Provenance" (55%, OB, Asia Edition, bottled 21/09/2000) Well well, what a result. Closing act: Ardbeg 29yo 1972/2001
(48.4%, DL OMC, 'Ardbeggeddon' Plowed Society).
Returning home satisfied we were convinced the Battle of the Provenances was done, but a few days later I noticed that I had more
versions at home then the ones we tested. Although not different in alcohol strength there are 3 different Ardbeg Provenance
versions bottled in the year 2000. One is bottled March 29th 2000 and the other one is bottled September 29th 2000. Both are 55%
alcohol which in itself is remarkable since you would expect a difference hence the different bottling date. But Ardbeg has been accused in the past for keeping whisky in inox tanks for some time before bottling. Luc Timmermans
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Old story, you must have heard it before. Indeed by testing them blind
and testing them head-to-head. But where and when can you judge all
versions of the infamous Ardbeg Provenance 1974? Not an easy task,
you could call it more a quest, the quest of the Holy Ardbeg.
But Belgium is very rich with crazy Ardbeg collectors and Ardbeg
aficionados. So this quest should be feasible. Call it luck, or was it
God's interference…. But at some moment in time, Bert Bruyneel,
Geert Bero and I had decided to open a bottle of Ardbeg Provenance.
And lucky as we were, we all opened a different version. Bert had
opened the European edition, Geert had opened the US edition and
I had opened the Asian edition. All three are a vatting from Ardbeg
casks from 1974 but all three are bottled on different dates thus
resulting in different alcohol strength.
father's penthouse in Oostende over viewing the North sea. A perfect
decor for what turned out to be an exiting evening of Ardbeg enjoyment.
Dirk, yet another Ardbeg collector, was also invited, and since there isn't
yet a fourth different version of the Provenance, Dirk decided to bring
some Ardbeg 29yo 1972/2001 (48.4%, DL OMC, 'Ardbeggeddon' Plowed
Society). Whauh, our evening would be more then memorable.
And here are the results of the jury…..
Nose : marshmallow, candy, sweet toffee, cooked apples with some straw notes and peat.
Gets a little zilt, vanilla and ends like a fine apple pastry.
Taste : rather dry taste of sour cream, bitter fruitiness, bitter chocolate and gets quite woody in the finale.
Finish : beautiful rounded finish but rather short.
Balance/complexity : what a nose, great, complex, but the taste is then a bit disappointing with a slightly bitter end and a short finish
Points : Luc 90p, Bert 91p, Geert 91p, Dirk 90p (average : 90,5 points score)
Nose : fresh citrus nose with orange peel, clean peat, fresh lime, farmy and slightly herbal, rather narrow nose pallet that is much
oriented on the peat, but nice peat, with some plastic "tupperware" notes
Taste : clean peat, a bit sharp, metallic, salty, zilty, seaweed, oyster juice, powerful and mouth filling sensation
Finish : very long and peaty with a salty finale
Balance/complexity : super, but very tight bodied, if you like a peaty Provenance, get this one
Points : Luc 92p, Bert 96p, Geert 93p, Dirk 95p (average : 94 points score)
Nose : salted butter, confit fruit, warm glowing sweet caramel apples, nice and old peat, marzipan, almonds
Taste : warm taste, slightly peppery, salt, powerful drop and pears, full, slightly woody but nice and very creamy
Finish : whauh, great finish, with that sweet peat coming back and giving a magnificent finale on some woodnotes
Balance/complexity : whauh, I rest my case, what a whisky
Points : Luc 95p, Bert 96p, Geert 95p, Dirk 93p (average : 94,75 points score)
To be honest, we were all 3 very surprised about the differences in these 3 expressions. All three have their own character and
individuality. And the Asia edition was considered to be "the best of the best" and thus winning this "Battle of the Provenances". To
end our lovely and exciting evening we tasted the infamous Ardbeg 29yo 1972/2001 (48.4%, DL OMC, 'Ardbeggeddon' Plowed
Society). Our notes were much shorter on this one, not because the lack of complexity or depth, but we had been working hard to figure out those 3 Provenances.
Nose : whauh, what a nice peaty smell, oily, farmery, white wine, sweet, great
Taste : mmm so full and lingering warm with a powerful salted peaty taste
Finish : just super
Balance/complexity : no wonder this one is soo hard to get, if you get one, open it and drink it, simply too good to leave it unopened.
Points : Luc 95p, Bert 95p, Geert 93p, Dirk 94p (average : 94,25 points score)
Maybe they just did the same with this Provenance. And the other version also bottled September 29th 2000 only has a different
front label, stating 21-09-2000 rather then 2000. So this one is only different in label, not in content. I wonder if the two 2000
versions, from 21/09/2000 and 29/03/2000 are different in taste…….who knows……. Or should we re-organize this battle of the Provenances……??
E-pistle #14/05 - Ask an Anorak: Classification Loopholes
Compiled on 03/04/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Serge
: While struggling with some 'number of bottles' on the Monitor, and seeing an Ardbeg 1972 'sherry finish' by the Laings with 432
bottles, I just asked myself this odd question: Imagine a bottler puts two 'small' casks (around 200 bottles left) into one single sherry
butt for a finishing, will that make a single cask (or butt, for that matter) bottling then??? Furthermore, would that trick work if the bottler has got one old cask with, say 38% ABV and another one with 43%?
Yeah, typical anorak questions...
Ho-cheng: That's also my question. I've heard it's OK to vat casks under 40%. Any regulations?
Somebody told me the portion under 40% can't be too large, but I didn't really understand what's the portion.
Luc: I've heard too that vatting with casks below 40% is allowed.
That may be proof that the old Springbank 12yo, 50% Proof was diluted to 50% not with water, but with whisky from very old casks that dropped below 40%, thus resulting of course in a much better whisky ;-))
Serge
: Thanks Luc, but my question(s) were more around 'single cask' bottlings.
I mean, could some do this:
1. Take 150 litres of a malt at 39% ABV or less
2. Take 150 litres of a malt at 41% ABV or more
3. Vat both into a sherry butt and let the malt being 'finished' for X months.
4. Bottle the result as a Single Cask malt because it came from one single sherry butt... So, in short, are they allowed to vat two or
three old casks, finish the vatting in a larger cask (like a butt) and then claim it's a single cask bottling?
Luc: Mmmm Serge, OK I see, that is another ball-game. I wouldn't know if they are allowed.
I don't think there are rules attached to "Single Cask" as part of information on a bottle ? So I guess they can put this one on the
bottle even if they vatted two casks together for finishing into one cask. I know that Glenfarclas always (in most cases) mention the
casknumbers they used and they don't mention single cask on the label then anymore, but I don't know whether this is regulated in any way. Interesting subject though, I'm sure Charlie, Dave or Martine can shed a light on this one....
Mark
: Serge, I foggily recall this topic being discussed on Malts-L within the past two years.
I think that the SWS leaves this wide open, and that whether or not it is ethical, or legal, it happens.
As I recall Ulf did some research on this and found out that it was a hole in the SWS's 'legislation'.
Ulf: Certainly I did Mark, I posted the SWA reply at MALTS-L: Section 2 (1)(b) of The Scotch Whisky Act makes it illegal to sell Scotch Whisky at an alcoholic strength less
In other words, Scotch Whisky which falls below 40% vol as a result of long maturation still qualifies in all respects Under EU Regulation 1576/89, moreover, 40% is the minimum alcoholic strength "for release for human consumption".
<--SNIP--> Section 3 (1) of The Scotch Whisky Act 1988 provides for "a definition of Scotch
Whisky contained in an order made ....by the Ministers". You will find this definition in Article 3 of The Scotch
Whisky Order 1990 under the heading "Definition of Scotch Whisky". You will note that no minimum strength
is provided for in the "Definition of Scotch Whisky".
than that specified "in an order made by the Ministers". You will find the alcoholic strength in Article 4 of The
Scotch Whisky Order 1990 under the heading "Minimum alcoholic strength of Scotch whisky". However, it is
important to understand that this minimum alcoholic strength is for the purposes of Section 2(1)(b) of the Act,
ie it relates to the strength at which Scotch whisky may be sold. It is not part of the "Definition of Scotch Whisky".
with the "Definition of Scotch Whisky". However it may not be sold at a strength below 40% vol. This means, in effect,
that it must be blended with Scotch Whisky of higher alcoholic strength before it can be sold, so that the strength
reaches a minimum of 40%. This will probably mean that it must be blended with younger Scotch Whisky, and so will
only be entitled to claim the age of the youngest whisky.
So it is not illegal to have whisky in your possession at a strength below 40% if it is for blending purposes - it is only
illegal if it is released for human consumption at a strength below 40% vol.
Davin: Thanks for reminding me that the 40% rule is so recent (1990). I do have a few samples from before that date sold at 70 proof (USA) or 35% abv. A Mortlach for example. Reading Charlie's book reminds me also how much the flavour of whisky is shaped by politicians who pass laws intended simply to maximize their tax revenues.
Thomas
: I think there's two sides to this story: the legal one and the one that you could call ethic.
I have to admit I don't know what the regulations on this one are, but to me "single cask" implies that a certain malt has only been
influenced by one cask and one only. The minute the whisky is poured into another butt, hogshead or whatever it looses the right to
be called "single cask" in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I'm all against vatting or finishing because to me it's only the result that
counts. If it helps creating a "better" whisky I don't mind. I'm only against labelling it "single cask" any longer in that case. This is a
strictly personal opinion, of course. On the other hand, I wouldn't put my money on the validity of all "single cask" labels put on by the distilleries...
Ulf
: Regarding Serge's question of adding the content of two casks, wholly or in parts, into a third cask of equal size or larger where
the resulting ABV is 40% or higher regardless of the individual parts ABV%; yes, this is permitted as shown in my previous mail, and further below. However, I would like to develop the terminology a bit: - Normalization
- I prefer to call such treatment, mixing fluids before bottling and from the same distillery together, as 'normalization'
and not vatting. I reserve the term vatting for instances where the fluids from at least two different distilleries are added together,
alas 'Vatted malt'. As we all know Single malts are usually a combination (or 'normalization' as I prefer) of different production runs during a specified period like the same year or the same age, where
Macallan's new twist for their 18yo range saying an age plus a year with the addition that the year defines the youngest component's
production year and the age, the age of this component. Hence, the resulting product looks like a vintage whisky but isn't that anymore (1983 was the last true vintage malt in their 18yo series).
The length in time or type of vessels to be used for a normalization phase is not a definitive SWA rule. - Racking - In general 'racking' is the term used in the wine trade when a fluid is transferred from one cask to another for further
development. And also a permitted procedure within the whisky trade. The racking question, however, is a question which is not
regulated in detail by SWA, except, for some general rules for the origin/previous use of a cask within the special racking case which is
called 'finishing'. Neither the number of times nor the length in time for each such subsequent racking operations occurrence is clearly
defined yet, and I may add, nor is the class of the receiving cask. It is said that SWA is working on it, though. Further, it is up to but
not mandatory for the local producer to highlight such treatment. Some does and call it 'finishing'. So, racking or moving the fluid from
its 'birth cask' to another cask regardless of its size (max 700 liter) for 'finishing' is a permitted task which a local producer may or may not highlight. - Single cask
- AFAIK the single cask concept is not distinctly regulated by the SWA.
a) all components are equal to or older than the age stated on the bottle (the age case) or,
b) all components are equal to the same production year if a year is stated on the bottle (the vintage case without age) and,
c) a combination of a and b (the vintage case with age).
d) (there is always exceptions from rules)
In time it is usually a matter of days or weeks and the vessels may very well be of stainless steel type.
So, normalization is trivial and a standard task.
However, trade practice seems to be that this qualifier stands for un-racked and un-normalized whisky only.
I have a feeling that SWA would come down on you if this was tampered.
Charlie: Serge, off the top of my head, I would answer 'yes' and 'yes' to Serge's questions.
I share Thomas' reservations about the ethics of calling it a single cask, when it is vatting of two casks, but I suspect the law is silent on the matter. I have spoken to the SWA about it and they 'will come back to me'.
The second trick is clearly within the legal definition, as pointed out by Ulf.
Johannes
: Well, there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth, if it were.
If somebody vats... sorry, 'blends' two or more casks in a bigger finishing cask the whisky inside those casks is automatically
converted into a 'single cask' whisky. Wow, it almost seems like magic... And given my tendency towards paranoia I immediately start
to worry about the phrase 'matured'. As I understand it, the border between 'finishing' and 'maturing' isn't defined. So, theoretically,
somebody could vat two fifteen years old ex-bourbon casks of whisky together in an old sherry cask for a few months (or even days), add some caramel and bottle it as a 'sherry matured single malt' - and as a single cask bottling to boot.
Serge
: Another issue I always wondered about is the following:
- How do the distillers number there casks? Is there a common rule or do they all follow their own practices?
(I couldn't find a proper answer even in Martine, Charlie or Dave's excellent books...)
- Can we 'read' something in the figures, like warehouse, kind of cask, filling plant etc.?
- Do the bottlers always use the same numbers when doing the bottlings? Do they sometimes invent their own?
Olivier: This is how to read my lot number on our bottles:
For example Riesling Rangen 2001 is L24R701
First number indicates the quality level (1 for AOC, 2 Grand Cru, 3 VT, 4 SGN)
Second is the grape variety (4,: Riesling, 7: gewürztraminer....)
The third letter or number is the vineyard code (R:Rangen, H:Hengst, 6: Rotenberg...)
The 4th number is the bottle size: 7:75cl, 3:37.5cl, 2:150cl, 8: 300cl....
Finally, 01 is the vintage...
Serge: Thanks Olivier - morning all, - Caol Ila use both numbers such as 02/472 (G&M, Sig) and 14149 (Sig).
I've been doing a bit of research with the Monitor and here are a few remarks:
Most distillers use a 0-5 figures system, from 1 to 99999, which the bottlers generally use.
Good news. Yet, there are some exceptions:
- Clynelish usually uses up to 5 figures but a Dun Bheagan has 2548/49.
- Edradour uses both regular 4-figures numbers, but also 'slashed' ones like 04/11/3 for their finished versions.
(There must be a meaning...)
- Glenlivet: regular figures but Sig has a 98/1247 (bottled 1999)
- Same as for Laphroaig
- McDuff uses regular numbers but we have a Caledonian Selection with HH37/6
- Port Ellen uses some 5-figures numbers but Sig has some finished 02/159/1 with 804 bottles.
Two casks 'vatted' into a 'finishing' one?
- Saint-Magdalene: we have a 30012 by Blackadder, but also some 'un-finished' 96/3/86 by Sig, or 96/3 by Scotch Single Malt Circle.
Ho-Cheng: Clynelish usually uses up to 5 figures but a Dun Bheagan has 2548/49.
I figure it out that Dun Bheagan 2548/49 acutally means cask 2548 and 2549. I've checked most Dun Bheagan and comes out the
conclusion. It can be calculate by the total bottling number of that lot. My opinion is they are more "honest" than most of the bottlers.
Johannes
: Well, since there don't seem to be any industry regulations w.r.t. cask numbering I imagine we'd have to look at the
numbers per distillery and/or bottler. To complicate things further, distilleries and bottlers are free to change their system at will. This
might explain why there doesn't seem to be any logic in the numbers for the Balvenie 15yo Single Barrel - a 1996 bottling I tried had cask number 15986, a 1999 bottling had #1318, a 2002 bottling had #286 and a 2004 bottling had #7581. Or how about this strange tale about cask #590 from Isle of Jura?
Can you find any logic in this - because I can't.
In
Anyway, once again we've drifted a bit off-topic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At the same time, the situation w.r.t. cask numbers is basically
identical to the situation w.r.t. Serge's question (about the possibility of vatting two casks together for a 'finish' and call it a 'single cask' bottling) - there are basically no guidelines so bottlers and distillers
can do what they bloody well like. Is that a good thing? Perhaps not - because for me, in the end it all comes down to the quality and
personality of the whisky in my glass. If that's OK, I don't care too much if it was a single cask bottling or not.
E-pistle #14/06 - Springbank in Decline?
Submitted on 04/04/2005 by Luca Chichizola, Italy
Or: WHY I AM NOT A FAN OF SPRINGBANK (THOUGH I STILL DO LIKE SOME OF THEIR WHISKIES) As a relative newcomer in the world of single malts, I have one big advantage: I don't care for "myths", I am not in the position of "I
can't say bad things about this distillery because it's legendary and widely respected". In the past year I tasted a bit of everything to
widen my horizons, without worrying too much if my ratings did not suit the general consensus. For me, a whisky can be excellent,
good, medium/uninspiring, mediocre or bad: and this regardless of what's on the label. If an obscure distillery produces a malt which I
find excellent, I say so. If a renowned distillery produces a bad malt, I say so even if that whisky is considered legendary. In these months, I have already seen that there are some overrated distilleries, and I can't explain why.
One of such distilleries is Springbank, at least in my humble opinion (but I see that others here on MM agree).
I can't say whether there has been a decline in the last years at Springbank, as I haven't tried older bottlings.
Still, the popularity of the Campbeltown distillery keeps being high among collectors and enthusiasts.
Sure, Springbank has lots of things to be praised for: they pioneered unchillfiltering, they don't use caramel for coloring, they use local
water thanks to their own bottling line, they grow and malt their own barley. These are certainly reasons to believe that Springbank
strives for quality in their products, and that they love what they do… but it shouldn't cloud our judgement and lead us to overrate
the effective quality of the product (which is probably badly influenced by the kind of casks used for aging, and by questionable commercial ideas like the wood finishes).
You can make a comparison with another distillery with mythical status, and which commands outrageously high prices: Port Ellen.
While I think that half of the Port Ellen bottlings on the market don't deserve half the price they are sold for (compared to equally old
bottlings from distilleries which are not as hyped but just as good), it is true that many Port Ellen bottlings are actually very good: I
have yet to find a bad bottle of Port Ellen, or even a mediocre one. Sure, they are overly priced, but this can be explained with the
rarity of the product. If you are willing to pay, you will certainly get a great bottle (although I feel that the same money will buy you
2-3 even better bottles from other distilleries, and without looking too far). On the other hand, I feel that Springbank is using its status and fame, and quality of older products, to ask for high prices for their often mediocre new stuff.
After reading all of this, you might think that I hate Springbank and Longrow malts: I don't, at all.
So, here we go with some tasting notes to understand what I mean… Springbank 10yo (46%, OB)
Springbank Rum Wood 12yo 1989/2002 (54.6%, OB)
Springbank 19yo 1974/2003 (46%, OB Distillery Private Bottling, Cask #1157, Bottle #44/630)
Springbank 12yo (46%, OB, Tall bottle, dark vatting, Bottled mid '90s)
Springbank 14yo 1989/2004 Portwood (52.8%, OB) Springbank 12yo '175th Anniversary'
(52.8%, OB, Limited edition of 12000 bottles) Springbank 10yo 100 Proof
(57%, OB, Bottled +/- 2004) And now some Longrows…
Longrow 10yo 1992/2002 (46%, OB) Longrow 10yo 1993/2003 (46%, OB) Longrow 10yo no vintage 'Sherrywood' (46%, OB) Longrow 14yo (46%, OB, Bottled 2004)
OK, that's all folks. It seems evident to me that while there are still some good Springbanks in recent production, the duds nowadays
outnumber the gems. The average score of these expressions is 80 (quite good actually, but certainly not great for such a legandary
name), and there are some really low ratings in the bunch. My advice? Stick with the ordinary youngest versions (which surprisingly
seem the best today), or if you are rich go for the VERY old and rare ones (which I haven't tried but other Maniacs rave about). Try
to avoid the weird finishes (a suggestion that could also apply with other distilleries) and the intermediate ages. Or, the best advice of
all, try to taste ALL of the expressions yourself at least once, possibly without buying a whole bottle: building your own taste is always better than relying on someone else… and funnier, too!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Or, better, I can understand the reasons of their mythical status, but I can't see how this can influence someone's tastebuds: if an
expression is dull, why keep praising it because of the past history of the distillery? So, either my taste is screwed, or there is actually really nothing to rave about certain distilleries.
I have never tasted very old expressions, which are supposed to be great. I just care for what they have produced in the last few
years, and I think that it's unfair to grant them the status of "legend" considering the average quality of what you can currently find.
Yes, I care mostly about the ordinary expressions that you can buy in liquor stores nowadays, because they are what the 99% of the
customers will ever buy. A distillery has the moral duty to present an impressive low-middle end array of products, because this is the
range that will affect their image most strongly. I hear that the recently released 32 year old Springbank is great (I haven't tried it),
and I trust it is: at that price it'd better be. But we are speaking of a whisky distilled in the early '70s… It is good, but it's not
representative of how the distillery has been working in the '90s. That's another point: sampling the 10-12-14 year old range of today
can give us hints on what the quality of aged Springbanks will be in another 20 years. And some say that if the base spirit of today is
not good, or if the casks are of less than stellar wood, then there is very little to hope from additional aging. I think there's truth in
this: a good 10 year old can become a great 30 year old with 20 years more, or a bad one. A mediocre 10 year old will probably become a bad 30 year old anyway. Exceptions exist, but they are not the rule.
I trust the word of those who have more years and drams than me, and I can take as a truth than Springbanks of old were stunning,
even the "ordinary" bottlings. So if the quality of today's expressions is what it is, well, there must have been a decline. Some agree
with me on the decline, some disagree (influenced by the distillery name or simply different tastes?), some say there has never been a
decline simply because there have always been mediocre/uninspiring bottlings by Springbank among the great ones. A good theory is
the one which blames the decline on the fact that in previous years Springbank used to vat older vintages into their bottlings to give
richness and complexity unexpected from malts of a comparable age shown on the label. It's understandable that they stopped doing
so due to economics (why mix a precious 25 year old with a 12 year old and sell it as a 12, as law requires? Much more convenient to sell a pure 12 year old as such!), but of course the palates had been spoiled by their old habits.
You just need to take a look at the German market, and at auctions on eBay to see that modern bottles of Springbank and Longrow
are sold and exchanged at a vertiginous rate, sometimes with prices that are not prohibitively high but still too high for the value of
the product. With "value" I don't only mean "quality": after all someone might be actually enjoying these malts, so who am I to say
that they are spending too much for a thing they like? I am simply stating that the suggested retail prices for some bottlings
(especially the wood finishes) are too high if you think that they are young expressions. Yes, I am saying that the retail prices seem a
bit deliberately "pumped up" by the distillery: to make an example, Springbank 10 (the most ordinary expression) costs more than most
other 10 year old malts here in Italy, topped only probably by Longrow 10 which is sold at outrageous prices because of the "limited availability" (so the liquorists say).
I enjoy them, especially the ordinary 10 year old (though shamelessly overpriced). I am just saying that they are mostly good
whiskies, but often completely unspectacular, lacking in that something extra "oomph" that could justify their price and fame, or to make them live up to the expectation set by their illustrious predecessors.
Nose: Melon and honey.
Palate: Coconut! Apricot. Deliciously warming, rich and sweet. A bit of peat. Fresh. Almost syrupy. There seems to be a prevalence of bourbon casks (impression confirmed by the color, too).
Finish: Long, fruity and honeyish. Warming.
Score: 84 points - What? Weren't we supposed to say bad things? Well, I never said that… Put quite simply, the basic expression
from the distillery is the one I like most in spite of the price which is 30-40% higher than other ten year old malts. Actually, this is a good whisky and one that I will gladly buy again. Not worthy of legendary status, but damn enjoyable.
Nose: Apples. Quite muted apart from the alcohol.
Palate: Quite dry, no obvious rum influence. Neither I can feel the trademark Springbank characteristics (melon, coconut), though!
Especially with water, the dryness prevails over the sweetness. Initially it IS sweet (with toffee hints), clearly from refill bourbon casks aging. Then increasingly bitter. Slight smokiness.
Finish: Malty and bitter, just like an overly hopped pale ale. Chinese ginseng wine.
Score: 79 points - This bottle is from a limited edition of 5700, and is priced consequently (100-110 EUR). Is it worth the price?
Not at all, which doesn't mean it isn't good. It simply isn't worth the fuss. The recent trend of finishes has infected Springbank, and
the results are highly questionable. In this case the rum cask finishing simply adds very little to a good but unspectacular bourbon matured malt… We probably have to be thankful that it didn't harm it like the Port Wood finish did!
Nose: Melon, coconut, typical Springbank!
Palate: Again, melon, coconut. Slight peat. Similar to the 10yo version of nowadays, but more delicate. The sugar-cane sweetness, while not necessarily more intense than in the 10yo version, seems a bit more cloying, more unidimensional.
Finish: Long, sweet, relaxing. A bit "mineral".
Score: 81 points - Not as interesting, syrupy, creamy and mouth-coating as the 10yo, but still very good. Interesting to note that
the color is lighter than the 10yo, in spite of 9 years more! If you fancy a more crystalline and straightforward Springbank than the 10yo, this is the malt for you (but you won't like the price, since this is a collector's item!).
Nose: Winey, in particular reminiscent of Marsala. Filled chocolates.
Palate: Oversherried, with the same dry-metallic notes that I disliked in Longrow 14: luckily, here they are better integrated. Nutty,
even a bit earthy. Similar to Macallan 18: probably more intense, but less richly complex and rounded. Sometimes reminiscent of pink denaturated alcohol.
Finish: Dusty, quite long. Reminds me a bit of Highland Park 18, but more lingering, intense and less smoky. Drying metallic feeling.
Score: 78 points
- This release is actually no longer available, as it became out of stock several years ago and was replaced by the
10yo expression. While a darker vatting than other Springbank 12 bottles I have seen, it is not the legendary Double Dark 100 proof (that I have never had the pleasure to try) that contained much older whiskies in the vatting.
Nose: Strawberry, cherry... and of course port!
Palate: Sweet but not always so: at times it has some of the drier winey notes that are also present in Longrow 14 (which is
sherry-cask matured). Some caramelized-charcoal smokiness. Some fruitiness (again, black cherries). Pleasant and very smooth in
spite of the high alcohol… but also very monochromatic, ultimately boring and quite cloying. The port influence is excessive, even a bit
nauseating. Where is the malt? Does this stuff taste like whisky or rather like an imaginary high-proof port? There are no traces of the house notes of melon and coconut left.
Finish: Medium-long, sweet, not very rich and complex.
Score:
74 points - One of the biggest disappointments of the Springbank line: another limited edition (7200 bottles) for a whisky
matured 12 years in refill sherry casks, and another 2 years in fresh port pipes. The result has a fruity and winey sweetness that
might appeal to someone who doesn't like Scotch: it's not bad, I just think that these finishes are a waste of good Scotch. Luckily,
it's priced a bit more reasonably than the Rum Wood… although still overpriced, especially considering the unappealing (to a whisky purist) flavor profile.
Nose: Sweet, lightly smoky. Hints of fruit.
Palate: Incredibly sweet at first, like creme caramel. Burnt sugar, vanilla, white chocolate. Hints of peat. Then stingier, with sherried
dry notes, fruit and some salt. With oxidation, it becomes a lot drier. The "dry marsala" (metallic-sour) effect of other Springbank/Longrow bottlings is present, but very restrained and extremely pleasant in this case.
Finish: Intense, lively. Very balanced and rich. Hints of apricot.
Score: 84 points - Not as honeyed and drinkable as the 10yo, but a little more complex, balanced and intense.
Nose: Intensely salty and alcoholic, with strong apricot and honey notes. Some candied orange, too. Just vague hints of coconut.
Palate: Definitely drier than the ordinary 10yo version, not as syrupy, honeyed. Very intense, with salt and orange peel. Again, coconut and apricots, but less than in the ordinary 10yo. Quite biscuity, too.
With water, it does not lose much intensity but becomes drier.
Finish: Dried apricots, some peat and a plesant tingle on the palate.
Score: 85 points
- Not simply a stronger version of the ordinary 10yo: even when diluted at similar ABV, it's a much more intense
experience. Drier, less syrupy and mouthcoating, but with some interesting nuances. Not as easily drinkable, though: quite aggressive! Great complexity, if you give it time. A very good bottling.
Nose: Peaty, but not overly so. A bit medicinal.
Palate: Slightly rummy like certain Caol Ila expressions, moderately peaty and smoky.
It tastes like the "ideal" scotch should: very typical, balanced and "classic". A bit of everything. Intense but smooth.
Finish: Dry and pungent. Warming.
Score: 82 points
- A good malt, that's for sure: it has a great balance, and tastes very good. But when I first tasted it, I wondered
how the heck could such a middle of the road malt cost 96 EUR. There is nothing wrong in it, but at the same price you can buy three
bottles: an Ardbeg Ten, a Laphroaig 10 Cask Strength, a Lagavulin 16. And they are all better, more characteristic and unique than
the Longrow. Now maybe someone will start talking about the subtlety and complexity of it, but you won't convince me. Neither I am trying to convince you if you disagree, of course!
Nose: Moderately peaty, with a sourish fruity/winey overtone that was lacking in the sweeter and rounder 1992 edition.
Palate: Like the 1992, very balanced between maltiness, dryness, smoke, peat. Like the nose, also the palate shows some of that
winey dryness (a bit like marsala) which shows its full strength in the recent Longrow 14 years old. Luckily, here it's very delicate,
almost unperceivable, even pleasant: not intrusive, not at all. Some hay and grass. Even a bit fruity, after some airing. Reminds a bit of the most delicate Port Ellens, but not as good.
Finish: Smoke, licorice root. Quite dry.
Score:
82 points - Quite lighter in color than the previous year's vintage.
The taste is also a bit different. Not necessarily better or worse... perhaps a bit more personal (geared towards organic-winey notes),
and less "landmark Scotch" (referring to the generic "bit of everything" characteristics of the 1992, which was the embodiment of the spirit of this drink).
Nose: Quite Macallanish, but much less intense. Sweetly sherried, but overall quite subdued.
Dry and winey, alcoholic. Slightly woody. Cuneesi al rum (rum filled chocolates).
Palate: Slightly woody, initially very dry, then moderately sweet. No evident peat or smoke: you have to dig real deep to find them. Little of the typical Springbank character. Balanced, very drinkable
Finish: Again, quite dry but not exceedingly so. It never becomes as metallic or astringent as the 14yo (which is also sherry matured). Compared to other sherry Springbanks/Longrows, very balanced and pleasant. Finally, peat becomes evident.
Score: 83 points - Good... but perhaps lacking in personality or truly distinctive notes. If it had been more regulary distributed, it
could have been a good alternative to Highland Park 12: similar flavors, but more intense and expressive.
Nose: Marsala, dry and winey. Even sour. Some hay.
Palate: Initial sweetness, then dry, nutty and marsala-like. Even a little sour. Very little peat, almost nothing.
It reminds me a bit of pink denaturated alcohol! Yuck! Little or no distillery character left.
Finish: Again, dry marsala, some metallic notes. Quite sour and acid. Astringent.
Score: 62 points - What a weird balance... The winey sourness of the dry sherry doesn't agree with the peaty Longrow. It masks the
peat almost completely, leaving only a delicate smokiness. I like heavily sherried whiskies like The Macallan, but here the biggest fault
is that sourness and lack of balance. A failed experiment: this is not only a matter of "bland, uninteresting", it's a "I'd really prefer not
to have to drink this stuff anymore" (well, for free I could… it's not disgusting!). Serge scored it quite higher than me, but he admitted
it was a huge disappointment for him too. It's fun to note that the sour winey note that I disliked so much is certainly not a mistake,
and might well be due to the kind of sherry casks used by Springbank/Longrow, as it was already present in the old Springbank 12yo
reviewed above (where it was much better integrated, not as unpleasantly sour) and I could also find weak hints of it in the Port
Wood finish, which has spent years in sherry casks before the two years in port pipes. I definitely think that the no longer available Longrow 10 Sherrywood was a MUCH better whisky.
E-pistle #14/07 - Fun For Four Eyes - Scotch Whisky; A Liquid History
Submitted on 05/04/2005 by Davin de Kergommeaux, Canada
BOOK REVIEW:
Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History - By Charles MacLean (288 pp., Cassell Illustrated, London, 2003)
In a television commercial, a somnolent professor drones to his moribund class.
"History," he mumbles, and suddenly a sprightly young thing jumps up shouting "History??
I love history!! First something happens, then something else, so sequential.
Thank you First Guy for writing history down. Let's go study."
Charles MacLean did not have the benefit of First Guy's words when he penned Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History. The average aficionado's knowledge of whisky's history could probably be summarized thusly: 'Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History'
begins, quoting the Exchequer Rolls of 1494-95 which provide the first written reference to distilling in
Scotland. "To Friar John Cor, by order of the King, to make aqua vitae VIII bolls of malt." A boll (like a bushel) is a measure of volume
which for malted (bere) barley, would weigh about 240 lbs (almost 110 kg.) and could be expected to produce about 200 litres of raw
whisky. Useful details like this, which might interrupt the action, are often found in endnotes. Though scholarly, A Liquid History appears intended to be read rather than used strictly as a reference.
Making whisky began as a way to preserve surplus grain which would otherwise rot in the damp storage conditions that prevailed 500
years ago. Excess grain was mixed with water and fermented naturally into a primitive beer. Although less so, the resulting beer was
itself somewhat perishable until Europeans discovered the preservative property of hops. Hops don't grow in Scotland, though, but by
distilling these early beers, the alcohol content could be raised to a level where decomposition was prevented. Somewhere along the
way, preservation of excess crops as the primary motivator gave way to the pleasures of drinking whisky which in times of crop shortages brought competing pressures.
The pleasures of Scotch whisky were sometimes justified by the supposed salutary effects and for a long period, whisky was viewed
as a medicament, if a somewhat pleasant one. The convivial benefits were no doubt the true source of its popularity, but its role as
an elixir proved most beneficial to its trade during the US prohibition years when boat-loads of Scotch whisky found their way to ailing
Americans. This folk medicine, (or more often 'nudge-nudge- wink-wink' justification), has re-gained some respectability in recent
years with the discovery that whisky does indeed have some anti-oxidant properties. The association of Christian churches with the
temperance movement is itself tempered by descriptions of early sermons promoting the drinking of whisky rather than the demon tea. My, my, how times do change.
Alcohol was not first distilled as a beverage, and whisky too had other, earlier, uses.
Since 1644, when the Scottish Parliament first instituted excise duties on it, whisky has been a government cash cow, and much of
the folklore and tradition around making whisky derive from the circuitous logic of politicians. Do you prefer Highland whisky to
Lowland? Well be advised the line dividing Highlands from Lowlands was established to demarcate and give a break to the distilleries
least likely to escape taxation. As circumstances changed, so did the location of the line. While Glengoyne, for example, now calls
itself a Highland whisky, it was long located in the Lowlands. A simple re-location of the Highland line allowed Glengoyne to distil in
the Highlands, but mature in the Lowlands right across the road. The distillery itself has not moved. Technical changes in whisky production processes have occurred throughout its history, although not all technical changes were
improvements. As often as not change was driven by a desire to beat the tax man, and many of Scotch whisky's conventions are
there not because traditional means produced a better spirit, but because laws directed or drove production in certain directions. For
example, when duties were based on an assumption that stills could be charged but once a day, distillers found ways to charge them
every few minutes. Large, shallow, flat-bottomed, pot stills ran almost continuously. This rapid distillation was great for profits, but
not for quality. In the Highlands, meantime, escaping the gauger meant being able to pick up and move on a moment's notice. Highland stills were thus small and portable and the whisky much richer and oilier.
The whisky making process has never been static, but has been constantly evolving as it continues to do. Among many others, one
giant step forward came with the development of the patent still allowing continuous distillation of grain whisky which opened the door
to the production of blends. Blended whisky now makes up about 95% of all Scotch whisky sold at retail. Also among the significant
changes are those of the past twenty-odd years many of which took place in distant boardrooms rather than at the distilleries. The
book meticulously describes the closings, openings, mergers and acquisitions that changed the corporate face of malt whisky in the
past few decades. It also documents the logarithmic growth in demand for malt whisky in the past two decades, but not before
reminding the reader that as far back as 1871 Laphroaig, Aberlour, Glenlivet and Glen Grant were sold in London as 'single whiskies'. Those who lament current production changes would do well to bear whisky's long history in mind.
MacLean gives the nod to Ireland as the first place to distil whisky and notes that most of the whisky sold in Scotland even into the
1860s was Irish whiskey. Interestingly, the Scottish spelled whiskey with an "e" until just less than a hundred years ago. In Scotch
Whisky: A Liquid History numerous other well-know facts are explained (or explained away). One comes away from A Liquid History
having learned, from a historical perspective, not so much how to make the best-tasting whisky, but why Scotch whisky, both malts and blends, tastes as it does today.
MacLean has divided the first 500 years of known Scotch whisky history into 12 logical, consecutive time periods, which in turn, fall
neatly into twelve chapters. Recording the history of Scotch whisky in fewer than 300 pages has certainly left some stones unturned,
or less well-turned than the author may have wished. Every first edition has some typographical errors, but few as delightfully
entertaining as this truncated sentence on page 270: "Loch Fyne Whiskies was founded in the picturesque and historic town of Inverary in 1992 by Richard Joynson, who until then had been a fish."
An engaging and informative read, A Liquid History is printed on heavy paper and colourfully illustrated. Scotch Whisky: A Liquid
History carefully treads a line between text book, headed for the school library and popular work for the whisky buff. Highly recommended to both.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Although MacLean makes reference to scholarly works on distillation from around 850AD the early beginnings of whisky are lost in time,
so MacLean focuses on the first 500 years of recorded Scotch whisky history. His enthusiasm matches the young history student and
MacLean succeeds in injecting that enthusiasm into a rollicking good read packed with anecdotes and peopled by some rather strange characters.
The first whisky was likely distilled in Ireland; about 500 years ago Friar John Cor became the first
recorded person to make whisky; the word whisky comes from "Usquebaugh" or "uisge beatha," Gaelic
for aqua vitae or water of life; Glenlivet was one of the first popular single malts; Glenfiddich brought
malts to the world's attention; and somewhere in the 1980's a bunch of distilleries went out of business.
Of other knowledge, most would say that it's not whisky until it has aged at least three years, and
there is an 'e' in Irish whiskey, but not in Scotch whisky. Well, MacLean takes nearly 300 pages to fill
in the blanks and there's nary a dull moment as smugglers, gaugers, politicians, home distillers, boards
of directors, colourful entrepreneurs and a host of others slug it out for their piece of the action.
The history of Scotch whisky has been one of constant struggle: the struggle against time and weather,
against governments and gaugers, against thieves and competitors and sometimes against logic and reason.
It's all there, waiting to be discovered in A Liquid History.
Alcohol is an excellent solvent and early Scotch whisky was often flavoured with spices, herbs and berries.
Preserving those scents, flavours and medical properties may well have been the original purpose of dissolving them in whisky.
Another early use for whisky, we learn, was to improve "incorporation" during the manufacture of gunpowder. The early use of
gunpowder, in turn, to determine the "proof" of whisky is well-known. Years later gunpowder was also proved useful in the production
of whisky, albeit tangentially, by George Smith who always carried two pistols to protect his lucrative whisky business in Glenlivet. It is the characters, like Smith, who so vividly animate this book.
E-pistle #14/08 - Linköping Whisky Fair 2005
Submitted on 06/04/2005 by Robert Karlsson, Sweden
A short report from a not quite as large a whisky fair as the 'Whisky Live' ones. I tagged along with the malt whisky society guys (and some gals too) of Växjö
The three infant-malts (only a few weeks old) were made with barley from After this exceedingly promising start we moved on through the fair and stumbled By now quite warmed up we moved on to the highlight of the evening. Macallan 1994 (b2002, 8yo). A complex youngster, reminds me a little of the italian 7yo. Macallan 1987 (b2004, 17yo). Raisin, dried figs and nuts but too light and too elegant (is that possible?). Macallan 1974 (b2003, 29yo). Smoke? Perhaps a little. Fragrant yet laid-back sherry notes in the nose.
Macallan 1966 (b2002, 36yo). Pears, cognacy and very fruity. Unfortunately over the top, too dry woody taste.
Macallan 1940 (b1990, 50yo). Hugely impressive, how can the 36yo taste so over the top and this remain so excellent? Very massive
long, complex taste, a near religious experience. Hardly worth the price though (~2400¥). If you get the chance, try it.
After this tasting we finished off the evening with three heavy yet hugely complex and excellent drams. Namely a G&M Ardbeg 28yo
from 1975 which was nothing short of heavenly and a sherry casked Signatory Port Ellen 23yo from 1979, *phew*. The final dram, drum roll and applause, was a sherry casked Ardbeg 30yo distilled in 1974 bottled by Symposion (Swedish importer).
We did try quite a few other interesting whiskies throughout the evening, among them notably an 11yo salty Glenlossie, a slightly
bleak St Magdalene 21yo from Hart Brothers, a good G&M 19yo St Magdalene, a younger grassy Rosebank, an enjoyable young G&M Inverleven, a flat Littlemill, an interesting Ardmore, an Irish-inspired Amrut and a few less notable as well.
If I had to rank them from 'best' to 'worst' like Johannes does on his Bruichladdich 37yo Legacy (41,8%, OB) Perhaps I should finish off this incoherent report with a note that few of the drams sampled contained more than 1cl. This was for
obvious reasons quite necessary. Also, a big thanks among others to Mark Reynier of Bruichladdich, the guys at Galatea and Pernod
Richard, Robin Tucek of Blackadder, Christina from Bibendum, Ian Logan from Chivas and Michael Beamish from Tullibardine for making the evening even more memorable than the drams alone could ever have managed. Robert Karlsson
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The whisky fair of Linköping in Sweden was held for the second time ever this early spring.
I was one among about a thousand other whisky lovers that attended during that night alone.
It was such a great evening that I couldn't stop myself from writing a few words about it.
(a city in the middle of southern Sweden) who had rented a large bus, and driver,
thank god. Excellent initiative indeed. After arriving we started the evening with
a sprint (first at the table!) to
one of my friends had quite recently attended their Academy we were (very)
warmly welcomed with the, by then, quite new 3D. An exciting and tasty whisky
indeed, one cannot but stop to wonder how the Port Charlotte will turn out.
The 3D was followed by the Legacy II from '65.
Absolutely god-sent wooonderful stuff. After Mark heard we couldn't attend
his terroir-lecture held later in the evening he quickly opened the bottles
meant for that tasting and improvised it right there, just for us. I like Mark.
three different geographic locations and indeed there were differences in the
nose of these. I am no experienced new make sniffer but if anyone claims that
the terroir of the place where the barley was grown doesn't matter, I'd dare
to disagree after nosing these.
on quite a number of great stuff. Among the most memorable were a mighty
stonking Glendronach 1968, an elegant Tullibardine 1973 and an outrageously great
sherry casked Port Ellen 1982 from Blackadder. We then retraced our steps back to
Mark and sampled the excellent 20yo (the non-flirtatious one), a fruity Clynelish
20yo Mmcd Mission 3 and finally a Lochside -81 also from Mmcd. The last one took
my breath away, a must-buy for me. It actually gave me goosebumps. Scary stuff.
Namely a rather interesting G&M Speymalt Macallan tasting which was enjoyed with the following results:
Malty, fruity, spicy with some grassy tones. Quite fiery, spicy but a bit short taste. Surprisingly enjoyable.
Not really a Macallan? Ok, perhaps a fine oak then. All in all unimpressive.
Wood. Dry wood. A massive large developing taste, better than the nose.
A long sweeter than expected aftertaste. Very enjoyable.
Should have been taken earlier. Not recommended, especially not considering the price (~400¥).
Port Ellen 21yo (62,7%, Blackadder)
Macallan 50yo 1940 (40%, G&M Speymalt)
Ardbeg 30yo 1974 (Symposion B:34/137, ex-sherry)
Port Ellen 23yo 1979 (56,3%, Signatory, refill sherry)
Lochside 20yo 1981 (46%, Murray McDavid C# 9637)
Ardbeg 28yo 1975 (43%, CC)
Glendronach 25yo (43%, OB)
Macallan 29yo 1974 (40%, G&M Speymalt)
Bruichladdich 20yo 1st edition (OB, not flirtation)
St Magdalene 21yo (56,5% Hart Brothers)
Clynelish 20yo (46%, Murray McDavid Mission III)
Inverleven 14yo (40%, G&M)
Tullibardine Vintage 1973 (47,3%, OB)
Blair Athol 12yo (43%, OB Flora & Fauna)
Bruichladdich NAS 3D The Peat Proposal (46%, OB)
Rosebank 14yo (40%, CC)
Glenlossie 11yo (43%, ??)
Caol Ila NAS Cask Strength (55%, OB)
Ardmore 1992 Bourbon Barrel (46%, Symposion)
Glengoyne 21yo (43%, OB)
Macallan 36yo 1966 (40%, G&M Speymalt)
St Magdalene 19yo (40%, G&M)
Glengoyne 17yo (43%, OB)
Macallan 8yo 1994 (40%, G&M Speymalt)
Macallan 17yo 1987 (40%, G&M Speymalt)
Littlemill 14yo (43%, Signatory C# 2977)
Amrut NAS Single Malt Whisky (40%, OB)
E-pistle #14/09 - Ask an Anorak: A Strange Short Story
Compiled on 7/04/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
Johannes: Hiya, maniacs, I receive the weirdest messages sometimes...
You wouldn't think anybody would take that too seriously, but apparently somebody did...
In the first chapter of the 'Beginner's Guide' I've jokingly written these words;
'The production of whisky became sort of an 'industry' in 18th century Scotland. Apart from fondling their sheep and shaving their
legs the Scottish farmers had very little entertainment in those days. Shortly after the recipe for whisky was published in 'Distillation For Fun & Profit' dozens of distilleries were established.'
The poor bugger... See the message below...
An anonymous reader from Stockholm: As I am mad enough to contemplate setting up my own distillery in Sweden, I would very much like to know if there is a reprint of the book "Distillation For Fun & Profit" that you mention on your homepage. Could you kindly recommend other publications that state the basic procedure and recipe for making Single Malts?
Martine: That book is a tissu of lies. And a complete lack of historical investigation.
There is no evidence at all that Scottish farmers used to shave theirs legs ! I am sure that they kept as hairy as they could to get a
natural protection against bitter cold. Don't you think ? I can't resist this fantasy : an ad for a leg hair shaver with a
wardrobe-shaped hefty highlander lifting up his kilt, and shaving his leg, confessing with a broad smile : now when I stroke my leg, I
feel like I am swallowing a silky, smooth and luscious Glenlivet ! What about you Charlie starring in this ad ? Richard Paterson would be more appropriate maybe but he would not be credible as a Scottish farmer.
Sorry, just my mad minute for the day ! wanted to share it with you
Johannes: Well, well... I've just looked it up in 'DFF&P'; So, you see?
Actually both the sheep-fondling and leg-shaving were largely abandoned shortly after the Scots discovered that sheep wool was a
perfectly good alternative to Scottish leg hair when it comes to making a nice warm kilt. In earlier times, poverty was running so
rampant across the Highlands that most people couldn't afford sheep. Consequentially, they had to shave and collect their own hair.
(The word 'kilt' actually means 'leg-wig' in old gealic). Most Scotsman switched to sheep-shaving and leg-fondling in the mid 18th
century, which drastically reduced the production time of the average kilt from several decades to just a few days. However, there
are still small pockets of resistance in some villages in the remote area's of the Highlands where wearing an animal hair kilt is frowned
upon and a man's status is determined by the length of his kilt. Islay may very well be one of these isolated places, so I'll try to knit a nice warm kilt for this year's festival...
You just don't read about stuff like that in other books...
Mark: 'Ellow, mates ~
As I received an advance copy of a facsimile reproduction of the original 'DFF&P' I can assure you that out Master Maniac puts things
lightly regarding the kilt tilting in those days. Scots farmers and herders were quite hairy then (Charlie's hair is light and wispy by
comparison), and the only thing would cut through the matted mass on their legs was a sheep shear. Kilts first came into fashion in
the High Lowlands, speading soon to the Coastal Inland region. Seems that long ground-length kilts would adequately hide a shearer
shearing a farmer, and the leg fondling which immediately followed. In fact, the act of wearing such a turf-length kilt signaled shearers
that you were seeking to be shorn and or fondled. The gradual popularity of shorter and shorter kilts is due mostly to metropolitan
views on leg shearing, and it soon became fashionable to wear leg hair long, and the kilt quite short. The silver, or sometimes leather,
pouch worn across the front of the kilt was maintained, and the general public has forgotten that its original use was as field shaving
kit. The decline of farmers' leg shearing and leg fondling gave rise to other gentlemenly pasttimes such as the distillation of whisky,
which to this day employs many of the more pleasurable aspects of leg shearing in its processes. 'Digging peat', 'new make', and 'smooth' are just some of the carry-overs from the now-ancient leg shearing days.
Baaaaa ~
Megus Cray
Johannes
: Pfffft... Laughing out loud here in Amsterdam! Sweet drams, Johannes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It seems Martine and Mark give new meaning to the word 'maniac' ;-)
And on that surreal note I think we can safely wrap up this first page of Malt Maniacs #14.
Join the mailinglist if you want to know when we publish the second page of this issue.
Coming up: More 'musings' from Lex Kraaijeveld and a discussion about 'FWP'.
<-- Previous Issue Next Issue -->
Page 2 of MM #14
Oh, boy... Just when I thought we wouldn't have enough
E-pistles to launch MM#14 on April 1 the first submissions
started to drop into my mailbox. So, here it is: MM#14.
Davin figured it was high time for another book review and
this time he picked up 'Scotch Whisky; A Liquid History' by
our very own Charlie MacLean
. Davin finishes his review
with this conclusion; 'Carefully treads a line between text
book, headed for the school library and popular work for
the whisky buff. Highly recommended to both.'
So, it seems like a pretty good read, then...
|
|
Malt Maniacs #14 |
Malt Maniacs #14 - April 1, 2005
Click HERE for more malt mania!
