Apart from the Feis Ile reports there are two more E-pistles
in MM#15 that fit into the 'festival' theme if you don't think
about it too hard; foreign correspondent Claude Nijs reports
on a session in Gent, Belgium hosted by Bob Minnekeer and
Michel van Meersbergen spills the beans on his impressions
of a blind tasting in his 'The Peaty Smell of Success' E-pistle.
Last but not least I've included the transcripts of three very
interesting anoracal discussions - one about the sense and
nonsense of scoring
whiskies, one about the importance of
copper and one about the influence of water on whisky.
28/05 - Day 1
(Lagavulin distillery, Bruichladdich party)
29/05 - Day 2
(Bruichladdich open day, Martine's dinner)
30/05 - Day 3
(Beach Sessions, Port Charlotte dinner)
31/05 - Day 4
(Laphroaig distillery, Spirit of Islay session)
01/07 - Day 5
(Balvenie session at Kilchoman with Charlie)
02/07 - Day 6
(10,000th monitor score, PLOWED party)
03/07 - Day 7
(Bunnahabhain tour, Last beach session)
Wednesday was spent in Glasgow with Davin
sampling for the matrix, on thursday we visited
Glengoyne and picked up Serge and Olivier at
the airport before heading for Inveraray and
on
friday we visited Oban and Springbank.
Would you like to see more E-pistles appear here more often? Sweet drams,
Well, you can help. Just become a
'foreign correspondent' too
and submit your own report about any malty matter you like.
You can join the mailinglist if you want to know when
there's another major update of the site.
Johannes
Apart from Whiskyshiff Zurich 2004 report
and Michel van Meersbergen's huge E-pistle
about the Limburg Whisky Fair 2005 most of
this 'Festival Special' is about Feis Ile 2005.
Apart from
my personal Feis Ile 2005 report
that was published in my Liquid Log recently
I've written three 'prelude' reports about my
three days on the Scottish mainland with a
contingent of other certified malt maniacs.
Those were just the 'preludes' - I had to publish my reports
on the main event on a seperate page added to this issue.
The links below will take you directly to the relevant report.
E-pistle #15/01 - Forza Italia; 4 Maniacs on the road to Bologna
Submitted on 21/05/2005 by Olivier Humbrecht, France
lt all started with Whisky Ship Zurich 2004. Deciding on the program was part of the fun:
This is a highly recommendable little Whisky fair, where independent retailers, IB's and some distilleries present their current range and sometimes older bottlings. The fact that it is located
in boats on Zurich downtown harbour adds to the charm of the event. Then Serge had this great idea of driving just a little further (4 hours) to Bologna! Luc, Johannes and myself decided that it was definitely a maniacal decision and joined
in. The end of November is the good period for white truffles in Italy, and we discovered that the Sangiovese grape (famous in Chianti) also produces great wines in Emilie Romagne...
- Wednesday evening: Ardbeg tasting at Serge's house,
- Thursday: drive to Bologna and visit Mr Begnoni's collection and shop. (supermarket of malts)
- Thursday Evening: Bowmore tasting part 1.
- Friday Morning: visit Mr Valentino Zagatti and his amazing collection.
- Friday Afternoon: visit Mr Giovanni Giuliani and see his collection.
- Friday Evening: Bowmore part 2.
- Saturday: Whisky Ship in Zurich
- Sunday: Farewell dram
Serge adds: Well, not sure the farewell dram was planned upfront ;-).
I had also planned to stop at Giorgio D'Ambrosio's Barmetro (Milan) on our way to Bologna but that would have been tricky for our
schedule (and our purses – too many interesting whiskies to buy at Giorgio's!)
* Ardbeg Tasting in Alsace
Lets not be complicated and difficult, we decided to have fun, both Luc and Johannes had a long journey, driving from Belgium to Alsace, so starting our malt marathon with an Arbeg tasting seemed very logical, and what a line up! I must add that we started the evening in my cellar, tasting a few wines and spirits that we produce, so our palates were ready for the first Ardbeg of the evening.
Johannes adds: Oh yeah, I have some great memories of the little tasting in your cellar, Olivier!
That morning
I had seen the sun rise over the frozen lowlands of Holland and just as we arrived at your cellar I could see the moon rise over the hills of Alsace. It was magical, and things were enhanced further by sniffing up the atmosphere in your cellar
and tasting those maturing spirits. Combined with the four stellar drams Luc had poured me in the morning (!) this was a very promising start of our little eurotrip for me.
Serge adds: oh yes! I'd love to make an experiment with some ash-tree casks one day, just like Olivier does.
It lets the spirit mature but doesn't impart too much taste – nor colour, as it's almost white.
That should be perfect to get a very pure, yet mature whisky. One day, one day!
Luc adds: Indeed, the visit to Olivier's cellars impressed me a lot. So much even that I now tend to order only Humbrecht wines when I'm going to a restaurant. I must admit that I fully agree with the statement of The Wine Advocate who named Olivier Humbrecht one of "The Most Influential Wine Personalities of the Last 20 Years" Keep up this good work Olivier !
Ardbeg 1975
(40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, New label) Ardbeg 1975/2001 (43%, OB)
Gold colour. Nice civilized peat with a fresh pear, fruity nose. After a while, the passion fruit and melon develops. Medium power but evaporates quickly. It feels nice, but this is our first
dram and I fear we might be to generous. Luc finds a nice smell, some straw-farmyard character. Relatively dry, light grassy somewhat neutral and predictable finish. I personally find it a little sad for a 1974 ! We all learned not to expect
too much out of a modern G&M bottling.
Scores: O:77 S:81 L:80 J:78
Gold colour. Discreet peat, refined spirity nose. Shows lots of ripe apples, pears. Very nice and pure, some
dust. This an enjoyable 'not in your face style' classic dry peat. Smells of fire, the subtle only really shows up on the finish. Again, Luc finds a farmy character and Serge detects a good peppery spice. We all find it less powerful than the
2000 bottling.
Scores: O:86 S:86 L:87 J:83
Johannes adds: Hmmm, Yes...
Already I feel I should stress that I tend to be a little more strict in my scores than many other maniacs.
My 83 points means I put this in the 'recommendable' category - almost 'highly recommendable'.
That being said, for a 26yo Ardbeg I found it just a tad disappointing - I prefer the 'Lord of the Isles' OB.
Ardbeg 15yo 1989/2004 (40%, Mandibolari Italy, 120 Bottles) Ardbeg 1988/2002 (40%, Mandibolari Italy, Fake?)
Gold. Not typical Ardbeg nose, and that's not us being influenced! The alcohol feels heady, medicinal and the peat is very faint, more like gas. I often find that
peat can take some time to show up, so we decide to give it some time... Yep, it's there! a little veggy according to Johannes. I also get a grassy peaty palate with a dry finish. 'A light rain on a field' according to Serge and Johannes.
Scores: O:87 S:87 L:81 J:86
Ok, I've been told that drinking 1988 Ardbeg is like drinking a Romanee Conti from vintages between 1947 and 1952: the vines were pulled
out, so it looks very suspicious! Despite all that, it shows a nice gold colour and citrus (Luc), grapefruit (Serge and Johannes) aromatics. I found an upfront bold peat and smoke. Nice maritime influence too. Intense, the palate is just
right, showing great flavours, rubbery for all of us. Dry peated finish, just a little light to be great.
A watch expert told me once that some fake watches are better made than some originals!
Scores:
O:87 S:87 L:86 J:87. Very consistent!
Johannes adds: Odd, isn't it? This 1988 bottling mentioned on the Fake Alert page gets a slightly higher score than the 1989 bottling that could be genuine. I still like the insane label, though - very funny. (Although, upon closer inspection, could that be a glimmer of 'schadenfreude' in the eyes of that rooster?)
Serge adds: oh yes! And have you seen Mandibolari's new bottling of a 15yo bottled in 2004?
There's no vintage anymore on the label… I guess we can draw some conclusions, don't we?
But what's sure is that the whisky is very good, so…
Ardbeg 11yo 1991/2002
(46% MMcD, MM654, February 1991, November 2002) Interlude - meaning Serge reloaded his palate with nicotine...
Pale yellow. Light grass and peat combination. Some latex smells, tar, like burning fir wood according to Serge. Not very developed
for Johannes and almost like stale schwepps (tonic water for non Alsacian people) according to Serge. Moving then towards mouldy, wet dog and Indian curry smells! I was more tuned with Johannes who thought it was peaty and playful. Palate is
sweet and round, which I usually do not mind, but here it was a little too much for the light finish.
Score: O:82 S:79 L:75 J:85.
We took the opportunity to visit his open bottles shelf and found: Highland Park 25yo 1977/2002
(53%, straight from the cask, SigV, cask 2794, refill sherry) Gold colour. Superb sherry dominated nose, but no sulfurs or heavy caramel. Cooked sugar, fruit cake, discreet to start with. Powerful palate, nice roundness and presence. A little too direct and lacks complexity, monolithic. Surely, I'll have to re-taste this one another time.
83 points. Then Luc pulls my arm and says 'try this one'. Clear pale colour, not much too say until I put my nose on it: WOW. Ultra intense fruit, citrus, mega dry smoke. Very complex and profound. What a fabulous peat and extraordinary
length! I am even more surprised when I see the bottle: Longrow 13yo 1990/2004 (54.5%; SMWSY, Cask 114.3) 95 points. Yes, tough for Ardbeg so far, but we ain't finished yet...
Johannes adds: What? What?
Blast my feeble mind and my feeble bladder!
I had to excuse myself for a smoke and a wee wee-wee so I missed those.
I did try another Longrow (again) though, because
Serge insisted - the Longrow 1987/1999 (45%, Samaroli 'Dreams', 967 Bottles). A first sample he sent me scored only 71 points while Serge, Olivier and Luc all score it in the 90's. Assuming that the first sample had somehow sufferend from
oxidation or contamination, I gave it another try. With 79 points it did a little bit better than the first time i tried it, but my score is still nowhere near that of the other three maniacs. This could be further proof for my 'wine whimps'
theory. It seems that people with a wine background appreciate 'neutral' and 'subtle' malts while some other maniacs who were weened on beer and liquor tend to go for the more extreme malts. Interesting, eh? Anyway, we continued with the...
Ardbeg 1990/2003 (46%,GM, Symposion, sherry Cask #3133)
Dark gold. Strong sweet sherry and sulfurs. The peat is hiding behind the huge sherry structure.
Sherry head Johannes can't get his nose out of his glass: 'I like this', 'Oh yeah' replies Serge.
True, from a restraint start, is has now developed a powerful dry fruit, crystallized orange aromas.
The palate shows bold charcoal, bonfire smells. Ab fab!
Scores: O:93 S:92 L:91 J:91.
Luc adds: Oh yes, indeed, I love this young Ardbeg very much.
So complex and so refined integrated with the Sherry. An absolute great Ardbeg !
Ardbeg 17yo 1974/1992 (43%, Signatory Vintage, Cask #2026)
Hum, 1974 again, will this one live up to its legend? Colour is light amber.
The nose starts very delicately with a gentle peat, dry hay, hugely complex. Again the sweetness of the sherry is working so well with the peat. I start to feel like Andrew Jefford when he regrets that less and less sherry is used on Islay.
This one isn't aggressive at all. 'Beautiful, extraordinaire' says Serge 'so balanced, my goodness' for Luc and Johannes feels it is 'substantial' and then he starts to speak Dutch, which says a lot on his state of mind... Great palate, so
easy to drink. Again ab fab.
Scores: O:93 S:92 L:92 J:91
Johannes adds: Whoaah - another stellar dram!
It seems 1974 was a particular good year for Ardbeg...
Ardbeg 9yo 1991 (45%, Samaroli)
Pale yellow. The
nose is very closed and only shows pure alcohol. The peat is hiding, but I do not see behind what! We all start a search party, but with not much results. The palate is light, slightly sweetish, it does show some very faint burnt flavours, but
I am quite disappointed with this Ardbeg. Serge finds it 'skeleticly' pure , Luc think it is 'narrow and shallow' and Johannes: 'not wide enough'. Jesus! Dutch always must say things differently from Belgians.
Scores:
O:79 S:82 L:78 J:69
Johannes adds: Yeah, sorry, I thought this was sub-standard material - especially for an Ardbeg.
When I said 'not
wide enough' I meant that it didn't offer the 'spectrum' of fragrances that many other single malts offer. I could certainly live with a single-minded malt that wears its peaty heart on its sleeve, but this is just dimwitted. Would you believe
that I actually prefer some batches of the 'Black Bottle' blend over this?
Ardbeg 10yo 1993/2003
(46%, High Spirits Ed, 285bt) Ardbeg 13yo 1990/2004 (55%, OB for Japan, 1140 bt)
Yellow colour. The nose shows the youth of this malt: green grass, vegetal peat, almost 'cod oil' for Johannes. Liquorice, again green peat, tea and lemon zests, peppery on the palate. This is a clean classic
young Ardbeg with a dry finish.
Scores: O:87 S:84 L:85 J:74
Pale yellow colour. Powerful nose, no messing about: dry vegetal fire, charcoal. Very spirity,
pure, intense and sharp. I love this style of Ardbeg. The palate shows freshly cut apples flavours (skins). 'perfect' for Serge, who thinks it is 'powerful, long and warming'. No doubt, I loved this one, but then, I am a 'Very Young Ardbeg'
fan, so…
Scores: O:92 S:88 L:87 J:90
Serge adds: well, I still think that Ardbeg needs quite some maturing to get more complexity and subtleness, and I'm not a fan of the trendy 'young' ones. Malt paedophilia, no thanks!
Ardbeg 1972/2004
(48.3%, OB managers choice for Oddbins, bourbon cask 866, 239bt) Ardbeg 27yo 1976/2004 (51.4%; OB for Feis isle 2004, sherry butt 2398, 504bt)
Beautiful yellow sweet wine colour. The nose is delightfully intense and so complex, showing one of the nicest peat so far, mixed with fresh fruits, apples… Perfect nose! Luc
jumps almost on the table and begs us not to empty our glasses in the vatting in case we do not want to finish it! Well, nice try Luc, but you won't get my dram. Serge goes for 'pollen, honey mixed with camphor, menthol. It feels so young on
the palate, with almost a monastic style, showing the classic tobacco and smoke aromas.
Scores: O:95 S:93 L:93 J:89
Amber. The
sherry jumps out of the glass, showing a spirity/toffee nose at first, and then only comes the burning wood and smoke. The palate is absolutely huge, long, powerful, mega big (any idea for other words?). One has to wait a little to feel the
peat, the sherry is so intense, but the wait is worth every minute: green vegetal smoke, bigger and bigger on the finish. 'This is over the top' for Luc who has mixed feelings about this Ardbeg. I personally liked it, but I agree that the
sherry is a little too intense at this stage. Maybe some bottle age will improve it, or, it should be tasted at the end of a meal, and not after 15 whiskies…
Scores: O:93 S:88 L:85 J:91
Serge adds: yes, too much sherry for my taste, definitely, especially because I feel it doesn't 'melt' too well here. I gave it 88 points, still, but that's far from the 92-95 range this kind of bottling usually gets.
Luc adds: I totally agree, this one has been overpowered by the sherry if you ask me. I had it afterwards again at a tasting in Belgium (Oostende) and I even downgraded my score even more. This one is simply over the top, over sherried, bitter and sulphury. Sorry guys, not my style.
Johannes adds: Well, call me a sherry freak, but I loved it!
Further proof that I prefer character over balance in my malts...
* Whisky Paradise Bologna
After a fast journey to Bologna we arrived at Whisky Paradise. - "Excuse me ? This isn't your stock ? " And then we entered in the warehouse part of the building... There were Mr Begnoni must have sensed that we were ready to commit crime,
The GPS took us around in some industrial looking suburbs, and finally
stopped in front of a big modern warehouse. What did Luc have in mind
to come here? I had no idea what would hit me as we passed the
entrance: blast ! I didn't know one person could accumulate so many
whiskies in one collection. We were all four of us speechless, walking
around, not knowing what to say… and then Mr Begnoni asked us if
we wanted to see his stock.
- "No, no, this is my collection, I can show the stock to drink"
alleys and alleys filled with stocks of whiskies, all old bottlings and rarities.
It doesn't take us long to salivate in front of our favourite distilleries…
so he took us to his tasting room. When I saw him taking an old Highland
Park, my heart accelerated: Highland Park 12yo (43%, OB, tall bottle
with view of Orkney sea label, round neck label). Nice gold/light amber
colour (any caramel in those days ?). The nose is an explosion of fern,
heather, honey, gingerbread aromas: absolutely gorgeous. The palate
shows the same aromatics, with intense caramelized toffee. Wow, says
Luc next to me! Now that is a Highland Park 12yo ! Only 43%, but the
finish goes on an on. There is some real power here, not coming from
the alcohol, but from the texture of this beautiful malt. With time, it
develops light sherry notes and grassy, herbal aromatics.
Scores:
O:97 S:94 L:96
Luc adds : Oh yes, Olivier, this is a true masterpiece.
Since I have discovered this beauty I only use my regular HP 12yo for our cocktail sauce ;-)
This HP was followed by 5 other stunning whiskies: 1)
Dalmore 20yo '20th Anniversary' (43%, OB, 20th anniversary whiskyteca, bottled circa 1978)
Chocolate ! we put our nose on the glass and all agree on the aromatics: fabulous chocolate, coffee smells. Certainly heavy sherried,
but this doesn't show here. The palate is a creamy blend of toffee, milk, coffee and dark chocolate flavours. Very unctuous, rich and luscious. Again, only 43%, but a real sensation of power.
Scores: O:94 S:91 L:94
Johannes adds: Yeah, I had some quick sniffs from this one and it was really fabulous.
What a wonderful rich profile. However, I didn't try enough of this elixer to come up with a solid rating.
The only one I managed to give a serious score was the next one - a true liquid antique;
2) Highland Park 1902 (39,8%; Berry B&R, bottled circa 1952/1953)
Ok, the alcohol should be over 40%, but this whisky was apparently analysed by the distillery, and 39.8% was the result. Intense gold
colour. The nose shows crème brulée flavours, associated with caramel/toffee and aged sherry character. There is also some light
peat, delicate liquorice, nuts and definitely, after a while, some tobacco aromas. Fine and delicate nose, which is not tired at all!
Fabulous! The palate lives up to our expectations: maritime influence, oils, very light smoke. The length is medium (hey, did you see the age !), showing some medicinal/sea weeds aromas, almost salty. Incredibly delicate.
Scores:
O:93 S:90 L:92 J:90. (But Serge gave 100pts for the emotions of tasting this malt.)
Serge adds: Absolutely, 100 emotional points, but 90 organoleptical points, which is still very high, of course.
So, does whisky age well in a bottle, asked Saint Thomas? Had he tasted this one, he'd have known the answer.
The oldest whisky I ever had, and as many 'new old' ones that appear on the market these days appear to be fakes, I guess I'll have
to wait for a long time before I can have a go again at such an antique liquid. Now, very old Armagnacs are easier to find…
Luc adds : Well indeed, when Giuseppe pulled out this bottle, I must admit we all kinda got a bit silent.
This is my oldest malt too and amazing to discover this beautiful complexity in such an old malt.
I guess that even in 1902 they bloody knew how to make whisky……
3) Glenfarclas 21yo (51,5%, OB, square bottle, bottled circa 1978/1979)
(Now it's Luc's turn to melt!) Wow, he is right, the nose is so intense. The dark gold/amber colour confirms the rich sherry, very
delicate, without those sulphurs that often make sherry casks taste so cloying. The higher strength shows on the palate: really big,
cassonade (the burnt sugar on top of the crème brûlée), cedar, smoke, cream,… and provides a long mellowed finish, displaying all the Christmas cake flavours. Luc says: this is the best Glenfarclas ! Well, I am happy with this.
Scores:
O:94 S:93 L:96
Luc adds : Yes, indeed, my best Glenfarclas. On top of my list still and it will be very difficult to de-throne this one.
Here are my notes. Nose : Powerful nose of old antique cupboards and books, with heavily roasted nuts, oak, orange zest,
eucalyptus and some mint. Develops to cooked apricots with rum/raisins in the oven. Whauh. The taste is powerfull, big, smoky and
very creamy, bringing everything you would only expect from the best Christmas cake. A real masterpiece. And the finish goes on and on…..Congratulations Mr. E. Giaconne for selecting this whisky for us.
4) Laphroaig 10yo (43%, OB, Bonfanti Import)
We all love good Laphroaig, so when Mr Begnoni took this 43% version after the Glenfarclas I thought that it was maybe a mistake.
Foolish me ! The colour is dark gold. The nose explodes with intense ripe apples, vegetal peat, exotic fruits and light hints of sherry.
Incredible ! The palate is perfect, long, rich and so respectful of the distillery character: beautiful peat, great balance.
Scores: O:96 S:96 L:96. What a tasting ! How about consistency ?
Serge adds: Yeah, a simple 10yo, imagine! I'm sure it was brilliant whisky right when it was bottled, but I also think that this one might prove that whisky can improve in glass, just like wine – except that it's much longer to happen.
Luc adds : My humble notes…..
Nose : the first nose is very antique, furniture wax, prunes and raisins, very powerfull, then it develops to wet straw, and becomes
sweaty, even some notes of sour cream and then leather on a wet horse, whauh, this nose keeps on changing, and finally we get
some smoke with burnt sugar and even some caramel notes with nuts, this is a magnificent nose, and when you think it is over, the
fruitiness comes through, even some apricots and coconut and a lot of herbs in there too and finally even coffee bonbons, I'm sure I could go on for hours and hours on this nose, this has everything.
Taste : very fresh and very powerful taste of smoke and lovely peat, again the furniture wax, burned nuts and lovely caramel notes, mmm, and this smoky taste of ham, and herbal essences, the taste reminds me of autumn, this is soo good
Finish : extremely long and beautiful finish, no off-notes what so ever, simply leaves me without words, this is as close to perfection
as any whisky can get Balance/complexity : I simply rest my case and withdraw in silence Well indeed, this one made me speechless. Only 10yo old and this complex.
Whauh, those lucky Italians, being able to buy this one for a few Lira's at the time...
5) Macallan 1947 (46%, OB, bottled circa 1962/1963) "Drink or drive, Luc, you have to choose"...
Now I do not dare say anything more! What kind of whisky could be served after this perfect Laphroaig? This Macallan has a dark gold
colour. The nose is exuberant: yoghourt, liquorice, tropical fruits, leather (old library according to Serge). This whisky feels like velvet.
Creamy elegance with a delicate peat, surprising dry meat/sausage aromas. Great power and intensity. Endless finish: raisins, fruits, smoke. No doubt the best Macallan I ever tried.
Scores: O:97 L:97 S:96
. Again, consistent great ratings.
Serge adds: see my comment above…
Now, as I was the driver, I have the answer to your 'drink or drive' dilemma: stay where you are for the night, provided there's stunning whiskies to taste – and provided the owner of the place would have agreed, which I doubt…
He isn't crazy, is he?
Luc adds : Ooh yes, that lovely Macallan. Oh yes, a peated Macallan. What a truly remarkable whisky indeed.
Once again, the lucky Italians…..a whisky lover would become for less frustrated…. I will one day poor a dram of this lovely Macallan for Bob Dalgarno. Perhaps he can try to change Macallan back to this style…..
* 4 Maniacs against Bowmore: Round 1
Back at the hotel, we start our first round of Bowmore with: Bowmore 15yo 1989/2004 (58%, SSMC, C#6185). Bowmore 32yo 1968 (45,5%; OB, 1860bt)
Bowmore 38yo 1964 Oloroso (42,9%; OB, oloroso cask, 300bt)
Grassy perfumes, with some vegetal aromas. Very pure and elegant. The palate is more difficult as it is more austere, almost lean,
with a powerful alcohol. After some time, beautiful floral/herbal notes comes from the glass: violets, dill, peppermint, green tea. Good finish, with some bitterness. Very nice start for me, but inconsistent ratings.
Scores:
O:89 S:82 L:91 J:74
Well, it didn't took us long to go to some serious examples of Bowmore, thanks to Luc! This version has a gold, brilliant colour. The
nose is, oh yes, so typical of this distillery in 1968: passion fruit, sweet melon, candied fruits… Extremely delicate and elegant. Almost like a wine ! Fabulous complexity. Scores: O:92 S:91 L:93 J:87
Here the colour is more amber, almost with green edges. Intense pure oloroso sherry nose: raisins, fruit cake, oranges, petroleum wax.
Intense aromatics. The palate develops some tea, old oak, rose petals, eucalyptus, juniper, cinnamon… Needless to say: very
complex. Surprisingly, the mouth feels powerful, despite the low alcohol level. It actually creates a fabulous balance. Later in the
glass, there is some coffee/milk aromatics developing, and again, some light peat. Less dry than the 1968. Great Bowmore !
Scores: O:95 S:93 L:93 J:91
Johannes adds: Isn't she lovely? Isn't she beautiful?
After the Bowmore 1965 (50%, OB, Bottled 1980's, Italy, 'Pizzeria Malt') that also found its way to my heart via Italy this is only the
second expression of Bowmore ever to reach the legendary 'Close to Perfection' section of my Hit List.
Bowmore 38yo 1964 Bourbon (43.2%; OB, bourbon cask, 300bt)
Dark gold colour. Fruity aromatic nose at first: melons, bananas, caramelized sugar – and then more herbal notes: green vegetal,
heather. It is less immediately appealing and complex than the oloroso cask. The palate is sweeter with a great middle mouth. The
peat is easier to identify on the palate, but remains subdued, with ginger and, like the 1968, the signature passion fruit aromas. It is a
whisky playing 'hide and seek' with our tastes buds. Fabulous finish: eucalyptus/menthol. Perfect structure.
Scores: O:95 S:92 L:95 J:83.
Serge adds: I believe Johannes was getting a bit tired when we had these ones.
Perhaps it's been too hard for him to hear the Belgo-French alliance talking in French…
Johannes adds: Nah, Serge - I wasn't getting tired just yet I think...
If you ask me this is just further proof of my inability to become very excited about 'neutral' bourbon matured malts.
Bowmore 37yo 1964 Fino (49,6%; OB, fino cask, 300bt)
Deep gold colour. Now we are really entering the magic Bowmore! Fabulous nose: passion fruit, kumquat, kiwi, and… warm peat. This is
Bowmore aromatics at the best, amplified to the maximum. There is no sherry interfering with the purity of flavours, quite amazing.
After the fruits, comes the floral notes: lily of the valley, roses… The palate is very complex, developing fresh vanilla aromas, pears,
small plums and eventually a complex mixture of sherry and peat. This whisky associates both positive characters of the two previous ones, but with more intensity, power and greater length.
Scores: O:97 S:94 L:97 J:88
.
Luc adds : This whisky is still my absolute favourite one… an awesome whisky that has everything you would expect from a true masterpiece. Lovely fruitiness, lovely gently peatiness, a fantastic creamy taste of fruit, peat and a wonderful finish. Only the nose is like a Novel, the aroma's come to you like turning the page from a book…. Every page gives you something extra. Too bad this one is soo expensive.
Serge: yes, a stunner, the best of them all. These old fino casks weork well on Islay, don't they?
Think of the stupendous casks they still have at Ardbeg's, remember we tasted some there and in Limburg.
So much subtler than oloroso, I think!
Johannes adds: Erm.... 'The best of them all', Serge? I beg to differ!
The Oloroso matured version is without a doubt my personal favourite of the trio.
And this is no 'incident' - I've found that I tend to enjoy malts matured in Oloroso sherry casks more than those matured in Fino
casks. But hey - to each his own. But this looks like further evidence for my 'wine whimps' (or, if you will, 'beer barbarians') theory.
Bowmore 'Black' 1964/1995
(49%, OB final edition)
Dark amber colour with almost green edges. It boasts a powerful nose, full with nutty flavours, roots, light vegetal peat and raisins. It
shows typical Bowmore character, but the dark sherry overpower the flavours. The mouth is characterised with burnt/toasty wood,
coffee, mocha, leather. After a while, it shows walnut/chestnut cream aromatics. Very interesting malt, but it suffers slightly after the
fantastic fino cask. The finish is very round with a great power. There are tannins (walnuts skins), but were expected on such a whisky. Always exciting to sample such legends!
Scores: O:93 S:91 L:92 J:89.
* A Lesson in Modesty
We can only agree to this, and to prove it, Mr Zagatti serves us a:
Next day, we drove to Valentino Zagatti's home.
His collection is fabulously impressive, and, of course, we spent a
lot of time looking at the bottles displayed on all the walls around us.
In the 1960's, Mr Zagatti decided to stop smoking, and with the little
savings he was making, he decided to buy whiskies. This is how his
passion for whisky started and grew into an unbelievable collection.
Johannes adds: Unbelievable indeed!
And what's even more unbelievable is that Mr. Zagati can find all
his bottles 'blindly'. (Mr. Zagati is 100% visually impaired.)
After a while, we were invited to sit around Mr Zagatti's dining
room table. Standing up at one end, he started to tell us his
philosophy on whisky and immediately we understood the passion
that lives in this very modest man. "Distilleries do not make the
same quality of malts today, they standardize everything and
the whiskies loose their qualities and character!"
Pure Highland Malt from Speyside 12yo (70° proof, G&M for Harrods, dist late 60's).
We all look at the bottle with surprise, especially as we see a very dark/amber colour filling our glasses. The nose shows profound and
highly complex sherry notes, sweet caramel/brown sugar. What a fabulous nose. Unbelievable to think that this is only 12yo, there has to be older whiskies in here! Sweet, creamy, delicious palate. Round finish, quite amazing. We all loved it.
How many of us would have looked at this bottling and thought that it would have been that good!
Scores: O:90 S:90 L:92 J:89. First lesson of modesty: do not snob the lesser known labels.
Serge adds: well, Harrods is (who said was?) a luxury brand name.
I'm sure they select(ed) their whisky with much care…
Mr Zagatti leaves the room and comes back with an un-opened bottle of:
Highland Park 8yo (43%, OB, Sea label, 1960's distillation, Ferreratto import)
In front of us, he unscrews the cap and serves us a large dram: second lesson of modesty: share your bottles with good friends.
The colour is dark gold. The nose is delicate and refined, at first quite austere, but as the whisky breathes, it shows beautiful grassy
flavours, herbs, fennel, heather and very subtle sherry. More air amplifies the heather, fern, moss character. The palate is elegant,
not very powerful, but highly pleasurable. The finish is slightly dry, showing some cabbage, vegetal flavours and again light heather, iodine and an almost salty aftertaste. Not as spectacular as the 12yo, but still extremely interesting.
Scores: O:89 S:85 L:86 J:87.
* 4 maniacs against Bowmore: Round 2
Back at our hotel, after visiting Giovanni Giuliani collection in the afternoon and sampling some excellent Sangiovese at lunch time, we
started Bowmore round 2. An uninteresting Dunglas 5yo and a very exciting Alloa Grain from JWWW opened up our senses. Bowmore 14yo 1989/2003 (58,9%, SMWS, cask 3,88)
Bowmore 15yo 1989/2004 (46%, SigV for MW Paris, cask 6186, La Préceptorie finish) Bowmore 1984 (58,8%; OB)
Nice start! Gold colour, the nose is showing interesting coffee/mocha aromas. Surprisingly aromatic, with some nice peat in the
background and the classic fruity, pineapple Bowmore aromatics. The palate is quite powerful, great length (bananas, doughnuts flavours). Good overall intensity, Luc liked it a lot. Scores: O:87 S:85 L:91 J:86.
Humm, some French influence here ! The casks used to make this finish come from a winery located in the Roussillon (south of France,
near Spain) where they produce Banyuls. This is made the same way as Port and the wines are very rich, sweet and dark in colour. No
wonder that the colour is slightly pink. The nose is weird, showing heavy wine character, not really interesting at first. Then, after
some time, it shows melon, strawberry aromas. I guess some people like this style! The palate feels powerful, strong peat, but I
wonder where has the distillery character gone ? The structure is good, the aromatics do not feel right for Bowmore.
Scores: O:82 S:81 L:88 J:81.
The colour of this one is gold, almost amber. The nose is cheesy mixed with sherry, apples, ripe fruits (like cooked pears). Some faint
sulphurs. The alcohol is very heady, making my nose feel like an alembic at beginning of distillation. There is peated barley on the
palate with some green vegetal character. Not really complex. The alcohol feels again very powerful, sharp, unbalanced. Finish is strong, but the soapy character starts to show up: time to move to the next one, sadly.
Scores:
O:72 S:59 L:63 J:60.
Luc adds : Bah indeed, this one is really awfull.
Who ever decided to bottle this one ? This is bad advertising.
Serge adds: I think there was a FWP on the nose…
Whacky stuff, that's for sure. Avoid at any cost!
Johannes adds: Yeah! That's right, Serge! Now that you mention it, this was a good 'FWP' example.
However, just like Olivier I experienced the 'FWP' more on the palate than in the nose.
My tasting notes are quite brief: 'Perfumy with some peat. Nothing else to tell, really...'
If Bowmore produced just one batch of this bottling it might be a good 'benchmark' for FWP.
Bowmore 17yo 1976/1994 (52,9%; SMWS, cask 3,18) Bowmore 16yo 1972
(43%, sherry wood, cask 1036-1039, The Prestonfield) Bowmore 22yo 1965 (43%, The Prestonfield, cask 47, sherry wood)
Nice yellow colour. The nose is classic pineapple, passion fruit. Very typical bold fruity style Bowmore. Beautiful aromatics, and quite
intense. The palate lives up to the expectations from the nose: great structure. The finish is dry, but in a good way, giving a nervous style to the palate. Scores: O:88 S:87 L:91 J:84.
Dark gold colour. There is fruit, smoke and light peat on the nose, associated with some complex sherry character: light cream, rose
water, pineapple… The nose is enjoyable, unfortunately, the palate lacks some intensity for better scoring. It is an easy drinking malt, very agreeable finish, one dimensional, with a medium length.
Scores:
O:83 S:87 L:86 J:88.
Dark gold colour again. The nose is much more powerful and complex, with this typical Bowmore fruity style. Wow! The intense
aromatics dominate the peat and the sherry, and that is a 'tour de force'. The palate is very pleasurable, quite dry, without this
sweetness often associated to sherry casks. Great Bowmore! Complex, Turkish delight, nougat, honey/almonds. Delicate light peat/heather. Fabulous bottle. Scores: O:94 S:94 L:93 J:92.
Serge adds: yeah, fabulous early work by Andrew Symington.
Johannes adds: Yup, I'd have to agree here!
I gave it 92 points, which makes it the highest scoring work by Andrew so far, together with the Braes of Glenlivet 15yo 1979/1995
(60%, SigV, Butt #16040, 1200 Bottles). And you may know that I'm quite 'stingy' when it comes to scores; I hand out my points like they were Euro's...A score of 92 points is very impressive in my book.
And this was also my last dram of the evening - I had my fill...
Bowmore 30yo 'Sea Dragon' (43%, OB)
Dark gold colour. Typical perfumy aromatics from the 1960's at Bowmore. Beautiful and classic passion fruit aromatics. There is some
peat developing after a while, especially on the finish. Smoky, fruity, elegant with a powerful palate, dry medium finish but intense
aromatics (apricots). Hints of sherry influence (?), light bitterness that gives structure to the finish. Great classic OB.
Scores: O:93 S:91 L:91.
Serge adds: we had the latest bottling of this one later on at Whisky Live London 2005 (for Asia).
Certainly duller (84 points) but the first ones were great.
Bowmore 36yo 1966 (42%, Peerless, cask 3311, 158bt) Bowmore 38yo 1957 (40,1%, OB, 861bt)
The nose was so intense that I forgot to comment on the colour of this whisky! Absolutely incredible fruitiness: tangerines, pink
grapefruits, kumquats, old Riesling (according to Serge), pears. Very noble palate, showing some reduction (bananas pancakes, icing
sugar, white truffle and some light sulphurs). The finish is very long, showing again hints of H2S on the retro-olfaction.
Scores: O:92 S:89 L:91.
Dark gold. Beautiful subdued tropical fruits, delicate tangerine and pineapple. The nose feels very profound and complex, with maritime
influence.The palate is surprisingly powerful for this age and lower strength: great depth, with burnt sugar/crème brulée character.
Definitely Bowmore in style. The palate opens up towards herbal tea aromas, bee wax, light grassy flavours. The power of this whisky
is startling, certainly enhanced by some wood influence (bitterness, tar) that also bring a certain austerity and add to the overall
sensation of richness. Honey, 'old furniture', resinous at the end. And then pepper, sea, dry figs, Mirabelle… lets just say that it is utterly complex ! Scores: O:93 S:93 L:94.
Luc adds: Yes, 94 points for me. This one is legendary, so complex and so well balanced again.
Misses perhaps some oomph (like Serge's puts it so nicely) to be as good as the 1964 Fino.
We all left Italy with a few more bottles in our suitcase and wonderful memories, heading for a certain little Swiss town...
Serge adds: Yeah, Zurich… But before that I must say I've been most pleased to find a full wooden case of old Clynelish 5yo at Whisky Paradise. I had planned to keep it closed but Sukhinder told me I should open it to check the levels and give the caps a new twist if needed. So, I just opened the case and guess what? All six bottles were 'perfect from Perfect's'!
Johannes adds: Ahah! So, the cat's out of Shrodinger's box, so to speak!
I think Olivier, Luc and me all agreed you wouldn't be able to keep your three resolutions; 1) not to tell anybody about your secret
treasure, 2) not to open the case and 3) not to empty the bottles. You already failed w.r.t. resolution 1 and 2. How long until you crack open a bottle and we see the results on WF? ;-)
* Whiskyship Zurich 2004
The organisation is very close to Whisky Live, except that the event is organized on mid size boats anchored on Zurich harbour (yes,
Zurich is located at the end of a big lake). There is no need to develop in detail each whisky tasted there (44 in total!), but I would like to share the notes of the most special ones tasted that afternoon: Springbank 32yo
(46%, OB, bottled 2004) Highland Park 25yo 1979 (46%, MMcD Mission 4, 750bt, American Hogshead)
Bruichladdich 35yo 1968 (40,7%; OB, Legacy 3, 100% American oak) Longrow 25yo 1974 (46%, OB) Lochside 14yo 1989/2004 (50%, OMC, 331bt) Ardbeg 28yo 1972/2001
(49.5%, OMC, 222bt) Springbank 21yo (46%, OB, dumpy bottle, imported by Sestante, 75cl) Bowmore 7yo (43%, OB, 1960's, Sherriff, Cogis import Milano)
Yellow colour. Very young nose, pure aromatics, very complex: vegetal, grassy, herbs, hay… The palate is elegant, medium power with
a beautiful dry purity. Classic distillery character (with no sherry nor peat!). More power on the finish. 93 points
We tasted three Mission 4 series (this one, a Clynelissh 28yo 1976 and Glen Spey 30yo 1974). All three were beautiful whiskies.
The HP has a gold colour. Beautiful aromatics: very heathery, slightly burnt character. Elegant palate, enjoyable, perfect balance. Lots of floral character and some fruits on the finish (pears). Very nice ! 91 points
Gold colour. Pure nice vanilla nose, flowers, lily, caramel flan. Slightly herbal palate, great maritime influence. Surprising power for the
age and strength ! Good punch. All in complexity, interesting phenols on the finish. Dry and complex like a well aged wine ! 93 points
Luc comes around, with his usual creepy smile when he found something good and wants you to guess what it is… Beautiful nose:
round, sweet, fruity, fabulous peat/vegetal, so complex! The palate almost feels soft, medium round palate. The aromatics are
unbelievable. Refined peat, fabulous finish. The power comes at the end, wet smoke, humus, almost earthy…. Another good one ! 94 points
This whisky came as a complete surprise and is certainly well worth seeking for. The nose is very intense, grassy, so packed with
floral/herbals aromatics. Pure, relaxing and so elegant. The palate develops more fruits, melon, perfumes, exotic fruits, orange marmalade…. As most OMCs, great finish: long and powerful. 92 points
Yeah yeah… you all know the story about this one now.
No need to say much about it: bloody good Ardbeg! 95 points
Amber colour. Sweet maritime nose, beautiful and complex, showing raisins, fruitcake, rich unctuous honey. It looks like only the good
part of the sherry went into this whisky ! Perfect balance, medium power but long finish (cream, vanilla cake…). Fabulous ! 94 points
Beautiful Bowmore character: passion fruit, pineapple, exotic fruit, but blended with fabulous peat. Amazing aromatics for a 7yo bottling. WOW! Fantastic palate, long finish. Not really powerful, but very intense. 97 points.
Luc adds : 97 points for me too.
Not as intense perhaps as the 1964 Fino, but this one is soo refined, so delicate, simply an amazing whisky.
Springbank 12yo 100 Proof (57.1%; OB Samaroli Import, Sherry wood, 2400 Bottles)
The reputation of this whisky has gone around the globe by now, unfortunately! The colour is dark gold. The nose is quite woody at
first, but extremely powerful and complex. No, utterly intense and complex, there is basically no word to describe it. There are smells
of ripe apples just fallen off the tree, sharp, walnut oil, truffle and classic raisins… Humm, this is perfect sherry influence. The mouth is
divine, so powerful. There are tannins there, but they are well balanced and add to the structure. Great and WOW big time. We kept
this whisky in our glasses, well filled up, for hours after the fair, and the aromatics kept developing and change. Amazing! More raisins,
mocha, coconut, bananas, caramel, figs, coffee, smoke, light peat… I hope to be able to try something as good as this once again ! 98 points.
Serge adds: you're right Olivier, maybe we shouldn't have written about this stunning Springbank on our websites, as the prices have
been raised insanely since our first notes by some merchants. Anyway, I recall I still had some of it in my glass when I went to bed
around 2 or 3 in the morning (my memories are a bit fuzzy), which means three hours or so after it was poured. I was still developing, and I decided to swallow the rest so that I could sleep! Here are my notes for this one:
Springbank 12yo 100 Proof
(57.1%, OB, imported by Samaroli, early 80's, 2400 bottles) Colour: deep amber.
Nose: extreme beehive, wax, propolis, old papers… Mirabelle jam, quince jelly… absolutely brilliant. Bold, coating… Gets then quite
smoky, with some mocha. Then banana flambéed, coconut… Then some high-end wine (great old Pomerol – no, not just any
merlot)… Then chicory… Then lots of pineapple liqueur, Malibu, old Muscat wine. Really breathtaking. Gets then buttery, with some
crème brulée… Hay jam, apricot jam… Just an endless development. Mouth: so extraordinarily bold! Almost pungent, after more
than 20 years in its bottle. All sorts of jams, orange, crystallized kumquats. Lots of spices, nuts, smoke, herbs… I could go on for
hours. S-T-U-N-N-I-N-G. Second go after some breathing, one hour and a half later, from the very same glass (no refill!): the nose
gets quite similar to a very old Sauternes or a Sélection de Grains Nobles (by Zind-Humbrecht, no need to say). Raisins, quince jelly,
very old rum. The mouth is still very strong: old Port, grilled beef, balsamic vinegar… even some Japanese sake! A complete catalogue of aromas and flavours. Yes, this one is well a 'Grand Cru', or a Malt King! 98 points (record!)
Luc adds : what more can I say…..thank goodness I still have a bottle of this fabulous nectar. A 98'er for me as well. But Mr. Whiskyparadise still has got lots of bottles of this one for sure….. "to drink or to collect" that is the question...
Johannes adds: Blasted!!! I missed that one.
To tell you the truth I had a very bad nose day and really couldn't pick up anything useful after my first dozen drams. My personal
favourite aspect of 'Whiskyshiff' was that you could withdraw with your dram to the rear of one of the ships whenever the crowd
became to crowding... I've written before about the fact that I'm not a festival person and I have a hard time suppressing my
disdain for the rest of mankind under the best of circumstances. In this case the circumstances were hardly 'the best' - not all of
the guests were able to 'hold their liquor' with dignity and you often had to fight your way through a crowd to reach the counter of a
certain distillery or bottler. Especially reaching the Edradour / Signatory stand was nigh impossible - maybe because the Symington
brothers and Ian Henderson all showed up in full force. Every time I bumped into Andrew on the smoking deck he invited me to try
some of his new concoctions and every time I wandered near his stand the public was lining up three lines thick before the counter.
So, I wandered off to the solitude of the rear decks on more than one occasion to get reaquainted with the inner hermit in me.
Enjoying a fine malt becomes even more enjoyable when you're sitting on a comfortable deck chair, overlooking a moonlit lake Zurich and allowing the sound of the gentle waves to lull you into a semi-slumber.
Some nice relaxing moments before we would head off to Alsace the next morning for a...
* Farewell Dram
Glen Mhor 10yo
(43%, OB, rotation 1972 for Moccia Ferrara) Okay, I bought some Hp at Whisky Paradise, and one bottle was meant for drinking soon, as the level was slightly lower in the bottle:
taking Mr Zagatti lesson #2, the bottle gets opened: Highland Park 19yo (43%, OB, imported by Ferraretto Milan, dumpy green bottle, J. Grant)
We did ask Mr Zagatti about his favourite drams, and amongst other one, he indicate this Glen Mhor 10yo bottling. We couldn't resist
getting a bottle from the Whisky Paradize, and we opened it on our return to Alsace. The colour is gold. The nose shows dry malt and
apples. The palate is rich, nice intensity. This is not a powerful whisky, but it compensate a moderate palate with beautiful herbal,
fresh grass, mint, peppermint, hint of dust and waxy aromatics. It is like a field with lots of flowers. Light dryness on the finish, due to the age ? The finish is light, in a delicate style. Perfect flavours. Beautiful and easy to drink.
One regret: could have a little more umpf.
Scores: O:89 S:85 L:88 J:79.
Dark amber. Lots of nuts, walnuts, dried almonds on the nose, quickly changing into camphor, wax, old furniture, crème caramel. Very
soft nose, fabulous and elegant, not pungent. The palate shows more pepper, hay, heather (HP benchmark character), vegetable
(leeks, cauliflowers), brown sugar. Surprising palate, quite punchy, rich middle palate and good length. Starts slowly, and develops with time. Hint of complex smoke. O:94 S:94 L:91 J:90.
Luc adds : Olivier, I think I should retaste this one at my next visit to the Alsace.
I'm sure the Sunday morning/noon effect was bigger thus resulting in a too low score for this one…
And besides making lovely wines, Olivier is quite a cook. Thanks for that superb lunch, Olivier, you're a fine host.
Should I be planning our Maniacs Forza Italia Second Edition ?
Johannes adds: Aaah... Well, I loved it - both this farewell dram and the whole trip.
I'm not an avid traveller, but tripping together with these three other maltheads was just great!
Furthermore, this trip allowed me to make a final big sprint to my 1000th malt.
Serge, Olivier and Luc: thanks for a brilliant time!
That's all, folks!
Olivier Humbrecht
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #15/02 - Certain Elements from My Childhood
Submitted on 01/06/2005 by Michel van Meersbergen, Holland
Limburg Whisky Fair 2005 thru the eyes of a first-timer... Almost all of us can remember their childhood moments of extreme joy and egoism.
Somewhere in February I was enjoying oysters with a dram of Ardbeg Very Young 'for discussion' together with Huub, member of the
Dutch malt circle 'Het Genietschap'. During the small talk I asked him if he was going to Limburg. No plans yet, however he heard some
good stories about the festival. Not to be compared with the festivals in Den Haag or Leiden, old stuff, new stuff, exotic stuff, things
like that... We made the arrangement to go. Some days later another friend, Dirk decided to join us for the trip. Dirk runs a small
whisky store in Haarlem and is the type of guy who has a very relaxed view on things like whisky. A true veteran, not easy to impress
with an old Ardbeg, but you can touch his heart with a solid made low end of the scale bottle. 'If a cheaper bottle has that something
special, why look further?' No need to say he's light years ahead of me... Previous experiences with masterclasses on festivals made us decide to happily miss them, sampling whisky would be the focus this time.
Things got quiet 'till a few weeks ago. Some of the serious to very serious whisky loving guys I met that week were buzzing about
Limburg. Are you going Michel? Yes I'm going. Have you been there before? No, this is my first time. Ha, prepare yourself then! Make
sure you bring enough money and make absolutely sure you'll be Dutch! Why's that? Just make sure you keep your hand on your
wallet, don't get carried away! They were serious, they were telling me things, they got enthusiastic, they were using me as a
reflector to warn themselves for terrible things to happen. What is this? You can understand I started imagining things, it would be
something special, something big, something I would not be disappointed about, something that was just behind my imagination. Leaving home at Saturday morning 5:15 is bound to be funny.
Well, 4 and a half hours later we knew, because we were about to enter the festival.
Let's continue this first round, and for example, hang my coat at the cloakroom. Right, there is one, but it is unguarded. Not so clever.
Whoo, where is this stenchy vanilla/custardy smell coming from? Ahh, the stand in front of me is not only selling cigars, but pipe
tobacco as well. Apart from a whisky festival this seems to be a little pipe tobacco festival as well. I like my cigarettes, the occasional
cigar and even the smell of burning pipetabacco from a not to far away distance, but this time I had to cut my way thru smoke
generated by a single guy who clearly had such a good time sucking his 'piece of wood set on fire with dried leaves' I could not resist feeling happy for him and retreated to the second floor to get some fresh air.
The air quality upstairs was much better, now I could breath again only to find out that my breath was taken away by the view I had.
It felt like a dream. Stand after stand after stand pilled with antique, exotic, extremely hard to get whiskies, bottles I was about to
classify as Urban Myths, 'perhaps for others but not for me'. Wow! The fact I could not get rid of my coat was starting to annoy me.
By the time I started to get desperate Bert from Dutch Connection said it was okay to put it behind their stand. It was only fair to
start off with a dram from his collection. Huub spotted an old bottle on Bert's table, the label starting to fade away, let's give it a try!
Springbank 21 years (46%, OB, Dumpy, '70's) Colour: light amber. Nose: ah, the tell tale signs of an old malt: ammonia, continuing to
fresh coconut, fruity towards peaches, dates evolving to salty overtones, subtle smoke, cedar wood, glycerine and old rum. Very nice
indeed! This is the nose I was expecting from all the stories I heard about 'old fashioned Springbank'. Palate: Salty attack, fruity,
digestives, some bitter malts, hints of coal smoke and some white pepper. It's also becoming a little bit dry. Finish: Dried prunes, very
long, dried seaweed en passion-fruit, now it's becoming very dry. As time goes one the dryness grows and grows and becomes sticky
and flimsy. I started at 92 points but finally settled for 86pts. As I understood this bottle was opened about a month and a half before, I'm afraid oxygen has taken its toll on this bottle. Too bad.
Okay, let's try to recover with Highland Park 38 years may 1966 - mar. 2005 (42.4%,Duncan Tailor for Limburg Whisky Festival 2005,
cask #4641, 168bts). Colour: Deep gold. Nose: Subtle heather, resin, thyme oil, vanilla butter, nice round woody feeling evolving to
liquorice, paraffin, wax, orange, cinnamon and hints of smoke. Palate: It kicks off very neutral, it has some late smoky and waxy
notes, short and simple. Finish: This is better, some nice chamomile, Turkish delight, dried pineapple, pine resin, but somewhat turning
to over infused tea and stamps, becoming drier and drier. Oh dear. 84 pts. I'm fully aware of old whiskies fading away in your glass,
it's an art, like old wines, when just poured it's there but 2 minutes later it's completely gone. You just have to be quick. I expected the Highland Park to have a little bit more stamina. It just wasn't there. Hence the score...
Well, let's re-recover with Talimburg (Talisker) 32 years oct. 1972 - mar. 2005 (45,2%, DL OMC for Limburg Whisky Festival 2005, cask
#1568 - ƒ rum, 156bts). When I found out that there was a Talisker among the festival bottlings I was sure I wanted to have this
bottle. When I found out it had a rum finish I was sure I wanted to try it first. Colour: deep gold. Nose: Wooh! Hefty iodine and green
tea followed with some more subtle tones of smoke, pepper, peat, moss and parsley. Palate: Tangy over infused tea, tropical fruits,
durian and some sweet smoke. Finish: Loads of dry peat and very sticky turning to salmiac. Very disappointing. 81pts. Cask #1568
was clearly exhausted. The rum finish was just able to keep the nose alive but nothing more than that. Difficult to understand why it was bottled, not difficult to understand I didn't buy the bottle.
Right! Three malts scoring below par. Standing at our table we were looking sad wondering what we did wrong this morning. On top of
that we had a German bloke who thought it was a great idea making conversation with pipe smoke signals. Govert, a Dutch Malto
Freako saw us and asked what was wrong. We told about our shaking start of this festival and he pushed us towards the collection of
Jack Wieber, a small independent German bottler with some casks of his own or otherwise prebottled whiskies brought out under his
own label. The expressions from Wieber I had so far were very good so why not find out what his other expressions are all about?
According to Govert we should start with the Caperdonich 39 years 1966 - 2005 (48.3%, JWWW 'Scottish Castles' cask #859) Colour:
deep gold. Nose: hmm nice. Waxy with some turpentine, fresh hazelnuts, hints of pear drops evolving to bush honey and vanilla,
slightly oily. Palate: nice and fruity start, orange, nutmeg becoming sharper with time, this is where the wood kicks in. Horseradish and
some salty licorice. Finish: orange infused fudge and some late hints of smoke, a little bitter. 87pts. Not too complex for sure,
considering its age and pedigree however I was very impressed. After 39 years in the cask it appeared more 'alive' compared to lots of
'officials' at 18 years of age. This thought kept me from severe devaluation because of the rather sharp wood.
Somewhat pulling ourselves together from the 'faulty three experience' we decided to investigate Wieber a little bit further with the
Glen Ord 39 years feb. 1965 - nov. 2004 (41%, JWWW 'Old Train', cask #1373 - bourbon). Colour: deep honey. Nose: To get lost in.
Endless deep and subtle. The softest of sulphur, nutmeg, fresh ginger, lime, overripe bananas, leather, fireworks, pineapple gelly and
wonderful spicy undertones. Just great. Palate: Nice interplay between citrus and fudge, passion-fruit, hints of sweet smoke and
polished leather. This is so good! Finish: Very clean vanilla, now it's time for some bourbon wood, sweet butter, citrus, lemon and a
soft cinnamon 'burn'. I won't waste time and give it 94 pts right now! This is why we were here for. If I had to distil this note to a single word it would be 'Subtle'. Truly great stuff. The subtleness and harmony was really something special.
We had a taste for the old stuff and had a go at the Tomatin 42 years 1962 - 2004 (41.7%, JWWW 'Auld Distillers', 73bts). Colour:
deep gold. Nose: Very big. Lemon, honey, peaches, orange zest and develops towards cake dough. Very fresh considering it's age!
Palate: Very subtle feel, white pepper en goes on with wine gums, vanilla, salted butter and spicy mandarin. Quite some wood but
never on top of things. Finish: some tar, citrus is quickly to follow, now the wood surfaces but stays at the buttery end of the scale.
Very nice. 90pts. Again a Wieber bottle you have difficulties believing you're drinking a whisky over 40 years of age. Looking at the
number of bottles from this expression I can only guess this is a prebottled one. No matter where it's coming from, I think it's a good
case of 'I don't care what distillery name is on the bottle, I like the contents and I want to put it on the market' Rightly so!
Happy and grinning we were standing at our table. Govert jumped with lightly feet in front of us. This might be nothing special but
considering his tallness and 'ring of selfconfidence' at bellyhight there must have been something special going on. Here try this! A tiny sniff from the glass made us quite sure we wanted to try it as well.
This one was coming from Mr. Wieber's private stock: Longmorn 1964 - 1983 (46%, Samaroli, 180bts). Colour: Cadmium yellow. Nose:
Organics redefined. Pure freshly sliced mushrooms, very intense and very extreme. I've never encountered this! It goes on with
pleasant hints of diesel oil and coal smoke. Absolutely Oomph. Palate: Again mushrooms, very clean, nothing mouldy or dusty about it.
Unbelievable! It goes on with lime infused olive oil surrounded with some coal smoke. Finish: Just lovely passion-fruit and mango.
Simple but oh so effective. It freaks out an Ardbeg 10 OB. score: 91pts. So far this malt was the most difficult to 'judge'. The
mushrooms were overwhelming, to be honest, at first I had no idea what to think of it. And it was that what makes this malt so special to me. No way of putting my finger on it. It had its finger on me!
Hey, there are Dirk and Christel, long time no see. As said before, Dirk had other interests, old single grains for example, and some
promotional things to discuss with the Big Man behind Compass Box himself. Christel finally had her chance to try Ardbeg LoTI. She
must have liked it very much, she kept on buying samples of it... and even writing this piece, a 4ml sample bottle of it is standing in
front of me. Back to the festival. By this time we were getting tired of all this old bourbon wood and wanted to continue with some sherry wood. Wally the Super collector was willing to point out where to get:
Hazelburn 1997 cask #1 ??? cask sample @ 22-04-2005, 60% Colour: Light amber. Nose: Quite hefty, roasted nuts, lovage, walnut,
liquorice and smoky. I thought Hazelburn was intended as a complete smoke and peat less expression. Cask #1 has got to be charred!
Palate: Heaps of charcoal, sherry..., dried raisins and tropical fruits. Finish: Very sweet, again lots of charcoal and very warming.
Sharp might be the better word. Where to find the Hazelburn? 84pts. Nice sherry cask, no doubt, however I was more interested in
the character of Hazelburn spirit which was... err... just not there. Little bit disappointed in this one... And we've got this cask #1 I'm
not to sure about this, and there was some more disturbing information on the label: 230bts. Maybe someone can help me out on this
one. Well, sherry wood might not be the right choice at this moment. Back to Jack Wieber.Tamdhu 42 years 1958 - 2001 (40.8%,
JWWW 'Prenzlow Collection') Colour: Honey. Nose: Ohh, nice, coal smoke, lime, hints of anis seed, vanilla, sweet resin, peaches, lovely
subtle notes of black truffle, en dried rotten wood. Great balance! Palate: Starts of with bush honey, soft notes of peaches, ginger
and develops to coriander seed. Very nice, a little less balanced as it's nose. Finish has some nice pepper to start with, some greenish
malts and tannins. It grows sweeter with ginger syrup before developing to petrol and roasted salty almonds. Lovely old expression of
Thamdhu! 92pts. It kept itself from a higher score because of the finish. Complex it was, but also a bit disjointed...
You know... ehmm... Herr Wieber, what do you suggest? It turned out to be Pultney 39 years 2 nov. 1964 - 14 oct. 2004 (49.5%,
Monnier Trading, cask #1084) Colour: Medium gold. Nose: a little weird, earthy mandarin, vanilla, honey and some fireworks. Not too
complex but very clean, well balanced. Palate: Very nice liquorice, salmiac, peppery and spicy, apfelstrudel, pecan pie and again
vanilla. As with the nose, very clean, almost etheric feel. Finish: starts of with salmiac, vanilla, white pepper en roasted herbs, again a
clean taste and with a depth I can only describe as 'logical'. This malt has a certain something, not overwhelming, not very complex, but very clean en to the point, special mouth feel and is very well constructed. 92pts.
Enough with the Speyside dwellings, It's Islay Time!! Ardbeg 28 years oct. 1972 - march 2001 (43%, Silver Seal 'First Bottling',
280bts) Colour: Deep gold. Nose: Nice, refined and spicy bourbon wood, iodine, hints of rubber, green motes, camphor and bandages.
Palate: Starts off very austere, again, greenish and a nice interplay between peat, tar and warm fruits. Finish: Salted butter, green
malts and sweet liquorice. 91pts.It lacks the power I was expecting, but it brought me refinement instead, the perfect bridge between
the old Speysiders and the Islay violence which was about to start. It's very drinkable, has enough complexity to keep you focused and offers refinement. I think the points are well earned.
The next bottle was teasing me since the moment I reached the second floor. It's white label with stylish typography on it. Not
classy, but stylish in the context it was used. Name plus vintage dived thru bottler makes the second best Single malt I tried till this
day. Ardbeg '1974' 26 years 30 aug. 1974 - sept 2000 (50%, Kingsbury, bourbon hogshead - 278bts) Colour: Deep Honey. Nose:
Extremely powerful, almost overwhelming and breathtaking, lovage, smoke on top of very sweet peat, smoked spiced sausages, forest
floor and some white pepper, pure concentration! Palate: Again very strong sweet peat, espresso coffee, chocolate, honey, smoked
trout, beef stock and bay leaves. Finish: Wonderful honey, espresso, candied peel, burnt sugar, gingerbread nutmeg and other sweet
spices. All is carried by a lingering salty feel. Pure power, almost primitive fury! 97pts. This proofs bourbon casks can be on par with
the best sherry casks when it comes to mature Ardbeg spirit. A perfect beast that needs care and attention before showing off its relative charms. Mythical stuff, think of it as an ultra deep OB '1977' or LoTI on steroids and acid!
Well, why not go for another Kingsbury Ardbeg?
It does not stop here, there was a third Kingsbury bottle: Ardbeg '1973' 27 years 09 sept. 1973 - 2000 (47,4%, Kingsbury, 228bts)
Colour: Honey. Nose: Hefty charcoal, butter with a solid smoky fundament, tar, and subtle bay leaves, evolves to sharper smoke,
rubber and smoked ham. Palate: nice... Italian licorice, pine resin, pecan pie and some ammonia. Finish: Again hefty charcoal, bay
leaves, sea and tar turning into car tires. 94pts. Clearly the 'lesser' of the three. On the whole sharper and the charcoal was at some
point quite disturbing. We took some time to rehab from what just happened. Frolicking the premises our eyes caught what we thought would provide a worthy follow-up for the Kingsbury's:
Laphroaig 1976 Vintage (43%, OB) Colour: deep gold to honey. Nose: appears lighter than expected, lapsang souchon, vanilla,
seaweed, iodine and manzanilla wood/salt like notes. Palate: Ah.. that's better, mellow yet powerful, smoked fish, plants, nicely
integrated peat and tropical fruits. Finish: peaty and green notes... The Ardbegs were still playing cowboys and indians. My palate still
not recovered. I settle down for 90pts. I hope I'll get another chance to try the 1976 again in better conditions! After we located Dirk
and Christel we went for a small snack at the fair's 'restaurant'. Sampling 15 malts so far made me feel a little peckish so the small
snack turned out to be a huge Schnitzel. It tasted great and provided enough energy to continue sampling some sherried expressions.
Strathisla 34 years 1969 - 2004 (56.3%, JWWW 'Auld Distillers') Colour: Medium amber. Nose: Starts of with some musty raisins,
cherries, chocolate and some salmiac. A little simple. Palate: This is better. Again some chocolate, nutmeg, bay leave, liquorice, rum
raisins, burnt coffee en waxy honey. Finish: The waxy notes continue, polished wood, turpentine, burnt sugar/coffee extract. Again a
little simple. 87pts. Very enjoyable en well constructed. Considering it's age and the cask type it's coming from, the absence of any
excessive dryness helped it earnings it's points. Macallan 25 years 1978 - nov 2003 (57.3%, Silver Seal, 236bts) Colour: Dark amber.
Nose: Quite subtle. Coffee, chocolate, hints of mint en fresh hazelnuts and some hints of oranges. Nice cask! Palate: Burnt sugar,
chocolate powder, rye bread with marmalade, flowery notes on the background. Finish: Chocolate butter, salty mint, Guinness. I guess
my nose and palate are getting tired. It's beauty shines thru, no doubt about that. It lacks the tendency of becoming flat in taste and
finish, the common flaw of dark sherried whiskies. I think a score of 90pts does right to this very fine Macallan. I decided to have a last sample before calling it a day.
Time to have some dinner and finally do some checking-in at the Hotel! After a so so meal at a crappy Italian restaurant (never trust
a restaurant with the name 'Piccolo Milano' where waiters have this strange dialect that sounds like a pot pourri made from German,
Slavic, Italian, French and Spanish words) a twenty-minute walk got us to the hotel where we met Eric Frachum from the Usquebach
Society. He arrived later that day and was clearly in the mood for anther dram. He showed compassion and allowed us to fresh up a
little before comming back to the lounge to have a go at: Laphroaig 16 years mar 1988 - feb 2005 (50,1%, DL OMC for Whisky Fair
2005 - cask #1062 - refill sherry, 151bts) Colour: Bleached amber. Nose: Very young for a 16 year old. Spirity, milk acid, lots of
seaweed and green herbs, peat and smoke emerge, some sulphur, develops to dry hay, white pepper and cow stable. A little bland.
Palate: bitter, sour peat, sour resin, some coffee and green malts, tannic. Finish: Sweet start developing to coffee and strong milk
acid. The sour peat returns. A little bit too much at this stage of the evening. 83pts. This is the fourth OMC Laphroaig in a row that
cannot convince me. Is there anyone out there who has the same experience? It's not bad, that's for sure, but nothing special either. Lacking power and falling short on maturing.
Time to get myself some rest. I had one of the worst nights in my life. Mattress to drown in, blankets soo hot, and without them room
temperature so low, and a pillow, which almost strangled me. Two whole hours of sleep... man... I felt terrible. Not even the thought
of going to the festival shortly could lift the corners of my mouth. Once arrived I wasted no time. Perhaps a drop of alcohol would
make me feel better. What better way to get rid of your hangover with: Glen Garioch 1971 - 1988 (59.6%, Samaroli, 2280bts) Colour.
Medium amber. Nose: Ouch, very hefty and concentrated! Medicinal, smoky, raisins, beeswax, beef stock, brown sugar, sweet peaty
notes, wet ashes en some lovely wood. What a way to wake up! Palate: very intense, fatty raisins, dry smoke, waxy, espresso and
spicy overtones. Finish: Lots of vanilla, turpentine, beeswax, old rum, just a tad dry and fades away with quite some smoke. What a
beast! 94pts. You have to drink it to believe its concentration, almost perfect construction, it never goes over the top. Very, very impressive!!
At least I'm awake now. Let's have some coffee and a cigarette to get the blood pressure up. You know what? Let's have another
coffee! Cruisin' the festival and feeling a hell of a lot better I realized I didn't have single Lowlander this weekend. That's why this was
in my glass: Rosebank 15 years (61%, OB for Distillers Agency, 75cl, 70's?) Colour: Light cadmium yellow. Nose: Light and buttery, wet
cotton, lemon, grassy, almonds, gentian root and a flowery perfume. Palate: Lots of butter acids, intense citrus, vanilla, apple
compote, some time later even fresh lemon juice, but also some weird bitterness, gentian root.. Finish: Custardy, a bit heathery, and
again this bitterness. It's somewhere between fascinating and filthy, I don't no what to think of it... Apart from that it's a lovely dram.
85pts. I caught up with Huub at 'our' table. While we were making some sort of a strategy for the remaining day Govert joined and
suggested we should try this. By the looks of his face he was extremely happy with it: So were we...Highland Park 17 years (43%, OB,
Dumpy, 75cl, '70's) Colour: darkish amber. Nose: very oily, subtle smoke, sweet heathery peat, orange zest, subtle ashes and some
chocolate. Palate: oily coal smoke, again some chocolate, cherries, some marmalade, and spicy hay. Nice balance! Finish: Starts of
with honey, fruitic acids, sweet hay, liquorice and nutmeg. It starts of very well, after some time in the glass it starts to become thin
and hollow developing towards strawberry juice. To bad! If it had been able to keep itself together just a little bit longer the score
would be much higher. 90pts. Another case of a two months ago opened bottle? The HP's subtle peat ignited a taste for some more.
Not the heavy Islay stuff, no way, I've got a hangover, remember? It has to be something more delicate like: Longrow 15 years 1987 -
apr. 2002 (55%, Samaroli, cask #115 - 312bts) Colour: Medium gold. Nose: Nice and oily, smoky, olive oil, subtle and beautiful peat,
waxy and malty, samphire, oyster juice. Palate: Dark malts, slightly bitter, sweet tar, coal, now the smoke kicks in together with some
thyme. Finish: starting greenish and briny, sweet soft burn, and salty liquorice. Nice work Samaroli. The best Longrow so far! 92pts. Very good balance, clear and clean, showing all its facets in a seductive way.
Lets see what the next can do: Longrow 1987 - 1999 (45%, Samaroli 'Dreams', 967bts) Colour: Light gold. Nose: A little dusty, oily
and waxy, bay leave, eucalyptus, salt liquorice, hints of peat and smoke, faint fruity notes. Palate: Odd, gymnasiums (like sport
shoes, rubber, eucalyptus), plants, faint burnt rubber. Having said this, it is subtle. Finish: Salmiac, white pepper and subtle plants.
Weird expression this one. I liked it, although the gymnasium part was very strange. 89pts for this harmonious, light-hearted Longrow.
By now it was about time to leave for home. I decided to have another two samples: Ardbeg 25 years 1976 - feb. 2002 (50%, Silver
Seal, 146bts) Colour: Lots of refined bourbon wood, spicy, hints of nutmeg, green malts, subtle briny notes, smoke comming up
together with some sharp iodine. Faint underlayment of cooked apples. Palate: soft spices, subtle bay leave, hints of tar and vanilla,
slightly sour buttery. Finish: soft greenish malts, hints of peat, sea and nutmeg. 87pts. On the whole a little simple and weak. It really
misses out on a punch. None the less a very nice dram due to it's approachability. Glenury 20 years nov. 1980 - july 2001 (50%, Silver
Seal 'Missing') Colour: Dark amber. Nose: Very oily, raisins, coffee, nice integrated wood, oxidized fruits that made me think of marsala
wines, eucalyptus en buckwheat honey. Palate: heavy sherry, laid back and oily, buckwheat honey again, hazelnuts and mint leaves.
Very mellow indeed! Finish: Lots of chocolate and spearmint, as if you have brushed your teeth half an hour ago. 86pts. Pity of the (over)minty finish, and the (over)mellow palate. It reminded me of the Macallan 18yo/1985.
Time to go home! A four-hour drive on the backbench gives you some time to reflect the festival. Would you be surprised if I wrote it
was great? Thought so... I had a marvellous two days, have met very nice people, have cursed the pipe-smoking brigade, and was
fascinated by the German crowd. Whisky seem to appeal the alternative culture a lot more in comparison with the Dutch scene. And in
general, a lot of the attendees are younger in age as well! Clearly malts are not suffering from the 'Old Man's stigma' over there. Add
to that the fact I saw plenty of young women attending this festival on their behalf, seeing them drinking especially Islay malts, made
me think we have a lot to learn from our easterly neighbours. The only thing I would want to see different next year would be a guarded cloakroom!! But that's just a mere detail. The other 3 hours and 59 minutes I just enjoyed the landscape...
So, there you have it. Two days of feeling like a child in a toyshop, knowing your grandmother is beside you and you're gonna have it
all, because she loves you so much. And this time you know what to choose, oh yeah, no mistakes for this spoiled brad! Happy dramming! Michel van Meersbergen
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Blessed are those who can relive those moments every now and then. Cursed are those who lost the ability to get lost in a frenzy of
sheer hedonism and dare to say, from the heart, they enjoyed every singe second of it. Lucky are those who attended the 2005
edition of the Limburg Whisky Fair. Because it was them who had the chance to have an escapade into decadence. To sample the
best whisky has to offer to mankind and to get away with the best thinkable excuse: 'It was all there, I had no other choice than to
drink this 1974 Ardbeg bottled by Kingsbury, only alternative I had was a 1971 Glen Garioch by Samaroli and I tell you, it was filthy!' How's that to come home with?
I live in the city centre and to be confronted with people who just had to much alcohol but not enough to completely pass out,
crawling around like zombies, the newspaper boys, the street cleaning squat, the fruit and fishmongers starting to build up their
business at the marketplace, a certain serenity in the air, always a special experience. Picking up Dirk (he lost his stone faced curtain
by this time) some 15 minutes later, and Huub some 45 minutes later made us hit the road for Limburg at 6:30, a spectacular sunrise
and important, no traffic jams. How I love Dutch highways early in the weekend mornings, some fog over the fields, on our way to something we feel very excited about but have no idea what to expect from.
Luckily there was only a short cue in front of the festival hall so within 5 minutes we were standing inside the entrance hall and got
confronted with the first stand. That is to say the left side of it. Hmm, do I see a collection of classic malts? What is this? Don't get
me wrong, as said over and over again, it is a true reference, well kind of, but this was not the thing I expected over here. Ah, now I
get a clear view on the right side of the stand. Oh my God, a complete line up of Silver Seal's. You have to realize that Silver Seal is
not represented in the Netherlands. Buy them from the web, you say? Yup, that's no problem, however I implemented some elements
to protect myself and the relationship with my girlfriend when it comes to buying malts. One of them means no buying thru web shops.
A case of knowing thyself. Going on to the Ardbeg Lounge. Apart from the already infamous Serendipity (which is not bad, no notes taken, around 81pts.) nothing very special there.
Ardbeg '1972' 28 years feb. 1972 - july 2000 (49.2%, Kingsbury 'Handwritten' for Japan) Colour: Deep gold. Nose: Whaa, pure harbour
aroma's, sea, tar, smoke trout and pure vanilla pods. Deep and broad shouldered! Palate: It starts with a salty explosion, warming,
oysters, muddy sea floor, and licorice. All is hold together with vanilla. Perfect stuff, very subtle power. Finish: oily and sweet peat,
some wood kicking in, gravy, smoked fish and subtle charcoal. Again a powerhouse Ardbeg. 95pts. The 1972 has depth and sheer
power, although it stays below the surface - playing mind games with you, it 'lacks' the brutality and intimidation of the 1974.
It was comming from a distillery I'm starting to grow a soft spot for:Banff 24 years dec 1977 - jan 2002 (50%, Silver Seal 'Missing',
370bts) Colour. Deep gold, amber hue. Nose: That's nice! Spicy, peaches, banana, oily, develops toward almonds, bush honey and
ginger syrup. Palate: Lots of honey, pollen, apricot and goes on with vanilla butter and dried mandarin. Finish: Soft salted butter,
beginning to show some maritime character, resin, liquorice, green malts and honey like, fades away with soft bay leafs. A well
deserved 90pts! This is exactly why I like Banff so much. It's that kind of malt you enjoy comming home from work if you want
something tasty but not too demanding, if you want some more complexity from it, just give it some attention and you're there. A true hidden gem! I just could not resist buying a bottle. Kudos to Silver Seal!
E-pistle #15/03 - Feis Ile 2005; May 25 (First Prelude)
Submitted on 01/07/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
It's now almost a month since we said goodbye to Islay - about time to start reporting, eh? And so it begins... My book of choice was Jim Murray's 'Whisky Bible 2004'. I soon found out that Jim Murray's tastes must be very different from mine. But hey, like we say in Holland: 'ieder zijn meug'. The table shows a few widely available official bottlings; if you're not
So, the table offers quite an interesting perspective, doesn't it? So, how about those scores in Jim Murray's Whisky Bible? Are they useful? Of course, not everybody may use a book like Jim's 'bible' as a shopping guide, in which case it has its merits. Well, hold on.... I may just have experienced a change of heart...
But hey, here I go again, letting my train of thought run wild... JH We mostly agreed on the malts in this flight, only the Ben Nevis and Springbank 10yo produced significantly different scores. Actually.
in the case of the Springbank the difference isn't that significant (4 points) and in the case of the Ben Nevis it's quite easily explained
as well. Davin - an ex-barbarian like Klaus and myself - seems to have defected to the camp of 'the wine brigade' of maniacs who
know how to appreciate 'natural' (or, as I sometimes like to call them, 'neutral') malts matured in bourbon casks or heavily recycled
sherry casks. I'm an admitted sherry- and peatfreak myself - I like whiskies with lots of character and personality.
You can find an outline of Feis Ile 2005
in my Liquid Log, but here's a more detailed account of our adventures.
I've decided to dedicate a seperate E-pistle to each day of our trip; here you can find my report on day 1.
To 'spice things up', I'll add the comments of some of the other maniacs to the Feis Ile E-pistles.
The siren songs of the maniacs who had visited the Islay Festival before in
After scraping together the last of my savings I found myself on an Easyjet flight to Glasgow, where I would meet up with Davin to
form the core of a growing group of maniacs that would finally result in nine certified malt maniacs meeting on Islay. I had the foresight to bring some light reading along to help me pass the hours of waiting 'en route'.
I pulled it from my shelves as I was rushing out the door because (A) the size is
just perfect for traveling and (B) I simply hadn't read it yet since I picked it up at
my trip to
of occasions, but I never bothered to thoroughly investigate it after tripping over
the disastrous lay-out of the tasting notes and scores during my first few tries.
If only they would have bothered to lay out the text properly, finding the info you
want would have been just as easy as fitting this handy little guide in your pocket.
But as it is, keeping it in your pocket might be the best option anyway...
First of all, he seems to like blends just as much as, or even more than single malts.
That tells me right away that his tastes are different from mine - and most other maniacs.
Many regular malt drinkers get really passionate about the drink; most regular blend drinkers get... well... drunk.
Although I must have consumed the equivalent of an olympic sized swimming pool filled with blends during my student years, they
were consumed for that very purpose (getting drunk) and in hindsight I can't really say I enjoyed most of them a lot. But hey, given
the choice between a bottle of Grant's and a bottle of Blue Curacao, what would YOU pick? Grant's has at least twice as much alcohol
in it - not to mention the fact that it isn't blue. One notable exception is Teacher's - especially some older expressions like the 12yo
and the '60% malts' version with the black label offered very good value for money. I've tried some more blends that made me enjoy
myself (Original Mackinlay 21yo, Chivas Regal Royal Salute or Johnnie Walker Blue Label for example), but even these 'high end blends'
pale in comparision to fairly 'mainstream' malts like the Glenfarclas 15yo or Lagavulin 16yo - at least in my book.
Let's look at Jim Murray's scores for some fairly well known single malts then, shall we?
And let's look at Michael Jackson's scores as well while we're at it After all, it were discussions about the differences between the
scores from Michael Jackson and those of some malt maniacs that inspired us to build
an
So, it should be easy enough to quickly determine in which 'camp' you
find yourself; in la-la-land with Jim or in reality with the rest of us ;-)
Behind the malt you see four columns with the scores of respectively
Jim Murray, Michael Jackson, yours truly and finally the matrix average.
I should point out that a few of Michael Jackson's scores are 'missing'
because the latest version of his 'companion' on my desk was edition
number 4, released in 2000 - it doesn't feature some recent releases.
Later I received MJ's fresh scores for the Aberfeldy 12yo (76), Arran
NAS (73), Bruichladdich 15yo (80), Glenturret 10yo (76) and finally
the Springbank 10yo (83). In the latest edition his scores for the
Glen Old 12 jumped to 78 while Glen Scotia 14 dropped to 86.
Look at the Cardhu 12yo, for example - the version that preceeded
last year's vatted malt. Michael Jackson, the maniacs and myself all
put it in the lower 70's (below average), but Jim goes with 90 points.
The differences w.r.t. Dalwhinnie 15yo are quite staggering as well.
Jim's 94 points (in other words: a 'superstar whisky that gives us all
a reason to live') meets more lukewarm scores in the mid-70's from
Michael Jackson and most of the maniacs. OK, let's do another one.
The Glenmorangie 10yo gets another 94 points from Jim, versus more
modest scores around 80 points from Michael Jackson and our team.
What's that? One more you say? Very well; the Tullibardine 10yo.
Most people would agree this is no top shelf dram by any definition.
Yet Jim goes for 86 points - versus the maniacal scores in the 60's.
Have you tried these malts yourself? Well, you be the judge then.
Well, that depends. Unless you know to appreciate them for their absurdist quality or happen to have tastes identical to Jim's (in
which case you seem to be one of a select group of people) they are pretty much useless when it comes to actually helping you with
your shopping. Even though Michael Jackson's Whisky Companion isn't as friendly sized as this 'bible', the content actually makes
sense. Not so much the scores, mind you (even though they are often closer to the maniacal ratings than Jim's) - it's all the extra
information about the history, production and distilleries that makes it the most worn out whisky book on my shelves.
When I discussed some of my thoughts about the book with other people on Islay later on some said that they felt the 'bible' was
self-congratulatory and filled with innuendo. Well, to tell you the truth that aspect really didn't bother me that much and I certainly wouldn't call it 'tabloid whisky journalism'.... There are plenty of stuffy whisky books out there (the
'Moss & Hume' is hardly a vacation book for the beach, for example) and there should be room for more 'light weight' reading material that provides a smoother read. And
Jim's Whisky Bible is certainly smoothly written. So, I have to say I have no complaints whatsoever in that department.
Also, the price is quite friendly at just 9,99 pounds. So, all in all I think I sort if like it despite its 'flaws'.
Pretty much useless as a shopping guide, but a very entertaining read in itself.
I just visited the website (www.whiskybible.com) - or rather, the single page - after reading in the book that 'Jim will be regularly updating the site, filing reports about distilleries in his multi-award-winning prose ...'
. Well, as far as I could tell they haven't added or changed a single thing since the book was published in october 2003. It's still the same old tripe that was on there even before the
book came out and now that I read it again it does indeed seem a little self-congratulatory. Please join me for a chuckle: 'Jim Murray's
Whisky Bible is by far and away the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched guide to the world's whiskies ever written. No more than you would expect from the world's most famous whisky evangelist.'
Hah! That's rich! Even though Michael Jackson's 'companion' doesn't cover as much whiskies, the notes and scores for the whiskies that ARE featured are actually helpful - and you
get a lot more background information about the distilleries and whisky production to boot. And I'm guessing the title for 'world's most
famous whisky evangelist' would have to go to MJ as well - or maybe even our very own Charlie MacLean. As for the so-called 'multi-award-winning prose'... The web page finishes with: 'Being build (sic) now is the website to compliment
(sic again) Jim Murray's Whisky Bible.' Well, I'm quite sure Jim didn't write that (and I know MM is riddled with writing errors as well), but shouldn't a
professional whisky writer (or his editor) at least have checked and approved the text? Not only are there a few grammatical errors that are obvious to even a non-native speaker like myself - it's complete and utter bollocks to boot...
This is turning into a book review while I'm supposed to be reporting on our first day on Scottish soil.
I guess I've already told most of what there is to tell in
Here's a quick 'mini-matrix' of the drams we tried; check out my personal account for the tasting notes.
73 83 - Ben Nevis 11yo 1992/2003 (59.6%, Blackadder, Cask #687, Bourbon hogshead)
89 90 - Brora 22yo 1981/2004 (60.8%, Peerless, Cask#1426, 251 Bottles)
79 82 - Bruichladdich NAS 3D 'The Peat Proposal' (46%, OB, Bottled 2004)
84 85 - Bruichladdich 20yo 'Flirtation' (46%, OB, Second Edition, Bottled 2004)
89 92 - Bruichladdich 35yo 1968/2004 'Legacy III' (40.7%, OB)
90 90 - Clynelish 13yo 1990 (59.3%, Blackadder Raw Cask, Cask#3593, Sherry Finish)
86 87 - Macallan 10yo Cask Strength (57.2%, OB, 1 Litre Bottle, Taiwan, Bottled +/- 2004)
84 88 - Springbank 10yo 100 Proof (57%, OB, Bottled 2004)
Davin and I agreed that three out of the eight single malts we tried tonight had those in spades.
Admittedly, Davin and I are probably two of the most obsessive maniacs when it comes to numbers, but looking at the huge number of
people that check the matrix or the MM Awards results on a regular basis we're not the only ones that feel that scores are a useful
way of condensing the multi-media experience of sampling a malt whisky into two digits. Still, not all the maniacs feel the same way.
We have discussed the topic 'amongst ourselves' many times before, but as Davin pointed out in Glasgow, we haven't published
anything about our scores recently. So, before I start working on my report of our second day in Scotland (when we would visit Glengoyne and meet up with Serge and Olivier), here's a maniacal discussion about the scores we use.
The nose of the Brora 22yo 1981/2004
(60.8%, Peerless, Cask#1426, 251 Bottles) enchanted me from the start; full and sweet, but balanced with a surprising minty freshness. Richer and mellower after a while. Honey? Cider? At first it was sweet and peaty on
the palate, then it became saltier and fruitier. Interesting developing contrasts. A highly enjoyable (and recommendable) dram - as well as the Bruichladdich 35yo 1968/2004 'Legacy III'
(40.7%, OB) that managed to earn the highest score of the evening thanks to Davin's 92 points. I didn't go quite as crazy as Davin over it, but my 89 points still make it the best Laddie I've tried so far. As
highly recommendable as they come. The nose is very light but fragrant. Complex and accessible at the same time. Sweet with a
distinct 'antique' character that also identifies malts that have 'aged in the bottle'. Maggi. Really something else. It's fruity on the
palate - it actually feels just a tad thin after the amazing nose. There's some faint peat in the finish - a wonderful dram that was almost as great as the Clynelish 13yo 1990
(59.3%, Blackadder Raw Cask, Cask#3593, Sherry Finish) - in fact, Davin preferred the Laddie over the Clynelish by two points. Here are my notes: The nose had peat - and lots of it. In fact, this could very well be the
peatiest Clynelish I've tried so far. Sweetness and organics. Sweaty. Roasted coffee beans. Simply fabulous, although it loses some of
it impact over time. The taste was surprisingly potent as well; a punch of peat followed by an ultra dry finish. Those were the three
highlights, but the Bruichladdich 20yo Flirtation, Macallan 10yo C/S from Taiwan and the Springbank 10yo 100 Proof did very well with
scores well into the 80's. All in all, we were quite content with our 'work' after our first day in Scotland came to an end.
Maybe it will explain why our scores are so different from Jim Murray's ;-)
Sweet drams! Johannes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-pistle #15/04 - Ask an Anorak: How High Is The Sky?
Submitted on 01/07/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland
How high is the sky - and is it really the limit?
Johannes: So, what did Davin and I talk about on our first day in Scotland?
88.00 Krishna 81.83 Patrick 78.99 Klaus
Our flights? Sure. The crappy weather? Of course. The eloquent Glasgow bums? Naturally.
But most of all we talked about malts - and more specific the scores on the matrix and the monitor.
There'a an old saying: a number tells you more than a thousand words. (Wait a minute, is that right?) Never mind - Davin and I agreed
it was high time to pay some more attention to this topic in our next maniacal discussion. In fact, we already started a virtual
conversation about scores almost two years ago, but I never got around to publishing it. Things started with a message from Serge who sent us an overview of our average scores on the monitor, ranked from high to low.
Here's a rough overview of the situation at the time;
87.03 Louis 81.75 Craig 78.90 Matti
87.01 Michael 81.15 Roman 77.75 Davin
83.58 Mark 81.05 Serge 77.71 Johannes
Hmmm... Very interesting, Serge! That seems to prove that I'm the most conservative judge on the panel, no? I think scores are very important because they are all we have to directly compare our love for a malt.
Seen in that light, my average score is closest to 75 points, i.e. the 'best' average if you agree 75 points should be the score of the average malt. But then again, maybe we need a new system? Any thought on this?
Well, I should add that the average of all scores on the monitor at the time was 80.74, so my average scores are not THAT deviant.
Besides, I take much more pleasure out of sampling the occasional 'bottom shelf dram' - sometimes I even actively seek them out. In
my quest to try at least 3 different versions from each distillery, I've been known to buy quite a bunch of mediocre bottles. In fact,
my limited budget prevents me from buying anything too extravagant - and I think the same goes for some other maniacs too. On the
other hand there are maniacs who have a bigger budget or who (understandably) choose to only spend their money on the good stuff.
It makes sense that the average scores of those maniacs end up higher because they sample sample more 'high end' malts. While
there is no direct relation between price and quality, the odds of finding a gem are generally higher in the upmarket segment.
But that makes it important that we all use the same 'scale'. So, does that mean I've been rating too low?
Maybe but one could also argue that some other maniacs has been rating too high. The basis of my rating system (a system some of
the maniacs have adopted) is a fictional 'average' single malt whisky that scores 75 points. About 50% of the single malt 'population'
should score higher, 50% schould score lower. I've taken 50 points as the fictional bottom of the single malts scale, partly because this lined up my scores neatly with Michael Jackson's when I started rating my whiskies.
Mark: Well, Johannes, I attempted to employ your system of scoring in my own scoring attempts, but I think I have connoted the word 'average' different from you. In my 'system' I also believe that an average malt whisky would score 75 points. However, I don't think that 50% of the malts will rate higher and 50% will rate lower. This math assumes a null value for malts at 75, and places 100% of the malts either above or below this dividing line -- the average. My interpretation of 75pts as a score for an average malt assumes that a good deal of malts will indeed be 'average' in quality, and according to my purchasing habits and pre-buying research not very many malts will be less than 75pts (the duds, flops, or failed malts). And, when I am buying malts of high regard which have been either written about or have been favorites of friends, then it stands to reason that many of those will score favorably. My guess is that if your scores were doled out according to my system they would be even higher than my scores (not sure about that, though, but plausible).
Johannes:
Ah, yes - the Average - 50/50 thing.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear on this. The picture in my mind is the 'nominal division' - a concept from statistical
mathematics I hope you're familiar with. If not: it's a curve in the form of a nipple (sorry, couldn't think of a better analogy just now),
representing the spreading of values around a certain 'average'. The vast majority of the values (i.e. scores) are clustered in an area
around the average (say 70-80 or even 65-85 points) and when you get towards the edges of the graph less and less values appear.
This view has always been in the back of my mind and I think a graph of my scores represents it. This may have been an act of
'reverse engineering', but I think the graph applies to many people's scores. And you made a good point about the shopping thing as
well. Even though I've bought quite a few bottles I knew were 'gambles' or worse I have also followed the suggestions of Craig, Davin,
Klaus and Louis for years when I went out searching for some good malts. In fact, that's one of the reasons for coming up with the matrix; I wanted to have a handy overview of all scores to use during my shopping sprees.
Mark: When tasting and nosing malts I ask myself many questions.
Is this a great malt (75pts+)? Is this an average malt (70-79pts, with 75 being most average), or is this a malt that I am not quite
happy with (lower than 75pts, but especially lower than 70pts)? I cannot worry that several malts I have tasted are 90pts+, and that
most are in the 80's, and very few less than 70pts. I don't say 'well I have scored most of my malts above 75pts, so now I need a lot of less than 75pt whiskies'.
Johannes: From what I read my approach isn't that different from yours, Mark.
I try to get a first impression from nose and taste and try to figure out which malts are roughly in the same league.
This gives me a fix on the range I'm looking for; below any reasonable single malt standard (0-49), avoidable (0-59), questionable
(60-69), average (70-79), recomendable (80-84), highly recommendable (85-89) and stupendous (90 points or more). After that I
keep adjusting the score upward and downward as I find displeasing or redeeming qualities in the dram and the whisky develops - until
my glass is empty. These scores could be translated as the strength of the desire to pour myself a second dram...
Mark: How do you do that, Johannes?
Do you really try to alternate your assignment of scores both above and below 75pts?
The way I see it, if I would employ that method I would need to lower unfairly some excellent malts, just for the argument that 50%
will be good and 50% will be utter crap! I can't see it that way. Perhaps if I purchased blindly that would work.
There's a thought ... blind purchasing. Walk into your shop, and buy a few whiskies whose bottles are completely hidden from view,
and no information is given, except that they are single malt whisky. In that case I would say that 50/50 is a good ratio. For my
purchasing pattern, and selection pattern at 'tastings', I find that (Serge can help here, with his various derivations of the list) a better ratio for me is something like 10% stellar, 30% great, 35% average, and 25% less than average.
Johannes:
Well Mark, it certainly makes sense that the average malt maniac 'shops above average'.
I'm pig-headed enough to keep using the bottom end of the 100 points scale, but I think that's no big problem - most people that use
the matrix or the monitor will use it to seek out the ones that score 'above average' at the very least. I'm more concerned with us
being 'in synch' between, say, 70 and 95 points. Just allow me to pick out some specific scores from your column on the matrix and
pass some comments. 87 points for the Aberlour 10yo? Granted, it's a fine dram but is it exceptional enough to warrant my
interpretation of 'highly recommendable'; violently twisting somebody's arm until they agree to try it? Or how about the Bowmore NAS
Legend? A fine dram, but with an average score of 78 just 'above average' according to most maniacs. In fact, I think the lowest
score you've ever given was 70 points. This calls for an assignment, Mark! Time to test the bottom of your rating scale and buy some Arran NAS, Edradour 10yo, Glen Grant NAS or Loch Dhu 10yo.
But I'm the first to admit my system is flawed. I've manipulated the old alcoholic scoring system me and a few friend have used for
years (with a 50 points average) to sort of match MJ's system (with a +/- 75 points average) and I had little trouble doing so. If anybody comes up with a better system I''d be happy to change my scores accordingly.
But as a matter of fact I have revised all my scores three times since I started rating to reflect a shift of the 'average' due to my
increased malt mileage. But this hasn't changed the relative position of the malts towards eachother. I certainly wouldn't qualify
everything that scores below 75 points as 'utter crap' - just as not as good as the theoretical 50% that's better than average. In my
system, I enjoy everything that scores more than 50 points - everything below isn't 'enjoyable' to me and the few malts that end up on the 'shit list' (Drumguish, Loch Dhu) are exceptions.
Mark:
Thoughts from an accused high scorer. (I am more cynical than that, really.)
Once again, I'd be happy to change my system if somebody comes up with a better one. - - -
I'm curious what percentage of our Matrix scores were assigned in a blind tasting, verses an open tasting?
Are you nearly as stingy with >90pts scores? That practice would also skew the points tally/computations.
I'm not too stingy with 90+ I think but I have no problem with stretching the scale a bit.
What is a 100-point whisky?
A 100 point whisky would be as fictional as that 75 points whisky in my current system (the ultimate malt).
Why can a truly awful tasting whisky not fall below 50 points? After all, the assignment of points must be personal. I've rated a few
malts below 50 points - like Loch Dhu 10yo. I know this is the weak point of my system, because this 50 points is the 'neutral' value
on my global liquids rating scale, anything better I like, anything worse I dislike - that's not up to single malt standards.
If nothing can score below 50, nothing gets 75 (remember, 50% above, and 50% below), and the malts worthy of 95pts or higher are few, then it really is a 44-point scale, isn't it?
Anyone disagree?
Johannes: OK, now let's skip almost two years ahead and resume the discussion.
86.39 LT 83.19 AV 81.41 DK
First things first; an update on our average scores on the matrix, once again ranked from 'best' to 'worst'.
84.16 OH 83.06 HY 80.89 PS
83.97 KN 82.96 SV 79.99 KE
83.85 MA 81.98 CD 79.30 JH
The 'monitor' maniacs Roman (81,92), Michael Wade (86.58), Louis Perlman (85,59), Thomas Lipka (82,79) and Luca Chichazola (81,56) all have averages comfortably in the 80's as well. So, there you have it - do our ratings make sense or do we need a new system?
Dave: It makes sense to rate whiskies. I dislike the 100 point system. Why? For starters, it isn't a 100 point system. You get 50 for turning up, you get 60 for being a whisky.
If you score 70 - 80 you're borderline faulty. So the 100 point system is a 20 point system. In reality -- in commercial reality that is --
it is a 9 point system, because no-one is interested in any whisky which has scored less than 90 and, since nothing can possibly be perfect, the only rating which is of any interest is that between 90 and 99.
The situation is worse in wine where scoring 89 in an influential magazine is tantamount to commercial failure. Scoring 90 however
means your wine will sell -- and sell for an inflated price. So what is the difference between 89 and 90? Is it 1 point, or has your
palate found a subtle but significant jump in quality which elevates it to the top class? We've seen what has happened in wine with
winemakers tailoring styles to suit the palates of a few influential critics in order to get high marks, I've also seen the creeping
acceptance of scores in UK retailing. A recommendation from a retailer no longer goes into the details of aroma, flavour suitability etc
it is boiled down to whether the wine is a 90 pointer or not. In Whisky Mag we use a 10 point system which is in fact a 5 point system
(or actually a 4 point system since 0-5 is faulty) Hence the need for half and quarter points. You need a way of making a little more space for yourself but, even then, what is the actual difference between 7.75 and 8???
So.. how do I score? I prefer not to use numbers and would stick to a star system instead. 0 = faulty I then will use half stars making it a true 10 point system. Then there is the competitive set. Are the scores for the whisky itself or are they comparing that whisky to another of a similar style?
A WMag new release tasting will be the former, in the theme tastings the latter applies. So what happens when, for example, we taste
young whiskies and give Ardbeg an 8+ ? Is that 8+ the same 8+ as a Balvenie 30 year old has got in the new release section? No. The
Ardbeg's mark has been given in comparison to its competitive set (young whiskies). Put it up in competition against Lagavulin 16yo
and what do you think will happen to the scores? Ardbeg wouldn't get an 8 I'd be sure of that. But both scores are correct! So numbers can mislead if the context isn't explained.
The final element is the taster. We all have good days and bad days (which is why all the WMag samples are tasted three times) No
matter how analytical we try to be in being honest about the quality of a style we don't care for it is difficult to totally shelve those
prejudices. I have a problem with heavily sherried malts. This manifests itself in two ways: from an analytical point of view I want to
see the distillery in the glass and see how (or whether) it has been given a greater layer of complexity through interaction with oak.
From a personal point of view I don't like picking splinters out of my tongue. I'm therefore probably harder on heavily sherried malts
than other tasters who might like that style. My (low) score reflects how that whisky performs on my scale. It doesn't however define how good or bad that whisky is. Scores should give an indication .. but they don't. They fix.
There has to be some way of defining what is poor, which is good, great, excellent etc.
It helps consumers, malt lovers and professionals such as bartenders. There's a problem however.
As soon as you apportion a number to a whisky (or wine, beer, soup, restaurant, record) that number becomes more important than
the analysis which took place. Numbers are dangerous as they obscure the process. Every time WMag appears I turn to the tastings
section and see how wildly MJ or Martine and I have diverged this time. I don't look at the words (initially) I look at the scores. Has anyone scored 9? how many 8s are there? I can only assume that the majority of readers do the same.
Why bother with tasting notes then?
This has the advantage of giving bands of excellence and avoids the frankly idiotic procedure where you give one whisky 87 and
another 88 and then justify what that means ..
* = poor
** = average
***= good
**** = excellent
***** = superb
That means a 3-star whisky is a bloody good dram. It might not have the complexity of the top two bands but it is a great drink. If
you applied the same technique but apportioned numbers then 3 star whiskies would be getting 7 - 7.75. Psychologically this says
"average" (especially if there are other whiskies scoring higher) and the dram is dismissed. Trouble is great 3star whiskies are session
drinks. They are the ones you order two or three of over an evening. The 5 star ones are ones you sit with for a long time teasing out their complexities. Both have a role. This is the system I would prefer to use in Whisky Magazine.
It is the system I used when tasting for MJs last companion. I then changed stars into numbers.
Serge: Hi Dave, all, Geeze, plenty to say! Regarding the 100 points scale being a 20 points one actually, Dave is probably right again.
I also agree, ratings 'fix' instead of giving an indication, especially when they come from well established experts such as Martine and
Dave (I can't seem to recall a score by Charlie). But there is also a notion that would change the whole paradigm if we could add it to
our system, and that would perhaps make it fairer: prices. Indeed, 89 points for a 30 EUR bottle of whisky is probably much 'higher' than 90 points for a 300 EUR one!
And finally, I always considered that we musn't use our small 'firepower' to bash the work of dozens of friendly Scotsmen just because
we can. Making a 20yo whisky is probably more work than pushing two numerical keys on a cheap PC somewhere in the middle of
nowhere, and we must behave responsibly. Sure our audience likes blood and gold, but unless somebody tries to sell a crappy whisky for very big bucks, any industry guy deserves respect and even admiration.
First, and as far as the Matrix and Monitor are concerned, only whiskies that gathered 3+ scores from various Maniacs are declared as
'solid'. I think we all hope that sort of wipes off any bias related to tastes, colours and 'bad moods', even if when for instance Olivier
and I taste the same whiskies, we usually come up with similar ratings because we have similar tastes. I think Luc's quite close too,
and probably Craig... These 'common tastes' might come from the fact that we are also wine freaks. Johannes mentionned several
times 'the Wine Brigade' and he's probably right. So, maybe a malt that got an average rating of 90 points from only 'The Wine Brigade'
might have got a much lower - or higher - average from the 'Whisky-only Brigade' or from the 'Beer Brigade' ;-)
I guess we're all sons of Robert Parker, Jr. In a certain way, and yes, 89 points or 90 points are slightly different ratings which might
say very different things. It's always the problem with borders - and we have the same with **** and *****, $9.99 and $10.00, 39
years-11 months and 40 years, and even at school I've been fired thirty years ago because my average mark was 9.92 instead of 10
(and I'm not kidding!) Now, it's true that the 'star system' is something I like a little better than the 100 point one, and that's why I
use both on my own humble little website. Why do I go on with the '100 scale' too? Mainly because I tried to feed the Monitor / Matrix
with stars and Excel said 'error' ;-). Besides, the 100 points are quite handy when it comes to compare four stellar 1972 Ardbegs or Broras.
'Coz we like single malts, don't we?
Johannes: Well, 'we' like MOST single malts, Serge.
We don't like something just because it says 'single malt' on the bottle, right?
But yes, even 'average' single malts are very fine drinks in my book and by the time I had sampled my 1000th dram I could still count
the ones I really didn't like on my fingers and toes. However, with so many good stuff available, people who don't have the wallets and
livers they would need to sample every single malt might to focus their attention on the higher scoring stuff - maybe even pass up on
stuff that scores below 75 points altogether. But even the scores in the 'below average' area have merit. Imagine somebody wanders
into a store and finds a bottle of Auchentoshan NAS Three Wood (43%, OB) on offer for just 15 Euro's. Even with an average of 'just' 71 points it might be an interesting buy - especially because our individual scores are quite 'deviant'.
So, yep - I wouldn't be adverse to an alternative system that takes prices into account.
I think it would have to exist seperately from the matrix and monitor, though...
Luca:
Scores, the eternal dilemma... I have been used to "scoring" things since a lot of years ago. What does this all mean?
One last thing: I do not consider price to be an important factor.
In videogames magazines, in pipe tobacco reviews, for movies... and in each case I have used a different system to suit the needs of
the existing rating system. For videogames, I switched to a 0-1000 rating when I used to read K magazine, to a 0-10 when I started
writing on ZETA and then GMC and PSM. As pointed out, the "narrower useful interval" problem became obvious for games magazines
too: on ZETA we actually used a 3-9 system (with just a couple of 10s in the whole history of the magazine), on GMC a 4-9, on PSM
a 2-10. With lots of undistinguished ratings in the 7-8 zone. On K, the situation was for some reasons even worse: although a 0-1000
system allowed very fine differentiation between games, a game scoring 750 had to be considered crap. So the useful range was
between 750 and 950... And, again, who could tell the difference between 919 and 920? With tobaccos, on www.tobaccoreviews.com
we have just 4 ratings: "Not recommended", "Somewhat recommended", "Recommended", "Definitely recommended". And it just fits fine
for a thing as "subjective" as the taste of a pipe tobacco. For movies, I find myself at ease with a * to **** system, with **1/2 the minimum for considering the movie recommendable.
That any rating system, if used with experience and a grain of salt, can give good results.
Sure, I myself have problems in differentiating an 83 and an 84 malt, but the matrix/monitor does a great job by averaging the
personal oscillations. Many times I have heard things like "scores are not important, the review is". But a score IS important: one just must not trust it like the Bible (well, I don't even trust the Bible so much...).
For me a bottle which scores 89 and costs 300 Euro is as good as a bottle which scores 89 and costs 30 Euro: I simply won't buy the
300 Euro one as frequently as the cheaper one, but I enjoy them both. I don't consider age as important: for me if a very young malt
scores higher than an older one, it simply means that I enjoyed it more. I don't rate a 10yo against the other 10yos (as I have
understood WM does), I rate it according to my personal taste. And sometimes a young, lively malt is more pleasant to me than an
older, more subdued one. So, for me the Ardbeg 10 scores slightly higher than the Ardbeg 1977 simply because I actually like it more: it's not motivated by the fact that I expected more from the 1977 considering its age.
Olivier:
Well Dave, most US wine magazines use the 100pt scale as it is the system that their schools and universities use. R. Parker
says that he uses the 100pt system because it gives him more flexibility, admitting that the scores start at 50 and that anything
under 70 is very bad or a total failure. Wines scoring 90+ will sell well, but price and origin is still extremely important. A Chateau
Lynch Bages (Cru Classé from Bordeaux) at 28¥/bt ex VAT primeur will sell much quicker than a Chardonnay from the Jura at 10¥ even if both wines have a 90 score !
By experience I know that the star system is usually liked by non geeks, as they will search the 4 or 5 stars.
The Revue du Vin de France uses the star system, but they introduced half stars to create more differences !!!!
Locally, most tastings are done on a 10 points system (sounds like WM), but basically all marks are between 5 and 9.5 and it is
possible to use quarter points. In fact, it's like using a 100pt system from 75 to 95, except it's less obvious to see the difference
between a 6.25 and a 6.75 score ! What is interesting, is that we do use a multiple scoring system: we give a score for the quality
and a score for the typicity. Perhaps this could be interesting in whisky ? Give a score for the general quality (nose, mouth, balance, finish...) and a score on how well the distillery character shows in the whisky. ????
My ultimate scoring system is: do I want to own such a bottle, and after I look if I can afford it!
Serge: Well, the aspect I cherish most is complexity, and this is what gives a 90 instead of a 89/100.
And then, there's also 'compacity' and 'satisfaction'. Malts that don't go in all directions (which has nothing to do with complexity -
complexity means for me a 'very wide array of consecutive aromas', not various, very separate aromas). Satisfaction is when the
malts gives you a feeling of wellness - not talking about getting drunk here ;-). There's also 'vivacity' (not lumpish, tired) and 'clean'
(not made-up). I like typicity a lot as well, but only if a malt is typically good ;-). Signatory's recent Benriachs 'cask strength' aren't very typical, to say the least, but very good IMHO. Typical Benriachs do not score that well for me.
Agreed on the ultimate judge: 'do I need one - or more - bottles of this one?'
Complexity makes it easier to write some tasting notes. When the ink just flows out of my pen, it means I like the whisky. When I
have to scratch my head, it's bad news! Like: 'Bold sherry and... And? Oh, yes, dried oranges and... And? Ah, caramel, toffee... And? Wine? Yes, wine... Like, you know, sherry...' Pain in the hat!
Luc: Hi all, I think it doesn't make any sense to make an average per maltmaniac.
Doesn't that highly depend on the kind of drams you taste and not on the tasting profile of a maniac ?
Suppose one of us only starts drinking the TOP malts, what average would that give then.
I don't think it makes much sense and it doesn't prove anything.
Just my thoughts....
Lawrence:
I think scores are a great value. I am a fan of out of 100 as everybody instanly knows what it means.
People around the world access the matrix for a score before they buy a whisky. Some even follow a particular maniac becasue they
feel they and the maniac share the same taste in whisky. I would imagine this is quite satisfying for the manaics and properly so.
Are all maniacs tasting whisky in the same fashion? For example all whiskies nosed and tasted neat without dilution?
Or are we experiencing a mix of styles, so a particlular whisky is being tasted neat, with a teaspoon of water or with two table spoons
of water added (etc)? Such a mixture of styles would be problematic I would think and would not offer a consistant score across the
matrix. I also think that tasting and scoring a whisky neat is the only common way to taste and score a whisky in the same fashion as the 'customers', those who use the matrix.
Peter:
I agree with Lawrence that having as many maniacs input as possible would be a good thing. The issue of with only tasting
and scoring a whisky neat is another matter, however. I don't think anyone would disagree that there are some whiskies that score
much higher with a drop of water in them. It is our responsibility as maniacs to find the best way to evaluate each malt set before
us. I always nose and taste at full strength, then with some whiskies, try a drop of water. The folks who are using our ratings are not taking their whisky all the same way, why should we?
I really don't care which grading system we use, as long as we all agree on what the numbers or symbols mean. 60-70
a badly flawed whisky, I will not finish what is in this glass.
I found it very interesting on Islay that 80 is considered the point where you would recommend a whisky to someone else. This makes a lot of sense to me. So, to pin things down a little better, here are my thoughts;
Possibly an oversherried malt or one with really unpleasant aromas and flavors.
70-80
a whisky that has some flaws but is drinkable, certainly not one I would reach for on a regular basis.
I could have some if it was the only malt around, but I wouldn't be thrilled by it.
80-90
something I would recommend to other people, a whisky that has elements that really appeal to me and is very drinkable.
Something I would enjoy on a daily basis, if I drank whisky that often. I am very interested in acquiring another bottle, maybe two bottles the closer it gets to 90.
90-100
Clearly one of the best expressions of this whisky I have ever tried.
Complexity, great nose, palate and finish. This malt etches a place in my memory forever! I immediately must find out how to get my
hands on as many bottles of this stuff as I can afford. Something I will share with my fellow whisky enthusiasts.
Louis: Peter, I like the way you break down the scoring brackets.
Numbers appeal to me over 1-5 stars, because then there are half stars, which goes back to a 1-10 scale. Throw in fractions to
provide finer distinctions, and we're back to the 1-100 scale. My thoughts are that the scores are similar to grades in school. The
pass-fail mark is usually 65, but nobody cares much for the difference between 45 and 48, as opposed to 85 and 88.
Johannes: Interesting, Peter!
I'm with you on the 80-100 end of your scale, but I think we certainly could use some more 'definition' below 80.
Even with malts that I've scored in the 'questionable' 60's (the Glenfiddich NAS Special Old Reserve from the 1990's, the Isle of Jura
NAS 'Superstition' or the International Macallan 7yo of +/- 2001 I've found things to enjoy, although these whiskies have indeed some
'flaws' in my eyes. When we get to the 50's I still find a few things to enjoy (and I'd still choose it over your average blend), but now
the flaws are obvious. Wheter or not I'll finish my glass will depend entirely on the circumstances. Outside on a summer night next to
the campfire, singing gospel songs? Definitely! During a serious tasting session, after a string of 80's malts? Maybe not. Some very
good fresh spirits reach this area as well, but they usually end up below 50, just like for example your average grappa. Below 50 points
the odds of me emptying my glass sharply diminish - we're now in actively disliking territory. I think this part of the scale is important
too - otherwise, how would people know that we hate the Loch Dhu 10yo (average 32 points) even more than the Glen Mhor 15yo G&M Licensed bottling of the 1990's (average 41 points). Which brings me to a point Dave mentioned...
All that being said, I think the picture on the matrix with the coulour coded averages works quite well.
I usually don't add water to whiskies bottled at 40% - 46% (maybe just 2 or three drops with my pipet), but always try to do so with
overproof malts - after I tried it neat, of course. I think they should be able to stand a little water so people that want to can reduce
them to a normal drinking strength. With malts bottled around 50% I'll typically add water once, 55% twice and 60% three times. My final score is an 'average' of the performances at different strengths.
To me, a whisky that scores in the 70's is a perfect whisky for day-to-day dramming when you're not focusing on the whisky itself.
They may not be the most interesting malts around, but they are simply good whiskies. Whiskies I'd classify as 'average' whiskies in
the 70's are for example the old Glen Moray 12yo (before they started finishing everything), the Aberlour 10yo, Glenlivet 12yo, recent
expressions of Glen ord 12yo and yes, these days even the Glenfiddich 12yo. I certainly wouldn't say these whiskies are 'flawed' and
would pour them to my less discriminating friends without hesitation - but they just lack that little bit extra to make me want to pour it for a fellow malthead, other than for 'matrix duty'. But certainly nothing WRONG with it.
'You get 50 for turning up, you get 60 for being a whisky. If you score 70 - 80 you're borderline faulty.'
Well, I certainly hope my personal scale offers a little more flexibility than that, and I'm glad that some maniacs are not afraid to
occasionally use the part of the scale below 50 points - where some others fear to thread. We may find that we very well need 'the space' in the future if we sample more fresh spirits, foreign whiskies and maybe even other drinks.
Green is recommendable and better, brownish is good bot not great and they don't have to bother with anything in red. With a colour
scheme of 6 different hues it resembles the 'resolution' of the five star system, but those who want to dig a little deeper can analyse
the individual scores to their heart's content and I certainly wouldn't want to lose this level of 'detail'. If one of our readers is standing
in a store with a print-out of the matrix in his hands he might wonder if the one bottle of Aberlour A'bunadh on the shelves is worth
buying he can look at the colour codes and see that all A'bunadhs are recommendable. If he is, however, presented with a choice of 3
or 4 different versions (or is hunting on-line) he can either look at the average score and see that 'the team' prefered batches 7 and 9, or look at the column of one maniac he knows has similar taste to find which version he preferred.
Mark:
Maniacs, all - I was really happy to read Dave's surprisingly ripe addition to this discussion. As for 10-scales vs 100-scales vs Stars vs Little Johanneses in Barrels, I think that the 100-pter is best for us, mathematically. When
tallying averages or other computations whole numbers are easier than decimals or fractions, and numbers are easier to average than images or special characters.
I think our site(s) would be more valuable if they included some sort of cost/availability factoring. How that could be best effected is
another consideration altogether. One other idea which could go along these lines is using the monetary symbol of the country of
purchase for malts, should we go that route. That would take less space than stating the country in text somewhere. Of course, a legend or key would be needed then. Great topic, and some good discussion so far, gang.
Regarding scores in publications, especially in Whisky Magazine and The Malt Advocate, like Dave, I read the ratings first, then the
accompanying notes. Usually I read the high and low scores first. Quite often I read notes which don't support (to me) the rating
given. Notes for an 80-ish whisky are sometimes more enticing than the notes for a near-90 whisky, for example. An interesting
engagement would be to take the scores in each edition of those mags and attempt to match them with the text for each malt, leaving out any bottling info. That is the only thing which really gets me going with the mags and their rating systems.
Even though Charlie and Martine and Lex don't rate for MM I really like hearing their opinion on matters.
More from me as I get piqued - Mark.
Klaus:
Moin moin, I must admit that the discussion about ratings bores me.
Which side are you on, (A) - hard working, obstinate and careful, force yourself further and further all in the name of malt research
and risking a below par malt far too often, or (B) - anarchic, pleasure seeking and not afraid "visiting old friends" again and again. For
me the choice is clear. I honour the German-French friendship. If had choose whether I would want to try a handful of obscure malts
or set of most delicious Ardbegs, Broras and Port Ellens, there is no discussion into which direction I would move.
So I will try to start another thread. After having read Johannes' first impressions from his Islay trip I have come to the conclusion that Johannes and Davin are more or less slaves to the matrix whereas the French gang are hedonists and enjoy the most delicious malts.
Alexander: I have to say this is great (and brave) thinking out of the box.
Klaus' eye-opening remark is one to savour as well. I think when a few of us (how much should that be ?) rate a whisky in the
seventies the chance that it turns out to be a hidden gem are infinitely small. Why should anyone on the matrix want to fill his gap,
when he already knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Whisky isn't the greatest... Maybe the matrix should be organized somewhat differently, with a (slightly) different goal and use the monitor as the MM database. Just my 2 pence.
People are creatures of habit, they like to collect, stamps, whiskies etc. Therefore I can imagine one likes to get a full row in the
matrix to have a definitive MM score ! (At least when the people on the matrix aren't "moved over" in favour of someone else
somewhere in time, for one reason or the other). I understand this and think it is a noble undertaking. Yeah I like to see a full row. Anyone a Bowmore 12yo ?
Aren't the two too much alike anyway?...
Davin: I agree 100% with Luc,
We are averaging different malts for each maniac and we each have different tastes and access to different malts. Think of poor Klaus
who would take a flight of Ardbegs over a flight of Allt A'Bhainnes or Glen Speys. He won't have nearly the perspective others may so
his scores will be much less reliable and his average will be made up of malts that are very similar to each other, relatively speaking. Then he'll taste some really decent malt that is not an Ardbeg or a Brora and give it , say, 4 points. ;-)
I'm joking, Klaus, he he he... but I do agree with Luc.
Craig: Hi All, I don't want to add too much to this thread, but I do want to participate.
And I had to adjust my scores for inclusion in the matrix once already as I had to spread my scores; my malt tasting history began in
the Earls of Zetland Malt Tasting Club and the Club rules were pretty clear; if you could drink it without having to add Coke it scored
over 5. If it was drinkable without adulteration but had obvious flaws it scored between 6 and 6.5. OK but ordinary was 6.5 to 7.0. If
it was fine but not all that great it scored 7-7.5, If it was very good it scored 7.5 to 8.0 and if it was stellar it scored more than 8.
No-one in the early history of the Club ever scored anything above 9 and the highest scoring whisky in the history of the Club averaged 8.8 (Black Bowmore 1964)
Over time I found my benchmarking score (the tipping point between OK & fine levitated upwards to 7.5 and between fine and very
good went up to 8.0) this is actually pretty closely aligned to how the Matrix works (IMHO). Most people I know that reference the
Matrix would see an average score of 80MMM as a 'buy' suggestion. Likewise after integrating and altering my scoring system to
accommodate the Matrix my overall scores tended to gravitate upwards (again I've written on why I believe my scores have done this
over time in another piece previously circulated, probably in the archives somewhere). I've also tasted many more superior malts since
I joined the Maniacs and participated in the Awards. I still have never scored a malt above 95 and I believe that I may never, but I'm easier to please as I get older...
Don't want to say anymore - the 100pt scale is fine by me even if I have only ever used less than 40% of the available scale. Loch
Dhu was not good, but it wasn't undrinkable - maybe the maltsters downunder don't have the refined palates of the Eurpopeans or
maybe we've been exposed to more ordinary products over the years (Aussie whiskies (Gilt Edge, Corio 10) in the 1970's and 1980's were horrible)
Johannes and I have had many discussions about scores over the years; indeed my introduction to Malt Madness was a discussion
between Johannes and myself about Overrated/Underrated Malts in Michael Jacksons Malt Companion (2nd & 4th Editions). No surprises that we agreed on more than we disagreed.
Thomas:
Oooh, so many aspects that were already brought up, so here's just one quick thought about averaging out the scores. A
while ago, I wanted to find out whose taste is closest to mine, so I imported the monitor into excel and started sorting them. I then
calculated the average scores of only those whiskies that both Serge and I scored, then did the same with Johannes' and my scores, Olivier's scores and so on.
I don't have the numbers at hand but I remember that surprisingly our averages weren't that far apart. I think that Serge on average
awards one point more than I do, Johannes is about 0.7 points above my average and so on. My conclusion is that our averages as
they are now are more influenced by the randomness of the whiskies we drank than by different standards we use while judging a
malt. I'll try to find the numbers tomorrow and send 'em then, hopefully along with some additional thoughts.
Ho-cheng: Lots of interesting points. First, I am very interested to see Dave's idea about the scoring system. Second, I admit that the 100 scores system is actually a 25 score system for me (70 to 95).
Third, about the score average in Davin and Johannes discssion. I think it still means something. Still lot's thinking, but no time to write....
Though I am very busy trying to finish all the works before I head to Speyside next week.
I can't help jump into the discussion.
This is also what we have discussed here in Taiwan. Before I joined the Malt Maniacs some of us use the 10 points grade, Some use 5
stars, some use A, B, C, ect. Right now, almost all of our club members use 100 points as the Malt Maniacs. Why, mainly because we
want to communicate with each other better. We understand that the points does not really show how good is the malt, but shows
how much we like it. Doesn't that all about MM Scores? I kept telling my club members that they should trying to find someone taste
similar in the Matrix/Monitor. That's how you look the scores. So, right now, I am quite comfortable about the 100 points one.
Under 70 is something I don't really think it's single malt, and certainly I can't finish what's still in the glass.
80 to 89 is something I'll recommend to others, above 90 is something moved me. So is there a difference between 88 to 89, maybe not too much, but is there a difference between 89 to 90? Yes, to me.
I was questioned by a friend saying that my scores are generally higher then others. Well maybe it's true, but I actually show the
fact that most Maniacs have the average above 80s, and it shows that I don't really score higher than others. So why is the score
generally higher? Maybe it is because we choose from the malts we like, maybe it's the benchmark we use. I normally use some of
the famous distillery OB 12yo like Glenlivet or Glenfiddich as my benchmark. But I must admit that I don't have any benchmark malt
open anytime. But at least what I've been doing all the time is to taste the sample twice if I got enough sample. Most of the time I
won't remember my scores quite clearly. Thus, I could compare my tasting note and scores. And what I found out is that 70% of the
scores are quite consistent while 30% are not. And I admit it to my friends. I think I am quite comfortable to admit about it.
Dave: So, let's get this clear.
It appears that most feel that the 100pt system is the best way to score, yet there is little consensus on what those 100 points
mean? Some have a true 100 point scale, some a 50 point, some 20, others 25 etc etc. Hmm. From now on I'm going to start using a 150 point scale which will make my favourite whiskies so much better than the ones you like!
Johannes: Hehehe.... ;-)
Well, in this discussion we're focussing on the differences, but I think most of us are pretty 'synchronised' in the 70-95 section and
like some others already suggested, the difference between 82 and 85 is perhaps more significant than the difference between 52 and
55 points - because anything that rates below 70 points isn't likely to be hunted down by those who use the matrix as their guide.
One important element of our scale is also the fact that it's supposed to give room for us to score other, perhaps less 'noble' drinks as
well. I mean, let's not forget to factor in that single malts are very fine drinks in their own right and most of us grew mad about malts
in the first place because we (generally) LIKE them. So, it's not surprising that most get favourable ratings. I'll be happy to bring a
bottle of 'Distilled Old Maltky' to the next maniacal event to prove to anybody that dares that there's plenty of room to use below 50 points ;-)
Serge:
That might be a bit far-fetched, Dave ;-)
As I'm dealing with feeding the Monitor, hence the Matrix, I have a pretty accurate view on the ways we each score our malts, and
it's quite consistent in fact. Similarities: yes, we all pretty much use the 75 - 100 scale for all the malts that are 'OK' or more. We
actually use all the points below 75, but those are reserved for the 'flawed' malts and other bad whiskies. Differences: some Maniacs
are more generous than others. When hesitating between two scores, like for instance the now famous 89 and 90 points, some
Lex: Here's my personal philosophy on scoring whiskies.
The reason I don't score for myself is simply that I want to enjoy a whisky in all its dimensions without feeling the need to compress
all those dimensions into one. Maybe that sounds strange coming from a scientist, but let me be something else when I'm not working
(;o). Seriously, if I was scoring whiskies all the time, I feel I wouldn't actually get around to simply enjoying them for what they are.
I'd be fretting how I should weigh the wonderful nose of dram X against the short finish. For me personally, I'd much rather have dram X have 'a wonderful nose and a short finish' than '82' (or whatever).
I don't mean this as criticism of anyone scoring, on 10, 100 or 150 point scale.
Scoring for professional reasons (like WM) is another matter, so there I follow the guidelines (scale, benchmarks, etc) that are given
to me with the samples. Tasting whiskies in such circumstances (i.e. when the aim is to give a score) does feel different to me, because my 'mindset' is in scores first and simple enjoyment second.
I don't normally score the whiskies that I taste, and certainly not those I taste for purely personal enjoyment. That is not saying I
don't see the value of scoring to potential consumers. I do, although I very much agree with Dave that a banded system (crap -
drinkable - nice - good - stunning) is better. Is there really a difference between 88 and 89? Between 7 1/2 and 7 3/4?
If you enjoy doing that, that's great, it's just not my way. When I was asked to join MM, Johannes and I had a couple of discussions
(by e-mail and in person) on the merits/fun of scoring. We didn't convince each other (not that that was necessary in any way) and
agreed to disagree over a dram (or two, or three). That's also why I was perfectly happy not to have a column in the matrix.
Olivier : Dave, Besides Johannes and perhaps Peter, we all use the 65-95 point range. (Unless I am missing someone ?) There is only perhaps 2% of the whiskies I have tasted that go beyond this range: either truly fabulous or ones that make me really angry!
Serge: Some maniacs will systematically choose the lowest score, some others will choose the highest.
I guess that's related to tempers and moods... At the end of the day, the fact that we consider only malts that have been scored by
3+ Maniacs get a 'solid' mark sort of makes all that rather fair (I hope). Besides, regarding the Awards malts and as we have 12+
tasters, any really extreme score is wiped off (we use a standard deviation system). And further, some Maniacs used some different
scales previously, like Craig (see his latest post) or Peter, but they kindly accepted to 're-distribute' their ratings so that they fit 'The System'. Thanks again to them!
Ho-cheng: I think it all comes back to a very simple thinking:
WHY do we score? For me, I think score is a SIMPLE way to let others know your opinion about the malt.
So, it is all about that "we", the tasters, are worried about the reader can't understand the meaning of the score.
Or we are even worried that the readers will be misleading by the scores.
And that's why we need tasting notes, and that's why we need e-pistles.
I don't think there is perfect scoring system.
All we need to do is to have the readers understand the rule as much as possible. Isn't it?
Johannes: Very eloquently put, Ho-cheng, Bravo!
I fully agree that the main point is COMMUNICATION, my malty friends.
We need to be able to express exactly how much we love a malt - in relation to other malts and to ther maniacs.
Olivier: Very interesting point of view indeed ! IMHO! Now I agree with Klaus, let's speak about something more liquid !
The awards is the perfect occasion to see how does one taster compare with the other.
I have to admit that I can often be more generous when I give some ratings, perhaps, being a producer and knowing the kind of
efforts it takes to achieve something special, I tend to be more generous and forgiving. On the other hand, I can be severe when I
detect some practices that are only intended to cover some lack of complexity and quality (such as stupid finishes or putting some
A….. in some Glen Moray or vice versa...). My average scoring for the last awards was only 0.6 point different from my total average
on the monitor. I guess that the list of whiskies submitted to the awards must be close to what we are exposed in the street.
Johannes: OK, OK, We'll wrap up the discussion for now.
And speaking about the MM Awards that Olivier mentioned... And that's already it for the first page of MM#15 - just 4 E-pistles and we're already full. Sweet drams, Johannes
But I want to get back to the topic just ONE more time later in this issue to get 'closure' once and for all.
Don't forget that some new maniacs and our readers have missed all our previous discussions of the topic.
I've diverted my attention from MM#15 for a while to work on the 'awards' section.
The
Join the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Archive
<-- Previous Issue Next Issue -->
Page 2 of MM #15
You may wonder why this 'festival special' that's published
in July 2005 starts with a report about our 'Eurotripping' in
November 2004. Well, it simply took us this long to finish it.
Besides, I think it was well worth the wait - in the report
you can find our tasting notes on some very old whiskies.
Malt Maniacs #15 |
|
|
Malt Maniacs #15 - July 1, 2005
Click HERE for more malt mania!
