A Journey to Wales

The Cabinet assembled last night to listen to Michael describe his visit to the Penderyn distillery in Wales and to sample the two single malts he brought back. We already had the Madeira cask finish in our stocks, so it was with great interest that we opened the "sherrywood" and "portwood" expressions. Inevitably, the evening became known as the "horizontal tasting of the Welsh triplets"....

Michael will write about his impressions of the distillery in an upcoming blog post, so here I will focus on the tasting. The Madeira cask is the standard expression and one we had tried on a couple of occasions previously. It hadn't left much of an impression on any of the members, but we were keen to give it another try. Opinions varied on this malt (and on the subsequent Penderyns) more than they generally do, but even the most enthusiastic among us would not label it a "great whisky". This puts the Cabinet at odds with Jim Murray, author of the famed "Whisky Bible", who is apparently very fond of Penderyn's output. To our tastes the Madeira cask was simply decent, but not great. Moreover, there was an astonishing difference between the freshly opened 50 ml bottle Michael brought back and our previously opened old 700 ml bottle. The fresh Madeira cask was rough and fiery, whereas the older (presumably oxidized and partially evaporated) one was far more restrained and, to be frank, enjoyable. Aside from these observations we could agree that a fruitiness, possibly melons and orange marmalade, was noticeable and that the finish was brief and unexciting. We scored it a respectable mid-range 5.4. I should mention that this score was for the older bottle. Someone commented that it would make a fine bar whisky.

On to the new specialty finish Penderyns then. The port cask is particularly special because it is made solely for export to France and outside France is only available in the distillery gift shop. We may well have been tasting the only bottle in Canada. The first thing that impresses you about this whisky is the colour. I have never seen a whisky this red. Unfortunately, the colour is the only thing that impresses you. The nose is a bit sweet and there is perhaps some spice (cinnamon?) on the palate, but there was really very little there... there. The finish, as with all the Penderyns, was primarily notable for its brevity. This is not a terrible whisky by any stretch and I would be happy to accept one as a gift, but given the competition it is difficult to imagine oneself reaching for it on a crowded shelf. It scored a disappointing 3.6.

That then brings us to the sherry cask finish. This is a stronger whisky, clocking in at 46%, so alcohol dominates the nose. Past that we again have a hint of the fruit that seems to be Penderyn's hallmark and what else...? Perhaps more oaky vanilla than the other two and that's about it. Again this is quite a simple whisky and not a bad one, but not a great one either. Perhaps this is a function of age with all three of these. No age statements are given, but it is assumed they run in the 3 to 6 year range. What were the very earliest and youngest Highland Parks, Macallans and Old Pulteneys like? Hard to say, but we can say this about Penderyn: there is far more room to move up than down, so this will be an interesting distillery to watch. Score for the sherry cask 3.7.

Our next move was to try an actual scotch finished in a sherry cask as a contrast. Amongst our purchases in January was the Glendronach "Parliament" 21 year old, which is matured in Oloroso and Pedro Ximenez sherry casks. Now here was a whisky. Also not great, but at least a rather good one. Some commented that it did not have the complexity expected of a 21 year old, but others enjoyed a richness and fullness that had been absent in the Penderyns. The Glendronach has a lovely intense coppery colour. Once one got past the alcohol the nose was unassuming with perhaps a hint of pepper. It was not at all floral as would be expected in a Highland whisky. The palate had dark fruits and orange marmalade dominating. The finish was disputed as some reported a longer and better finish than others. Again, an evening of light controversy. It should be noted that the Glendronach is 48%, half-way to being cask strength. We awarded it a respectable, albeit underwhelming, score of 5.9.

A word now about the scoring. You might be looking at those numbers and be thinking, good god, these guys are harsh. To begin with it's important to recognize that The Cabinet uses the entire scoring range, from 1 to 10. This sets us apart from every other whisky review site I have seen. A shockingly, insultingly low score on these sites is a 65%. Almost everything scores in the 80s and 90s. This is absurd. Are they saying that there is simply no such thing as a bad whisky? Even the Amrut averages a 81 on connosr.com. More on the Amrut later.
The decimals generated by the averaging may also imply a precision that is not possible when quantifying the subjective, so as a general guide I would say that the reader should make use of the following descriptions:

1.0 - 2.9 = Bad. Barely drinkable and certainly not worth buying or trying.
3.0 - 4.9 = Mediocre. Perfectly drinkable, but not something to chose if there are other options.
5.0 - 6.9 = Good. These are your everyday scotches for a dram to unwind after work or to offer guests.
7.0 - 8.9 = Excellent. Go out of your way to find one of these. That "special bottle".
9.0 - 10.0 = Exceptional. That elusive "this is the most incredible scotch ever". Not yet awarded.

The other thing I would like to say about the scoring is that attempting to objectify the profoundly subjective with a "score" is inherently oxymoronic and needs to be approached with some caution and skepticism. The biggest factor missing is context. Context is extremely important. Some may say that we should rigorously ignore context and just focus on tasting in isolation, much as is done in blind tasting. But to what end? Is pleasure not the goal? And the subjective appreciation of the context, including the label, the history, the memories, the stories, are all integral to that pleasure. And this context varies for everyone. We may try to push it aside when scoring, but it is in fact ultimately difficult to disentangle from "objective" taste.

We finished the evening by revisiting the Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban for the third time in less than a year with the thought being that it would provide a better example of a specialty finish than what we had been drinking thus far. It's a lovely whisky, but curiously it scored a 6.4, lower than the 7.17 in January, but higher than the 6.3 in October. That's roughly the same range though - good to borderline excellent. The average of these three scores, 6.6, will be reported in the column on the right.

And then the Amrut. Terrible, really terrible. Rough and boring. We didn't formally score it, but pulled it out to demonstrate that the Penderyns were perhaps given an unfairly low score. Perhaps. Again, context is important. One thing about the Amrut - it certainly has entertainment value. It's the one whisky that gets discussed each and every meeting. And that's worth something too.

Overall a marvelous meeting, complemented by fine cheeses (including Welsh!) supplied by Al and excellent cigars brought by our guest, Ron.

Until June - Slainte!