The title of this post is a bit misleading as only one of the whiskies we sampled the night before last is truly new and even then the newness needs to be qualified. You'll see. The idea though was to identify age-statement labeled single malts from our favourite distillers that were new to us. This is an admittedly atavistic impulse on our part and a reaction against the essentially random marketing driven naming of scotch. What does the name "Prophecy" tell you about what you are going to taste? Most prophecies in history are of doom... And what does the name "Svein" imply you will find in your glass? I have no idea, but essence of viking is unwelcome, thank you.
At least age statements give the innocent whisky buyer some very general guidance. To be sure, we have long since debunked the notion that age necessarily connotes quality, but more or less predictable things happen to the whisky the longer it sits in the barrel. More contact time with wood means that it becomes darker and takes on more of the vanillin found in oak. And the steady evaporation of alcohol - the poetically named "angel's share" - cools and mellows the scotch and can intensify some of the flavours. This is useful to know when you are comparing a 25 and a 10 year old. Is "Nadurra" useful to know? It might mean "natural" in Gaelic (or it might not), but so what?
Our first "new to us" age-statement whisky was the Highland Park 15 year old. I've written somewhere north of 40 blog posts and I do not believe I have used the expression "wow" yet. It seems I was reserving it for just such a moment as this. Wow. We were all too enthralled to consider voting, so it was not officially rated, but had it been I am confident in stating that it would have scored 8+ ("Four Drams - Excellent - Highly Recommended"). Those of you familiar with the blog know that the Cabinet does not employ or endorse obscure and pretentious descriptors (persimmon gumdrops, dark boot polish, first cut of August hay, and other such nonsense) so you will have to be satisfied with the summary that it is medium dark, full, rich, chewy and very malty. It also has that long lingering finish we always look for. More for your money. Wow.
The Old Pulteney 21 is inarguably one of our very favourite single malts and yet we found the 12 year old to only be of middling quality, so we were very curious to find where the 17 year old lay on that spectrum. It always difficult to follow a "wow" whisky, so perhaps that's a factor, but the
consensus was that while it was good, it was not fantastic. So, I suppose, appropriately enough, roughly half-way between the 12 and the 21. The signature hint of salt is present and perhaps leather from the peat. It is a lovely well balanced whisky with a reasonably satisfying mouthfeel, but compared to the Highland Park it lacks in richness and the finish is not as long. Some of us detected an odd bitter note at the end. Still, overall "good", but this whisky deserves another look when it is not in the Highland Park 15's shadow.
The last new age statement scotch of the evening was the Lagavulin 8 year old. This is a new release
and is being sold as a 200th anniversary edition, celebrating the 1816 founding of the distillery. They decided on an 8 year old as a nod to the Victorian whisky writer Alfred Barnard who declared the Lagavulin 8 year old available in the 1880s to be "exceptionally fine". This was an old whisky for the time as the modern fetishization for aging scotch was unknown then. Lagavulin claims to have done it's best to recreate that whisky and although we are in no position to judge the success of the recreation we did enjoy the outcome. It is definitely a change of pace from the two darker, rounder, maltier bottlings we sampled earlier in the evening. Here the general guidance inherent in an age statement was again demonstrated: light in colour and all the brightness, sharpness and liveliness you expect from a younger whisky. Being a Lagavulin, regardless of age, there are some other expectations and these were met as well: an explosion of smoke up front, akin to inhaling deeply from a cigar, followed by, and strongly contrasted by, a delicate sweetness. It takes a little getting used to, but once you do you want more. And more. (Although your partner may regret it as you begin off-gassing the smoke...)
While all this fine whisky was sipped we talked inevitably of the horrifying strangeness unfolding to the south of us, but also of a member's upcoming tour of Scotland (to the swelling strings of the Lawrence of Arabia theme...) and, in true Cabinet style, of the giant pile of frozen feces near the summit of Mount Elbrus (to the twang of delta blues...).
So, in summary, as the post title alludes to, what we call new is not truly new, but it does bring hope and in fact ended up being perhaps the best episode / meeting in a long while. (Yes, I know I'm reaching.)
At least age statements give the innocent whisky buyer some very general guidance. To be sure, we have long since debunked the notion that age necessarily connotes quality, but more or less predictable things happen to the whisky the longer it sits in the barrel. More contact time with wood means that it becomes darker and takes on more of the vanillin found in oak. And the steady evaporation of alcohol - the poetically named "angel's share" - cools and mellows the scotch and can intensify some of the flavours. This is useful to know when you are comparing a 25 and a 10 year old. Is "Nadurra" useful to know? It might mean "natural" in Gaelic (or it might not), but so what?
Our first "new to us" age-statement whisky was the Highland Park 15 year old. I've written somewhere north of 40 blog posts and I do not believe I have used the expression "wow" yet. It seems I was reserving it for just such a moment as this. Wow. We were all too enthralled to consider voting, so it was not officially rated, but had it been I am confident in stating that it would have scored 8+ ("Four Drams - Excellent - Highly Recommended"). Those of you familiar with the blog know that the Cabinet does not employ or endorse obscure and pretentious descriptors (persimmon gumdrops, dark boot polish, first cut of August hay, and other such nonsense) so you will have to be satisfied with the summary that it is medium dark, full, rich, chewy and very malty. It also has that long lingering finish we always look for. More for your money. Wow.
The Old Pulteney 21 is inarguably one of our very favourite single malts and yet we found the 12 year old to only be of middling quality, so we were very curious to find where the 17 year old lay on that spectrum. It always difficult to follow a "wow" whisky, so perhaps that's a factor, but the consensus was that while it was good, it was not fantastic. So, I suppose, appropriately enough, roughly half-way between the 12 and the 21. The signature hint of salt is present and perhaps leather from the peat. It is a lovely well balanced whisky with a reasonably satisfying mouthfeel, but compared to the Highland Park it lacks in richness and the finish is not as long. Some of us detected an odd bitter note at the end. Still, overall "good", but this whisky deserves another look when it is not in the Highland Park 15's shadow.
The last new age statement scotch of the evening was the Lagavulin 8 year old. This is a new release
and is being sold as a 200th anniversary edition, celebrating the 1816 founding of the distillery. They decided on an 8 year old as a nod to the Victorian whisky writer Alfred Barnard who declared the Lagavulin 8 year old available in the 1880s to be "exceptionally fine". This was an old whisky for the time as the modern fetishization for aging scotch was unknown then. Lagavulin claims to have done it's best to recreate that whisky and although we are in no position to judge the success of the recreation we did enjoy the outcome. It is definitely a change of pace from the two darker, rounder, maltier bottlings we sampled earlier in the evening. Here the general guidance inherent in an age statement was again demonstrated: light in colour and all the brightness, sharpness and liveliness you expect from a younger whisky. Being a Lagavulin, regardless of age, there are some other expectations and these were met as well: an explosion of smoke up front, akin to inhaling deeply from a cigar, followed by, and strongly contrasted by, a delicate sweetness. It takes a little getting used to, but once you do you want more. And more. (Although your partner may regret it as you begin off-gassing the smoke...)
While all this fine whisky was sipped we talked inevitably of the horrifying strangeness unfolding to the south of us, but also of a member's upcoming tour of Scotland (to the swelling strings of the Lawrence of Arabia theme...) and, in true Cabinet style, of the giant pile of frozen feces near the summit of Mount Elbrus (to the twang of delta blues...).
So, in summary, as the post title alludes to, what we call new is not truly new, but it does bring hope and in fact ended up being perhaps the best episode / meeting in a long while. (Yes, I know I'm reaching.)
Been a long time since I revisited the Highland Park 15 year.. seems worthy of a re-taste.. The Old Pulteney 17 certainly should be tried on its own - however is no 21 year. But yes indeed the "horrifying strangeness" unfolding in the US is indeed a topic all over the world!
ReplyDelete